Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Coming San Diego Govt Layoffs
- This topic has 395 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 9, 2008 at 10:41 AM #313809December 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM #313350sdduuuudeParticipant
[quote=kewp].. all the anti-government weenies on piggingtons would lose their job at the taco stand anyway.[/quote]
O.o
December 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM #313705sdduuuudeParticipant[quote=kewp].. all the anti-government weenies on piggingtons would lose their job at the taco stand anyway.[/quote]
O.o
December 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM #313736sdduuuudeParticipant[quote=kewp].. all the anti-government weenies on piggingtons would lose their job at the taco stand anyway.[/quote]
O.o
December 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM #313758sdduuuudeParticipant[quote=kewp].. all the anti-government weenies on piggingtons would lose their job at the taco stand anyway.[/quote]
O.o
December 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM #313829sdduuuudeParticipant[quote=kewp].. all the anti-government weenies on piggingtons would lose their job at the taco stand anyway.[/quote]
O.o
December 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM #313424temeculaguyParticipantIn any year, most governments lose about 5% of their staff through retirement, injury, fired or they just quit. If every employee worked 33 years, none were ever hurt, quit or got fired, the yearly loss would be 3% on average. Another issue is most governmental employers have 3-5% of their positions vacant. What typically happens is that they just stop hiring and eliminate or freeze vacant positions. That gets them between a 6% and 10% reduction without handing out a single pink slip. Some of the local governments have seen this coming and have had hiring freezes in effect for months. There might be a few pink slips given out here and there, the unions and media will make a big fuss but it will look worse on paper than it really is, I don’t think the local economy will feel the impact too much.
December 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM #313780temeculaguyParticipantIn any year, most governments lose about 5% of their staff through retirement, injury, fired or they just quit. If every employee worked 33 years, none were ever hurt, quit or got fired, the yearly loss would be 3% on average. Another issue is most governmental employers have 3-5% of their positions vacant. What typically happens is that they just stop hiring and eliminate or freeze vacant positions. That gets them between a 6% and 10% reduction without handing out a single pink slip. Some of the local governments have seen this coming and have had hiring freezes in effect for months. There might be a few pink slips given out here and there, the unions and media will make a big fuss but it will look worse on paper than it really is, I don’t think the local economy will feel the impact too much.
December 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM #313811temeculaguyParticipantIn any year, most governments lose about 5% of their staff through retirement, injury, fired or they just quit. If every employee worked 33 years, none were ever hurt, quit or got fired, the yearly loss would be 3% on average. Another issue is most governmental employers have 3-5% of their positions vacant. What typically happens is that they just stop hiring and eliminate or freeze vacant positions. That gets them between a 6% and 10% reduction without handing out a single pink slip. Some of the local governments have seen this coming and have had hiring freezes in effect for months. There might be a few pink slips given out here and there, the unions and media will make a big fuss but it will look worse on paper than it really is, I don’t think the local economy will feel the impact too much.
December 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM #313832temeculaguyParticipantIn any year, most governments lose about 5% of their staff through retirement, injury, fired or they just quit. If every employee worked 33 years, none were ever hurt, quit or got fired, the yearly loss would be 3% on average. Another issue is most governmental employers have 3-5% of their positions vacant. What typically happens is that they just stop hiring and eliminate or freeze vacant positions. That gets them between a 6% and 10% reduction without handing out a single pink slip. Some of the local governments have seen this coming and have had hiring freezes in effect for months. There might be a few pink slips given out here and there, the unions and media will make a big fuss but it will look worse on paper than it really is, I don’t think the local economy will feel the impact too much.
December 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM #313903temeculaguyParticipantIn any year, most governments lose about 5% of their staff through retirement, injury, fired or they just quit. If every employee worked 33 years, none were ever hurt, quit or got fired, the yearly loss would be 3% on average. Another issue is most governmental employers have 3-5% of their positions vacant. What typically happens is that they just stop hiring and eliminate or freeze vacant positions. That gets them between a 6% and 10% reduction without handing out a single pink slip. Some of the local governments have seen this coming and have had hiring freezes in effect for months. There might be a few pink slips given out here and there, the unions and media will make a big fuss but it will look worse on paper than it really is, I don’t think the local economy will feel the impact too much.
December 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM #313419kewpParticipant[quote=lostcat92120]I’ve worked for both public and privet sectors. I honestly think that some public sector environments are much more competitive than private. [/quote]
The government put a man on the moon for less than what Goldman-Sachs has lost over the last year.
I’ve worked in both and as far as productivity goes its a wash. It’s certainly easier to get rid of poor performers in the private sector, though.
Edit: In my experience, there is much more corruption in the private sector. Probably because of the tighter control of money and stricter accounting in government.
December 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM #313775kewpParticipant[quote=lostcat92120]I’ve worked for both public and privet sectors. I honestly think that some public sector environments are much more competitive than private. [/quote]
The government put a man on the moon for less than what Goldman-Sachs has lost over the last year.
I’ve worked in both and as far as productivity goes its a wash. It’s certainly easier to get rid of poor performers in the private sector, though.
Edit: In my experience, there is much more corruption in the private sector. Probably because of the tighter control of money and stricter accounting in government.
December 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM #313806kewpParticipant[quote=lostcat92120]I’ve worked for both public and privet sectors. I honestly think that some public sector environments are much more competitive than private. [/quote]
The government put a man on the moon for less than what Goldman-Sachs has lost over the last year.
I’ve worked in both and as far as productivity goes its a wash. It’s certainly easier to get rid of poor performers in the private sector, though.
Edit: In my experience, there is much more corruption in the private sector. Probably because of the tighter control of money and stricter accounting in government.
December 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM #313827kewpParticipant[quote=lostcat92120]I’ve worked for both public and privet sectors. I honestly think that some public sector environments are much more competitive than private. [/quote]
The government put a man on the moon for less than what Goldman-Sachs has lost over the last year.
I’ve worked in both and as far as productivity goes its a wash. It’s certainly easier to get rid of poor performers in the private sector, though.
Edit: In my experience, there is much more corruption in the private sector. Probably because of the tighter control of money and stricter accounting in government.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.