PDA

View Full Version : The Disposable Worker (Must read, but very grim article)


mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 09:24 AM
(Draw your own conclusions from this one however you wish. But if you are a middle class worker you should read it. - mesa)

http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/10_03/b4163032935448.htm

The Disposable Worker

Pay is falling, benefits are vanishing, and no one's job is secure. How companies are making the era of the temp more than temporary

By Peter Coy, Michelle Conlin and Moira Herbst
BusinessWeek

On a recent Tuesday morning, single mom Tammy DePew Smith woke up in her tidy Florida townhouse in time to shuttle her oldest daughter, a high school freshman, to the 6:11 a.m. bus. At 6:40 she was at the desk in her bedroom, starting her first shift of the day with LiveOps, a Santa Clara (Calif.) provider of call-center workers for everyone from Eastman Kodak (EK) and Pizza Hut (YUM) to infomercial behemoth Tristar Products. She's paid by the minute—25 cents—but only for the time she's actually on the phone with customers.

By 7:40, Smith had grossed $15. But there wasn't much time to reflect on her early morning productivity; the next child had to be roused from bed, fed, and put onto the school bus. Somehow she managed to squeeze three more shifts into her day, pausing only to homeschool her 7-year-old son, make dinner, and do the bedtime routine. "I tell my kids, unless somebody is bleeding or dying, don't mess with me."

As an independent agent, Smith has no health insurance, no retirement benefits, no sick days, no vacation, no severance, and no access to unemployment insurance. But in recession-ravaged Ormond Beach, she's considered lucky. She has had more or less steady work since she signed on with LiveOps in October 2006. "LiveOps was a lifesaver for me," she says.

You know American workers are in bad shape when a low-paying, no-benefits job is considered a sweet deal. Their situation isn't likely to improve soon; some economists predict it will be years, not months, before employees regain any semblance of bargaining power. That's because this recession's unusual ferocity has accelerated trends—including offshoring, automation, the decline of labor unions' influence, new management techniques, and regulatory changes—that already had been eroding workers' economic standing.

The forecast for the next five to 10 years: more of the same, with paltry pay gains, worsening working conditions, and little job security. Right on up to the C-suite, more jobs will be freelance and temporary, and even seemingly permanent positions will be at greater risk. "When I hear people talk about temp vs. permanent jobs, I laugh," says Barry Asin, chief analyst at the Los Altos (Calif.) labor-analysis firm Staffing Industry Analysts. "The idea that any job is permanent has been well proven not to be true." As Kelly Services (KELYA) CEO Carl Camden puts it: "We're all temps now."

Peter Cappelli, director of the Center for Human Resources at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says the brutal recession has prompted more companies to create just-in-time labor forces that can be turned on and off like a spigot. "Employers are trying to get rid of all fixed costs," Cappelli says. "First they did it with employment benefits. Now they're doing it with the jobs themselves. Everything is variable." That means companies hold all the power, and "all the risks are pushed on to employees."

The era of the disposable worker has big implications both for employees and employers. For workers, research shows that chronic unemployment and underemployment cause lasting damage: Older people who lose jobs are often forced into premature retirement, while the careers of younger people are stunted by their early detachment from the working world. Even 15 years out of school, people who graduated from college in a recession earn 2.5% less than if they had graduated in more prosperous times, research has shown.

Diminishing job security is also widening the gap between the highest- and lowest-paid workers. At the top, people with sought-after skills can earn more by jumping from assignment to assignment than they can by sticking with one company. But for the least educated, who have no special skills to sell, the new deal for labor offers nothing but downside.

Employers prize flexibility, of course. But if they aren't careful they can wind up with an alienated, dispirited workforce. A Conference Board survey released on Jan. 5 found that only 45% of workers surveyed were satisfied with their jobs, the lowest in 22 years of polling. Poor morale can devastate performance. After making deep staff cuts following the subprime implosion, UBS (UBS), Credit Suisse (CS), and American Express (AXP) hired Harvard psychology lecturer Shawn Achor to train their remaining employees in positive thinking. Says Achor: "All the employees had just stopped working."

In a typical downturn, the percentage decline in payrolls is about the same as the percentage decline in gross domestic product. But in the recessions that began in 2001 and 2007, the decline for payrolls was much steeper—1.8 percentage points more during the latest downturn. Worse yet, only about 10% of the layoffs are considered temporary, vs. 20% in the recession of the early 1980s.

PERMA-TEMPS

All that cutting has been good for corporate profits. Earnings rebounded smartly as companies kept payrolls down after the 2001 recession; by 2006 profits had hit a 40-year high as a share of national income, at 10.2%, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. The credit bust sent that figure plunging to 5.6% during the final quarter of 2008. But over the past year corporate profits' share has rebounded to 7.4% of national income, equaling the 40-year average.

The trend toward a perma-temp world has been developing for years. Bosses are no longer rewarded based on how many people they supervise, so they have less incentive to hang on to staff. Instead, the increasing use of bonuses tied to short-term profit performance gives managers an incentive to slash labor costs. The Iowa Policy Project, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates that 26% of the U.S. workforce had jobs in 2005 that were in one way or another "nonstandard." That includes independent contractors, temps, part-timers, and freelancers. Of those, 73% had no access to a retirement plan from their employer and 61% had no health insurance from their employer, the Iowa group said.

Temp employment in the U.S. fluctuates wildly, by design. The whole purpose of bringing on workers who are employed by temporary staffing firms such as Manpower (MAN), Adecco (ADO), and Kelly Services is that they're easy to shuck off when unneeded. While the number of temps fell sharply during the recent recession, the ranks of involuntary part-timers soared. The tally of Americans working part-time for economic reasons—that is, because full-time work is unavailable—has doubled since the recession began, to 9.2 million.

Companies that seized on the recession as an opportunity to make drastic organizational changes for greater efficiency and flexibility aren't likely to reverse those changes once the economy begins growing again, says David H. Autor, a labor economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In other words, most of the jobs shipped to China will stay in China. And companies that turned labor into a just-in-time, flexible factor of production won't return to an old-fashioned job-for-life arrangement. "For the last 10 years, I and others have been saying that these trends aren't just for a fringe workforce but increasingly are for the mainstream," says Sara Horowitz, founder and executive director of the Freelancers Union, a 130,000-member advocacy group for contract workers. "This recession has shown us that the future is here."

mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 09:24 AM
Boeing (BA) typifies the companies that are taking advantage of flexibility. In 2009, it cut 1,500 contingent workers from its commercial division. Says spokesman Jim Proulx: "The first imperative was to reduce all of the contract and contingent labor that we possibly could to shield our regular employees from those layoffs." Boeing says less than 3% of its workforce is contingent. It has also reduced its dependence on costly permanent staff in the U.S. by making new hires abroad. Last March it announced a research and development center in Bangalore that will "coordinate the work of more than 1,500 technologists, including 100 advanced technology researchers, from across India." Bill Dugovich, a spokesman for Boeing's white-collar union in the U.S., the SPEEA, complains that the Indian workers "are basically contract labor."

