The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: What is the "End Game" ....Debt Clock is ticking.....

  1. #21
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    797

    Default

    Your on to something, but even just requiring government workers to hit the a retirement age of say 65 before they can collect their retirement or to offer reduced benefits to those who would like to collect them early could be quite substantial. Of course that is the draw to government work to work for reduced salaries now, for good benefits later. Might require an increase in wages for current workers.

    A good honest look at all the services we privatize could save billions of dollars too. We do not necessarily save money doing that every time.
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  2. #22
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    Your on to something, but even just requiring government workers to hit the a retirement age of say 65 before they can collect their retirement or to offer reduced benefits to those who would like to collect them early could be quite substantial. Of course that is the draw to government work to work for reduced salaries now, for good benefits later. Might require an increase in wages for current workers.

    A good honest look at all the services we privatize could save billions of dollars too. We do not necessarily save money doing that every time.
    The early retirement proposal would not have to be permanent. It would only affect workers until the #s are reduced to the levels desired. It would not affect workers who did not wish to retire early. It would simply be a temporary measure to accelerate attrition of total # of workers. It would be voluntary for the workers to accept the early retirement.

    I believe that this has proven effective in the private sector. The early-retired workers do not collect unemployment. They can get another job if they so desire, but already have their retirement benefit to rely on. I think this also has to be coupled with rigorous attention to NOT hiring more govt workers when existing workers can be shifted to the positions with current vacancies. With the millions employed by the Fed govt, it is hard to imagine that there is no one currently employed that could not take some other position that is vacant (even if some training is required).

    Our largest problem seems to be that the govt has grown so large that nobody seems to know what employees are actually doing, much less know which ones have the skills to transfer to another job. Heck, in the case of that fellow at GSA, his own supervisors didn't seem to know what he was supposed to be doing! They became suspicious, but I think it took them about 2 years (more?) to figure out something was fishy.

    There could be some additional costs at first. However, if an employee takes an early retirement in January, with even full year of salary early retirement "bonus", the cost is just equal to what the coming year's expenditure would have been. to minimize retirement cost, there could be a minimum delay of 6 mos for retirement benefits to begin. The union would probably raise heck over such a change, but there might be a loophole somewhere to cover that.

    If done gradually such an accelerated attrition plan could benefit both govt and employees who want to participate.The # of early retirement offers made in a year could be limited by the total $ amount of compensation for the early retirements.

    Marvin, I understand what you're saying about the private sector layoffs. It could be different with govt layoffs. When I read somewhere how many govt employees there are just in the Fed govt, I was stunned. There are millions more in State govts (which could also use trimming!). Henlee, could be close to right about the impact on the unemployment roles unless the whole process of reduction was not more gradual. Attrition and early retirement attrition would be a first step. As less tax $ was needed by govt; thus left in the private sector, there would be more opportunity for that $ to create jobs in the private sector.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    The early retirement proposal would not have to be permanent. It would only affect workers until the #s are reduced to the levels desired. It would not affect workers who did not wish to retire early. It would simply be a temporary measure to accelerate attrition of total # of workers. It would be voluntary for the workers to accept the early retirement. .
    I personally have not seen good information to support that there are to many workers. I have seen a lot of opinion pieces that don't like what government agencies are doing and wanting them shut down, but not that there was more than enough to do the job. In fact I often see reports that there are not enough people to the do the job right and I am referring to the FDA, SEC and the VA. So we are not in agreement that to many people are the problem.

    Buying out their retirements also at best would only soften the problem, because they would still be pulling pensions. Corporations have investments to pay for these. So when they do it the people are "off the books" The government however pays the pensions. So you are trading 100% pay for whatever they are supposed to get which varies from 50 to 75% and you are no longer getting production out of them. You are also going to entice your most experienced and best trained workers that way. You are also increasing the amount of time that they will be drawing pensions also so the benefit is marginal. Not to mention medical benefits.

    A worker can collect their pension after 25 years of service. If someone started right after college at age 23, they could then retire at 48 with a full pension. If the average person lives to age 75, that is 27 years of benefits. If we changed the rule to that they can collect their pensions at age 65 (which the government has already determined to be the age of retirement) then we are saved 17 years of pension costs, without breaking the promise to our worker, but rather keeping the benefit reasonable.



    .[/QUOTE] Our largest problem seems to be that the govt has grown so large that nobody seems to know what employees are actually doing, much less know which ones have the skills to transfer to another job. Heck, in the case of that fellow at GSA, his own supervisors didn't seem to know what he was supposed to be doing! They became suspicious, but I think it took them about 2 years (more?) to figure out something was fishy..[/QUOTE]

    I haven't seen a lot to suggest that this is an epidemic problem and certainly nothing to suggest that it is any worse than the private sector. The case to you point to, the guy committed a fraud, his supervisors believed they were helping the war effort. You could hardly blame them, when he abused his position of trust. I am including a story about a guy who outsourced his own job to China. It is pretty amusing. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...hina-surfs-web
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    SO what, they suck from the federal taxpayer and make our lives worse! Get rid of them At least half work for useless depts like the dept of ED Keep defense get rid of the rest!
    what would that solve by getting rid of the department of education? Are you against education of our next generation because you don't have kids, or are you just against education altogether?

  5. #25
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shinyhead View Post
    what would that solve by getting rid of the department of education? Are you against education of our next generation because you don't have kids, or are you just against education altogether?
    Neither. Education is much better handled on the local and state level not the feds. The more the feds get inlolved the worse it gets. The dept of Ed was a Carter idea.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    Neither. Education is much better handled on the local and state level not the feds. The more the feds get inlolved the worse it gets. The dept of Ed was a Carter idea.
    Do you mean private schools at the state level?

  7. #27
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,528

    Default

    shiny....state charter schools....that are like all charter schools, no-union!

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    Neither. Education is much better handled on the local and state level not the feds. The more the feds get inlolved the worse it gets. The dept of Ed was a Carter idea.
    Strike me with a bolt of lightning, I have now agreed with luvvy twice

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    Neither. Education is much better handled on the local and state level not the feds. The more the feds get inlolved the worse it gets. The dept of Ed was a Carter idea.
    Bingo ! Good post. .................................................. .....
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

  10. #30
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shinyhead View Post
    Do you mean private schools at the state level?
    NO, what I mean is that local and state officials know what the needs are in their area. What is needed for schools in an upper middle class town in CT is vastly different from the inner city of Chicago or NYC.
    I will take that comment one step further.
    Cross the line between New Fairfield CT and Danbury CT and you deal with apples and oranges. Danbury is a kiss the illegals butt area and then you gotta deal with crap You gotta pay for illegals spawn! Now schools are forced to waste money on non English speaking brats. That is the tip of the iceberg. You move 1mile and you from 2 parent households to Daddy in jail and mamma stealing from taxpayers!
    You go from living where public school is great to get my kid the heck away from this. This is nothing new! It was an issue in the early 70's! I came within 3 years of being sent to Catholic high school and not being Catholic. Thank God we got a public high school! Danbury had race riots at the high school that coud not be controled!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •