4 ms·

That's meaningless without info about what those jobs are. Clueful SEC investigators, skilled engineers, top scientists aren't going to come cheap. Also, "sinc

That's meaningless without info about what those jobs are. Clueful SEC investigators, skilled engineers, top scientists aren't going to come cheap. Also, "since Obama took office" doesn't mean much, since Obama's first year in office was under Bush's last budget. Finally, if you outsource or contract out lower-wage Federal jobs, it should be expected that the remaining employees will have a higher concentration of high-wage specialists.

chailatte 16y ago
I hope your whole thing was sarcasm because: "Clueful SEC investigators" You mean those hard working folks that ended up NOT prosecuting any of the investment/banking heads that crashed the market? "top scientists" you realize that NASA just had a massive 1200 people layoff? "remaining employees will have a higher concentration of high-wage specialists" We're not talking about the average here. More federal workers made more money. It's that simple. Unless you're implying that the money they saved in outsourcing was then spent on the remaining workers, in which case, how is that better?
- jon_hendry 16y ago
  "We're not talking about the average here." No, but if you're not hiring low-paid positions, then clearly the people you're left hiring are going to be for high-pay positions. Also, the number of >$150k positions went from 1% to 4%. Which is a pretty small proportion of total Federal employment.
anamax 16y ago
> Also, "since Obama took office" doesn't mean much, since Obama's first year in office was under Bush's last budget. Actually, it wasn't; Congress didn't pass a budget during Bush's last year. It passed some continuing resolutions during the end of the Bush administration and passed a budget during Obama's first few months.
- jonhendry 16y ago
  "Bush administration and passed a budget during Obama's first few months." Who came up with the content? Was it based on the Bush administration's proposals, or the new Obama administration's proposals? The Obama administration was hardly even staffed out for months.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Who came up with the content? It was a dem budget. Congress basically ran the spending from 2006 on. Bush didn't threaten a veto, let alone do one. (The last deficit from a repub congress was $100b/year. The current deficit is over 10x as big.) Considering how little that Obama has deviated since then, it's unclear why you think that the budget passed in early 2008 isn't what he wanted.
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      Please. Bush didn't threaten vetos of profligate Republican spending either. He doubled the national debt from about $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and it didn't all happen in the two years after 2006. Really, you need to grapple with this reality. Two wars paid for off-budget, a medicare drug benefit that they made no attempt to pay for and thus went straight to the deficit, and tax cuts.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > Please. Bush didn't threaten vetos of profligate Republican spending either. I didn't intend to suggest that he did. > He doubled the national debt from about $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and it didn't all happen in the two years after 2006. You're right - it didn't. The deficit went up, to a peak of around $600B, after 9/11 and the prescription drug monstrosity, but had dropped to $100B when repubs lost congress. That six years, plus the 2 years of a Dem congress, added $5T to the debt. Obama is on schedule to add $5T in four years.... Yes "profligate Republican spending" was horrible. My point is that Dems have been worse.

chailatte 16y ago

I hope your whole thing was sarcasm because: "Clueful SEC investigators" You mean those hard working folks that ended up NOT prosecuting any of the investment/banking heads that crashed the market? "top scientists" you realize that NASA just had a massive 1200 people layoff? "remaining employees will have a higher concentration of high-wage specialists" We're not talking about the average here. More federal workers made more money. It's that simple. Unless you're implying that the money they saved in outsourcing was then spent on the remaining workers, in which case, how is that better?

jon_hendry 16y ago
"We're not talking about the average here." No, but if you're not hiring low-paid positions, then clearly the people you're left hiring are going to be for high-pay positions. Also, the number of >$150k positions went from 1% to 4%. Which is a pretty small proportion of total Federal employment.

anamax 16y ago

> Also, "since Obama took office" doesn't mean much, since Obama's first year in office was under Bush's last budget. Actually, it wasn't; Congress didn't pass a budget during Bush's last year. It passed some continuing resolutions during the end of the Bush administration and passed a budget during Obama's first few months.

jonhendry 16y ago
"Bush administration and passed a budget during Obama's first few months." Who came up with the content? Was it based on the Bush administration's proposals, or the new Obama administration's proposals? The Obama administration was hardly even staffed out for months.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Who came up with the content? It was a dem budget. Congress basically ran the spending from 2006 on. Bush didn't threaten a veto, let alone do one. (The last deficit from a repub congress was $100b/year. The current deficit is over 10x as big.) Considering how little that Obama has deviated since then, it's unclear why you think that the budget passed in early 2008 isn't what he wanted.
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    Please. Bush didn't threaten vetos of profligate Republican spending either. He doubled the national debt from about $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and it didn't all happen in the two years after 2006. Really, you need to grapple with this reality. Two wars paid for off-budget, a medicare drug benefit that they made no attempt to pay for and thus went straight to the deficit, and tax cuts.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > Please. Bush didn't threaten vetos of profligate Republican spending either. I didn't intend to suggest that he did. > He doubled the national debt from about $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and it didn't all happen in the two years after 2006. You're right - it didn't. The deficit went up, to a peak of around $600B, after 9/11 and the prescription drug monstrosity, but had dropped to $100B when repubs lost congress. That six years, plus the 2 years of a Dem congress, added $5T to the debt. Obama is on schedule to add $5T in four years.... Yes "profligate Republican spending" was horrible. My point is that Dems have been worse.