U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-21-2013, 01:28 PM
 
17,544 posts, read 10,614,799 times
Reputation: 8450

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
In theory, all the jobs should get shifted to the private sector because the money that was being extracted from the economy can now be utilized privately dollar for dollar. The same can be said in the situation where the state cuts jobs to prevent additionally tax increases, here there should be no net shift in the number of jobs available as well.
Should VS would and the Gov't never, well OK on occasion, itn rarely shifts money out of it's pocket and into the private sector.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2013, 01:35 PM
 
17,544 posts, read 10,614,799 times
Reputation: 8450
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post

You'll notice that to stimulate the economy the federal government lowered the social security tax for a couple of years, they didn't lower the business income/corporate tax rates. The latter would have had little impact on business investment.
They did and it may have helped, BUT what did it do to Social Security??? Put it further in the red as it were and will impact it considerably down the line both for those retired now and those who will retire. There is more than trying to stimulate the economy behind that.


Quote:
If public employees can't make similar wages in the private sector, that is a good indication that the state is over paying its public workers. Its not tax payers job to provide above market wages to a select group of people.
It used to be that benefits were a bit better for public sector employees because they made LESS than in the private sector. Well greedy politicians and union money took care of that. Now they get both and who pays ..........?

Look at Detroit, they were just told they can't go bankrupt so where does the money come from to pay it's debts AND pensions? Out of the pockets of the remaining people and business who will... leave if they can. Then what?

The problem with this form of Socialism is at the end it makes everyone beggars. Equal misery as it were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 02:01 PM
 
7,150 posts, read 8,799,885 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
....The problem with this form of Socialism is at the end it makes everyone beggars. Equal misery as it were.
As opposed to rabid capitalism which makes a very few people filthy rich and powerful -- and everyone else miserable beggars ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 02:04 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,748,470 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
Should VS would and the Gov't never, well OK on occasion, itn rarely shifts money out of it's pocket and into the private sector.
That's because we've discovered that outsourcing to the private sector doesn't actually save money or improve productivity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,476 posts, read 17,443,656 times
Reputation: 4321
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
They did and it may have helped, BUT what did it do to Social Security??? Put it further in the red as it were and will impact it considerably down the line both for those retired now and those who will retire.
Actually, it may have improved social security, it all comes down to how effective the cuts were at stimulating economic activity. If the cuts were very effective, they they would not only have boosted pay rolls during the cuts but they will also boost pay rolls for years to come. The idea, with stimulus like this, is to push up the demand curve and once done it becomes the new equilibrium.

But my point was merely to point out that reducing the taxes on your average tax payer is more stimulating than reducing, especially income/corporate, taxes on businesses....so the other posters focus was in the wrong place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,476 posts, read 17,443,656 times
Reputation: 4321
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
That's because we've discovered that outsourcing to the private sector doesn't actually save money or improve productivity.
When did we discover that? If this were true, why have a private sector at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 02:37 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,748,470 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
When did we discover that? If this were true, why have a private sector at all?
Quite a while ago, it's why the government is scaling back outsourcing, because it cost more.

Why have a private sector at all? For many reasons unrelated to our discussion here.

Study: Privatizing government doesn’t actually save money - The Washington Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,476 posts, read 17,443,656 times
Reputation: 4321
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
Quite a while ago, it's why the government is scaling back outsourcing, because it cost more.

Why have a private sector at all? For many reasons unrelated to our discussion here.
The article you are linking doesn't really address matters, its not looking at whether the private sector is more efficient at some task than the public sector...instead its look at contract prices. It should go without saying, but contract prices can get inflated, for a number of factors. The bidding process for the government contracts isn't exactly unbiased....

Its not unrelated at all, if the government can indeed do things more efficiently than the private sector than having a private sector is not optimal. Anyway you justify the existence of the private sector is going to refute the claim you made...

The problem, of course, is that any blanket claim about government outsourcing (or insourcing) is problematic.... Whether or not some task is most efficiently undertaken by the government or private sector depends entirely on the nature of the task....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 03:47 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,748,470 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
The article you are linking doesn't really address matters, its not looking at whether the private sector is more efficient at some task than the public sector...instead its look at contract prices. It should go without saying, but contract prices can get inflated, for a number of factors. The bidding process for the government contracts isn't exactly unbiased....

Its not unrelated at all, if the government can indeed do things more efficiently than the private sector than having a private sector is not optimal. Anyway you justify the existence of the private sector is going to refute the claim you made...

The problem, of course, is that any blanket claim about government outsourcing (or insourcing) is problematic.... Whether or not some task is most efficiently undertaken by the government or private sector depends entirely on the nature of the task....
I didn't say if the government was more efficient. I said outsourcing is more expensive and doesn't improve productivity.

If you have an unrelated opinion, that's fine, but you seem to be misconstruing what I've said to provide a basis for introducing your opinion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,476 posts, read 17,443,656 times
Reputation: 4321
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
I didn't say if the government was more efficient. I said outsourcing is more expensive and doesn't improve productivity.
Firstly, the comment you responded to wasn't about "outsourcing" in particular but the public vs private sector in general and yet you're claiming I'm misconstruing matters to state my opinion. Which is a bit bizarre as I have no difficultly simply stating my opinion outright.

In any case, and more importantly, any sort of blanket claim about outsourcing is problematic. Some activities are better left to the private sector than others, one would need to evaluate matters on a case by case basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top