For years Microsoft (MSFT) has been an avid user of temporary-staffing firms such as Volt Information Sciences (VOL) for a variety of short-term projects, including writing chunks of software, says Microsoft spokesman Lou Gellos. "Our contingent workforce fluctuates wildly depending on the different projects that are going on," Gellos says. "Somebody does just part of a project. They're experts in it. Boom, boom, they're finished." Temps are especially appealing to companies in cyclical industries. "We have been able to get really good talent. Off the charts," says Jeff Barrett, CEO of Eggrock, a manufacturer of pre-built bathrooms based in Littleton, Mass. It has brought on dozens of plumbers, electricians, and administrative workers through Manpower to handle a spike in orders.

With the economy expanding again, and employers loath to add permanent workers, temp employment is one of the few sectors of the labor market that is growing rapidly. Stock prices for the big temp firms have doubled since last March, while analysts surveyed by Bloomberg expect profits to double in 2010 at Robert Half International (RHI) and to jump about 50% at Manpower. LiveOps is among the biggest beneficiaries of the just-in-time labor trend; its revenues grew by a double-digit percentage in 2009 and the company is planning an initial public offering. "We want to do for the world of work what eBay did for commerce," says LiveOps CEO Maynard Webb, a former chief operating officer of eBay (EBAY). "You have access to the talent you need. And when the need is gone, the talent goes away."

"LEADERSHIP ON DEMAND"

The world of temporary work used to be the domain of sneaker-footed admins. No longer. Last year, Kelly Services placed more than 100 people—including lawyers and scientists—in interim stints that paid more than $250,000 a year. At the forefront of the "leadership on demand" movement in the U.S. is the Business Talent Group, whose roster of 1,000 executives has done jobs at companies like mobile-phone content provider Fox Mobile (NWS), health-care company Healthways (HWAY), and private equity firm Carlyle Group. BTG says its client demand rose 50% in 2009.

Sydney Reiner, of Southern California, has had five assignments in five years as an interim chief marketing officer at companies like Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf and Godiva Chocolatier. "I got a call from Godiva on a Wednesday asking if I could be on a plane to Japan on Saturday," says Reiner. "I was." For the past two months, she's been the interim chief marketing officer at beverage maker POM Wonderful. Reiner prefers the challenge of working in short, adrenaline-packed chunks. But like Smith, the University of Chicago MBA has no access to employer-sponsored health insurance and other benefits. Says Reiner: "To some extent I end up working as hard as a permanent employee, without a lot of the benefits."

Reiner relishes the flexibility of the free-agent lifestyle. While there are others like her, many upscale, white-collar workers aren't contingent laborers by choice. Matthew Bradford, who is 38 and married with three young children, could scarcely believe it when he was laid off in early 2009 by a national law firm in Cleveland. He eventually set up as a one-man "legal professional association" in Akron, handling overflow from other lawyers while he slowly builds up his own practice. Meanwhile he's responsible for his own health insurance and a share of office overhead, things he never considered when he was on track to making partner back in Cleveland. "I never would have thought this would have happened," says Bradford. "I thought, 'Hey, I've got a law degree and an MBA. I'm not going to be out of work.' It's just not the case anymore." (So much for the argument that education is the answer to off shoring. - mesa)

During the boom-time 1990s, employers sold the move away from secure full-time jobs as pure upside for workers—a step toward greater flexibility and freedom. To compete with dot-coms, corporations like IBM (IBM) started replacing some fixed pay with variable compensation: stock options, bonuses, and other cash incentives that have to be renegotiated each year. It was attractive for awhile, but the Great Recession is showing workers the downside of that deal. Employers' unspoken message to employees, says Cornell University labor economist Kevin F. Hallock, is this: "You can absorb more risk, or you're going to lose your job. Which would you prefer?"

At the bottom of the ladder, workers are so powerless that simply getting the minimum wage they're entitled to can be a struggle. A study released in September and financed by the Ford, Joyce, Haynes, and Russell Sage Foundations found that low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage. It followed a Government Accountability Office report from March 2009 that found that poor oversight by the Labor Dept.'s Wage & Hour Div. leaves low-wage workers "vulnerable to wage theft." Some companies have been fined for misclassifying employees as freelancers and then denying them benefits. Meanwhile, the George W. Bush Administration made it easier for people earning as little as $23,600 a year not to be covered by overtime-pay rules.

Workers hired for temporary or contract work face a higher risk of developing mental health problems like depression, according to research presented in 2009 by Amélie Quesnel-Vallée of McGill University. A lack of job security and health-care benefits, as well as social ties to the rest of the workforce, increase stress levels for temps and contractors. A survey conducted in September by the National Alliance on Mental Illness found that people who experienced a forced change in their employment during the last year were twice as likely to report symptoms consistent with severe mental illness as individuals who hadn't experienced one.

The situation is especially difficult for young people, many of whom haven't been able to get a first foot on the career ladder. The percentage of people 16 to 24 who have jobs has plummeted by 13 percentage points since the beginning of 2000, while the share of workers 55 and over who have jobs has edged up over the period, despite the recession. Some young people are so desperate to get a start, they're working for free as semi-permanent interns. "Companies that used to use only one or two interns are now asking me for five or six at a time," says Lauren Berger, who runs a company that matches interns with entertainment, marketing, and media companies. Berger also reports a rise in the number of "adult interns," who work for free while trying to break into a new career.

mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 09:25 AM
Those internships might look like plum spots in years to come, for the gloomy trends in the labor market show no sign of abating. Consider some statistics. In the 2001 recession cycle, the economy lost 2% of its jobs and took four years to get them back. This time it has lost more than 5% of its jobs. Even after the recession is history, employers are likely to continue to offshore and automate jobs out of existence. If they don't, they'll lose out to competitors that do. In a November update of previous research, Princeton University economist Alan S. Blinder estimated that 22% to 29% of all U.S. jobs will be offshorable within two decades. Of course, even working in a job that's not offshorable—say, landscaping—is no guarantee of job security or decent pay. That's because people in those jobs must compete with the millions of former factory workers (and illegal aliens or H-1bs - mesa) and such whose jobs have already been offshored, notes Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.

