Gub'Mint as Employer

[dgs49]

It is a happy fact that Government, in the course of carrying out the functions required by the various charters and constitutions, is required to employ a large number of citizens, and to purchase mountains of goods and a cornucopia of services. Government might even rightly purchase consulting and professional services on occasion, but hopefuly not too often.

But the more important question for today is, should government employ people merely for the sake of employing people? Is this either rational or necessary?

The most "wasteful" government employment right now occurs in what we euphemistically call, the "Department of Defense." We have hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors, and countless civilian hangers-on, who are "defending" us against nothing in particular, in such dangerous places as Germany, Okinawa, South Korea, Iceland, and so on. We have hundreds of military bases that employ not only uniformed personnel but also hundreds of thousands of civilians for no good reason - other than keeping them employed, of course.

Here in Pennsylvania, we have a huge and perpetual debate about whether the State ought to be in the business of selling adult beverages. And the only "real" argument in favor seems to be that it keeps a lot of people on the generous State payroll. Nobody seriously supposes that the number of people employed in liquor sales will be reduced if the system is privatized, only that the people so employed will make less money, and they won't work for the Government...as though that is a BAD thing. I'm sure all of the other states have similar debates, in perpetuity.

"We" periodically fight about federal funding to hire or retain "more" fire-fighters, police, teachers, and so on, but the question of how many we actually "need" is lost in the bushes somewhere. Every rational human can see that according to the advocates for government employees, we can never have "enough," but we also know that this is nonsense. It is possible to quantify "enough" (private businesses do it all the time), but such analyses are anathema to Government. Is there any argument whatsoever that justifies the State employing one person more than is absolutely necessary to get the given job done?

One can never forget that "Government" has no money. Every dollar that Government spends is a dollar that has to either be paid directly by a taxpayer or paid, with interest, in the future by the taxpayers' progeny. Would that money be better spent if retained by the taxpayers, so that it could be spent on frivolous things like cars, vacations, food, utilities, clothing, and things like that? I dare say.

I am not writing in this essay about government inefficiency or duplication of effort, or fraud. Those are other issues that we hopefully address as a matter course. My only question is, does it make any sense at all for Government to employ people merely for the sake of not laying them off?

My position on the issue should be obvious.

[Guinevere]

Your comments about no "needs" analyses are unsubstantiated. I can tell you that with respect to Police and Fire, there are minimum staffing requirements which are based on pretty solid public safety analyses. And I know you find this hard to believe, but Departments also do analyses which look at whether its most cost-effective to pay for a new entry level officer, or overtime for the existing officers, and how that work load impacts the safety of the officers and the citizens.

And I'm a management side lawyer saying this.

[dgs49]

Guin, my only "needs" analysis background is 5 yeara with the Feds. The results preceded the studies, which surprisingly confirmed the pre-ordained conclusions. We were ridiculously overstaffed, but the studies found the opposite.

It's wrong to extrapolate, I know, but...

In the 1960's, class sizes were typically 35-40, and we all survived. Now, anything over 30 is a crisis.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Guin, my only "needs" analysis background is 5 yeara with the Feds. The results preceded the studies, which surprisingly confirmed the pre-ordained conclusions. We were ridiculously overstaffed, but the studies found the opposite.

It's wrong to extrapolate, I know, but...

In the 1960's, class sizes were typically 35-40, and we all survived. Now, anything over 30 is a crisis.

I went to parochial school grades 1-8 and 30-40 were the class sizes. Went to public high school where clas sizes were half that and was promoted to 10th grade halfway through 9th grade. Go figure. But in defense of the teachers and schools, now-a-days schools are everything from teachers to parents to guardians. And in my opinion that is wrong. I know plenty of families need two incomes to survive, but in my (and my families) younger years, we made do while keeping a parent at home. Thus not needing a preschool (aka baby sitter). School is not meant (or was not meant) to take over the raising of the kids. Seems that has changed.

[Lord Jim]

does it make any sense at all for Government to employ people merely for the sake of not laying them off?

Dave I could be wrong, but I think pretty much everyone would agree that is not something the government should be doing...It is not good stewardship of the people's tax dollars....(notice I did not say "the government's money")

But where we all disagree of course, is on the question of exactly which government employees would fall into that category. Each of would define that based on his or her own policy priorities.

For example, you apparently don't think that we have any need to have troops stationed in Europe, and define those people as being employed just " for the sake of not laying them off". I most certainly do not look at it that way.

I might feel that there are a lot of folks at the departments of Energy and Education who are doing needless, (and in some cases destructive) jobs that are nothing but "make work", and a waste of taxpayer money. Others will feel differently.

[dgs49]

Jimmy, I think the two issues can be separated for the sake of discussion. Do you expect to see a "peace dividend" when we pull out of Afganniestan? I do not. Our armed forces will go along at about the same strength as they are now because the politicians are afraid of being perceived as persecuting soldiers and veterans.

State and local governments have countless instrumentalities that are not only grossly overstaffed, but could be done better by contractors in the private sector. And yet any proposal to privatize is met with outrage. It is government employment merely for the sake of employment.

The second stimulus funded the hiring of tens of thousands of police, firefighters and teachers - government employees all that those government agencies somehow managed to do without prior to the federal money. Then when the money dried up, we were told that the agencies could not afford to lose them. Bullshit.

