Job security is overrated anyways.
States switching to contract workers
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
Job security is overrated anyways.
jtb1127
Deity
You'll really admit that if you eat at McDonald's for 100 meals, only 1 of the orders will be messed up?
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I just order McChickens and McDoubles, they rarely, if ever, screw those up. I can say they screw up less than waiters and fancy restaurants, probably because the orders are easier.
jtb1127
Deity
You must have some first-rate Mac shacks where ever you live because they mess up my orders 50% of the time. Now I don't believe you for a second, but if you really don't want to admit that McDonald's employees, with low wages and high replaceability, are at most times careless, than no one is going to make you. The fast food industry is simply a perfect example of when "the ability to be fired" does not support the quality of their work.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Occupy the Government!!!
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Dude, they just stick chicken filets in a bun and put some lettuce on it. They hardly every screw up my order at McDonalds and Taco Bell. Most of it is mechanized anyways. I hardly ever get the wrong order. I've lived in several places, and I've never been to a fast-food place that screwed up my orders half the time. I eat at subway twice a week and they always get it right.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
You are confusing Federal with State. This thread is about State coffers and not the Federal one.
But anyway I think this is bad that they are basically running government of a shoestring and as a result of the actions that the state will get less money meaning the need for more cutbacks since the people make less money an therefore are spending less money and the cycle continues.
What incentive is there in keeping a $10/hr job?
Sounds like somebody hasn't managed many $10/HR employees.
Plus, over-reliance on firing costs money in the long run.
Sounds like your $10/HR employees simply need more fear of personal or familial harm if they don't do the job correctly.
It doesn't really change the job, so it's just a way of cutting salaries circumventing union agreements and the like, but with a few drawbacks: there's more red tape, because you're adding a layer of indirection, and you're decreasing regulation in a market that has monopolistic tendencies. It's also dismantling existing government job labor unions, though it's debatable if that's a pro or con, and may be temporary.
The free market works on competition, so the question is, is there enough competition among contractors for this to be a benefit? Or is it just creating an under regulated monopolies?
The free market works on competition, so the question is, is there enough competition among contractors for this to be a benefit? Or is it just creating an under regulated monopolies?
So instead the state should over pay all employees, because that puts more money in circulation?
There are ways in which redistributing wealth by the state can lead to more growth, but inflated government employee pay doesn't seem the right mechanism for it.
The US military does in fact rely heavily on contractors, and I'm not sure it's for the better. It builds a large military industrial complex.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
But what is happening is that lowering the wage to next to nothing, will make for a terrible service and it will mean that people have less money to spend to stimulate the economy. The less money flowing into state coffers mess less money going into state coffers and they cycle begins. America has plenty of problems due to bad public policy.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
You know, people keep comparing it to fast food, but McDonald's actually gives benefits.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I usually ask for no pickles, they nearly always get it right. I don't think I ask for anything besides that.
Again, that problem is better solved with minimal wage laws, rather than inflated public sector pay. Or some other wide ranging solution that applies to people who work in both the public and private sectors. EDIT: Low taxes on the lowest income tax bracket are another example.
Yeah, it makes no real sense to talk about how giving public servants a 'high' wage is beneficial, in a stimulatory fashion. The public servants should be creating public goods, which are beneficial to the masses and are not captured in a market economy. These public goods will give a return on investment, which means that decreasing the cost of the public goods (where possible) is still a goal, because it can create a return on investment.
Contract work is also a benefit, because it can create lines on resumes without getting people to lock into careers
Contract work is also a benefit, because it can create lines on resumes without getting people to lock into careers
I thought about this recently.
Having workers in on a contract of say three to five years gives government the flexibility to cut spending/numbers by not renewing contracts when the need arises.
It also means that there are no long term pension costs to be borne by future generations of tax payers.
It would make comparisons between government jobs and private sector jobs easier and encourage movement between the two.
It shouldn't just be used as an excuse to underpay people.
Making the contracts three to five years allow people to gain skills and to have some security.
The same argument could be applied to private sector workers equally. The days of a job for life are long gone.
[FYI the company I work for is winding down and I will be made redundant sometime next year. It had very much been a job for life type company and I had expected to spend a big part of my career here - my boss has been in the company since the seventies. I fully expect to be working as a contractor in whatever job I get next for six to twelve months]
Having workers in on a contract of say three to five years gives government the flexibility to cut spending/numbers by not renewing contracts when the need arises.
It also means that there are no long term pension costs to be borne by future generations of tax payers.
It would make comparisons between government jobs and private sector jobs easier and encourage movement between the two.
It shouldn't just be used as an excuse to underpay people.
Making the contracts three to five years allow people to gain skills and to have some security.
The same argument could be applied to private sector workers equally. The days of a job for life are long gone.
[FYI the company I work for is winding down and I will be made redundant sometime next year. It had very much been a job for life type company and I had expected to spend a big part of my career here - my boss has been in the company since the seventies. I fully expect to be working as a contractor in whatever job I get next for six to twelve months]
Similar threads