IBM may strike many people as the quintessential American company, but 71% of its workforce was outside the U.S. at the end of 2008, a figure even higher than the non-U.S. share of its revenue (65%). In 2009 the company reduced its U.S. employment by about 10,000, or 8%. It also announced a program offering certain employees the opportunity to move their jobs to emerging markets; in turn, the company will foot some of the relocation costs. (The 8% of IBM workers were software engineers. Add in the 18% of Sun software engineers who lost their jobs, the 25,000 EDS workers who lost their jobs when HP bought the company and the 5000 who were laid off by Micosoft and you end with over 40,000 high tech workers unemployed last year. - mesa)

PAY CUTS

When employment in the U.S. eventually recovers, it's likely to be because American workers swallow hard and accept lower pay. That has been the pattern for decades now: Shockingly, pay for production and nonsupervisory workers—80% of the private workforce—is 9% lower than it was in 1973, adjusted for inflation. Sure, back in the 1950s pillars of the economy such as General Motors paid generously, because they could. Contracts between GM and the United Auto Workers set a pattern for pay throughout the economy, says Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who specializes in labor issues. But while unions covered 36% of private-sector workers in 1953, the figure plunged to less than 8% by 2008. "Today, working conditions are set either by trends in the global economy or by nonunion firms in the U.S.," says Shaiken. He points out that while GM was the largest U.S. employer in the 1950s, "today that role is played by Wal-Mart (WMT), with very different consequences."

The best solution to relieve the pressure on workers would be rapid economic growth sustained over a long period, possibly enabled by some technological breakthrough. The Internet boom pushed unemployment to less than 4% in 2000. But few economists expect such a renaissance anytime soon. That's why labor unions and politically liberal economists argue for New Dealesque public jobs programs and against free-trade pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement. In 2007, Ralph E. Gomory, former head of IBM's research department and later a senior vice-president at the company, declared before a U.S. House panel: "In this new era of globalization the interests of companies and countries have diverged. In contrast with the past, what is good for America's global corporations is no longer necessarily good for the American people."

Conservative economists, in contrast, say the real problem is too much government intervention in the economy. Employers who might be adding jobs are frozen in place by uncertainty over the impact of pending legislation on health care, global warming, and other big-ticket items, says economist Steven J. Davis of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. "I can't think of another time during my professional lifetime when there was so much riding on policy decisions that could get made in the next year or two."

For a glimpse of where things might be headed in the U.S., look at Europe, which makes a lot more use of temporary and part-time workers than U.S. employers do. That's in large part because of Europe's famously rigid labor laws; rather than hiring permanent workers, employers turn to temps and contractors who can be let go more easily during a downturn. In Spain, 85% of recent job losses in this recession were by temps or contractors. One big difference: Most European countries cover temps and part-timers with government health insurance and require that they receive wages and benefits comparable to those for permanent employees doing similar work.

Look far enough into the future and it's possible to see better times ahead for labor. A decade from now the retirement of the baby boom generation could cause labor shortages and hand some bargaining power back to younger workers, says Robert Mellman, a senior economist at JPMorgan Chase Bank (JPM). (Wrong, Baby boomers will not be able to afford to retire. - mesa)

If that happens, woe unto employers. A survey in 2009 by the benefits consultant now known as Towers Watson found that top-performing employees will be ready to jump ship as soon as a better offer comes along. Says Wharton's Cappelli: "The idea of loyalty—'I will stick with you and you will reward me'—that is effectively gone."

But those are issues for another day. Right now the face of American labor is more like that of Jamila Godfrey, 35, of Seattle. A licensed naturopathic physician, she ran an alternative medicine practice but decided to scoop up another degree, this time in nursing, for greater job security. Though she graduated in June, and health care is the strongest sector in the economy, she hasn't been able to find a job because hospitals can't spare the money for three months of on-the-job training. To support herself and her 12-year-old daughter, the single mother has been working as a temp for the past several months, but that project ends in several weeks. "I'll be jobless again," says Godfrey. "I thought the [RN] qualification would make it easy to find a job, but it's not working out that way."

With Carol Matlack in Paris

(So what does this mean for the American middle class worker? I think it means you can’t be in debt and you must carry large cash reserves. How else can you deal with the uncertainty of your employment situation? I’m just glad I don’t have children to support. I expect that America will have to move toward a publicly financed universal heath care as well. With out health care benefits from companies how will American families be able to survive? You can't raise children without access to health care.

The other factor to consider is what does this do to the economy? 70% of economic activity is spending by the middle class. If you smash the earning power of the middle class by offshoring their jobs and turning them into no benefit temp workers what happens to the economy? Answer, the economy flat lines and recession continues. – mesa)

Shellshock
01-09-2010, 09:32 AM
All you have to do is take a Civil Service test and hope you score high enough to be hired. Job with benifits for life.

GBMelBlount
01-09-2010, 09:42 AM
All you have to do is take a Civil Service test and hope you score high enough to be hired. Job with benifits for life.

I agree shellshock. A "cush" government job with good pay, great benefits, great retirement, and very little accountability is the way to go these days.

As I'm sure you'll agree, the irony is that the strangling taxes that have been imposed to pay for all these great government jobs & social engineering programs(which are close to 50% of income) have forced corporations to resort to these measures to stay afloat.

What I am saying is if the government taxes weren't so high to create all of these "cushy" government jobs & social engineering programs, we would not be having all of these problems in the private sector. The government has created a society of protected government workers at the expense of those left in the free markets and it will only get worse with Obama..

low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage. It followed a Government Accountability Office report from March 2009 that found that poor oversight by the Labor Dept.'s Wage & Hour Div. leaves low-wage workers "vulnerable to wage theft."


Another good point Mesa, these government employees with the "cush" jobs at the "Labor department" aren't doing their jobs, which is normal because there is little accountability once you are a lifetime employee of the government.

The companies that are taking advantage of low wage workers should be accountable.

mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 10:29 AM
All you have to do is take a Civil Service test and hope you score high enough to be hired. Job with benifits for life.

With the Federal government perhaps but here in Arizona, state, county and city workers have all been laid off.

GBMelBlount
01-09-2010, 10:36 AM
With the Federal government perhaps but here in Arizona, state, county and city workers have all been laid off.

I am sorry to hear that Mesa. Obviously government employees are not impervious to layoffs & job loss. I was way too broad in my prior statement and therefore not entirely accurate.

SteelerEmpire
01-09-2010, 10:48 AM
I find myself "very fortunate" to be self-employed. It's not a fun life when you basically have to rely on the success of others (your companies owner(s)) for your success. If I was in the work-force I would move in (at home) with a bunch of other people, get me a cheap car, put a substantial amount of money in the bank out of each paycheck, get some kind of training (free if possible) in something that I a. love to do and b. I can make some money at as an "independent contractor "... GET AWAY FROM "EMPLOYEE" STATUS !!! I would implement and do this as quickly as possible. Point blank, if you want the American dream in the future... doing things the old way is gonna leave you sad, depressed and broke... Take it from this Jew... and fellow member of the Steeler Nation to my comrades... .... control your own destiny as much as humanly possible... and most important, pray to God to take care of the things that you can't ....

