IT turns out the 'myth' of Medicare's low cost is just that..http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=28056523It costs more per patient to administer medicare than private insurance costs. Well, that 'myth' is blown away....t.
It costs more per patient to administer medicare than private insurance costs. Well, that 'myth' is blown away....Nothing of the sort. Your first clue is that it was an article from the heritage foundation. The second clue is that it was posted as fact by someone who quotes John Galt like he really exists.No, Book's assumptions been debunked. For those inclined to listen to reason, read the entire paper. Tele, you can just finish reading Atlas Shrugged, again. The Heritage fallacy is rebutted starting on page 6. These administrative spending numbers have been challenged on the grounds that they exclude some aspects of Medicare’s administrative costs, such as the expenses of collecting Medicare premiums and payroll taxes, and because Medicare’s larger average claims because of its older enrollees make its administrative costs look smaller relative to private plan costs than they really are. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under MedicareAdvantage.16 Thisisanearperfect“applestoapples”comparisonof administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.(And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.) cliff
Figures. Krugman has already addressed this issue. He links to the same document and argument.http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-c...cliff
"(And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.) "You forget that the taxpayers subsidize the government to the tune of hundreds of billions.Fed buildings exempt from state and local taxes....thus, all residents pay more to provide those 'tax exempt' services.Feds pay no income taxes ...on all the money they collect.Gov't workers get pay that is 70% above similar workers in private industry, and tax payers will be on the hook for trillions in pensions and health benefits for decades....busting the budget....None of that shows up in the official 'cost'.....but tax payers are getting to pay for it 6 dozen other ways in higher taxes, less collected income, and fat gov't pensions/perks forever ...t.
Fed buildings exempt from state and local taxes....thus, all residents pay more to provide those 'tax exempt' services.You forget that taxpayers also subsidize headquarters and manufacturing facilities of many corporations as it benefits their community. Same for federal buildings and jobs. Do you get your shorts in a knot whenever you see a police care with a tax-exempt license plate on it? Gov't workers get pay that is 70% above similar workers in private industry, and tax payers will be on the hook for trillions in pensions and health benefits for decades....busting the budget....You've been reading stuff by the Cato institute, again. Here, I'll link it for you. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-contin...another think tank? Maybe you can provide some critical insight as to why these numbers might make an apples-to-oranges comparison difficult. None of that shows up in the official 'cost'.....but tax payers are getting to pay for it 6 dozen other ways in higher taxes, less collected income, and fat gov't pensions/perks forever ...Aetna's Ron Williams can get his cool $24 million dollars in compensation and it won't even warrant a casual mention from you. Golden Parachutes and lifetime paychecks. You can't show me any government executive that pulls in this kind of money. Advertising costs? Profits to shareholders? Hey, let's not even talk about the anti-trust exemptions for health insurers? There is no question that medicare admin costs are lower than private insurance companies. NO DOUBT!! Only people that fantasize about living in Galts Gulch believe that nonsense.cliff
"Aetna's Ron Williams can get his cool $24 million dollars in compensation and it won't even warrant a casual mention from you."Nope...that is about $1/customer.....wow...we chop his compensation to zero, and your policy goes down $1/year! Lib math at work!......hee hee... "Golden Parachutes and lifetime paychecks."Heck, you better show me a link that he has 'lifetime paychecks'. I'd bet once he is fired, that's it. " You can't show me any government executive that pulls in this kind of money."Sure can. Al Gore....makes hundreds of millions selling his hysteria....and a Nobel Prize is worth at least 1.4 million in income according to recent studies. Hmmm...Al Gore....Obama.....good for 1.4 million in extra income for doing nothing but being themselves?Has any gov't executive done anything to invent new cures, come up with more efficient healthcare? Quite the opposite..throw money at things......waste money. Heck, it is not their money. No accountability. Massive welfare fraud. Massive Medicare fraud. Who really cares in the gov't? The bigger the budget, the bigger their department, the more employees they can hire, the higher up the pay ladder they get. " Hey, let's not even talk about the anti-trust exemptions for health insurers?"WHich is, what, sharing information on claims history? Making sure folks don't scam two insurance companies at the same time? Weeding out fraud and abuse in the system?YOu've been listening to Pelosi too much as she and Reid attempt to 'punish' the health care companies for not signing on to ObamaCare.....Oh..right..you want to gut the ability of state regulators to control linsurance rates? That is what is done under than 'anti trust' exemption........in many states...duh!...So you are against state control of insurance rates? Sounds like you want a total fed takeover. Can't have states controlling things. They need to be punished. SOme of them are not dem states. They have to go. All of them. Only fed control of everything. Yep...the lib dems are crazy. Willing to let 'big brother' decide everything after signing over their paychecks, and they get an allowance based upon what some gov't official 'decides' they need according to a formula. Need that social justice redistribution in place, so everyone can have a big flat screen TV, gold plated health care, and a big dependency on the gov't. No private retirment accounts...they have to go.....will be taken into SS......IRAs, 401Ks......the gov't needs that money. No private savings.....gov't needs that too....It's going to get messy. We have all this 'redistribution' to get underway.t.