As I have stated before in this space, I have had many, many employers go through dozens of real and imaginary crises, and in most of those cases headcount was reduced and the mission of the organization went on. Within 6 months, people were wondering what the departed had been doing. But this almost never happens in the public sector, and the result is employment for the sake of employment.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I heard this today (just to sauy it wasn't my original idea, but I do think it's worth merit) that any defense cut should be put in a fund to aid those wounded or otherwise compromised (PTSD) from the wars we have engaged in, dating back to Viet Nam or further if needed.

[rubato]

"... My only question is, does it make any sense at all for Government to employ people merely for the sake of not laying them off?

My position on the issue should be obvious.

It is not an honest question. No one would say that the government should pay people who do not do useful work.

But there are certainly periods, like the great depression, when public-service programs like the WPA and the CCC employed people mostly to reduce the level of unemployment and suffering. But the result has been an architectural and cultural heritage which is still valuable, in addition to saving the world for democracy.:





yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

Rubato is exactly right.

As for the premise of Dave's question, I reject it outright (based on my four years as a federal government employee, year as a state employee, and the last seven years advising state and local governments, not to mention a decade of advising private clients dealing with local, state, and federal governments). Yes, there is some dead wood in government, but there is just as much in the private sector.

The idea that the government, as a general matter of policy today, creates jobs just for the sake of creating jobs, is nonsense, and as with much of Dave's view of the world, entirely unsubstantiated.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Yes, there is some dead wood in government, but there is just as much in the private sector.

I wonder how one goes quantifying that statement? Can you?
I would guess that where job security is almost assured there is more dead wood.
I am an alcoholic and in the rooms (9 meetings a week) I have heard more than my share of people (mostly union and/or gov employees) saying they were given chance after chance after chance (not that I don't think people deserve chances) where as those in the private sector might have gotten one chance to save their career. Some did, some didn't.

But this is only my observation.
Your mileage may vary.

[Joe Guy]

At a federal level, in the department of defense and other areas, whether or not people are kept working so they won't be laid off is debatable and I know nothing about it.

In my experience, especially within the last 4 years, city, county and state government is understaffed. I'm in California, so maybe we're unique because we're so fucked up financially.

In my county and some surrounding it, some government offices are now open only 4 days per week. For years they have only hired "extra help" workers, who have no job security (and sometimes no brains). There has been no pay increase for the majority of government workers since 2008 and (filled) jobs have been eliminated. In a city like Oakland, the police department is so understaffed that people move there just to commit crimes (that's a joke, I think).

Fire departments have closed stations all over the state. If a department is fortunate enough to be able to hire a worker, thousands apply for one position. (In most cities, being a firefighter is a job that still pays well)

State workers that have been able to keep their jobs have had decreases in pay of 10 percent and more. Many of the older workers who are at retirement age are forced to continue working in order to be able to pay for their health care.

Also, and I know this isn't the subject of this thread, contrary to what you read in the press and hear from talking heads, the average government worker's pension is lucky to be 50 to 60 percent of what they made working and that's only if they've worked for the government for 30 years or more.

The government here is not keeping people employed for the sake of not laying them off. In many cases they are now having problems keeping existing staff and at the same time attracting new qualified workers when they can afford to hire.

[Crackpot]

there are alcholics and then there are fuckups the latter far out strip the former in being deadweight or even being counterproductive in the private sector.

[rubato]

there are alcholics and then there are fuckups the latter far out strip the former in being deadweight or even being counterproductive in the private sector.

Is there a study ... about this?

You might make your spelling of "alcoholics" conform to custom before Joe Guy shows up and accuses you of not being able to admit a mistake; he can be very violent on the subject. I'd hate for him to have a stroke. Or is it 'another stroke'? Well I don't know.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

You might make your spelling of "alcoholics" conform to custom before Joe Guy shows up and accuses you of not being able to admit a mistake; he can be very violent on the subject.

Crackpot is not a person who claims to know facts and then, after being proved wrong, later tries to convince everyone that he didn't mean what he wrote.

That type of behavior is your claim to infamy.

[rubato]

Ach! Too late.

Well, a vegetative state is only a tragic outcome for those who were not already in one.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Says the voice of experience.

[Lord Jim]

Well, a vegetative state is only a tragic outcome for those who were not already in one.

Well in that case, you certainly have no reason to be personally worried about a tragic outcome...

[rubato]

If reducing government employment is the path to prosperity and joy then we should be well on our way there now:




If reducing unions (the other focus of dgs' enmity) did so we would already be in the millennium and feasting on lotus blossoms:




Instead of much worse off, which is where we actually are.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal apology to all leaf vegetables, root vegetables, and edible legumes, for implying in my previous post that rube is in a "vegetative state"...

I would like to make very clear that in my personal experience, not once, not a single time, has any vegetable ever expressed an opinion to me that was stunningly stupid, mind bogglingly ignorant, or mindlessly bigoted...

Nor have I ever known a vegetable to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of scientific methodology, refuse to admit to thoroughly proven errors, or engage in gratuitous and unprovoked insults.

It was callous and insensitive of me to compare rube to a vegetable, and again I extend my heartfelt apology.

[dales]

thanks, jim