SteelerEmpire
01-09-2010, 11:04 AM
All you have to do is take a Civil Service test and hope you score high enough to be hired. Job with benifits for life.

I agree. Government jobs are the biggest fleecing of the country going on. The paychecks they get are partly for work, part welfare.
From those $20,000 ash trays (that's still going on by the way), to the military dumping fuel into the sea to run up the operations bills so that the amount of money they get each year will continue to increase, to doctors writing up bogus procedures and equipment needed to charge off to medicare and insurance companies...... this kind of stuff has been going on for decades.... and now has came back to bite the nation where it hurts .....

mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 11:17 AM
I find myself "very fortunate" to be self-employed. It's not a fun life when you basically have to rely on the success of others (your companies owner(s)) for your success. If I was in the work-force I would move in (at home) with a bunch of other people, get me a cheap car, put a substantial amount of money in the bank out of each paycheck, get some kind of training (free if possible) in something that I a. love to do and b. I can make some money at as an "independent contractor "... GET AWAY FROM "EMPLOYEE" STATUS !!! I would implement and do this as quickly as possible. Point blank, if you want the American dream in the future... doing things the old way is gonna leave you sad, depressed and broke... Take it from this Jew... and fellow member of the Steeler Nation to my comrades... .... control your own destiny as much as humanly possible... and most important, pray to God to take care of the things that you can't ....

With all due respect putting myself into a position of having no heath care is not something I want to do. While the dream of being an entrepreneur may work for some for most it is not a suitable dream. Also with the decline in consumer spending many of these start up service companies are now bankrupt. Just as an example as a Civil Engineer I'm not about to try and found my only Civil Engineering consultancy in these economic conditions.

Additionally not everyone can go out and found their own service company. To advocate doing so misses the point that what is killing this country is the mass off shoring of manufacturing and engineering jobs. I do not believe we can have a viable economy where we polish each other shoes or mow each other lawns as independent contractors. With out strong manufacturing base we can never bring down our trade deficits. Given the scale necessary manufacturing and engineering design can not be done by small independent contractors.

mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 11:31 AM
I agree. Government jobs are the biggest fleecing of the country going on. The paychecks they get are partly for work, part welfare.
From those $20,000 ash trays (that's still going on by the way), to the military dumping fuel into the sea to run up the operations bills so that the amount of money they get each year will continue to increase, to doctors writing up bogus procedures and equipment needed to charge off to medicare and insurance companies...... this kind of stuff has been going on for decades.... and now has came back to bite the nation where it hurts .....

What government jobs do you want to get rid of? Law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA, the government prosecutors who investigate business fraud, border enforcement, the DEA, building inspectors, food safety, prison guards, judges? I could go on but I believe I've made the point.

Here in Arizona the current years budget defect is 1.4 billion. The state of Arizona employees of around 70,000 workers with a payroll around 300 million. You could lay off all the state workers here and still have a state budget deficit of over a billion dollars this year. Current estimates show a budget estimate for next fiscal year of over 3 billion dollars.

Our economic problems are far more complex and can not be fixed by simply blaming government workers.

SteelerEmpire
01-09-2010, 11:39 AM
With all due respect putting myself into a position of having no heath care is not something I want to do. While the dream of being an entrepreneur may work for some for most it is not a suitable dream. Also with the decline in consumer spending many of these start up service companies are now bankrupt. Just as an example as a Civil Engineer I'm not about to try and found my only Civil Engineering consultancy in these economic conditions.

Additionally not everyone can go out and found their own service company. To advocate doing so misses the point that what is killing this country is the mass off shoring of manufacturing and engineering jobs. I do not believe we can have a viable economy where we polish each other shoes or mow each other lawns as independent contractors. With out strong manufacturing base we can never bring down our trade deficits. Given the scale necessary manufacturing and engineering design can not be done by small independent contractors.

True... but be prepared to be at the mercy of others of you must be an employee... like a raft drifting in the sea. But the truth about that is the sad part... most folks are stuck forever in that senario. Good health insurance is'ent "really " that affordable even if you are an employee (God forbid you get a "serious" illness). And if you lose your job, there goes the health insurance in most cases. Both employees and owners are really getting screwed in this area... "hopefully " this reform will address it...
"Any " type of work can be indep. cont. out... its not just folks that do your yard or roof. Millions of people already follow the "physics" of what independent cont.'s do already. Temp. employees or "Giggers" (working from job site to job site) just get paid a lot less because they don't /can't handle the in's and out's of filing their own tax's and getting their own insurance, etc... You basically have to be a go getter to make it as an indep. cont... even in a 9-5 this is still the case. Both get effected by economic trends.... but one usually pays more than the other...

SteelerEmpire
01-09-2010, 11:47 AM
What government jobs do you want to get rid of? Law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA, the government prosecutors who investigate business fraud, border enforcement, the DEA, building inspectors, food safety, prison guards, judges? I could go on but I believe I've made the point.

Here in Arizona the current years budget defect is 1.4 billion. The state of Arizona employees of around 70,000 workers with a payroll around 300 million. You could lay off all the state workers here and still have a state budget deficit of over a billion dollars this year. Current estimates show a budget estimate for next fiscal year of over 3 billion dollars.

Our economic problems are far more complex and can not be fixed by simply blaming government workers.

Yes... all those jobs are needed... to get rid of them would be unwarranted. Just the areas when construction workers are sitting around a job site for half a day on the clock, and the other examples... they have been characteristic of government jobs for the longest time...

mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 12:24 PM
Yes... all those jobs are needed... to get rid of them would be unwarranted. Just the areas when construction workers are sitting around a job site for half a day on the clock, and the other examples... they have been characteristic of government jobs for the longest time...

Well that would depend on what is happening on the construction site. Is it because of bad planning by the project managers or is it union feather bedding or has something gone wrong unexpectedly happened so the work planned that day could not be preformed. I know this well because as a Civil Engineer I spend a lot of time on construction sites.

All foregoing reasons I gave as well as many others may be why the work is apparently not being done. Also some of the those just "standing around" may be inspectors who are absolutely necessary to insure quality. They may look like they are standing around but they are not.

Here is an example of what can happen. We had HMA (hot mix asphalt) paving job of about ten miles scheduled. Half way into it the asphalt plant had problem. It took the plant two hours to fix their problem. Meanwhile the paving crew stood around and did nothing since they had no asphalt to pave with. We couldn't send the crew home an try to bring them back again when we didn't know how long it would take to fix the problem. You can't just switch asphalt plants since all the mix designs must be approved in advance.

