- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I don’t feel sorry for Fed employees losing their jobs
Posted on 2/22/25 at 11:54 am to SixthAndBarone
Posted on 2/22/25 at 11:54 am to SixthAndBarone
I feel bad for good people who lose their jobs.
I feel good for bad people losing their jobs.
I feel good for bad people losing their jobs.
0
Posted on 2/22/25 at 11:55 am to cajuntiger1010
All of the news here around KC has panic headlines about firings but then you read the story and it's almost always "probation hires". They likely were mostly temporary jobs anyway. It's nothing more than media driving panic... per usual
Posted on 2/22/25 at 11:56 am to 4cubbies
quote:
It’s interesting that when faced with the reality that some people have less stress than us, our knee jerk reaction is to want to bring everyone down to our levels instead or wondering how we can have better situations at work.
That’s literally how it’s been about everything throughout human history.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 11:58 am to cajuntiger1010
Government employees should only be paid as much as the lowest earning taxpayer (their boss)
Change my mind
Change my mind
Posted on 2/22/25 at 1:30 pm to Barbados
Good grief, people. Look at your W-2.
Your money is being stolen to subsidize these entitled freeloading moochers.
Anyone worth a shite (a Producer), and yes, the Feds have a few, are not worried at all. They may be disappointed, but they know they’ll find another job.
But the vast majority know in their own hearts that they are lazy and worthless, in it for the grift off the backs of true working Americans…and are terrified in their beliefs in themselves.
These layoffs are an act of mercy…for the good people. Now, they can go get real jobs and find personal dignity that does not exist as a Fed Gov employee.
People get laid off, get fired, switch jobs, etc, every damn day in the private sector. You see Feds moaning and wailing when a private plant shuts down and hundreds/thousands lose their jobs for no fault of their own? Nope. Not ever.
Slash the number of Fed employees….and while you’re at it….wipe out all public sector unions. All of them.
Your money is being stolen to subsidize these entitled freeloading moochers.
Anyone worth a shite (a Producer), and yes, the Feds have a few, are not worried at all. They may be disappointed, but they know they’ll find another job.
But the vast majority know in their own hearts that they are lazy and worthless, in it for the grift off the backs of true working Americans…and are terrified in their beliefs in themselves.
These layoffs are an act of mercy…for the good people. Now, they can go get real jobs and find personal dignity that does not exist as a Fed Gov employee.
People get laid off, get fired, switch jobs, etc, every damn day in the private sector. You see Feds moaning and wailing when a private plant shuts down and hundreds/thousands lose their jobs for no fault of their own? Nope. Not ever.
Slash the number of Fed employees….and while you’re at it….wipe out all public sector unions. All of them.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 1:38 pm to cajuntiger1010
The problem with the federal government is that there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people getting rich doing nothing.
Many of those are regular job people who are both lucky and lazy.
Time to go.
No one “cares” when Forever 21 or Blockbuster Video goes bankrupt. Why care now?
Many of those are regular job people who are both lucky and lazy.
Time to go.
No one “cares” when Forever 21 or Blockbuster Video goes bankrupt. Why care now?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:17 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
It’s interesting that when faced with the reality that some people have less stress than us, our knee jerk reaction is to want to bring everyone down to our levels instead or wondering how we can have better situations at work.
The glee this board has is disgusting.
My MIL started working for the department of the navy 15 years ago knowing that it would never make her rich, but it would be a pretty secure career.
Now she's got 2 or 3 people checking in randomly to see if they can fire her for some bullshite.
How many people can you put on UI before it hurts the economy?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:18 pm to cajuntiger1010
There wasnt a lot of sympathy for pipeline workers, coal miners, etc.. from Federal workers when they lost jobs.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:23 pm to cajuntiger1010
What about those federal employees who don’t collect a dime of tax dollars and write and receive grants from industry, NGOs, etc.? ERDC employees cover 100% of their salaries so why should they be penalized for those dependent on others?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:34 pm to wadewilson
quote:
How many people can you put on UI before it hurts the economy?
This is probably the single worst argument I see from those opposing cuts to the federal workforce. For a few reasons
1) the federal govt is not a jobs program. It was *never* designed to employ as many people as possible to prop up job numbers. The job of the federal government is to execute the laws of the nation.
2) you are only looking at one side of the ledger. You point out that the federal workers are now on UI, but you don’t point out that the federal govt now has money in its coffers that was once paid out in salary. That money doesn’t disappear into the air. It is either used to reduce debt loads or used to stimulate demand in another area of the economy. Either way, the economy isn’t on net harmed when a federal employee loses a job.
