Some San Diege Layoffs coming at San Diego Data Processing…

[jameswenn]

My company has done work for San Diego Data Processing. They’re almost like a middle man, because they outsource a lot of their work.

They could probably save some money by actually hiring people and doing it themselves.

[SD Realtor]

Once again, I think you guys are very much underestimating the COST a company incurs having employees.

I guess I am bumping my head against a wall, I would suggest you do some research on this including the cost of the medical benefit, the employer tax incurred, and (in the case of a city or state entity) the pension.

[SD Realtor]

Once again, I think you guys are very much underestimating the COST a company incurs having employees.

I guess I am bumping my head against a wall, I would suggest you do some research on this including the cost of the medical benefit, the employer tax incurred, and (in the case of a city or state entity) the pension.

[SD Realtor]

Once again, I think you guys are very much underestimating the COST a company incurs having employees.

I guess I am bumping my head against a wall, I would suggest you do some research on this including the cost of the medical benefit, the employer tax incurred, and (in the case of a city or state entity) the pension.

[SD Realtor]

Once again, I think you guys are very much underestimating the COST a company incurs having employees.

I guess I am bumping my head against a wall, I would suggest you do some research on this including the cost of the medical benefit, the employer tax incurred, and (in the case of a city or state entity) the pension.

[SD Realtor]

Once again, I think you guys are very much underestimating the COST a company incurs having employees.

I guess I am bumping my head against a wall, I would suggest you do some research on this including the cost of the medical benefit, the employer tax incurred, and (in the case of a city or state entity) the pension.

[TexasLine]

The issue for any city govt in financial distress is not Unions. It is not top-heavy administrative positions. It is not a lack of taxes/revenue. It is not a lack of “competition”.

IMHO it is a lack of quality managerial types and the lacking of managerial skills that should accompany any position of authority,…

…that are not capable of holding personnel accountable and by default not able to produce an ever increasing efficient workforce….like one should expect in the Private Sector….which MAY be indirectly relaeted to Union control….

….just a vicious circle. Better quality people require better pay. “Managed Competition” may have the opposite desired effect in the long run. Or maybe not.

[TexasLine]

The issue for any city govt in financial distress is not Unions. It is not top-heavy administrative positions. It is not a lack of taxes/revenue. It is not a lack of “competition”.

IMHO it is a lack of quality managerial types and the lacking of managerial skills that should accompany any position of authority,…

…that are not capable of holding personnel accountable and by default not able to produce an ever increasing efficient workforce….like one should expect in the Private Sector….which MAY be indirectly relaeted to Union control….

….just a vicious circle. Better quality people require better pay. “Managed Competition” may have the opposite desired effect in the long run. Or maybe not.

[TexasLine]

The issue for any city govt in financial distress is not Unions. It is not top-heavy administrative positions. It is not a lack of taxes/revenue. It is not a lack of “competition”.

IMHO it is a lack of quality managerial types and the lacking of managerial skills that should accompany any position of authority,…

…that are not capable of holding personnel accountable and by default not able to produce an ever increasing efficient workforce….like one should expect in the Private Sector….which MAY be indirectly relaeted to Union control….

….just a vicious circle. Better quality people require better pay. “Managed Competition” may have the opposite desired effect in the long run. Or maybe not.

[TexasLine]

The issue for any city govt in financial distress is not Unions. It is not top-heavy administrative positions. It is not a lack of taxes/revenue. It is not a lack of “competition”.

IMHO it is a lack of quality managerial types and the lacking of managerial skills that should accompany any position of authority,…

…that are not capable of holding personnel accountable and by default not able to produce an ever increasing efficient workforce….like one should expect in the Private Sector….which MAY be indirectly relaeted to Union control….

….just a vicious circle. Better quality people require better pay. “Managed Competition” may have the opposite desired effect in the long run. Or maybe not.

[TexasLine]

The issue for any city govt in financial distress is not Unions. It is not top-heavy administrative positions. It is not a lack of taxes/revenue. It is not a lack of “competition”.

IMHO it is a lack of quality managerial types and the lacking of managerial skills that should accompany any position of authority,…

…that are not capable of holding personnel accountable and by default not able to produce an ever increasing efficient workforce….like one should expect in the Private Sector….which MAY be indirectly relaeted to Union control….

….just a vicious circle. Better quality people require better pay. “Managed Competition” may have the opposite desired effect in the long run. Or maybe not.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Once again, I think you guys are very much underestimating the COST a company incurs having employees.

