View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like how public sector work is evidently "not a real job." So everyone in Obama's cabinet currently "doesn't have a real job?" Public sector work is equivalent to being unemployed? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember watching a doc on ABC about the Obama white house. There was a lady who ran a consulting firm in DC for 18 months. She was the goto girl for "business" because she had actually ran a business.
Rhambo studied dance. And the rest have JD's. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
I like how public sector work is evidently "not a real job." So everyone in Obama's cabinet currently "doesn't have a real job?" Public sector work is equivalent to being unemployed? |
What kind of tangible output does public sector work produce?
The public sector is a net drain on the economy. A job usually entails producing some kind of gain or benefit. Most public sector jobs don't do this.
It follows that more than 90% of Obama's cabinet have no experience in jobs that add to the overall welfare of the state. Don't you agree that experience in work that adds welfare to the economy/state would be a nice bullet point on the old C.V? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thomas pars
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
remember when Bush appointed former coal executives working for the EPA, or former pharmacutical executives working for the FDA,... working
to push through "clean coal" or weaken consumer rights....i'll take the
current situation over this any day. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Fox wrote: |
I like how public sector work is evidently "not a real job." So everyone in Obama's cabinet currently "doesn't have a real job?" Public sector work is equivalent to being unemployed? |
What kind of tangible output does public sector work produce? |
When it's properly functioning, it produces a number of things outright:
1) National defense.
2) Social order.
3) Justice.
4) Education.
5) Product safety.
6) Social services.
7) Food and drug safety.
The list goes on. Plenty of things are produced by the public sector, and I'd consider them at least as tangible as many of the things produced by the private sector. If you're asking what material objects are produced by the public sector, perhaps not many, but since when are the needs of our society limited to material objects?
Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
It follows that more than 90% of Obama's cabinet have no experience in jobs that add to the overall welfare of the state. |
I don't think it follows at all. There are many public sector jobs which add to the welfare of the state. I've given some examples above.
Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Don't you agree that experience in work that adds welfare to the economy/state would be a nice bullet point on the old C.V? |
Sure I do, I simply assert that public sector jobs can and often do add welfare to the state. Counterpoint: don't you think work experience in the public sector is worth taking into consideration to get a public sector job such as being in a governmental cabinet?
Last edited by Fox on Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
I like how public sector work is evidently "not a real job." So everyone in Obama's cabinet currently "doesn't have a real job?" Public sector work is equivalent to being unemployed? |
I agree with Fox. The whole premise of this is bogus.
Sometimes the libertarian right on this board really irks me.
Rusty wrote: |
A job usually entails producing some kind of gain or benefit. Most public sector jobs don't do this. |
Bogus. Most public sector functions have some gain or benefit. The question is whether it is worth taxing the entire tax base to produce that benefit.
Rusty wrote: |
Don't you agree that experience in work that adds welfare to the economy/state would be a nice bullet point on the old C.V? |
I agree. I'd also agree that experience in the private sector is quite valuable. But that doesn't mean experience in the public sector isn't 'real.' |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The "Real" part was definitely a jibe. My Mother worked in the public sector for 30 years and would skin me alive if I went around disparaging her career choice.
I agree with at least the top three on Fox's list of govt services. They provide a direct benefit that wouldn't exist without direct govt provision. It just a shame it wipes out that good work with the utter waste that is the other 99% of govt expenditure.
Quote: |
Fox Wrote
Counterpoint: don't you think work experience in the public sector is worth taking into consideration to get a public sector job such as being in a governmental cabinet? |
Certainly. However, wouldn't you concede that some experience in the real economy would be useful when your goal seems to be to run most of it? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Certainly. However, wouldn't you concede that some experience in the real economy would be useful when your goal seems to be to run most of it? |
So long as the experience in question doesn't create a conflict of interest, I'm sure it would have value. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm taking it that the OP's ideals are the chronically indebted plantation owner Thomas Jefferson and the highly successful engineer Herbert Hoover who was a bust as president. We could also throw in US Grant just for fun. Or there is Ike. Never held a 'real' job in his life but turned out pretty well overall.
My point: There isn't much relationship between success in jobs inside/outside politics. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
The way these politicians are expanding the public sector at a time when the private sector is withering away in number and per capita income strongly suggests that they don't realize that all public jobs exist as a result of the residual wealth generated from the private sector or money borrowed from foreign lenders who will have to be paid by the private sector or America will go into default or hyperinflation.
