dc’s market financed by you

[an]

[quote=CA renter]No, I didn’t contradict myself. It is cheaper to use government employees, but with the growth of certain industries being fed by tax dollars, that’s not always possible, nor desirable. The government is (IMHO) paying for things that we have no business paying for, but the lobbyists are extremely powerful, and they (the people who hire them) control who we get to vote for, how much we spend, and where we spend it. This is why we’ve been seeing the huge moves toward privatization, even though it’s more expensive and more vulnerable to abuse.[/quote]Bigger government anything is vulnerable for abuse. So, you might want to attack the symptoms but to me, it seems like you’re failing to see the root cause, which is big government and too much $ sloshing around in DC. If we cut spending, and force agencies to live w/ less, they might say, hey, it’s cheaper for us to do it ourselves instead of hiring contractor. Or, they can say, hey, we don’t need this process here, or we can stream line that process there. Etc. That’s what private sector has to do all the time.

[quote=CA renter]Some good resources to get a better understanding of the privatization movement:

http://dianeravitch.net/category/privatization/

This is more biased, but argues some of the anti-privatization points fairly well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5531195&mesg_id=5531195

And definitely read this:

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/predatory-privatization-exploiting-financial-hardship-enriching-1-percent-undermining-d

It’s very important that people understand what’s going on WRT privatization and our government. Most important is that if we lose this battle, it will be almost impossible to turn back.[/quote]
Sorry but as soon as I read an article start by calling the opposition “right wing” anything loses its credibility for me. Again, as I just mentioned in my previous post, privatization is cheaper IF you get the government completely out of it. It’s more expensive if it’s government money paying private contractors. Of course it’s more expensive because there’s more over heads.

[CA renter]

No, the privatization of government goods and services is NOT cheaper, period. You do not understand how government works, nor how powerful these various interests are…they run the government, they do not merely “influence” it.

“Big government,” in itself, is not the problem (depends very much on the structure and accountability of those in power), but too much money in politics IS a problem.

BTW, “right wing” is a term used to describe conservative politics. Its use dates back to around the French Revolution when the conservatives sat on the right side of the chamber. It is not name-calling, but a historical term used to describe a certain set of sociopolitical beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

You need to read those links to get an understanding of what the privatization movement is about and what they are trying to do. Yes, these articles are biased, as are the stories you’re going to get from the MSM that is almost entirely controlled by those who are backing the privatization movement.

The links come from those who are opposed to privatization, but it doesn’t mean that their arguments aren’t valid. Where do you think you will get an “unbiased” understanding of the privatization movement?

[CA renter]

This about the allocation of resources and the structure and distribution of power. It is much, much bigger than big government vs. small government, or private sector vs. public sector. It’s a sociopolitical force that affects far more than just “American” governance, and it will affect far more than whether or not taxpayers are “saving money” or if union workers get their pensions, etc. We are being led down a path that has been well-traveled, and those who study history already know how this will end if we allow it to continue. I urge everyone to do more research and please try to see the bigger picture.

[Bubblesitter]

The “Beltway Bandits” aka contractors are gonna be in for a much tougher ride in next few years, along with Fed government employees.

As budgets retrench, or get slashed many of the contractors now are making desperate attempts to secure government positions which are relatively safer. The revolving door is alive and well. The problem is that even those “safe” positions are now at increased risk of RIFs ( reduction in force). With over 1/2 million people with some security clearances in greater DC area, this has traditionally provided some level of job security, however this time it may be different.

They have been on feeding frenzy among DC contractors for the last 11 years.

Well, the government teet is drying up. The regional economy has to be impacted.

There was a similar thing in the late 80s early 90s as there was cold war draw down. I witnessed this first hand in DC.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]With regards to your $200k and $400/hr example, you and I both know that’s not the norm and we don’t know what is meant by computer engineer. IIRC, you brought this up before and it was some special system architect that is fetching that kind of pay, no? Your average “software/computer engineer” will not fetch anywhere near $400/hr. Using that example is as relevant as me using fresh grad fetching $40/hr. I have to use what the term is really used for in my industry, which means your peon developer.[/quote]

