Government job cuts make NO economic sense

[bleeding heart]

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. Private management drives efficiencies, generally.

No. Private management drives efficiencies for profit, generally.

If it's profitable to be less efficient, then that is the "efficient" choice, and will be automatically adhered to.

[CPCFTW]

No. Private management drives efficiencies for profit, generally.

If it's profitable to be less efficient, then that is the "efficient" choice, and will be automatically adhered to.

Profitability is efficiency.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.. Can you provide an example of inefficiency in the name of profit?

[bleeding heart]

Yes, but like I said, it's politics. There are optics to concern yourself with, particularly the running of a minority government during a recession. Cutting public sector jobs would have looked bad at that time, and would have probably helped the opposition, regardless of its merits.

Granted.

What's your point though? It's being done now and the opposition is protesting. If you're just trying to score points against the current government, then sure, you have scored a point. If you want to argue the merits of proposed and ongoing cuts, however, this has little relevance.

But we don't know how or how good it's being done now; you've conceded that we cannot know (which is actually a gloomier forecast than I hold to, interestingly); so we're to take massive cuts as an article of faith?

And just to clarify, since I know I haven't been clear: I am not inherently and automatically opposed to public service cuts.

I simply feel that there's a wanton sense of incaution around pretty large-scale changes....changes which, oh-so-coincidentally, match long-cherished conservative notions about "shrinking the government" (and thereby increasing the power of unelected and unrepresentative private entities...and that really is a zero sum game, because we're talking about who holds power and influence.

I'm just being more...conservative...on this matter than are the no-holds-barred Conservative supporters.

Better than public-sector unions?? Absolutely! A unionized public-sector monopoly, particularly in an essential service, is an abomination. Healthcare, teaching, waste-collection, postal service etc are all things that we pretty much cannot do without. When those workers go on strike, they basically hold taxpayers hostage for higher wages and benefits which those taxpayers themselves have no chance of getting.

Yes, but (very real) union issues aside, they are a bulwark. Private entities are legally-bound not to give a damn about what most poeple want...only shareholders. In fact, that's too generous, as we see the "ethical shareholders" of Walmart literally laughed out of the board meeting for voicing their concerns about treatment of labour.

So a private entity owes its allegiance to its owners or (by law) to its shareholders (the major ones, the rich ones)...period.

They can and sometimes do bend to the public will, but not generally. Consumerism aside, only government has the muscle to force them into right behaviours. (I'm speaking, of course, of those who misbehave; not all do, and not all to the same degrees.)

The trouble with the shrink government argument is that it isn't--ever--only about costs, but also about an ideological affinity with powerful men. Usually it is sincere; based on certain aspects of economic theory; but the libertarianism of it is blind to the fact that someone will rule...less government does mean more private rule, in the absence of grassroots democratic institutions, which are anemic at best. And the chief difference between government rule and privatized rule is that the latter are not bound by niceties such as elections or representatives.

Hell, they are already far more powerful than, oh, say, Public Sector Unions.

As for the 'greedy corporations' that screw everyone over, that is, perhaps, something the government could take more of a roll in. Higher minimum wages, import tarrifs, more aggressive anti-combine laws etc can all do more to make the labour markets more competitive.

And this answers my complaint nicely, which I appreciate--I see you've anticipated me--but how's that going to work? We're going to increase the political pwoer of the private sector--already far too large--and then....the Harper Conservatives are going to call for stricter regulations on their behaviour?

All voluntary, of course, a bizarre late addendum to free market theory.

Edited June 21, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

This is just democracy at work. Canadians elected an anti-labor government, and they should be suprised when their cuts to the civil service.

[CPCFTW]

This is just democracy at work. Canadians elected an anti-labor government, and they should be suprised when their cuts to the civil service.

Exactly. However, Canadians may be surprised that for once their elected government is actually doing what they said they'd do!

[punked]

Just because the Conservatives want to shrink government Should not mean they choose to do it when it is going to hurt the country and its people. This is not the time to be doing this and it is going to lead to their own downfall.

[CPCFTW]

Just because the Conservatives want to shrink government Should not mean they choose to do it when it is going to hurt the country and its people. This is not the time to be doing this and it is going to lead to their own downfall.

Nonsense. It is the perfect time to be cutting. No time like the present.

Private sector is shrinking due to the recession.. Why put the burden of supporting a bloated public sector on a shrinking private sector? To create false demand and drive prices up for the true consumers?

