Parasitical Government Employees Doing AWESOME During Recession

hellblazer

New member
Sep 20, 2008
3,019
86
0
The public sector is parasitical, feeding off of the wealth created in the private sector.

How many jobs could have been created with this money? Disgusting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For feds, more get 6-figure salaries

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.


Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.


PRIVATE INDUSTRY:
Some companies restore raises, benefits
JOBS FORECAST: Track job growth across USA
PROS AND CONS: President Obama crafts strategies to create jobs


The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.


When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.


The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.


"There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee.


Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.


USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.
The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.
Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:

• Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.


•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Pay Scale for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

• Pay
caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.
 


The thing is what this article also fails to say is that many workers such as postal workers have been laid off and the higher ups are actually trying to cut salary and benefits while they are taking bonuses and getting their salaries increase for doing nothing. In a lot of these government offices they could fire half the staff and no one would even know they were missing.
 
The public sector is parasitical, feeding off of the wealth created in the private sector.

How many jobs could have been created with this money? Disgusting.

Ah, yes! The wealth creating private sector.

Like banks?

::emp::
 
Ah, yes! The wealth creating private sector.

Like banks?

::emp::
Banks are not part of the private sector. They are mixed. Losses are socialized, and profits are privatized. Mussolini called this "fascism".

In the private sector, when you go bankrupt, there are no bailouts.

So no, not the banks.

The public sector creates no wealth. It just redistributes the wealth created by the private sector.
 
Ah, yes! The wealth creating private sector.

Like banks?

::emp::

When I think of the private sector, banks do not come to mind. Instead, I think of the small auto repair shop, the exterminator down the street, and the software company rolling the dice by building a new app.

I think of entrepreneurs running businesses and making "bets" with their own resources (and those who choose to back them financially) based on what they believe people will voluntarily buy. In effect, entrepreneurs' decisions regarding the allocation of their resources are based on their perception of risk of failure and reward through profit. The dry cleaner, coffee shop owner, clothing boutique... they make up the private sector.

Banks are protected. They are cartelized. Their decisions are based on factors that lay outside pure competition and a price system. Banks should not be considered part of the private sector.

EDIT: Ah, hell. I took too long to write the darn post. guerilla beat me to it.
 
Sorry guys, but banks ARE in the private sector.

That the government decided to bail them out was their decision "too big to fail" and all that shit.

::emp::
 
Sorry guys, but banks ARE in the private sector.

That the government decided to bail them out was their decision "too big to fail" and all that shit.

::emp::

emp, you and I may be defining "private sector" differently. I offered my definition above. How do you define the private sector?
 
Sorry guys, but banks ARE in the private sector.

That the government decided to bail them out was their decision "too big to fail" and all that shit.

::emp::

They were in the private sector.

And the minute they were 'bailed out', they ceased to be private sector. Like guerrilla said, they became a mix. If they were truly dwelling in the private sector, they would have been allowed to go bankrupt, broken into pieces, and sold to people that could actually manage those pieces well.

I didn't want the banks bailed out. I wanted to see them reap the fruits of their business practices. But certain people didn't want that.

Technically speaking, we could just divide companies into those that are profitable and those that aren't.

The ones that are profitable actually create wealth and contribute to the growth and well-being of the United States as a nation.

Those that don't, go bankrupt.

Except, of course, in the arena of government, where you have literally hundreds (if not thousands) of companies that never make a profit and only survive because of the profitable American entrepeneurs and businessmen who make it possible. They're parasites. Leaches. Their very survival depends upon the businessmen, corporations, and other 'evil' profiteers who are so routinely demonized and vilified.

The fact that the wealth producers are suffering while the parasites are thriving demonstrates in stark clarity how the governing fiscal philosophy has become so twisted and out of sync with reality.
 
Sorry guys, but banks ARE in the private sector.

That the government decided to bail them out was their decision "too big to fail" and all that shit.

::emp::
Banks are not the private sector. They are licensed, regulated, and their product is controlled and created by the government central bank.

It's like saying a convict is a free man because he gets one hour a day to lift weights and play basketball under open sky.

In order to be in the private sector, you must be susceptible to profit AND LOSS.

Banks are shielded from loss by fractional reserve banking and deposit insurance both of which are underwritten by people who may not be customers or shareholders of the bank.
 
hellblazer... do you even do marketing or do you just start flame wars here?

LOL was thinking the same thing.

But this, indirectly, brings up a huge pet peeve.

I remember in grade school, I think grade 10, the teacher was talking about how much certain people made in the government. She started to talk about how financial advisors, military strategists, etc made. We aren't talking big money - always less than 200k. (Maybe over 200k by now - I don't know.)

But everyone got into such a rant about how, "that's all coming out of out pockets" etc etc.

I can't believe the attitude SO many people have towards this. Yeah let's get some fucking dipshits who dropped out after middle school to run our country so we can give them a 50k salary.

Are people this retarded now that they feel people running, and choosing, what our country does should be idiots with no education so we don't pay as much?

It's like getting the same people who create your crappy articles to beef up your website to create your sales pages. It's not that the people are retarded - they just don't know what the fuck their doing.

I'm all for paying huge salaries to those who have a huge impact on how our country is run. It all comes down to having too many government workers in the first place. Needs to be lean and mean.

/rant
 
i think every political thread needs to have 1 tit pic for every typed out manifesto.

1 pic, 8 tits.

barbarossa_781269_3e7cfd642cdd6aa91e0cd17b2bcdea22.jpg
 
Banks are not part of the private sector. They are mixed. Losses are socialized, and profits are privatized. Mussolini called this "fascism".

In the private sector, when you go bankrupt, there are no bailouts.

So no, not the banks.

The public sector creates no wealth. It just redistributes the wealth created by the private sector.

This ^^^ Very well spoken. The public sector is bleeding our economy (and country) dry. For every "job" Obama creates in the public sector, one is destroyed in the private sector. Simple economics... it's just too bad the Keynesians in Washington don't have a fucking clue.
 
banks have been "quasi-private" since the 1910s and 1930s, due to the creation of the federal reserve, as well as oversight and FDIC laws in the 30s/40s. I wouldn't include banks in the normal private sector.