Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: public jobs

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 8:21 p.m. EST by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Who really cares about cutting jobs in the government?

65 Comments

65 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by gagablogger (207) 13 years ago

I work for a govt agency and am seeing with my own eyes what all this downsizing crap is doing. Fewer people are expected to handle more peoples jobs. Thus processes are becoming more and more inefficient. Offerings of early outs and buyouts where supervisors can't refill the positions due to hiring freezes, add to the problems. Budget cuts have translated to so many negative outcomes, including limiting performance awards. I'm sorry but if some people do a really great job at work, they should occasionally be rewarded.

[-] 1 points by eveningstar (9) 13 years ago

Eveningstar I was watching a program on TV which Dick Gregory was the feather speaker discussing FDR second Bill of Right. I did not tune in - in - time to hear all the comments and discussion but I did hear one speaker comment on the Right of Employment, stating his view that no is going to guarantee you a job. My point of view to that speaker is that he is missing the point. The idea if not for someone to guarantee a person job but for automation not to take jobs and employment away for the people.

Big business bottom line is the dollar - whereas, the bottom line should put people first. What is the since of producing fifty thousand cars a week when only about one thousand of those cars will be sold. Slow the production down - even if it means building the cars by hands to meet the quota. And use automation only to fill the gap in what is being produced by hand (full employment) and the actual demands.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 13 years ago

You would have to devalue labor tremendously to do that.

[-] 1 points by eveningstar (9) 13 years ago

I was watching a program on TV which Dick Gregory was the feather speaker discussing FDR second Bill of Right. I did not tune in - in - time to hear all the comments and discussion but I did hear one speaker comment on the Right of Employment, stating his view that no is going to guarantee you a job. My point of view to that speaker is that he is missing the point. The idea if not for someone to guarantee a person job but for automation not to take jobs and employment away for the people.

Big business bottom line is the dollar - whereas, the bottom line should put people first. What is the since of producing fifty thousand cars a week when only about one thousand of those cars will be sold. Slow the production down - even if it means building the cars by hands to meet the quota. And use automation only to fill the gap in what is being produced by hand (full employment) and the actual demands.

[-] 1 points by eveningstar (9) 13 years ago

I was watching a program on TV which Dick Gregory was the feather speaker discussing FDR second Bill of Right. I did not tune in - in - time to hear all the comments and discussion but I did hear one speaker comment on the Right of Employment, stating his view that no is going to guarantee you a job. My point of view to that speaker is that he is missing the point. The idea if not for someone to guarantee a person job but for automation not to take jobs and employment away for the people.

Big business bottom line is the dollar - whereas, the bottom line should put people first. What is the since of producing fifty thousand cars a week when only about one thousand of those cars will be sold. Slow the production down - even if it means building the cars by hands to meet the quota. And use automation only to fill the gap in what is being produced by hand (full employment) and the actual demands.

[-] 1 points by dingalingy (54) 13 years ago

there is so much that needs to be done -- we need to undam our rivers, restore our shorelines, remove invasive species, grow food, restore the soil, devise alternative transportation solutions, etc etc etc, there are so many things that need doing, but they have to be prioritized, not killing and exploiting the resources lands air water -- we need an army to restore the environmnent and care for our ill and old and wounded or infirm

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

Well, if you consider that some of our biggest gains in employment were messed up due to public sector layoffs....that is important. Also, the people who work in those jobs care. I mean, who cares about cutting jobs in the timber industry? Well, lumberjacks, I guess. The premise is just ridiculous. You are doing what too many people in this country do which is to dehumanize your fellow man because he works for the government. There is no one unwelcome in this movement, government or no government.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

So Warren Buffet, the Koch Brothers, and George Soros are all welcome?

