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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (187)	8/31/2011 1:02:01 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Hello Ed, I agree with what you said about the effects of cutting spending. that was my point when I said that we have to wait for an economic boom before we can do it. And as I said in my post, that is the problem, once you start government spending (through gov jobs or otherwise) it is very difficult to cut. So it is simply better to not do it in the first place. I focus on government workers for the reason stated above, but further, their salaries have gone up dramatically even during the economic hardships. Their salaries do not reflect the economic conditions, therefore they exacerbate them. People have been taking pay cuts and have been laid off in very significant numbers in the past 10 years. This means that there is less revenue going into the system to pay the government employees. And yet they are getting raises. I posted numbers a couple of days ago that show how significant the raises are. That is what one would call "unsustainable). And of course, we pay the retirement bennies as well. I'm all for ending corporate welfare. I want to end the beltway bandit network. I look at what companies like Boeing have done with the SBInet project and it makes me sick. So I am all for it. I absolutely want congress to quit paying for useless projects and to hold contractors accountable when they don't meet the terms of the contract (instead, usually they give them more money!). No argument from me there. It doesn't have to be either/or...let's cut spending wherever we see it! The federal government has no business being involved in education. That's a state and/or local jurisdiction, if they choose..otherwise there is no reason that education can't be handled by private enterprise. We don't need the government to do everything for us. Remember, the government isn't magical. It is made up of people. At best it is functioning as a middle-man with the added cost that comes with adding another layer. If people in government positions can provide a service, then people who are not in government positions can provide the service. Government is not a panacea.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (187)	8/31/2011 1:08:38 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I would guess that you'd be surprised at how many of them perform well in tasks that need doing. That is a very subjective statement, dweller. Of course knowing where you fall in the political spectrum, I would expect you to say that. While I'm not an HR specialist, I think you'd be surprised to find many of those workers to be marginal if say, you had private sector HR types do an honest evaluation. Government workers, like union workers have come to regard their jobs as bullet proof. IOW, the quality of their performance is never an issue. Nobody EVER looses their job. I think you'll have to agree that human nature, under those auspices, cause folks to do less than their supervisors expect. Mediocracy is the result. Why not come up with mechanisms that cause government AND union employees to excel, just like their private sector counterparts? Bottom line results? Waste. The private business sector readily identifies this and, as a result, these areas are increasingly coming under attack. Much to the detriment, sorry to say, of those government/union employees who fall into your category.