Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (313125)	11/30/2006 1:03:01 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572965

Rather than raise taxes on the very wealthy, how about downsizing the headcount of every government department by 20%? That would probably go a long way to balancing the budget. That assumes the 20% you cut out are not doing anything of consequence. How do you know that's true? 1. Publicly traded companies restructure and cut 10%-20% of their workforce all the time. Since the companies are probably more efficient than the government to begin with, the same "fat, non-productive" positions are probably in the government somewhere. 2. It's the nature of government agencies to want to grow, not to save costs. Every manager wants to be the head of a 30 person division, not a two person division, so they are constantly campaigning for more budget funds. It happens in all large organizations. Of course, you don't want to cut the 20% that are actually doing something of consequence and leave the workers that are doing nothing of consequence untouched, if that's your point. But I'm pretty sure you could send some management consultants that specialize in downsizing into government and they could easily tell you how to remove 20% of staff and get the same (or better) job done. Problem is that there is no politicians that benefit from firing their fellow government employees, so it will never get done.