Suddenly, I'm unemployed again!

[lendaddy]

Like I said it's possible

But really my point is not that I want to see more government employees fired, though I'm sure many deserve it. What I'm saying is that I want as few things as possible to require govenrment employees since the system will not change. I am strong on the private sector. I know you can't expect a "well run" government agency, it makes me giggle to even say that. Well run "for a government agency", sure I could apply that every now and then I guess.

[sundaypunch]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I think real is a great descriptor here. In much the way you would tell a 16 year old that you want to prepare them for the "real world", you could add...."unless ofcourse you plan to work in the public sector, in which case you don't need to"

I have worked in capitalistic businesses (manufacturing) and am currently in the public sector (education). What I have found is that both have their share of incompetent people. I do agree with lendaddy somewhat about the public sector. What I don't buy is the argument that the private sector somehow purges all the slackers that would have lifetime employment in a public sector job.

Incompetent people just move from company to company in the private sector. They always seem to be gainfully employed, just not at the same company long term. Usually a slacker can get a 2-3 year run at a company before being forced out. They typically get a small severance package and a glowing recommendation and they are on to the next employer for another short run. It may be easier to make a long term career in one public sector job. I see the statistical distribution of below avg. / avg. / above avg. employess being the same in most fields.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
What I'm saying is that I want as few things as possible to require govenrment employees since the system will not change. I am strong on the private sector.

While I'm not beauratically inclined, if given the choice of DMV or USPS the way they are today, or an Enron version, I'd stick with the current version. Look at what happened when Lockheed got their fingers into traffic enforcement; look at what's happened when Halliburton has taken over basic supply-chain functions for the military.

[lendaddy]

Thom,

I am not big on HUGE business either, it takes on many of the beauratic problems found in government.

[stevepaa]

Lendaddy.
(Do you want your first name used?)
I view the need for government as a stability factor for needs of the people transcending generations. In some cases, it resembles military spending. Take for instance, fleet ballistic missiles which are built by Lockheed with various parts from many subcontractors, including some one-man shops. This program has been going on since late 50's and the plan is to go on for many more years to come. But one may ask why, if we have no threat now. There are two reasons: 1) because of possible future need and 2) the cost to stop and then restart at some forseeable future date greatly exceeds continued spending at current projections.
So I view some thing like public works in much the same way. You maintain a warm line workforce for the times you need them and because it is way too expensive to fire and hire. I know this also occurs in the private sector. Most businesses try to maintain a stable workforce. The real exception out here is the electronics industry where employees understand the hire and fire nature of the business, but that is mitigated by the stock options available to them.

I understand the ideal you are searching for, but I am not sure I would be willing to go through what I would exepct to be a rocky ride of services.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I am not big on HUGE business either, it takes on many of the beauratic problems found in government.

The reality is, if more government stuff is shifted to the private sector, either existing mega-conglomerates (ie Halliburton, GE) or new ones, will end up with the business.

[lendaddy]

Steve,

No problem with the real name.

My issue has more to do with what it does to people and therefore society at large. These principals filter into the private sector as well. I always believed our system was designed to harness human nature (be it good or bad) and use it to the collective advantage. I see these practices as eroding that.

[stevepaa]

Yeah, I think that does happen. Part of the trade , I guess.

[stevepaa]

LeeH.
So you need something between 8 and 2 when your daughter will be in school. When I have had to be home while my wife went on travel, I found that most of the everyday functions of vacuuming, clothes washing, kitchen cleanup and grocery shopping took up most of the time. Then you spend most of the time between 2 and 9 with your daughter doing school work, making dinner, spending quality time with her. How much time do you really have to spend on work?