You can't use a skilled asphalt crew to go do other things such as build barrier wall since they don't have the experience or the equipment to do it. Construction is much more of a complex dance than it is a precise science.

By the way most of the subcontractors on a construction site are the very type of small entrepreneur that you were speaking about.

If you want to cut government spending or cut taxes you might be cutting road building since it depends on tax money to pay for it. However if you cut taxes that are used to pay for the roads then all of the small independent subcontractors are out jobs.

Thus these small entrepreneurial subcontractors on a construction site are just as vulnerable to losing their jobs as someone who works for a larger company.

Leftoverhard
01-09-2010, 03:46 PM
Cheap overseas labor. We've accepted this and now we're really paying for it.

Here's (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html) a list of American companies that are "outsourcing."

GBMelBlount
01-09-2010, 05:09 PM
Our economic problems are far more complex and can not be fixed by simply blaming government workers.

Really? I think identifying the problem is quite simple.

There is less competition and poorer results at higher costs the more government becomes involved in anything.

Sure some workers may be private sector but they are managed by the government who has little comprehension of how to run things lean and efficient like the private sector. They are big, bloated, lazy & wasteful especially because it's not their money on the line.

Mesasteeler
What government jobs do you want to get rid of? Law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA, the government prosecutors who investigate business fraud, border enforcement, the DEA, building inspectors, food safety, prison guards, judges? I could go on but I believe I've made the point.

You've really made no point except to show that you have no understanding that the government needs to be managed and run like a business and that sometimes cutbacks and efficiencies and doing more with less is necessary, as is done in the private sector..

mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 06:44 PM
run things lean and efficient like the private sector.

Like AIG or Goldman Sachs who after running their companies into ground and getting taxpayer financed bail outs are paying out tens of millions in bonuses? If I weren't so angry I'd laugh. Reward abject failure, that's really lean and mean.

Sure lets have companies run lean and mean alright by reducing the American worker into nothing more wage slaves by off shoring their jobs. Let's destroy the America middle class which is heart, soul, and sinew of this country. With each manufacturing plant we offshore in the name of corporate efficiency America becomes weaker and China stronger. Not only do we lose the skilled jobs but we lose all the R&D that goes with it. 60% of R&D is done in manufacturing plants.

Here another wonderful example of your precious private sector efficiency. Last year PCA (peanut corporation of America) was forced into a massive recall when it was found they knowing shipped salmonella contained peanut products. I'm sure their corporate efficiency was a great comfort to the eight people who died and the hundreds who were sickened by their products.

As a Civil Engineer I've lost count of the number of times contractors will try and cut corners or engage in outright fraud when building projects. Part of my job when managing a project is making sure they don't. I know from experience they will at any opportunity.

Sure there is waste in the government but don't try hold up hold up your precious private sector as some paragon of virtue. By the way in my thirty year career I've worked both in the private and public sectors and from I've what seen in there is lots of waste in both.

GBMelBlount
01-09-2010, 07:19 PM
Like AIG or Goldman Sachs who after running their companies into ground and getting taxpayer financed bail outs are paying out tens of millions in bonuses? If I weren't so angry I'd laugh. Reward abject failure, that's really lean and mean.



Do you think that greed & corruption is only in the private sector? The government is even more corrupt than the private sector. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Fact is, freedom, liberty, free markets and capitalism is what made this country the greatest on this earth, while your fat, bloated, government is what ruined it.

Fact is, the size of our government is no longer sustainable by the private sector.

You are coming across as a typical liberal defending the government and blaming capitalism for all our problems. nice.

Your seething rage is causing you to miss the big picture, pal.

GBMelBlount
01-09-2010, 08:21 PM
As a Civil Engineer I've lost count of the number of times contractors will try and cut corners or engage in outright fraud when building projects. Part of my job when managing a project is making sure they don't. I know from experience they will at any opportunity.

Sure there is waste in the government but don't try hold up hold up your precious private sector as some paragon of virtue. By the way in my thirty year career I've worked both in the private and public sectors and from I've what seen in there is lots of waste in both.

I never said the private sector was a paragon of virtue. Greed and corruptness is a human trait, not just possessed by capitalists. When will you libs understand this?

Acting like the government is more virtuous than the private sector is what you libs base half your argument on.

I believe that freedom and liberty is the best solution to the human condition.... you believe in the huge government and social engineering that ruined this country. That's the issue here.

Leftoverhard
01-09-2010, 08:31 PM
free markets and capitalism is what made this country the greatest on this earth.

Money and power? That's not what makes this a great country.

mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 10:48 PM
Do you think that greed & corruption is only in the private sector? The government is even more corrupt than the private sector. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Fact is, freedom, liberty, free markets and capitalism is what made this country the greatest on this earth, while your fat, bloated, government is what ruined it.

Fact is, the size of our government is no longer sustainable by the private sector.

You are coming across as a typical liberal defending the government and blaming capitalism for all our problems. nice.

Your seething rage is causing you to miss the big picture, pal.

First I know that a wretched corporate fascist like you will find this difficult to understand but I AM NOT A LIBERAL!

I am Proud Independent POPULIST!

Freedom? Not in this county. Not any more. Freedom to be a wage slave for your corporate masters. Yeah that's made really made this country great.

Freedom? Not in a country where 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth.

Free markets you say. Stop embarrassing yourself. What kind of free markets is it when wages rise and your corporate masters bring hundreds of thousands of foreign workers under the H-1b visa to drive down wages.

Consider software engineering for example. Between 2000 and 2004 over 800,000 H1-Bs were let into the country. 44% of them were IT workers. 400,000 American software engineers lost their jobs and careers as they were replaced by foreign workers who were paid 20% less than the prevailing wages. I know, my wife was a software engineer who had to train her own H-1b replacement before she was laid off. (source for the numbers is the IEEE-USA)

Consider that in 2009 bills were introduced in Congress to allow unlimited number of foreign nurses to enter the country under the H-1b visa. The bills failed but had they passed nursing wages would have fallen through the floor.

Meanwhile real wages for middle class workers are falling while the rich get richer.

This dynamic has been most pronounced in the US: between 1997 and 2001, the top 10 per cent of US earners received 49 per cent of the growth in aggregate real wages and salaries, while the top 1 per cent received an astonishing 24 per cent. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 per cent received under 13 per cent, just over half of what went to the top 1 per cent.

