I guess some people might find this funny, as it is still April Fools Day. Some people might find it down right disturbing. Then others, I'd guess a majority of Americans, will continue to be indifferent.

There has apparently been a shift in the work force.

Really, this wouldn't be such a bad thing if the government actually produced something with the huge investment of our tax dollars into this "government work force".

If this authors numbers are correct, there are 22.5 million people working for the government, and 11.5 million in all of manufacturing. This would be a considerable shift over the past five decades. And the costs? Yeah, big $$$!

WSJ-We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

So, what do you think? Big deal, or just the natural "progression" of the United States of America?

 

like travelable roads, safe cities, drinkable water, educated children...?

 

You bet!

I'm not so sure we are getting a very good ROI here. You are?

 

We don't need 22.5 million people to do those things.

That's 2/3 the population of Canada.

 

The problem with Americans, we take alot of things for granted, (yes everyone). I will gladly join in and point fingers and certain spending problems, welfare especially. But the everyday things that i listed before are things we never hear about, except for the instances where there are 'news worthy stories'. It affects everyones perception that they 'can not do their job' and they are 'over paid'. We may not be getting a great ROI, but I will say that it is better than what most people believe it is.

or 7.3% of the United States....


So whats the solution. cut millions of jobs to save tax money? I don't see that being effective.

 

Most of that pay is going go law makers though. Which I don't think is right. Especially at this point in time. Cause I am possibly not getting paid my next check while all those people sit around and argue. They should be the ones to take a pay in their cut. Then maybe they would actually care about what they are doing and how it effects other people, like all of us who have to still show up and work even if we don't get our pay cause of they can't reach a decision.

 

bmw's killin it

the roads here in michigan were total garbage and now they are really nice. i remember seeing a pothole the size of half a bath tub!

infrastructure is where the money that went towards libya should have been spent. right now is when its cheapest to build stuff!

 

How would it not be effective ?

It would be more so match expenses to income.

Do you spend money you do not have ? If you find it OK to match expenses to income, why is it not considered OK for the government ?

A company has lowered income, they do not hand out pay increases that year.
The gov has lowered income, the employees still get their raise, there is that guaranteed way of getting the income ( as you well know, raise state income taxes 66% ).

A company has an increase in health care costs, revenue is not there to cover it, the employee pays more.
The gov has an increase in health care costs, employee gets off without an increase, pass it on to the taxpayers.

Company has a pension that is under funded, it goes bust, the company has to turn it over to the federal gov, and the company pays the feds. That money along with your tax dollars pays a much lower pension amount to the pensioners .
The state has a pension that is under funded ( and in IL's case is going to go bust in 2018 ), raise the income taxes to shore up the pension fund, no turning it over to the feds.

Summary,

A company has to stand on it's own abilities and merits ( consumers have options on where to give their money ) and match expenses to income.

The Gov does not have to justify the price for any thing ( consumer has no option ) and is in the mode of matching income to expenses with the threat of jail time if you do not like it.

Sound about fair to you ?

 

Once again, SSCULLY hits one out of the park. The government has no competiton - and competition improves the breed. (Don't get me started about the effects of in-breeding.) If you benchmarked how much it costs the public sector to accompish a given task against how much it costs the private sector to accomplish the exact same task, you'd scare yourself.

 

I do agree that the gov needs to match expenses to income, no doubt about it. But I believe that the 'everyday employees' that make up a large percentage of that 22.5 million is not the big problem. I've see so much waste in other areas that would dwarf employee compensation.

Hiring of outside consultants, legal fees, Fed/state grants to purchase unnecessary equipment, food stamps, welfare....... and the list goes on and on. If these areas, among many others, were looked at, we would be in a much better position.

Eliminating jobs would not be effective. You would just be adding those cut employees to the list of people getting money for staying at home. Like was said, manufacturing numbers are not there. So where are these former gov workers supposed to work?

 

The roads in Michigan are garbage because Michigan has been anti-business for decades and relied on the UAW and auto jobs to keep them afloat.

22 million gov't workers are excessive, to be sure.

 

That is their problem, isn't it? If you lose a job, you go find another one. You seem to want to perpetuate the idea that it is the responsibility of government to provide jobs, it's not.

 

Sadly it's not, its our problem. You don't think you're picking up the tab for those out of work right now?

 

This seems to be a reoccurring theme, 'it is not the big problem, so just ignore it'.
The big problem is ignoring all these little "rounding errors" of numbers, they add up to a large number.
If a person has a decreased income and they need to cut expenses, do they look at the $ 2.25 per day expense at Dunkin Donuts ? No, that is such a small amount, it is not the problem. That is until you look at every day per month x 12 months per year and find out that rounding error is over 800.00 per year.
Strangely enough, that figure is the almost the same number in additional IL state income taxes a person grossing 40K/yr is going to have to pay, so all these little problems can be ignored by the state of IL.

Hire the consultant, government does that to do the work.
The gov has "inspectors" as actual employees, but these are the guys that watch the consultants do the work ( bridge inspections is one that comes to mind ). Why not hire someone that could actually do the work ?

Legal Fees ? what are these ? Got any info ?

Unnecessary equipment ? Got any info on this, or is it a pontification ?

Food stamps & Welfare, below you post, you are concerned about where the government worker is to get a job, or the fact he is going on unemployment, but in this section you post that this needs to be done away with ? Almost sounds like you are more concerned about the government employee, vs citizens as a whole.

People on Social Security did not get a COLA, but the pension members in the state of IL got their 3% COLA, just like ever other year.

To be in a better position, EVERY cost needs to be looked at.
In DuPage County, 72% of the property taxes go to Education ( both primary and the community college ), would you think there are a few rounding errors in that huge number, or should we continue to look at those other items ?

Is it is better to pay them more than $350.00 / wk & provide them benefits & a pension than let them figure out how to support themselves ?
If the worker was let go and on unemployment or welfare, they would be costing the government much less than keeping them employed, by a long shot.

You keep posting Eliminating jobs would not be effective, but only point the finger in another direction saying that is worse as the supporting reason. Can you give 1 fact why this would not be effective ? ( I know it would control the expenses at the gov level )

 

Yes the tax payers are picking up the tab on those out of work, but at a much lower rate than those employed by the gov currently ( which the tax payers are picking up that tab ).

It is not a wash to say either leave them on the payroll ( and pay them benefits & a pension ) vs. paying them on unemployment ( which is not forever, they convert to welfare ).

How about the taxpayer that looses their job, should the government hire them too ? They would be on unemployment anyways ??