Public paper pushing jobs aren't the answer. That money should be spent on creating private sector jobs that actually benefit the economy.

[Fletch 27]

Mkaes perfect financial sense.. Why support or continue to support the bloated public sector when the pritave sector and employees are facing tighter and tigher restrictions? Cut the fat!

Just because the Conservatives want to shrink government Should not mean they choose to do it when it is going to hurt the country and its people. This is not the time to be doing this and it is going to lead to their own downfall.

[bleeding heart]

To create false demand and drive prices up for the true consumers?

By "true consumers," I assume you mean "consumers."

Public paper pushing jobs aren't the answer. That money should be spent on creating private sector jobs that actually benefit the economy.

Ah...spend our tax money on the private sector!

So much for "free markets."

[punked]

Nonsense. It is the perfect time to be cutting. No time like the present.

Private sector is shrinking due to the recession.. Why put the burden of supporting a bloated public sector on a shrinking private sector? To create false demand and drive prices up for the true consumers?

Public paper pushing jobs aren't the answer. That money should be spent on creating private sector jobs that actually benefit the economy.

Yah your quote could be a direct quote from the great depression. The reason it become great was blind people like your self. The time to cut is the boom not the bust. That is the reason why we haven't seen depressions in the last 80 years.

[punked]

Mkaes perfect financial sense.. Why support or continue to support the bloated public sector when the pritave sector and employees are facing tighter and tigher restrictions? Cut the fat!

It isn't continued support. Cuts will happen the time to cut however is not at the bottom of the bust because it leads to less growth in the long run. It is completely wrong we tried it your way in the depression and it lead to 8 years of hurt for no reason. I promise you that case will be made when the economy is in the tank thanks to your Conservatives. The only thing that kept us above water in 2009 was the opposition.

Take off the blinder and figure out that we can have this argument about cuts or no cuts during the boom that will come if and only if our economy lasts these idealogical fight based on fairy tales instead of history.

Edited June 21, 2012 by punked

[CPCFTW]

Ah...spend our tax money on the private sector!

So much for "free markets."

By "spend", I mean cutting taxes or tax breaks for job creation. I've put forward many suggestions to this effect in other threads.

[August1991]

So let me get this straight. The Harper government implemented a economic stimulus plan equaling $47 billion (from 2009-2010, was there even more since then?). They obviously wanted to grow economic activity & stem unemployment etc. with this spending.

Fast-forward to 2012, where in recent months the Harper gov had ordered all government departments to find ways to cut a certain percentage of their budgets (originally between 5-10%) in order to decrease overall government spending (austerity, in short). Seems fiscally prudent at first glace.

....

This is clearly an anti-stimulus policy by the government, and I don't see how it helps our economy, but rather worsens it; increases unemployment, decreases consumer spending, and puts more strain on our welfare system.

A federal stimulus package does not require hiring thousands of permanent federal civil servants and the federal government getting involved in areas that the constitution does not explicitly make a federal jurisdiction.

If you have an infection, your doctor will typically prescribe an antibiotic for 10 days. The doctor will not prescribe the pills for the rest of your life.

----

"Shovel ready projects" is the modern term for a stimulus package. Such projects should not mean more bureaucrats, more entitlements, bigger government.

By "spend", I mean cutting taxes or tax breaks for job creation. I've put forward many suggestions to this effect in other threads.

I agree that a tax cut is better than hiring more bureaucrats.

The problem is that a temporary tax cut has less of a stimulus effect.

Edited June 21, 2012 by August1991

[Moonbox]

But we don't know how or how good it's being done now; you've conceded that we cannot know (which is actually a gloomier forecast than I hold to, interestingly); so we're to take massive cuts as an article of faith?

I'm not sure what your point is here. You can raise this objection/question on literally ANYTHING the government does, so it's pretty much meaningless. In the end, we have to assume that the millions the gov't spent to have third party consultants and accountants find cost savings will lead to positive budget outcomes.

I simply feel that there's a wanton sense of incaution around pretty large-scale changes....changes which, oh-so-coincidentally, match long-cherished conservative notions about "shrinking the government"

Layoffs are generally done en masse for a reason. It's so they can be over and done with in as short a period as possible, so that the people still working there can move on with their lives/jobs and not be worried about a slow bleed of pink slips. As for coincidence, there is none. The Conservatives have long indicated that we have a bloated public service, everyone knew that, they won a majority and now they're moving forward with their plans.