3) basic economic logic tells us that if a given task in the federal govt turns out to be able to be done by one worker instead of 2 workers, then that 2nd worker was being employed in an unproductive role. His or her labor, now being freed up, can now flow to a productive job in the private sector.
4) if your logic is correct that mass firings is going to hurt the economy, then the opposite is also true, that mass hiring within the federal govt will be an economic boom. Do you support mass hiring?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 3:34 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
That money doesn’t disappear into the air.
It's not just payroll.
She spends money. She loses her job, she doesn't spend money. Our local businesses and government lose out for fed to win.
quote:
3) basic economic logic tells us that if a given task in the federal govt turns out to be able to be done by one worker instead of 2 workers, then that 2nd worker was being employed in an unproductive role. His or her labor, now being freed up, can now flow to a productive job in the private sector.
That's a lot of assumptions.
Just because 2 jobs CAN be done by one person doesn't mean it's healthy physically or mentally. If that one person goes from working 40 hours a week to 60+, that's a bad business model. There's also zero chance that 1 employee is being paid well enough for all the extra work they now have.
Also, there's no guarantee of a private sector job for anyone.
quote:
4) if your logic is correct that mass firings is going to hurt the economy, then the opposite is also true, that mass hiring within the federal govt will be an economic boom. Do you support mass hiring?
This is incredibly simplistic and disingenuous.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 3:39 pm to cajuntiger1010
quote:
B. Everyone else in the private sector worries about getting fired all the time. It’s nothing new to us. My arse hole clinches every year during our budget review
Congratulations on your weird badge of armor.
Losing a job is never a time to cheer.
I am glad to see the debt being reduced but I hate it for my friends who have lost their job.
I'm self employed.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 3:53 pm to wadewilson
quote:
It's not just payroll.
She spends money. She loses her job, she doesn't spend money. Our local businesses and government lose out for fed to win.
You are again committing the broken window fallacy, also called the “seen and unseen” fallacy.
LINK
You are assuming the story ends with your life losing her job/spending, without acknowledging that there is another side to the ledger.
This same debate took place in the 90s, when Keynesian economists warned clinton that the 16% cut in the federal workforce was going to “devastate” the economy. It never happened. In fact, we had prosperity and balanced budgets, and most importantly, the freed up labor that was once in fed govt went on to play a huge role in the dot com boom in the late 90s.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 3:56 pm to wadewilson
quote:A $37T debt speaks to relativity.
How many people can you put on UI before it hurts the economy?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:29 pm to navy
quote:
Your money is being stolen to subsidize these entitled freeloading moochers.
This applies to all you a-holes who have the government pay for your retirement. The reason the debt is so high is because the entire American population are entitled freeloading moochers.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:36 pm to louisianamotocross
quote:
That doesn’t mean we don’t need to shrink government.
As I've said before. The size of employees are the same as 1960. We are not getting to the heart of the issue. It's the spending and the people on top that are the drivers of this.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:47 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
The size of employees are the same as 1960.
How many were there in fedgov in 1960?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 5:20 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
This same debate took place in the 90s, when Keynesian economists warned clinton that the 16% cut in the federal workforce was going to “devastate” the economy. It never happened. In fact, we had prosperity and balanced budgets, and most importantly, the freed up labor that was once in fed govt went on to play a huge role in the dot com boom in the late 90s.
I wouldn't make the argument that the economy will be "devastated".
I do think some specific areas will be hurt badly, and some families will suffer greatly.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 5:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
A $37T debt speaks to relativity.
So not counting postal and military employees, there are about 2.5 million federal employees.
Let's pretend those employees make an average salary of $100k, which is definitely more than my MIL makes.
Do the math on that and it's $250b a year, or less than 1 percent of the national debt.
So why not start with something that'll actually make a dent?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 5:44 pm to wadewilson
quote:
Let's pretend those employees make an average salary of $100k, which is definitely more than my MIL makes.
It's not just what employees of fedgov make, which by the way is more than $100K on avg when benefits are included. It's the cost of what they do.
quote:
$250b a year, or less than 1 percent of the national debt.
I don't think this is the right measure.
First we've got to stop deficit spending. What's our deficit now - $1.5T? That might be the better number to use to gauge how important specific cost savings are.
quote:
So why not start with something that'll actually make a dent?
Like what?
This post was edited on 2/22/25 at 5:46 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News