<<IT turns out the 'myth' of Medicare's low cost is just that..>> Oh, my. Poking the wasp's nest today, are we Tele? I guess we're going to find out if intercst is keeping up[ with the board or is off to Tibuktoo or wherever. Seattle Pioneer
Gov't workers get pay that is 70% above similar workers in private industryHaving worked for the feds and private industry, I can confirm that this is pure unadulterated perambulating horse pucky.
SP: "Oh, my. Poking the wasp's nest today, are we Tele? I guess we're going to find out if intercst is keeping up[ with the board or is off to Tibuktoo or wherever."He's probably trying to hide the dog.Owning a dog requires a carbon footprint bigger than driving an SUV 7000 miles a year....... So, under cap and trade, the first place to look for massive reductions in CO2 is to get the equivalent of 10 million SUVs (clunkers) off the road. We'll put a $100/yr carbon tax on each dog weighing more than 25 lbs, a 300/yr carbon tax on 50 lb and above dogs. Under 25 lbs will probably take about $50/yr to compensate.That doesn't include hauling your dog to the vet a few times a year....or to the pet groomer....more miles.....We'll get those nasty carbon dioxide spewing polluters, one by one....the ones ruining the planet with noxious pollution (CO2).After all, CNN found that more than 50% support 'reducing pollution' through cap and trade as long as the cost is laid on industry and big polluters.......for the most part,while minimizing the impact on consumers.....Well, we can start with the dogs.....t.
vol: "Having worked for the feds and private industry, I can confirm that this is pure unadulterated perambulating horse pucky"Let's get some 'facts'....http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-contin..."he Bureau of Economic Analysis has released its annual data on compensation levels by industry (Tables 6.2D, 6.3D, and 6.6D here). The data show that the pay advantage enjoyed by federal civilian workers over private-sector workers continues to expand.The George W. Bush years were very lucrative for federal workers. In 2000, the average compensation (wages and benefits) of federal workers was 66 percent higher than the average compensation in the U.S. private sector. The new data show that average federal compensation is now more than double the average in the private sector."OK...I admit..I was wrong...it's not 75% more....it's DOUBLE."Figure 1 looks at average wages. In 2008, the average wage for 1.9 million federal civilian workers was $79,197, which compared to an average $50,028 for the nation’s 108 million private sector workers (measured in full-time equivalents). The figure shows that the federal pay advantage (the gap between the lines) is steadily increasing."----"Figure 2 shows that the federal advantage is even more pronounced when worker benefits are included. In 2008, federal worker compensation averaged a remarkable $119,982, which was more than double the private sector average of $59,909."Now, would you care to show me your facts if you disagree?t.
Gov't workers get pay that is 70% above similar workers in private industryThis is a load of lard.I have a sister-in-law who worked for HHS until her retirement a couple months ago. She was a pretty high grade employee, conducted seminars at the White House for government staffers, that sort of thing. After a 40-year career, she still made less than my human resource manager at a Chicago radio station.My sister ran the PT Department at two Boston Hospitals (at different times.) She resigned that to be a teacher at a public college, and makes considerably less for the effort. This is baloney. It carries the name "telegraph" after the "Author:" slug. You don't really need to know more.
You wanted facts. I listed facts.With benefits, fed workers clean up. Where else can you get 26 days vacation after 15 years? Get fat pension and health care for life, retiring early? Almost guaranteed job if you don't screw up badly. The link I provided shows the differences.You picked the one that seems to be somewhat competitive, HR......Everywhere else, the gov't pays top dollars for secretaries, file clerks, and everyone else up the food chain.t.