Yes, but (very real) union issues aside, they are a bulwark. Private entities are legally-bound not to give a damn about what most poeple want...only shareholders. In fact, that's too generous, as we see the "ethical shareholders" of Walmart literally laughed out of the board meeting for voicing their concerns about treatment of labour.

Minimum wage and labour laws should be all the protection Wal-Mart employees should expect. I want to try not to sound like a dick, but what sort of qualifications are required for a Wal-Mart job really? The only reason you would unionize as a Wal-Mart employee is because it's a profitable company and because it's huge. Employees could, again, hold them hostage for wages and benefits they couldn't hope to find working in similar roles.

And this answers my complaint nicely, which I appreciate--I see you've anticipated me--but how's that going to work? We're going to increase the political pwoer of the private sector--already far too large--and then....the Harper Conservatives are going to call for stricter regulations on their behaviour?

All voluntary, of course, a bizarre late addendum to free market theory.

We're not increasing the power of the private sector by laying off redundant public sector employees. We're making the private sector more competitive by eliminating inefficiencies and tax liabilities.

I really think that you're looking at this too much in a socialist vs capitalist mind set. Too much of one or the other is always bad. Right now, our public sector is bloated and making life more expensive than it should be for the average Canadian. At the same time, however, there's an increasing polarization of wealth in Canada that's making it more difficult than ever for the middle class. These are SEPERATE and UNRELATED problems that should be each dealt with on their own.

[dre]

The only reason you would unionize as a Wal-Mart employee is because it's a profitable company and because it's huge

Also because of thier sordid history of violating labor law, using child labor, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

Also because of thier sordid history of violating labor law, using child labor, etc.

I like this "sordid history":

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that Wal-Mart Canada Corp. was within its rights when it shut down a store in Jonquière, Que., that had been unionized seven months earlier.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/11/27/supreme-court-walmart-union.html

[WWWTT]

By "spend", I mean cutting taxes or tax breaks for job creation. I've put forward many suggestions to this effect in other threads.

Yes that means giving corporations more.

But where is it written that these cuts are only applicable if it can be shown that jobs were created or people were hired?

Who has the proof?

WWWTT

[Jack Weber]

By "spend", I mean cutting taxes or tax breaks for job creation. I've put forward many suggestions to this effect in other threads.

So we should give away tax money to business entities who seem to be intent on employing fewer people for less money for shorter periods of time...

And then throw off these funds to thier shareholders????

How 'bout some concrete conditions tied to jobs for those tax cuts/breaks?

[dre]

So we should give away tax money to business entities who seem to be intent on employing fewer people for less money for shorter periods of time...

And then throw off these funds to thier shareholders????

How 'bout some concrete conditions tied to jobs for those tax cuts/breaks?

Thats the problem with tax cuts as stimulus. Too unfocused.

You are better off targetting the specific activity you want. If you want jobs to be created then subsidize wages, or give companies a credit for each person they actually employ or for each dollar actually spent on its Canadian labor force.

To be honest though it doesnt really matter. Money is fungible, and a single dollar can be spent millions of times. As long as you can be sure the money stays in the economy it makes no difference who you initially give it to. You could use stimulus money for tax cuts, or grants, or wage subsidies or you could spend it on infrastructure, or you could just mail a check to each citizen. It really doesnt make much difference unless you make the mistake of giving the tax breaks to folks who plan on removing the money from our economy, by investing it abroad, or saving it.

Edited June 22, 2012 by dre

[Jack Weber]

Thats the problem with tax cuts as stimulus. Too unfocused.

You are better off targetting the specific activity you want. If you want jobs to be created then subsidize wages, or give companies a credit for each person they actually employ or for each dollar actually spent on its Canadian labor force.

To be honest though it doesnt really matter. Money is fungible, and a single dollar can be spent millions of times. As long as you can be sure the money stays in the economy it makes no difference who you initially give it to. You could use stimulus money for tax cuts, or grants, or wage subsidies or you could spend it on infrastructure, or you could just mail a check to each citizen. It really doesnt make much difference unless you make the mistake of giving the tax breaks to folks who plan on removing the money from our economy, by investing it abroad, or saving it.

Sadly,your last sentence is what has been going on for a long time.For far too long we have given away tax dollars with no strings attached to business entities that had no intention of using thos breaks for the original intended purpose.These entities have either sat on the cash or invested that money they received here in low standard of living jurisdictions where they could maximize profit...

