Journal zogger's Journal: Of course it looks good if you have an almost guaranteed job 13
Interesting survey/poll that shows government workers (as a majority percentage) think the economy is getting better, while people in the private sector think (know) it is getting worse. I guess you can maintain a different perspective if you have an almost guaranteed job where the money to pay for it is taken from all your neighbors by official diktat.
I am for "term limits" for all governmental workers. No pensions, ten years in service max, then back to the private sector with all the private sector risks. I think that would do more to help the economy and our political makeup than anything. This includes politicians and day in and day out bureaucrats.
New use for the draft (Score:2)
Serve your country! Travel the courtroom, meet new and interesting people, and issue them their licenses!
The scary part is that some piece of me thinks it would work in soooo many ways.
Neat idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Given the fact that bureaucrats tend towards being liberal, and private industry tends conservative, and people under 30 are liberal, and people over 30 tend conservative; can we make the argument that all government offices should be staffed by part time college students in return for tuition, with mandatory "retirement" at 29?
If we then extend the Constitutional rule about the President's age to all politicians, we could then guarantee at least 5 years valuable experience in private industry in between.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice idea! Government jobs should not be a guaranteed job for life, they should be seen as elected positions should be seen: as a service to one's country.
I say this as a government employee. My state, New Mexico, is doing better than many states, but we still have a hiring freeze and 11 days of mandatory furlough this year. It's better than having to let people go. I'll be getting out soon, I've put in my time and am growing bored with the bureaucracy and the glacial pace of work. I'd put the mandatory ret
moof (Score:1)
I guess you can maintain a different perspective if you have an almost guaranteed job where the money to pay for it is taken from all your neighbors by official diktat.
And when you're experiencing big pay raises and hiring all around you [usatoday.com].
I can't agree (Score:2)
How effective were you at your job when you first started? Governments use IT, for instance. You have a guy who knows the ins and outs of a database and ten years later he's fired? And they have to hire and retrain someone else? It would make government even more costly and less efficient.
Prove government is efficient now.. (Score:1)
...with the current model they use of full lifetime employment, full pension, heck, many of them get two pensions, they work 40 years strictly in government. they even have a term for it it is so common, it is called "double dipping".
Here's the proof it doesn't work-name a governmental agency that has gotten so efficient that they have put themselves out of business, or don't require more people and more money all the time, where they have accomplished a task. Here's more proof, we are at several million to
Re: (Score:2)
with the current model they use of full lifetime employment, full pension
I'd posit that private sector employment should be like this. It used to be, and with some companies still is.
Here's more proof, we are at several million total laws now on the books..there's no end game there.
Bureaucrats don't write the laws, neither do the IT people or the custodians or the street sweepers or the myriad other government workers. Most government workers do pretty much what you do -- that is, whatever their boss tells
all or nothing?? (Score:1)
All those jobs would be staggered, it wouldn't be retire all of them and hire on new ones. I thought I made that point toward the bottom of my previous reply. Some would leave, the bulk would stay on, other new hires come in. Just like it is now, with a different time scale, ten years instead of twenty.
At the worst, say with a ten year max commitment you would lose 1/10th the older workers and gain 1/10th new workers per year. That leaves 90% at any one time as being experienced at some leve
Re: (Score:2)
But you still haven't said WHY government jobs are any different than private sector jobs in a way that would mandate term limits. If term limits would be effective in government, they should be just as effective in the private sector as well.
You have two janitors, one who cleans toilets at a stock exchange and one who cleans toilets at the Murrow Building (a federal building in Springfield that some guy tried to bomb a few months ago). Why should the janitor who cleans government toilets, and does it well,
OK..why (Score:1)
the why is because it is supposed to be government service, a job to provide "governing" to the tax payers as whole. Right off the bat whatever that governing service is, it is not a wealth production job, it is a wealth rearrangement job, where the wealth is taken from the producers, given to the governmental worker, who then tells the producers what they can and cannot do. There's ZERO incentive to be efficient there on the government side, or even provide a necessary service, because that money is more o
Re: (Score:2)
the why is because it is supposed to be government service, a job to provide "governing" to the tax payers as whole.
But like the private sector, very few actually workers actually produce the "product", which is governing. The ones who actually govern are the elected officials and the top bureaucrats, all of whom get replaced whenever the elected officials are voted out of office.
Somebody has to clean the government toilets.
off the bat whatever that governing service is, it is not a wealth production job, i