I turned the news on during breakfast....big mistake. Before I finished my orange juice I digested the following facts. That's when the agita began.

Last month, 36,000 private sector pink slips were doled out.

Last month, 7,000 government jobs were added on the cuff of the taxpayer.

Since Obama took office....over 4 million private sector jobs have disappeared

Since Obama took office....over 55,000 jobs have been added to the government payroll

Unemployment in Obama's government sector is 4%

Everyone knows what unemployment is in the private sector.

You just can't make this stuff up. What political ideologies need to feed off unbridled government growth and control of every aspect of your life?

When....please when...is someone going to connect the dots sufficiently enough to throw the bums out.

Originally Posted by cabo35

I turned the news on during breakfast....big mistake. Before I finished my orange juice I digested the following facts. That's when the agita began.

Last month, 36,000 private sector pink slips were doled out.

Last month, 7,000 government jobs were added on the cuff of the taxpayer.

Since Obama took office....over 4 million private sector jobs have disappeared

Since Obama took office....over 55,000 jobs have been added to the government payroll

Unemployment in Obama's government sector is 4%

Everyone knows what unemployment is in the private sector.

You just can't make this stuff up. What political ideologies need to feed off unbridled government growth and control of every aspect of your life?

When....please when...is someone going to connect the dots sufficiently enough to throw the bums our.

Great info CABO and it pays well....

"Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that federal employees in occupations that exist in both the public and private sectors made an average salary of $67,691 in 2008, USA Today reports. Meanwhile, private sector workers in those occupations made $60,046. Government data also shows federal workers received benefits valued at $40,785, compared with benefits valued at $9,882 for private sector workers"


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...28-503544.html

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC211h9AY-4[/ame]

Originally Posted by cabo35

[B]
Last month, 36,000 private sector pink slips were doled out.

Last month, 7,000 government jobs were added on the cuff of the taxpayer.

Since Obama took office....over 4 million private sector jobs have disappeared

Since Obama took office....over 55,000 jobs have been added to the government payroll

This truly makes my heart ache and makes me sick to my stomach at the same time...

it will take an additional 35,000 administrators to work the new health care reform.....not counting management!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bend over will not be coming from your doctor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

btk

There's more to the headlines than you know.

I'm a perfect case. My job is changing. It's the stated policy (as of last year) that my job, which is currently contracted out to a defense contractor (this is for the Air Force), is going to "go organic". This means the loss of one private sector job - mine, and the addition of one public sector job - mine. The only thing I don't know is WHEN this will happen. The current contract can be extended, re-competed, etc. There are several factors weighing into this.

Now, here's the part behind the headline. If I'm hired by the government at the exact same salary I'm making now (and I make a decent living) the government will save quite a bit of money. When I started this job, I worked for a contracting house who contracted me to the defense contractor who had the contract with the USAF. In the eyes of the defense contractor, I was a "temp to perm" and, after 6 months, I converted and was hired full-time by the defense contractor. I took a pay cut to take the job largely for the benefits and security.

The defense contractor now got to keep the portion between what I was being paid and what the temp agency was being paid.

When/if I'm hired by the Air Force, even if I'm making the same money I'm making now, the government will save a LARGE amount of money.

The headlines, however, will count me as a private sector job loss and a public sector job gain.

I can't speak for how many jobs in those headlines are situations like mine, but I know there are a lot of them.

So the next time you see those statistics, think for a moment. Yeah, public employees may be getting paid more for those jobs than private sector employees, but it may cost the government less because the salary for a public sector employee doesn't have the overhead that the private sector has - there's no Board of Directors, CEO, CFO or shareholders to pay off.

I don't like these facts one bit. I don't like the fact that the government may be paying more money towards 'management' and the shareholders than the person actually holding the job - and that the inefficiencies of government overhead may actually be the better of two choices.

"What political ideologies need to feed off unbridled government growth and control of every aspect of your life?"

To answer your question, IMHO, the Progressive's ideologies.

