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: Road Walker who wrote (369301)	1/31/2008 9:37:05 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578593

You think an across the board 20% reduction in government headcount is a bad policy? Corporations implement that type of thing a few times per decade. Most good ones don't. They hire more employees as they grow their business. Yes they do. All companies that grow at the rate the government grows (with tax revenues, I suppose) do. Yahoo just did, and Yahoo is a great company. You can't just define a headcount reduction as equating to a bad company - that doesn't make sense. Companies get bloated as employees never volunteer themselves as useless, and of course some of them MUST become useless if growth is at anything manageable. Are you actually claiming a company that reduces headcount is, uhmm, no good? I'd bet you more than 90% of the S&P 500 has at some point in the past ten years implemented significant (10%+) headcount reductions. Are they all "no good"? You don't think the US government is more efficient than a for profit corporation, do you? Yes in many cases they are. Otherwise they would privatize that function. Wow! That's ridiculous! Government policy makers don't privatize their operations. That would reduce their power and reduce their ability to provide jobs to their constituents. That's like saying a boss yields authority when he realizes an underling can do his job better than him. Has that EVER happened (I'll help you - no). Why do you think the entire DMV back office processing is done in each county rather than in a cheap plant in the Philippines if government is so concerned with being efficient? Do you really believe government would privatize a division if it meant that costs would be cut by 40% and headcount reduced by 60% and the quality of the work would be identical, or better? I don't. That whole idea (stop handing out government jobs if the private sector can do it more efficiently) doesn't exist in government - division attempt to grow and bureaucrats attempt to expand power. Few attempt to shrink their power base even if it thereby saves society (not them, but society) money. ACS reports tonight, and they sell this type of privatized service to government. Anything that reduces local jobs is taboo. At least I think we can all agree that reducing my pay is bad for the US, and increasing it is good. That's my non-partisan proposal..... Well I think you are being a bit cavalier with other peoples jobs... just as long as Elroy is secure. My personal situation has nothing to do the subject. If I were unemployed, or retired, or married to Paris Hilton, I'd say the same thing. A little headcount reduction at regular intervals in a natural fat collector (government) is good, not bad. And my job isn't secure - I could lose it tomorrow. It just has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But, since I'm a cheap importer of capital into the US, the more I get paid the better it is for the US. You're welcome, now go out there and advocate a raise for me....