The $200K and $400/hr is an outlier. But in the space I worked, the $150K/$210 per hour is not. It’s the norm. And the $210/hr will cost well in excess of $270K a year to the customer. I don’t know what space you work in, but it’s not the only one out there.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]The $200K and $400/hr is an outlier. But in the space I worked, the $150K/$210 per hour is not. It’s the norm. And the $210/hr will cost well in excess of $270K a year to the customer. I don’t know what space you work in, but it’s not the only one out there.[/quote]
$150k is not out of the norm but $210/hr is. $210/hr is over $400k/year. How can $150k/yr be average yet $210/yr is also average. Unless you’re talking about very specialize skills that doesn’t need full time support.
I know my space is not the only space out there. But I know enough software engineers across various industries to know what’s the average going rate. My space is one of the highest paying space for a software engineer and have the highest demand.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]The $200K and $400/hr is an outlier. But in the space I worked, the $150K/$210 per hour is not. It’s the norm. And the $210/hr will cost well in excess of $270K a year to the customer. I don’t know what space you work in, but it’s not the only one out there.[/quote]
$150k is not out of the norm but $210/hr is. $210/hr is over $400k/year. How can $150k/yr be average yet $210/yr is also average. Unless you’re talking about very specialize skills that doesn’t need full time support.
I know my space is not the only space out there. But I know enough software engineers across various industries to know what’s the average going rate. My space is one of the highest paying space for a software engineer and have the highest demand.[/quote]

Because those numbers are talking about two different things. One is what the employee is paid, and the other is what the employer charges for the employee time. In professional services industries, employees never get paid what their employers charge for their services. It ranges anywhere from 2x your hourly pay to 5x your hourly pay. In IT consulting, that number is typically 2.5x. So if you’re paid $50 an hour, they charge $125/hr for your time. So to hire you out for a full year, it would cost the customer about $250K for the year. But that rarely happens. In contract IT consulting, 75% utilization is typical. (Unlike law or accounting, where >100% utilization isn’t uncommon, particularly for younger employees.)

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Because those numbers are talking about two different things. One is what the employee is paid, and the other is what the employer charges for the employee time. In professional services industries, employees never get paid what their employers charge for their services. It ranges anywhere from 2x your hourly pay to 5x your hourly pay. In IT consulting, that number is typically 2.5x. So if you’re paid $50 an hour, they charge $125/hr for your time. So to hire you out for a full year, it would cost the customer about $250K for the year. But that rarely happens. In contract IT consulting, 75% utilization is typical. (Unlike law or accounting, where >100% utilization isn’t uncommon, particularly for younger employees.)[/quote]
I thought you’re referring to individual contractor and not contracting firm. For contracting firm, I agree, it’s the same for my industry. I used to work for a contracting firm and we get paid around $45-50/hr and they’re charging the client $135/hr.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]
I thought you’re referring to individual contractor and not contracting firm. For contracting firm, I agree, it’s the same for my industry. I used to work for a contracting firm and we get paid around $45-50/hr and they’re charging the client $135/hr.[/quote]

There you go. $50 per hour/$135 per hour = 2.7. The person doing the work that the government paid $270K might have been earning $100K a year.

[Bubblesitter]

San Diego housing market will also be dinged when the government teet starts running dry. Government employees and government contractors make up decent sized segment of the SD labor market. Not sure of the local vs Fed breakdown, but DoD has to be at increased risk of layoffs given upcoming fiscal debt ceiling fight,

It looks like house Republicans are gonna bring it to the brink to force major spending cuts, with default and government shut down risk higher.

Republicans are focused on entitlement cuts, but defense cuts may come into larger play as democrats seek to preserve some of social programs.

IMHO both will get cut.

I talked with good amigo who is civilian DoD employee in DC area, they are all getting nervous and the DoD contractors are getting in near panic mode, they will be the first to go,

A good career strategy by those in the government, is a revolving door strategy. During the fat times you work as contractor with elevated salary. There is implicit understanding that with that higher salary there is reduced job security. As times get bad those contractors with make a rush to govt positions to wait out the leaner times and continue to suckle for a few years.

He was telling me that many of them do actually joke about the breast feeding analogy. I remember hearing similar stuff when I was working in DC area a while back.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]This isn’t privatization, this is government being lazy and and outsource the jobs to government contractors.[/quote]

With all due respect AN, this is exactly what privatization is. Instead of hiring people to do work, it’s outsourcing those jobs to private companies. And the $135K v $270K is almost exactly what you quoted the other day. 80 to 100% more for non-employee contractors.[/quote]

No it’s not. When people are making 80-100% more as a contractor, they are doing it as an independent, selling directly into the position.