Congress votes itself pay raises when the per capita income in the private sector is falling. They're going to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan when the number of people employed in the private sector keeps falling.
Hopefully, the California economy blowing up from all of the public workers making six figure salaries and six figure pensions will be the wakeup call. The public sector is supposed to work for the private sector, not the other way around, but the piggish public sector Americans are financially cannibalizing the very Americans their own paychecks depend on. Sometimes in nature, parasites take too much and kill the host and that's what's happening in the US economy.
Whenever I talk with business owners, they're complaining about the economy. Public sector employees think things are wonderful. Gee, I wonder why. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Reggie wrote: |
The way these politicians are expanding the public sector at a time when the private sector is withering away in number and per capita income strongly suggests that they don't realize that all public jobs exist as a result of the residual wealth generated from the private sector or money borrowed from foreign lenders who will have to be paid by the private sector or America will go into default or hyperinflation.
Congress votes itself pay raises when the per capita income in the private sector is falling. They're going to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan when the number of people employed in the private sector keeps falling.
Hopefully, the California economy blowing up from all of the public workers making six figure salaries and six figure pensions will be the wakeup call. The public sector is supposed to work for the private sector, not the other way around, but the piggish public sector Americans are financially cannibalizing the very Americans their own paychecks depend on. Sometimes in nature, parasites take too much and kill the host and that's what's happening in the US economy.
Whenever I talk with business owners, they're complaining about the economy. Public sector employees think things are wonderful. Gee, I wonder why. |
Generalized statements are not proof of anything. Examples please. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an article about Congress giving itself a pay increase: http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/congress-raise-ethics/1620 Meanwhile, the job losses in the private sector have been enormous.
February 2009: 697,000 private sector job losses http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5232V420090304
March 2009: 742,000 lost jobs in the private sector: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5303F820090401
Let's look at April. Check out this article: http://www.conservatismtoday.com/my_weblog/2009/05/good-news-only-539000-jobs-lost-in-april.html There were 611,000 private sector job losses but an increase of 72,000 government employees. In other words, a lot more public sector pigs riding in the wagon with 611,000 fewer private sector employees to pull the wagon.
We had a terrific month in October with "only" 203,000 workers in the private sector losing their jobs. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/04/adp-october-job-private-sector-losses-slip-but-still-hit-203-0/
Here's an interactive map of unemployment in the US. http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html Notice how the lights go out east of the Mississippi River, but Washington DC stands out like a lit candle in an otherwise dark room since it sucks money from the places that have gone dark.
Now, let's look at California. 6,133 retired state employees receive pensions of between $100,000 and $499,674 per year. This website lists them by name, pension amount, and employer: http://www.californiapensionreform.com/database.asp?vttable=calpers It looks like educators are the biggest culprits: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-211721-district-pensions.html
The average pay for a fireman in Los Angeles is $117,000 http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_12175241?source=rv Look at the pay for firefighters in Vallejo: http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2008/05/it-pays-to-be-firefighter-in-vallejo-ca.html Look at the pay in Union City and Fremont. The firefighters in Fremont receive an average of $137,404 in salary and over $29,000 in overtime. http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/ci_7222696
Check out these government employees in San Francisco. It looks like it's the "heroic" firefighters and cops mopping up there too. http://www.businessinsider.com/damn-california-state-employees-get-paid-a-lot-2009-5
Meanwhile, the California state budget is deep in the hole. The state and the pension fund are, for all practical purposes, broke and bankrupt. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I'm taking it that the OP's ideals are the chronically indebted plantation owner Thomas Jefferson and the highly successful engineer Herbert Hoover who was a bust as president. We could also throw in US Grant just for fun. Or there is Ike. Never held a 'real' job in his life but turned out pretty well overall.
My point: There isn't much relationship between success in jobs inside/outside politics. |
Or take George Washington and Andrew Jackson, both of whom lacked formal military backgrounds (training and experience), but seemed to do all right in the army and the presidency.
Do not make too simplistic a case, Ya-ta. The case for choosing leaders with real-world experience and understandings resonates well and thus gets a lot of play in the American public; the case against professional politicians does not. Just check out this ad, for example...
What if firefighters ran the world?
or check Congress's approval ratings. Most of them never held real jobs, either. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007 Location: On your computer screen.
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thomas pars wrote: |
remember when Bush appointed former coal executives working for the EPA, or former pharmacutical executives working for the FDA,... working
to push through "clean coal" or weaken consumer rights....i'll take the
current situation over this any day. |
Exactly. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|