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

Yes.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

Why should we do as they do? Why should we be exclusionary? The idea behind the 99% is only that a large portion of our society is not recieving the full benefits of our society. That society has been structured only to benefit those who are the 1%. Yet there are clearly members of the 1% who stand with us, though I think the Koch's most likely do not.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

Russell Simmons, just for one

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

I dont want his cash. I want his voice.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 13 years ago

“There’s a gap that’s isolating Washington from the reality of the rest of the country,” Zeese said. “They just get more and more out of touch.”

Total compensation for federal workers, including health care and other benefits, last year averaged $126,369, compared with $122,697 in 2009, according to Bloomberg News calculations of Commerce Department data. There were 170,467 federal employees in the District of Columbia as of June. The Washington area includes the District of Columbia, parts of Northern Virginia, eastern Maryland and eastern West Virginia.

[-] 1 points by bronxj (150) 13 years ago

Government seems to always look after its own on all levels.

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

I care about cutting government jobs. Governor Cuomo placed in the 2011-2012 state budget 450 million dollars in workforce saving. I know that there will be state employees losing their jobs through consolidation of several state agencies. That's a decision to better manage your workforce. However, once Gov. Cuomo created the "Committee to Save NY" comprised of the who's who of the monied elite of nyc it was obvious that Gov. Cuomo wanted to protect the corporate tax incentives. He wanted to reduce wages and benefits for state workers in addition to consolidations and at the same time shift these saving to corporations like IBM which also loves to close and outsource jobs oversee without publicly disclosing the number of jobs eliminated.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

if those jobs were not productive then they would have been lost in the real economy as well. government workers aren't worth more than private sector workers. i do hear your point on corporate tax cuts and stuff, however, that is just how democracy works...

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

I agree with consolidation and restructuring of the state workforce. Unfortunately, layoffs are part of restructuring. Public sector jobs are not worth more or less than private sector jobs. Corporations have been successful in shipping manufacturing jobs oversees to increase profit margins. They also have been successful in reducing wages and benefits and eliminating defined pension plans. These same individuals of Gov. Cuomo's "Committee to Save NY" took 149 billion in TARP funds and were also successful in lobbying Gov. Cuomo to let the millionaires tax expire. They now want to turn their sights on government employees. I'm not sure if this is how democracy works.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

yeah, that's how democracy works.... just open up a few history books. the problem with exporting jobs oversees is that in America, nobody wants to compete for wages and government regulations have created intensives to export jobs overseas. it may sound cruel to you, but china and india have decreased their poverty level since they deregulated their markets as apposed to how the united states has created more and more poor since the start of welfare programs. that's a fact. you know the people who have gotten out of poverty in this country have been illegal immigrants working for less than min wage.

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

Democracy does not work this way. Unchecked Capitalism works that way. You are right that I don't want to compete against a Communist government like China unless it is a fair playing field for both teams. To compete under the rules set up by Corporations, I would have to accept a lower standard of living with reduced benefits. Corporations will find out that the business model of making things cheap does not always lead to sustained profits. Right now it works for them. Eventually, Chinese workers are going to want a better standard of living too. With rising manufacturing costs in China and the fact that American workers are four times more productive, many manufacturing jobs will return back to the United States. India is a different story. They will be our real competitive threat. A democratic society that isn't corrupted by corporate greed would never have accepted the globalization of our workforce.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

all democratic societies have been corrupt.... every single one. what makes you think that you can change that? corporatism/ fascism is not free market capitalism!

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

Do we need more layoffs right now? Is now the time for this? I am just wondering how more unemployment in any sector will do us any good.

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

I can't speak for other states. In NYS, the clear answer is No. We do not need layoffs.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

I can speak for Florida and we definately dont need them here.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

There is no such thing as a "real" economy. The economy is all real. There is no fake economy.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

sorry, i meant to say productive economy

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

Working with group home staff on how to help people with intellectual handicaps combined with mental illness, for a state government. Would you count something like that as "productive"?

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

if it is in demand, yes

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 13 years ago

Today Harry Reid stated that the private sector job market was doing," just fine" and the public sector jobs needed to be bolstered. What a stupid thing to say. We are not "Doing fine".

