4 ms·
These people are not being fired, just being transferred to a new company. I believe they will continue to perform at the same level. And with a non-gov entity
by rtx 9y ago
These people are not being fired, just being transferred to a new company. I believe they will continue to perform at the same level. And with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation. A win-win for everyone. Only reason of opposing this would be personal vendetta against Trump.
- icebraining 9y agowith a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation How do you figure?
- mmirate 9y agoUnless there are to be multiple competing ATC firms, such an efficiency gain is impossible.
- rtx 9y agoNot referencing a whole field dedicated to this. Just sharing an anecdote. My father works for a government mining company. His job is that of a translator. Now no one use the language he was supposed to translate from. So he goes to office does some stuff and come backs home. We get govt housing and energy, medical (children till 25 and employees parent till death, two paid yearly holidays for the whole family.
- icebraining 9y agoAnd it pains you that the mine isn't privatized so that the new CEO can fire your father and buy himself an extra yacht?
- Florin_Andrei 9y ago> with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation Yes, we know this must be the ultimate truth, always, everywhere, because Ayn Rand says so. /s
- kwhitefoot 9y ago> with a non-gov entity we also get the benefit of optimal resource allocation I can only assume that you have never worked for a large corporation. Not to mention that the phrase 'optimal resource allocation' is ambiguous in the extreme; what function are you minimizing?