If the Air Force hires djplong and the job he was doing for a private sector contractor becomes a public sector job, djplong and Progressives say, "the government will save a LARGE amount of money". With all due respect and absolutely no offense intended; but to make my point, it is wonderful for djplong. But what about the larger picture?

Is it logical to compare contractor billing rates with civil service salaries? The comparison should be between the billing rates and the total weighted salaries of the government employees, which includes better benefits, lifetime employment, etc.

It may save the government "LARGE" amounts of monies, but turning private sector jobs into public sector jobs is the opposite of the theory of trickle-down economics and only serves to move along the Progressive agenda of redistribution of wealth and growing federal unions. It only makes government bigger and allows for more people feeding out of the taxpayers' trough and helps eliminate a contractor, upper management jobs, secretaries, payroll jobs, janitors, etc.

If contractors have the skills government employees don't have, it is cheaper to hire contractors for the short term.

According to a Feb. 8, 2010, article from MySanantonio Business ["U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates set a goal last April `to decrease funding for contract support' and to hire 33,400 civilian workers over the next five years, 10,000 of them for the Defense Department's “acquisition work force,” according to a Defense Department memo dated May 28, 2009.]

"Gates' directive stems from President Barack Obama's March 4, 2009, government contracting memo ordering 'inherently governmental' functions and those closely associated with inherently governmental functions be performed by government personnel and not by contractor personnel."

A San Antonio attorney has actually filed a lawsuit in the western district federal court in Texas to stop Edwards Air Force Base in California from terminating a contractor who provides audiovisual services to the AFB. The lawsuit alleges the government is doing fuzzy math on the savings of making private sector jobs public.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

"What political ideologies need to feed off unbridled government growth and control of every aspect of your life?"

To answer your question, IMHO, the Progressive's ideologies.

If the Air Force hires djplong and the job he was doing for a private sector contractor becomes a public sector job, djplong and Progressives say, "the government will save a LARGE amount of money". With all due respect and absolutely no offense intended; but to make my point, it is wonderful for djplong. But what about the larger picture?

Is it logical to compare contractor billing rates with civil service salaries? The comparison should be between the billing rates and the total weighted salaries of the government employees, which includes better benefits, lifetime employment, etc.


It may save the government "LARGE" amounts of monies, but turning private sector jobs into public sector jobs is the opposite of the theory of trickle-down economics and only serves to move along the Progressive agenda of redistribution of wealth and growing federal unions. It only makes government bigger and allows for more people feeding out of the taxpayers' trough and helps eliminate a contractor, upper management jobs, secretaries, payroll jobs, janitors, etc.

If contractors have the skills government employees don't have, it is cheaper to hire contractors for the short term.

According to a Feb. 8, 2010, article from MySanantonio Business ["U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates set a goal last April `to decrease funding for contract support' and to hire 33,400 civilian workers over the next five years, 10,000 of them for the Defense Department's “acquisition work force,” according to a Defense Department memo dated May 28, 2009.]

"Gates' directive stems from President Barack Obama's March 4, 2009, government contracting memo ordering 'inherently governmental' functions and those closely associated with inherently governmental functions be performed by government personnel and not by contractor personnel."

A San Antonio attorney has actually filed a lawsuit in the western district federal court in Texas to stop Edwards Air Force Base in California from terminating a contractor who provides audiovisual services to the AFB. The lawsuit alleges the government is doing fuzzy math on the savings of making private sector jobs public.

BKCUNNINGHAM....thanks for what, to me, is a very very informative post. Certainly spurs further research !

Originally Posted by djplong

There's more to the headlines than you know.

I'm a perfect case. My job is changing. It's the stated policy (as of last year) that my job, which is currently contracted out to a defense contractor (this is for the Air Force), is going to "go organic". This means the loss of one private sector job - mine, and the addition of one public sector job - mine. The only thing I don't know is WHEN this will happen. The current contract can be extended, re-competed, etc. There are several factors weighing into this.

Now, here's the part behind the headline. If I'm hired by the government at the exact same salary I'm making now (and I make a decent living) the government will save quite a bit of money. When I started this job, I worked for a contracting house who contracted me to the defense contractor who had the contract with the USAF. In the eyes of the defense contractor, I was a "temp to perm" and, after 6 months, I converted and was hired full-time by the defense contractor. I took a pay cut to take the job largely for the benefits and security.