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

Neither is the public sector, so can both sides come together or is this going to be another Tea Party?

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

non productive government jobs are a part of what slows down the economy

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Full employment is in everyones interest. I don't care if we need the government to hire a guy just to operate the stapler, its better than having him out on the street.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

before the soviet union collapsed they had almost 100 percent unemployment. you obviously do not understand how threatening the growth of sovereign debt is.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

Sovreign debt goes down when more people are employed. This increases the tax base on both the federal and state levels. As a result, the need to borrow goes down. At that point, it is the choice of the government (and its citizens) to decide whether it wants to borrow.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

you do realize that government jobs are payed by the government right? so they would collect taxes from money they gave away. how does that decrease the debt? lol

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

The increase in the debt since 2008 is directly attributable to unemployment from all sources. See, it may be rather complicated but the idea is that, no matter where someone recieves a paycheck from, they will ultimately spend that money. They will spend it, perhaps at local businesses or on other things, thereby helping to ensure a steady money flow for many private enterprises. How many communities have been helped directly by government spending? Every military base around the world helps the local community. Furthermore, how many people benefit indirectly from defense spending and public works projects?

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

debt is directly attributed from government spending more than it takes in. if government spending helps decrease debt, why did our debt increase during the last government stimulus program?

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

Because of a lack of revenue........and two wars......and expansions in medicare and tax cuts......

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

that was the case way before the stimulus. if you belive in what you just said, then the debt would not have continued its exponential growth through all that government spending... you guys are hopeless. the truth is that both parties have been telling you that they are going to give you exactly what occupy wallstreet is asking for. what makes you think that you will ever get them to actually look after you?

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 13 years ago

Of course I believe it. If our government spends money, it should pay for it.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

the truth is that both parties have been telling you that they are going to give you exactly what occupy wallstreet is asking for. what makes you think that you will ever get them to actually look after you?

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Yes but the soviet union was going broke trying to keep up with that lunatic war monger Ron Reagan. Had Ronny not been so hostile with his arms escalation, the Soviet Union would have worked out just fine.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

lol, so you don't think the united states spends money on military?

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Of course! Where do you think all our debt came from.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

so what is the difference?

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Russia was unwilling to leverage itself to compete, and died accordingly. Yet another thing to lay at the feet of Ronny Ray-Gun.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

the united states is exactly the same and it will suffer the same fate. and who cares about blaming reagan? i get that you worship the democratic party, but get past that...

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Democrats have sold out to the right. We need full employment if this country is to survive.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

China would benefit from de-pegging the yen from the dollar. after the yen rises, the Chinese would have plenty of purchasing power to buy their own products. remember how they are the biggest creditor nation and we are the biggest debtor? plus, you have not answered the question of paying the debt?

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

wow, just wow. de-pegging their currency from the dollar means that they will no longer have to inflate to lower the prices on their exports to the us, which is what they are doing now because of qe1 and qe2. the fact that they no longer would have to inflate is why they yen would rise against the dollar. when we inflate and they don't, their prices fall and ours go up. they are just too retarded to realize that they don't need to rely on exports.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Inflating their currency is not in their interest, as it would devalue US debt. Inflation is already out of control in China, it would completely screw them.

They have enough consumers that they might limp by on their own, but not at the prices American consumers pay for the same goods. We basically own them, but lack a president with balls

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

i bet George Soros and Rupert Murdoch get together just to laugh at all of you left vs right worshipers....

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

how is the debt going to get paid when all the all the rich move to china?

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Simple. China will die once we cut them off from our consumer base. No US Dollars, No China. Increased manufacturing jobs. Its a win win win.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 13 years ago

Mikey!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are one of the few to praise the old USSR. Are you being cynical? I hope so..........lol

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

The government is a great source of jobs in a slow economy. I was on the unemployment list for the entire 99 weeks before landing a gig blogging for the DNC.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

non productive government jobs are a part of what slows down the economy