For anyone who values openness as a core political goal, this increase in income inequality is a troubling conundrum. We live in an age of unprecedented openness – of ideas, of people, of trade. But for the middle class, these opportunities have been largely theoretical: in America, social mobility has actually declined.
- source FT.com (Financial Times, which is hardly a Liberal newspaper)

Don't like that one then try this one from Pat Buchanan who is not a Liberal either.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the United States began the century producing 32 percent of the world's gross domestic product. We ended the decade producing 24 percent. No nation in modern history, save for the late Soviet Union, has seen so precipitous a decline in relative power in a single decade.

The United States began the century with a budget surplus. We ended with a deficit of 10 percent of gross domestic product, which will be repeated in 2010. Where the economy was at full employment in 2000, 10 percent of the labor force is out of work today and another 7 percent is underemployed or has given up looking for a job.

Between one-fourth and one-third of all U.S. manufacturing jobs have disappeared in 10 years, the fruits of a free-trade ideology that has proven anything but free for this country. Our future is being outsourced -- to China.

If you believe that a "free" market exists in this country then you are either appalling ignorant or you are so caught up in the laissez faire, free trade, Ayn Rand Kool-Aid philosophy that you are no longer rational.

You're damn right I'm angry. I'm watching the country I love be destroyed by short term greed. You are the one who has no comprehension of the big picture.

Now that you have exposed yourself as a plutocrat apologist;

What Wall Street firm do you work for?

Did you enjoy spending the bonus you stole from the American taxpayers?

GBMelBlount
01-09-2010, 10:49 PM
GBMelBlount

free markets and capitalism is what made this country the greatest on this earth.

Money and power? That's not what makes this a great country.

Spoken like a true socialist.

You naive thing, acting like that is not a trait of our big, bloated government that has ruined this country.

Do you disagree?

GBMelBlount
01-09-2010, 10:50 PM
First I know that a wretched corporate fascist like you will find this difficult to understand but I AM NOT A LIBERAL!




:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

GBMelBlount
01-09-2010, 10:55 PM
Originally Posted by mesaSteeler View Post
First I know that a wretched corporate fascist like you will find this difficult to understand but I AM NOT A LIBERAL!

My beliefs are no different than the founding fathers of our country, your disdain for capitalism is painting you as a socialist my friend.

Do you disagree?

Are you a socialist?

mesaSteeler
01-09-2010, 11:14 PM
Spoken like a true socialist.

You naive thing, acting like that is not a trait of our big, bloated government....

Do you disagree?

I am not a "thing".

You are the one who is utterly naive and now I believe your ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity. Your precious Wall Street controls Washington's big government.

Doubt me?

Money, of course. To get a better sense of just how much money, let's take a virtual stroll down K Street and see what everyone is spending on the world's second-oldest profession. It's all laid out for us by OpenSecrets.org. The defense lobby? Pikers. They contributed $24 million to individuals and PACs during the last election cycle. The farm lobby? $65 million. Health care? We're getting warmer. Health care was the No. 2 industry, at $167 million.

And the finance lobby? They're No. 1, with a very, very big bullet. They contributed an astonishing $475 million during the 2008 election cycle. That's up from $60 million almost two decades ago.

or if you don't like that consider this:

Question: What has become of the American nation? Conceived with the vision of liberty and justice for all, we have descended in the clutches of corporate and other special interests to a second world state defined by K Street instead of Independence Square. Our government doesn’t work anymore, or perhaps more accurately, when it does, it works for special interests and not the American people. Washington consistently stoops to legislate 10,000-page perversions of healthcare, regulatory reform, defense, and budgetary mandates overflowing with earmarks that serve a monied minority as opposed to an all-too-silent majority. You don’t have to be Don Quixote to believe that legislators – and Presidents – often do not work for the benefit of their constituents: A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reported that over 65% of Americans trust their government to do the right thing “only some of the time” and a stunning 19% said “never.” What most politicians apparently are working for is to perpetuate their power – first via district gerrymandering, and then second by around-the-clock campaigning financed by special interest groups. If, by chance, they’re ever voted out of office, they have a home just down the street – at K Street – with six-figure incomes as a starting wage.

What amazes me most of all is that politicians can be bought so cheaply. Public records show that combined labor, insurance, big pharma and related corporate interests spent just under $500 million last year on healthcare lobbying (not much of which went to politicians) for what is likely to be a $50-100 billion annual return. The fact is that American citizens have never been as divorced from their representatives – and if that description fits the Democratic Congress now in control – then it applies to Republicans as well – past and present. So you watch Fox, or is it MSNBC? O’Reilly or Olbermann? It doesn’t matter. You’re just being conned into rooting for a team that basically runs the same plays called by lookalike coaches on different sidelines. A “ballot box” pox on all their houses – Senators, Representatives and Presidents alike. There has been no change, there will be no change, until we the American people decide to publicly finance all national and local elections and ban the writing of even a $1 check for our favorite candidates. Undemocratic? Hardly. Get on the internet, use Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter to campaign for your choice. That’s the new democracy. When special interests, even singular citizens write a check, it represents a perversion of democracy not the exercise of the First Amendment. Any chance that any of this will happen? Not one ghost of a chance. Forward Don Quixote, the windmills are in sight.

source - William Gross Managing Director PIMCO (PIMCO which I'm sure you are to ignorant to know is one of the largest bond trading firms in the world. )

Socialist? Oh your ignorance is truly amusing.:rofl::rofl::rofl: I guess Wall Street must be Socialist too. Damn, you really do know nothing don't you? You must be an avid listener of the Flushed Dimbulb.

What is happening is that this country is rapidly becoming a plutocracy and the American middle class is being destroyed. You are just too ignorant and blind to see it.

Well much as I would like to continue exposing your foolishness, I do have a concrete pour to oversee tomorrow. I have to make sure that that one of your totally honest private sector contractors (sarcasm intended) doesn't rip off the citizens of Arizona. I know they would if I let them.

GBMelBlount
01-10-2010, 10:16 AM
I apologize for being so insensitive Mesa, especially now that I realize you are a government employee and therefore a big bloated government that takes 50% of what people earn in taxes is a good thing as it gives you better job security, benefits, promotions and a great retirement often almost regardless of performance. DO YOU NOT AGREE THIS IS TOO MUCH ?

You are defending a government that is now as large and bloated as many socialist countries......


You must be seething right now.

.....and I realize that is also why you use such terrible logic to explain away the disgusting laziness and gross overspending by government by saying that there are inefficiencies in the private sector as well as though it is even remotely comparable.......because it's not and you know it.

That's like equating Charles Manson to the pope because they both have sinned.


If the government had to operate in a competitive manner, like the private sector, they would out of business in no time. They are a monopoly.

So please stop this silly logic or you will further embarrass yourself.