Frankly,this is tantamount to theft of the public purse....

[dre]

Sadly,your last sentence is what has been going on for a long time.For far too long we have given away tax dollars with no strings attached to business entities that had no intention of using thos breaks for the original intended purpose.These entities have either sat on the cash or invested that money they received here in low standard of living jurisdictions where they could maximize profit...

Frankly,this is tantamount to theft of the public purse....

YEah well one persons crisis is another persons opportunity! Whenever theres a crisis... be it a recession, or a war, or a terrorist attack... and the public is sufficiently stupified and scared... you can extract a lot of money out of them and give it to your favorite private sector constituency!

[TimG]

But what is illogical is that numerous departments have laid off thousands of government workers in order to meet their budget cut obligations

What is illogical are government worker unions that refuse to consider pay or benefit cuts in order to keep people employed. If the government has to lay off workers to balance the budget then the union is the only one to blame.

[bleeding heart]

By "spend", I mean cutting taxes or tax breaks for job creation. I've put forward many suggestions to this effect in other threads.

Fair enough. I didn't think the illogic suited you.

[bleeding heart]

I'm not sure what your point is here. You can raise this objection/question on literally ANYTHING the government does,

No. much of what they do is workaday, ordinary, and we know they work thanks to a history of seeing it in action.

We're here talking about something out of the ordinary, and...to reiterate my point--is a fairly unconservative way of thinking.

so it's pretty much meaningless. In the end, we have to assume that the millions the gov't spent to have third party consultants and accountants find cost savings will lead to positive budget outcomes.

Really? Assume it? So why debates, why Parliamentary debates, why an Opposition, why any democratic forms whatsoever?

We know we can trust the wise heads to do the right thing, after all. My complaints (not denunciations, but a timid suggestion of caution) are meaningless, as you say...

...and yet, for some reason (unstated) your full-throated defense and support of it--and your opposition to a cautious approach--is meaningful, indeed.

As for coincidence, there is none.

Sure there is. And by the way, it may well be nothing more than that. But it's certainly the case that there's a strong ideological wing to conservatism that has always said "shrink the government"...while ignoring the threat of increased power in the hands of a private minority. That's a lot scarier than "big government" (and in fact, it remains "big government," just in a different, less representative way).

The Conservatives have long indicated that we have a bloated public service, everyone knew that, they won a majority and now they're moving forward with their plans.

Yes, they're not being dishonest--that we know of--nor are they reneging on their goals. I get that, and as a citizen in a democratic state, them's the breaks for those who feel as I do, that slow and easy is safer and wiser.

Minimum wage and labour laws should be all the protection Wal-Mart employees should expect. I want to try not to sound like a dick, but what sort of qualifications are required for a Wal-Mart job really? The only reason you would unionize as a Wal-Mart employee is because it's a profitable company and because it's huge. Employees could, again, hold them hostage for wages and benefits they couldn't hope to find working in similar roles.

This is totally, utterly divorced from the points I made on this particular subject. Completely different topic.

But since you bring it up...there are not a few conservatives who feel little victims like Walmart are too encumbered by overbearing labour and safety laws. I've debated with them on this forum. It would appear you're not one of them, fortunately.

I'm not so sure about our Prime Minister, however.

If he can openly and to a foreign audience mock and condemn nationalized health care, comparing us to the Soviets...I don't see why labour laws couldn't be on the table, as well.

I really think that you're looking at this too much in a socialist vs capitalist mind set.

I am?

With all due respect, Moonbox--andI think you'll see it if you reread our exchange--only one of us has gone out of his way to allow for the other's view at all.

Too much of one or the other is always bad. Right now, our public sector is bloated and making life more expensive than it should be for the average Canadian. At the same time, however, there's an increasing polarization of wealth in Canada that's making it more difficult than ever for the middle class. These are SEPERATE and UNRELATED problems that should be each dealt with on their own.

Well, I'm not positive you're wrong, as I already pointed out. If it seems I'm waffling on this point (trying to have it both ways, or what have you) it's only because I don't feel as sure abotu all this as you seem to. And I find so much surety about such an unknown a little curious.

Edited June 22, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Peter F]

What is illogical are government worker unions that refuse to consider pay or benefit cuts in order to keep people employed. If the government has to lay off workers to balance the budget then the union is the only one to blame.

You mean the government would gladly employ more employees than are necessary?