Monday, February 07, 2005
Andromeda's New Budget
We are pleased to announce Andromeda's new budget. Now, it does require some belt-tightening, but the good news is we remain on schedule to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
OK, we have not included the ongoing costs of our Blog Wars, because: (1) how can anyone estimate something like that, I mean, the future costs of something, especially in a budget of all things? and (2) including those costs would throw off our "deficit in half by 2009" thing.
It also does not include the massive costs of our proposed "reform" of the staff retirement fund. The reason the costs for that plan, which Andromeda is firmly committed to, are not included are: (1) the cost estimates we're using to justify the change are absurdly low, and it just wouldn't be responsible to use those figures; and (2) the "deficit in half by 2009" thing.
But let's not all just focus on the bad news! There's also the belt-tightening. Andromeda feels it is important to cut programs which have not achieved their objectives or which are inconsistent with our priorities. First, the staff has been using way too much light, letting it just splash all over the place -- wasted. We are cutting that back by 90%, through the use of miner's helmets. Second, having food and water on-site, PLUS having bathroom facilities means we are bleeding money at both ends. We will remove the vending machines, rip out the water faucets, and confiscate bag lunches. This will allow us to remove the staff restroom and also to expand the Executive Sauna and Bar, which is more consistent with our priorities.
We look forward to the upcoming negotiations with any remaining staff with a "happy spirit."
OK, we have not included the ongoing costs of our Blog Wars, because: (1) how can anyone estimate something like that, I mean, the future costs of something, especially in a budget
It also does not include the massive costs of our proposed "reform" of the staff retirement fund. The reason the costs for that plan, which Andromeda is firmly committed to, are not included are: (1) the cost estimates we're using to justify the change are absurdly low, and it just wouldn't be responsible to use those figures; and (2) the "deficit in half by 2009" thing.