The defense contractor now got to keep the portion between what I was being paid and what the temp agency was being paid.

When/if I'm hired by the Air Force, even if I'm making the same money I'm making now, the government will save a LARGE amount of money.

The headlines, however, will count me as a private sector job loss and a public sector job gain.

I can't speak for how many jobs in those headlines are situations like mine, but I know there are a lot of them.

So the next time you see those statistics, think for a moment. Yeah, public employees may be getting paid more for those jobs than private sector employees, but it may cost the government less because the salary for a public sector employee doesn't have the overhead that the private sector has - there's no Board of Directors, CEO, CFO or shareholders to pay off.

I don't like these facts one bit. I don't like the fact that the government may be paying more money towards 'management' and the shareholders than the person actually holding the job - and that the inefficiencies of government overhead may actually be the better of two choices.

This is just about the strangest theory i have ever heard. In time your theory would eliminate the private sector. Then where would the Government get its revenue. Then would all jobs be government ones. No government can do anything at less cost than the private sector.

I repeat you just told the strangest story i have ever heard.

I have to be careful with what I say.

What I'm saying is that, at least in the "defense industry", government is cheaper (from what I can see) than contractors because, in THAT industry, defense contractors have more bloat, more levels of middle management and demand for higher profit margins than 'organic' government jobs.

Mind you, this was different in the Department of Transportation when I worked there for a few months many years ago. It was just one layer - the contract house - of overhead that the government was paying for. In that case, the comparison between gov't benefits and contractor overhead was quite fair.

I've had friends who own contracting and temp firms. I know the kinds of margins that these companies work with. The margins in THIS industry are way out of whack with that.

In software, a contractor can expect (depending on the length of the contract) to get anywhere from 50-70% of the 'contract rate' in their salary (meaning the remaining 30-50% is what the agency keeps). The contractor I work for has a far higher margin than that, even when I factor in the cost of the most expensive benefits (retirement contributions & health insurance).

private industry. There are The explanation is quite simple. The government is incestuous with political pay backs and quid quo pro and the last but not least "you owe mes". The requirement for business acumen is certainly not a requirement...they would not know how to develop a cost on anything let alone be smart enough to determine being cheaper. The governments track record of lack of accountability, responsibility, cost control the more pork the merrier sadly points to incompetents and political abuses.

I am always prepared to be proven wrong.

btk

Originally Posted by djplong

I have to be careful with what I say.

What I'm saying is that, at least in the "defense industry", government is cheaper (from what I can see) than contractors because, in THAT industry, defense contractors have more bloat, more levels of middle management and demand for higher profit margins than 'organic' government jobs.

Mind you, this was different in the Department of Transportation when I worked there for a few months many years ago. It was just one layer - the contract house - of overhead that the government was paying for. In that case, the comparison between gov't benefits and contractor overhead was quite fair.

I've had friends who own contracting and temp firms. I know the kinds of margins that these companies work with. The margins in THIS industry are way out of whack with that.

In software, a contractor can expect (depending on the length of the contract) to get anywhere from 50-70% of the 'contract rate' in their salary (meaning the remaining 30-50% is what the agency keeps). The contractor I work for has a far higher margin than that, even when I factor in the cost of the most expensive benefits (retirement contributions & health insurance).

Can I assume all the posts you make during the day are on "your" time and not your employers who is funded by me?

Profit margins of private companies are so much lower than government corruption costs it is ludicrous to bring them up.

Corruption costs the government about one third of everything it does.

Originally Posted by cashman

Profit margins of private companies are so much lower than government corruption costs it is ludicrous to bring them up.

Corruption costs the government about one third of everything it does.

Are you referring to the infamous 500 dollar toilet seatswe learned about years ago?

Originally Posted by rshoffer

Are you referring to the infamous 500 dollar toilet seatswe learned about years ago?

I am talking about nearly everything the government does including buying things like toilet seats and toilet paper.