Hi,
Who is included and how is this measured? For instance, including school teachers would reduce the number of hours worked by the public-sector. Not because teachers work fewer hours, but because only the hours 'at work' are counted. The time spent on lesson plans, grading, test preparation, etc. is 'free'. Also, where I worked, you worked 2088 hours a year, plus overtime, minus unpaid personal leave. That means that vacation time, sick leave, and holidays were all 'working hours'.
Apples to oranges I can handle -- there are many similarities. But apples to asteroids?
You'd be wearing a target t-shirt, and I don't just mean one from the store of that name.
I'm sorry, but again the logic escapes me. If those jobs are not going to be removed from the economy, then you are going to have the same number of people doing the same tasks as they did in the government. How is that going to reduce spending tremendously? Are you going to base that on the income difference between private and public sector. Because, as far as I can see, those numbers are bogus. As a fraction of the respective workforces, how many hamburger flippers, dog walkers, house cleaners, farm workers, and assembly line drones does the government employ?
Besides, even if you do adjust the salaries, that will only make a small difference. To get 'tremendous' reductions, you are going to get the individual efficiencies up. Which means you either need to find them more work (a privately run treasury running more shifts to print more money for the government comes to mind -- with a guffaw) or let some go. One way does not reduce the costs, although it might increase (unnecessary) services. The other does reduce the costs, by having more unemployed.
How about no services because of no jobs paying no taxes leaving the public and private sector bankrupt?
Thanks, I'll stick to the Alfred E. Neuman / George P. Burdell ticket.
--Pete
(06-12-2010, 04:36 PM)kandrathe Wrote: "...according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, private-sector employees worked an average of 2,050 hours in 2008, 12 percent more than the 1,825 hours worked by the average public-sector employee."
Who is included and how is this measured? For instance, including school teachers would reduce the number of hours worked by the public-sector. Not because teachers work fewer hours, but because only the hours 'at work' are counted. The time spent on lesson plans, grading, test preparation, etc. is 'free'. Also, where I worked, you worked 2088 hours a year, plus overtime, minus unpaid personal leave. That means that vacation time, sick leave, and holidays were all 'working hours'.
Apples to oranges I can handle -- there are many similarities. But apples to asteroids?
Quote:If I were your benevolent dictator, . . .
You'd be wearing a target t-shirt, and I don't just mean one from the store of that name.
Quote: . . . with the budget in my libertarian hands, I would be able to easily trim about 1/2 of the jobs from my States budget, and 2/3rds of the Federal budget. That is not to say, overnight, nor to say those jobs would be removed from the economy. They would just be done better, and more efficiently by private sector interests with government management, and reduce spending and waste tremendously.
I'm sorry, but again the logic escapes me. If those jobs are not going to be removed from the economy, then you are going to have the same number of people doing the same tasks as they did in the government. How is that going to reduce spending tremendously? Are you going to base that on the income difference between private and public sector. Because, as far as I can see, those numbers are bogus. As a fraction of the respective workforces, how many hamburger flippers, dog walkers, house cleaners, farm workers, and assembly line drones does the government employ?
Besides, even if you do adjust the salaries, that will only make a small difference. To get 'tremendous' reductions, you are going to get the individual efficiencies up. Which means you either need to find them more work (a privately run treasury running more shifts to print more money for the government comes to mind -- with a guffaw) or let some go. One way does not reduce the costs, although it might increase (unnecessary) services. The other does reduce the costs, by having more unemployed.
Quote:Better services, and lower taxes. Vote for me!
How about no services because of no jobs paying no taxes leaving the public and private sector bankrupt?
Thanks, I'll stick to the Alfred E. Neuman / George P. Burdell ticket.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?