The exact same thing occurs in private industry and frankly, it’s part of a gravy boat game. It’s a combination of factors. Lazy management, tight skill markets or good old nepotism.

That said, for privatization to work, the government would need to set up competition. No competition and you’re right back to Ma Bell in the 1970s. Or dealing with a local cable company today.

[an]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]This isn’t privatization, this is government being lazy and and outsource the jobs to government contractors.[/quote]

With all due respect AN, this is exactly what privatization is. Instead of hiring people to do work, it’s outsourcing those jobs to private companies. And the $135K v $270K is almost exactly what you quoted the other day. 80 to 100% more for non-employee contractors.[/quote]

No it’s not. When people are making 80-100% more as a contractor, they are doing it as an independent, selling directly into the position.

The exact same thing occurs in private industry and frankly, it’s part of a gravy boat game. It’s a combination of factors. Lazy management, tight skill markets or good old nepotism.

That said, for privatization to work, the government would need to set up competition. No competition and you’re right back to Ma Bell in the 1970s. Or dealing with a local cable company today.[/quote]
totally agree. Just look at spacex for prime example.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]This isn’t privatization, this is government being lazy and and outsource the jobs to government contractors.[/quote]

With all due respect AN, this is exactly what privatization is. Instead of hiring people to do work, it’s outsourcing those jobs to private companies. And the $135K v $270K is almost exactly what you quoted the other day. 80 to 100% more for non-employee contractors.[/quote]

No it’s not. When people are making 80-100% more as a contractor, they are doing it as an independent, selling directly into the position.

The exact same thing occurs in private industry and frankly, it’s part of a gravy boat game. It’s a combination of factors. Lazy management, tight skill markets or good old nepotism.

That said, for privatization to work, the government would need to set up competition. No competition and you’re right back to Ma Bell in the 1970s. Or dealing with a local cable company today.[/quote]

Do you have any idea the hoops that you have to jump through to be an approved federal contractor? (I’ve been through that process, becoming an approved contractor for Apple is the only more tedious process I’ve ever seen.) I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s extraordinary when an federal employee leaves their position and immediately become direct contractor to the federal government without an intermediary. Beyond the hoops required to become an approved federal contractor, the federal government contracts out specific jobs/duties, not positions. They contract with XYZ Company to provide technical support for abc functions. Not 40 hours a week that meets a specific job description.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Do you have any idea the hoops that you have to jump through to be an approved federal contractor? (I’ve been through that process, becoming an approved contractor for Apple is the only more tedious process I’ve ever seen.) I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s extraordinary when an federal employee leaves their position and immediately become direct contractor to the federal government without an intermediary. Beyond the hoops required to become an approved federal contractor, the federal government contracts out specific jobs/duties, not positions. They contract with XYZ Company to provide technical support for abc functions. Not 40 hours a week that meets a specific job description.[/quote]There is your problem right there. If it’s so top secret, why even outsource it in the first place. In the private sector, work you’re doing that’s important to your IP do not get outsourced. Only stuff that is not important to your core IP. If the stuff that the government is outsourcing is not important to its core secrecy, then why make all the hoops. If it is important, why outsource? The only reason I see why they have all the hoops is that big gov contracting companies can keep the monopoly on the position.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]Do you have any idea the hoops that you have to jump through to be an approved federal contractor? (I’ve been through that process, becoming an approved contractor for Apple is the only more tedious process I’ve ever seen.) I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s extraordinary when an federal employee leaves their position and immediately become direct contractor to the federal government without an intermediary. Beyond the hoops required to become an approved federal contractor, the federal government contracts out specific jobs/duties, not positions. They contract with XYZ Company to provide technical support for abc functions. Not 40 hours a week that meets a specific job description.[/quote]There is your problem right there. If it’s so top secret, why even outsource it in the first place. In the private sector, work you’re doing that’s important to your IP do not get outsourced. Only stuff that is not important to your core IP. If the stuff that the government is outsourcing is not important to its core secrecy, then why make all the hoops. If it is important, why outsource? The only reason I see why they have all the hoops is that big gov contracting companies can keep the monopoly on the position.[/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by “top secret”. I don’t think there are any secrets involved, or for that matter, IP may not even be a big part of the issue. As I said, the federal government is not alone in this process. Most large enterprise organizatins have a contractor/vendor approval process. There is nothing secret about it. It is always a pain in the ass. The bigger the company, the bigger the pain.

[Author]

Posts