Many of our founding fathers gave their lives to free us of the monopolistic tyranny of people with the EXACT same mindset as you and that is a fact, friend. If our founding fathers read your drivel they would be sickened and realize all they fought and died for was lost.

Everything you have said so far indicates that your core beliefs run contrary to the most basic principles on which our country was founded.....freedom, liberty & LIMITED government.

Polamalu Princess
01-10-2010, 11:42 AM
I am putting GB (my husband) on my ignore list - he is picking on people again!!!:wink02:

Leftoverhard
01-10-2010, 03:38 PM
Spoken like a true socialist.

You naive thing, acting like that is not a trait of our big, bloated government that has ruined this country.

Do you disagree?

GBMel - I'm not sure who you're calling a naive thing - but whoever it is, it makes me feel funny inside...not in a good way.

Here's the thing - you said those things are what makes our country so great. I think the things that make our country great have nothing to do with money or power or even greatness itself. Socialist? Ok, whatever. Talk about copping out.
Are free markets and capitalism traits of this country? Uh, yeah. And speaking of corporate greed and the unadulterated "free market"...

There's a thread about welfare in the locker room right now. We should rename this thread corporate welfare.

7SteelGal43
01-10-2010, 04:36 PM
I agree shellshock. A "cush" government job with good pay, great benefits, great retirement, and very little accountability is the way to go these days.

As I'm sure you'll agree, the irony is that the strangling taxes that have been imposed to pay for all these great government jobs & social engineering programs(which are close to 50% of income) have forced corporations to resort to these measures to stay afloat.

What I am saying is if the government taxes weren't so high to create all of these "cushy" government jobs & social engineering programs, we would not be having all of these problems in the private sector. The government has created a society of protected government workers at the expense of those left in the free markets and it will only get worse with Obama..



Another good point Mesa, these government employees with the "cush" jobs at the "Labor department" aren't doing their jobs, which is normal because there is little accountability once you are a lifetime employee of the government.

The companies that are taking advantage of low wage workers should be accountable.



Definately a Catch 22. I can relate to the plight of un or under employed persons with not many oppotunites on the horizon. I have been self employed since 1996, and for the first 10 years had much stability, security. Didn't have benefiets but the money I was bringing in pretty much off-set that. Now, the industry I'm in has changed and folks like me are losing a lot of the business they had. I need to somehow take the experience I've gained during this and dress it up as marketable skills. I have the skills and experience but not having a degree is an obstacle in this job market.

Anyway, as far as unions, i'm slightly rethinking my position. I realize that when unions first came on the scene in America, they were desperately needed. Working conditions for the everyman were horrible and wages and compensation were a joke. Once unions served their useful purpose, they got greedy, pushed the envelope. You went from management putting the screws to the workers to the workers putting the screws to management but it almost seems like we need someone ot fight again for fairness in the workplace for the everyday worker. I shudder to think of it being unions. Who knows, maybe it's just a cycle and "unions being needed and good" is where the cycle is taking us now.

GBMelBlount
01-10-2010, 05:39 PM
GBMel - I'm not sure who you're calling a naive thing - but whoever it is, it makes me feel funny inside...not in a good way.

Here's the thing - you said those things are what makes our country so great. I think the things that make our country great have nothing to do with money or power or even greatness itself. Socialist? Ok, whatever. Talk about copping out.
Are free markets and capitalism traits of this country? Uh, yeah. And speaking of corporate greed and the unadulterated "free market"...

There's a thread about welfare in the locker room right now. We should rename this thread corporate welfare.

The reason you are naive is because you are mistaking my strong beliefs in liberty and freedom over tyranny for promoting "money & power" without regard to laws, etc......you are putting words in my mouth, friend.'

As for government tyranny, I am against it. I work six months a year for the government to pay the taxes they demand and only the last six months are for myself and my family. Now, who is greedy, friend? Me for wanting to keep most of my hard earned wages, or the government for forcing me to pay half of my wages to them for virtually nothing in return.

I believe in a strong government and laws to protect one person from unlawfully taking what belongs to another.

what I am against is government tyranny. If a person took 50% of my earnings they would go to jail. The government now has laws that legalize them taking half of money......now, who is greedy friend?

Me for wanting to keep most of my hard earned money?....or the government for forcing me to give them six months of what I work and taking it away from me and my family?....and putting me in jail if I don't pay them half of my earnings?

MACH1
01-10-2010, 05:53 PM
Where's all my free stuff?

GBMelBlount
01-10-2010, 06:35 PM
Anyway, as far as unions, i'm slightly rethinking my position. I realize that when unions first came on the scene in America, they were desperately needed. Working conditions for the everyman were horrible and wages and compensation were a joke. Once unions served their useful purpose, they got greedy, pushed the envelope. You went from management putting the screws to the workers to the workers putting the screws to management but it almost seems like we need someone ot fight again for fairness in the workplace for the everyday worker. I shudder to think of it being unions. Who knows, maybe it's just a cycle and "unions being needed and good" is where the cycle is taking us now.

Great post gal. Again, this is my biggest bone with communists, socialists and liberals in this thread.

Their biggest argument against capitalism is that people who become wealthy are all greedy and take advantage of everyone else, as though it is a trait of capitalists and not ALL people. This ridiculous belief has been pervasively expressed in this thread to the point of complete embarrassment.

Greed is a human trait and therefore people in government and unions possess those traits as well. So that is why you now see unions doing terribly unethical and greedy things as well as the government.

The problem is that the media and schools have so brainswashed our children (many on this thread in fact) into believing that all the problems are due ONLY to the greed in capitalism and that they (the government and unions) are somehow unselfish and altruistic and will protect them. Is this not absurd?

Think of all the major government programs we have today like social security...it was passed through by complete lies and deception and virtually every promise the government ever made about social security has been broken.....and it is now in ruins......where's the outrage? the silence is deafening.....and you libs want them to take control of our healthcare?

......and yet you still have these brainwashed liberals defending the government as if cutbacks and efficiencies would create complete anarchy, despite the huge deficits, as is evidenced by this earlier comment in this thread:

What government jobs do you want to get rid of? Law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA, the government prosecutors who investigate business fraud, border enforcement, the DEA, building inspectors, food safety, prison guards, judges? I could go on but I believe I've made the point.

GBMelBlount
01-10-2010, 07:04 PM
Where's all my free stuff?

Exactly. this is the liberal platform.

1. Your not happy and not making enough money because greedy capitalist are exploiting you and you will never have any control over that.

2. We care about you and if you elect us we will take $100,000 of ill gotten wealth from a capitalist and give $10,000 each to 10 of you....money that was taken from you by evil greedy capitalists.

3. We will not line our pockets along the way because we are not greedy and unethical like capitalists, we are ethical and only care about you poor exploited workers.