I guess I am bumping my head against a wall, I would suggest you do some research on this including the cost of the medical benefit, the employer tax incurred, and (in the case of a city or state entity) the pension.[/quote]

There are two sides to this, SDR. You are absolutely right when considering things from the employers’ perspective. I’m considering a somewhat larger perspective as it relates to workers and the quality of life of the average American.

If we consider how money moves through an economy, we have to choose whether or not we want wealth that is highly concentrated or more spread out.

If it’s highly concentrated, money moves in the form of debt, with interest being required to pay off that debt over time. This is the capitalist’s preference.

If the wealth is more spread out, money moves because people simply exchange money for goods and/or services with no debt offset. They can use their earnings and/or savings.

I personally believe a society is better served when debt is low, prices are low (an effect of lower leverage in the system), and there is a smaller wealth disparity. Mind you, this does not mean that doctors get paid what janitors get paid, and it does not mean that people aren’t paid more for better work. It simply means we need to concern ourselves (IMHO) with the allocation of money and power, so that one small group doesn’t control the wealth and well-being of a society.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Once again, I think you guys are very much underestimating the COST a company incurs having employees.

I guess I am bumping my head against a wall, I would suggest you do some research on this including the cost of the medical benefit, the employer tax incurred, and (in the case of a city or state entity) the pension.[/quote]

There are two sides to this, SDR. You are absolutely right when considering things from the employers’ perspective. I’m considering a somewhat larger perspective as it relates to workers and the quality of life of the average American.

If we consider how money moves through an economy, we have to choose whether or not we want wealth that is highly concentrated or more spread out.

If it’s highly concentrated, money moves in the form of debt, with interest being required to pay off that debt over time. This is the capitalist’s preference.

If the wealth is more spread out, money moves because people simply exchange money for goods and/or services with no debt offset. They can use their earnings and/or savings.

I personally believe a society is better served when debt is low, prices are low (an effect of lower leverage in the system), and there is a smaller wealth disparity. Mind you, this does not mean that doctors get paid what janitors get paid, and it does not mean that people aren’t paid more for better work. It simply means we need to concern ourselves (IMHO) with the allocation of money and power, so that one small group doesn’t control the wealth and well-being of a society.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Once again, I think you guys are very much underestimating the COST a company incurs having employees.

I guess I am bumping my head against a wall, I would suggest you do some research on this including the cost of the medical benefit, the employer tax incurred, and (in the case of a city or state entity) the pension.[/quote]

There are two sides to this, SDR. You are absolutely right when considering things from the employers’ perspective. I’m considering a somewhat larger perspective as it relates to workers and the quality of life of the average American.

If we consider how money moves through an economy, we have to choose whether or not we want wealth that is highly concentrated or more spread out.

If it’s highly concentrated, money moves in the form of debt, with interest being required to pay off that debt over time. This is the capitalist’s preference.

If the wealth is more spread out, money moves because people simply exchange money for goods and/or services with no debt offset. They can use their earnings and/or savings.

I personally believe a society is better served when debt is low, prices are low (an effect of lower leverage in the system), and there is a smaller wealth disparity. Mind you, this does not mean that doctors get paid what janitors get paid, and it does not mean that people aren’t paid more for better work. It simply means we need to concern ourselves (IMHO) with the allocation of money and power, so that one small group doesn’t control the wealth and well-being of a society.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Once again, I think you guys are very much underestimating the COST a company incurs having employees.

I guess I am bumping my head against a wall, I would suggest you do some research on this including the cost of the medical benefit, the employer tax incurred, and (in the case of a city or state entity) the pension.[/quote]

There are two sides to this, SDR. You are absolutely right when considering things from the employers’ perspective. I’m considering a somewhat larger perspective as it relates to workers and the quality of life of the average American.

If we consider how money moves through an economy, we have to choose whether or not we want wealth that is highly concentrated or more spread out.

If it’s highly concentrated, money moves in the form of debt, with interest being required to pay off that debt over time. This is the capitalist’s preference.

If the wealth is more spread out, money moves because people simply exchange money for goods and/or services with no debt offset. They can use their earnings and/or savings.

I personally believe a society is better served when debt is low, prices are low (an effect of lower leverage in the system), and there is a smaller wealth disparity. Mind you, this does not mean that doctors get paid what janitors get paid, and it does not mean that people aren’t paid more for better work. It simply means we need to concern ourselves (IMHO) with the allocation of money and power, so that one small group doesn’t control the wealth and well-being of a society.

[Author]

Posts