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.
We have been growing the number of people working in government as a percentage of the population past 10% now. It is unsustainable and we need smaller government.
Do you have a problem making about a third of government employees for starters go back to the private sector for work?
We have been growing the number of people working in government as a percentage of the population past 10% now. It is unsustainable and we need smaller government.
Do you have a problem making about a third of government employees for starters go back to the private sector for work?
Uhhh not right now because there are no private sector jobs to be had.
LOL. All it would do is add millions to the unemployment rolls. Private sector already has 5.5 candidates per open job. This might make it 7-1.
Call us when ratio is normal 1.5 to 2 to 1.
Not saying employee headcount can last, just saying your thread title ignores reality.
Well you end unemployment in 6 months again and make people accept work they can get. Many of the bubble high wages people had are gone!
Government jobs are like welfare, it takes private sector taxes to pay for that person. Lower the number of government workers and you require less taxes to pay for government.
Since the 60s as a percentage of the population, government employment has gone up hundreds if not a thousand percent.
Let the government workers compete for a real job IMO.
Yeah for months they get some unemployment, but when that ends they will be motivated to go find a real job.
Uhhh not right now because there are no private sector jobs to be had.
The crushing taxation caused by paying for government employees that we have too many of are a great deal of the reason the economy has the problems it has.
Demand fuels job growth, demand is not there, so there are right now 11 million fewer jobs than available unemployed. Reducing benefits does not change that math. No one hires based on their tax rate; they hire when the existing workforce cannot keep pace with potential volume, and when that new volume = additional profit.
No. The major costs the government incurs are related to entitlement programs not the salaries/benefits of government employees. These programs are rife with fraud. All other things being equal, the government could save money by hiring more law enforcement types to deal with this.
Demand fuels job growth, demand is not there, so there are right now 11 million fewer jobs than available unemployed. Reducing benefits does not change that math. No one hires based on their tax rate; they hire when the existing workforce cannot keep pace with potential volume, and when that new volume = additional profit.
You have no demand because you have a President that scared the crap out of job makers. They have NO idea what he will do and what he has shown so far is a contempt for successful people.
With less demand (as you say) and a way over bloated supply of over paid government union employees, why don't we send many of them back to the private sector to lessen the tax burden on all the tax payers?
We can't sustain them like they are some special chosen elite class, they are a direct burden and cost to our tax dollars.
No. The major costs the government incurs are related to entitlement programs not the salaries/benefits of government employees. These programs are rife with fraud. All other things being equal, the government could save money by hiring more law enforcement types to deal with this.
BS, I just read in my local paper our government union elites in the city have an average of 3.5 million in pay and benefits coming in retirement. That is 970+ folks and the people now finding this out are steaming mad.
I think the over population and overpayment of government union employees have surpassed entitlements.
You have no demand for other reasons, unrelated to DC. Automation takes out more jobs than trade deals now; we utilize more robots all the time, and those robots replace people. Add in there is no new dotcom boom or Y2k or Silicon Valley job explosion to mask jobs lost due to robots. Within a few years, RFID will get cheap enough to place in almost ever item within WalMart. Wave bye-bye to hundreds of thousands of cashiers, and when that happens, Target, KMart, Krogers, and the rest will follow. A smattering of cashier jobs will stay, just as the bank teller is a novelty now, 10% or so of its peak headcount.
To save costs is one thing, but to PRETEND unemployment would not skyrocket more is simply a lie.
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.
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.