Needless to say they probably won't get the vote from the person they are taking the $100,000 from, but 9 of 10 who are getting $10,000 of other peoples money for doing nothing will get their vote.

Nice racket, huh? :chuckle:

revefsreleets
01-11-2010, 09:27 AM
Corporate welfare in the US is a bit of a misnomer because the corporate tax rates are the highest in the World. THIS is one of the biggest reasons jobs continue to be outsourced.

Also, the Federal Government is the largest employer in the US. Only Wal-Mart employs more, and they have employees all over the World. Both employ about 1,800,000 people. Guess which one is growing faster? Pays better? Has better hours? Benefits?

SCSTILLER
01-11-2010, 03:40 PM
Corporate welfare in the US is a bit of a misnomer because the corporate tax rates are the highest in the World. THIS is one of the biggest reasons jobs continue to be outsourced.

Also, the Federal Government is the largest employer in the US. Only Wal-Mart employs more, and they have employees all over the World. Both employ about 1,800,000 people. Guess which one is growing faster? Pays better? Has better hours? Benefits?

Oh, that would be government by far. I see the waste of government employees in my little world of the military. There are civilian aircraft mechanics that sit around and watch TV all day. On grave shift you can walk out to the parking lot and find 90% of them sleeping in their cars all night long, all the while making $20 plus an hour, whiile the GI's are working their tails off. The civilians are supposed to be helping the GI's, working side by side, but they have worked the system and you never see them working at all. I go into the Personnell office or the finance office to have some paper work done and I see employee's playing solitaire on the computer, talking on their cell phones, eating at their desk while watching the TV in the corner, and trying to get service is a huge joke. Heck, if I didn't enjoy serving my country I would quit the AF and become a civilian employee. It is really disgusting. Then their unions are as strong as can be. I had to ask a civilian to do his job one time and he filed a union grievance against me saying that I was unfair in my treatment of him because I asked him to do his job. The government is a big waste of money, with the exception of cops, military, and border agents and even in those there is a ton of waste.

Not saying that the private sector doesn't have theirs, but like Rev's said, cut the corporate tax rate and give the companies a reason to stay around. Also, get rid of the unions, it is ridiculous of the way the unions have made the companies run. USAir, prime example. Last in the door, first one out, no matter how hard you work. There is no incentive in many union jobs to work, because you know you are OVERLY protected and many time OVERLY paid.

revefsreleets
01-11-2010, 03:53 PM
Unions CANNOT be ousted....they are sacred cows based on the good they did when they were relevant back in the early 20th Century.

They were fine in the post WWII boom because we were so filthy stinking rich as a country we could do anything we wanted.

Problem is, others caught up, and then we were caught handcuffed to these old inefficient monstrously huge bureaucratic nightmares of organizations like Albatrosses around our necks.

Government corruption and inefficiency will NEVER be abolished. It's too entrenched. My sisters first job oit of HS was to work for the City. She was an eager young worker ready to wow her bosses, and she finished her "inbox" of work in the first half of her first Monday and sent it on down the line.

She was taken aside at lunch and asked exactly what the Hell she was thinking. She said she was doing here work.

She was informed that the work she completed in 3 hours was an ENTIRE WEEKS WORTH OF WORK and she needed to slow down because she was sending way too much work down the line.

How's that for efficiency?

Indo
01-11-2010, 04:39 PM
Unions CANNOT be ousted....they are sacred cows based on the good they did when they were relevant back in the early 20th Century.

They were fine in the post WWII boom because we were so filthy stinking rich as a country we could do anything we wanted.

Problem is, others caught up, and then we were caught handcuffed to these old inefficient monstrously huge bureaucratic nightmares of organizations like Albatrosses around our necks.

Government corruption and inefficiency will NEVER be abolished. It's too entrenched. My sisters first job oit of HS was to work for the City. She was an eager young worker ready to wow her bosses, and she finished her "inbox" of work in the first half of her first Monday and sent it on down the line.

She was taken aside at lunch and asked exactly what the Hell she was thinking. She said she was doing here work.

She was informed that the work she completed in 3 hours was an ENTIRE WEEKS WORTH OF WORK and she needed to slow down because she was sending way too much work down the line.

How's that for efficiency?

The country (and those that perpetuate this type of thinking) is just aspiring towards mediocrity...forget efficiency; forget striving for excellence; certainly don't give the impression that you care about your job---it may make others look bad. And we don't want that because, by gosh, we all need to be on a level playing field. We will continue to punish the achievers (in the form of taxation---without representation, incidentally), and reward the lazy by giving them what the honest, hard worker, or innovative businessman has sweated in blood to achieve.

So what if only 5% of the population controls the wealth. Those that are innovative and talented should be able to...
By the way---Ben's contract is for over $100 Million. He is in that 5%. I say his talent allows him to make that much money. Do those of you who disagree with all of this think 50% should be given to JaMarcus? After all, they both do the same job, don't they?

devilsdancefloor
01-11-2010, 07:12 PM
what makes this country the gretest country in the world? it isnt the unions it isnt the gov't it is the people. Sooner or later we as a nation will stand up and say WTF enough is enough. It will be "the conservatives" ,"the socialist", "the independants" & "the _______" we all will stand up together. After all i dont know how you all feel BUT my children's children WILL have it better than me. Right now it looks like the future si bleak, but i have to believe as a nation we will come together. We will put aside our petty differences (which at times they are very petty). After all i believe first and foremost we are AMERICANS. if you are left or right it doesnt matter the lines are so blurred anymore. If you are for obama or bush doesnt matter anymore they are both heading down the same road some faster than others.

revefsreleets
01-11-2010, 07:19 PM
I actually buy that....I think buy about 2050, the US will re-assert itself and have another huge boom...

GBMelBlount
01-12-2010, 06:54 AM
Corporate welfare in the US is a bit of a misnomer because the corporate tax rates are the highest in the World. THIS is one of the biggest reasons jobs continue to be outsourced.

Also, the Federal Government is the largest employer in the US. Only Wal-Mart employs more, and they have employees all over the World. Both employ about 1,800,000 people. Guess which one is growing faster? Pays better? Has better hours? Benefits?

Exactly.

The government creates a protected class of workers that is supported by legalized plundering, the forceful taking of money from citizens.

This form or tyranny is ignored by extreme liberals as they myopically blame everything on freedom and success as though evil and greed only exists there, not in unions or government.

Especially if the government plundering is lining THEIR pockets.

Gnutella
01-18-2010, 12:36 AM
Personally, I think that both big government and big corporations are full of sh*t, and neither can be trusted.

I think I ought to start doing more business with smaller businesses -- starting with the banks, of course.