The link I provided shows the differences.I knew you would provide that link as a source and I LINKED it before you in the hope (vain of course) that you might actually examine it. You might as well compare the workforce of IBM with McDonalds. It's not a valid comparison and many economists have taken issue with this Reagan Institute....urrr Cato institute study.The composition of the federal workforce is much different than that of the US as a whole. The number of jobs that require degreed individuals for federal government is MUCH higher than that of the US population in general. Just to be an FBI field agent you must have a bachelors degree. When I worked at NSA - every federal employee held a bachelors degree. All had to be approved for a Top Secret Security Clearance. Do fast food workers need that type of education? Just think of the different operations the federal government oversees. The department of Energy. Sandia Labratories..... etc, etc. You think maybe geography makes a difference? Where are the bulk of federal workers employeed? Yes, that would be in the vicinity of higher priced metropolitan areas. Requires higher salaries than the clerk working in the backwoods of Missouri wouldn't you think? If you compare job classes on an individual basis - you know, make a fair comparison - then federal employees almost always come out on the short end of the stick. Try it. Google civil engineers and salary split on private and public sectors. Go read what different experts at the Economist said about the so called Cato study. Go ahead.Facts indeed.cliff
"You might as well compare the workforce of IBM with McDonalds. It's not a valid comparison and many economists have taken issue with this Reagan Institute....urrr Cato institute study."I'd bet that 80% of all government jobs only require a high school diploma or GED. We can start with the tens of thousands at the IRS answering telephones, and at SS, and the tens of thousands of 'clerks' and secretaries. Tell me they need 'college degrees' and I'll laugh you out of town. "The composition of the federal workforce is much different than that of the US as a whole."I doubt it. You have some college people, but lots of 'workers' who don't need top education. I worked for many companies that had 10-15% exempt, and the rest were hourly workers. Worked for Motorola in Schaumburg IL.....2500 factory workers....300 engineers. Do the math. Of those 2500 factory workers, I'd bet that back then 30% never finished high school, and only 5% were in management - and most of them just had high school degrees and years of experience. Nothing more. Same at my second job - in Lynchburg VA...maybe 120 engineers...and 2500 factory workers making two way radios. You think that 'non government jobs' are all at McDonalds? hee hee....don't forget to tell the airlines, the UAW, the teachers union, the construction unions, all the city workers, etc. "The number of jobs that require degreed individuals for federal government is MUCH higher than that of the US population in general."OK>..show some some statistics.....on the actual breakdown of the federal workforce, education level required...and you might have some hope of proving your side of your story. " Just to be an FBI field agent you must have a bachelors degree."Yep,and FBI agents are far and few between, and most of the folks working for the FBI likely only need a high school degree, right? "When I worked at NSA - every federal employee held a bachelors degree."When I worked at MCI Advanced Technology Department, every had a least a bachelors degree, and we had mostly Master's and PhDs. SO? "All had to be approved for a Top Secret Security Clearance. "I could have worked for a dozen defense contractors that required a security clearance. Everyone likely working for the engineering departments at Boeing or Rockwell or other military contractor needs high level security clearance. So? Nothing new. And NSA is , what, 0.003% of the fed work force? "Just think of the different operations the federal government oversees. "Yep, usually a group of 50 government flunkies hire an outside contractor like Halliburtion or C-Systems or other 'government helper'..... heck, even the food service and emptying the latrines on Fort Hood are contracted out. They have more contractors that fed employees on most things...well, almost as many...since it takes 50-100 people or more to 'supervise' the contractors of 50-100 people. "The department of Energy."How about Boeing? How about INTEL? How about MIT? "Sandia Labratories..... etc, etc."YOU"RE NUTShttp://www.sandia.gov/"Sandia is a government-owned/contractor operated (GOCO) facility. Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin company, manages Sandia for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration."Sandia Labs is run by a Private Corporation under contract to the government. "You think maybe geography makes a difference? Where are the bulk of federal workers employeed?"You mean in WV, home of Robert Byrd, who brings endless pork projects and tens of thousands of jobs to rural West Virgina?"Yes, that would be in the vicinity of higher priced metropolitan areas."West Virginia? Alabama? New Mexico? Ya gotta be kidding. OKLA city? "Requires higher salaries than the clerk working in the backwoods of Missouri wouldn't you think?"Nope.....the clerks in WV don't get more....."If you compare job classes on an individual basis - you know, make a fair comparison - then federal employees almost always come out on the short end of the stick."Heck, most get raises every year just for showing up on the job. They never get downsized, their salaries aren't cut when their company loses money, and no one puts a 'cap' on their salaries. THey aren't asked to pay much more for health care. They aren't furloughed. THeir employer isn't going to go bust any time soon (at least 10 years).....Short end of the stick? YOu gotta be kidding. Gold plated benefits. Guaranteed early retirement plans.....30 years and out, right? At age 50? or maybe 55.....health care - the best deals. How many gov't workers you hear worried about getting 'laid off'???? Twenty years ago when I was job searching, after the second time I had been 'downsized' , I looked at one opportunity in NV....outside of Las Vegas.....say in an area supposedly where lots of UFOs had been seen. That's all I can say about that.....Nice job...paid 30% more than any other job I could have gotten. 5 days a week, lots of gov't benefits, vacations, etc. Would have required security clearance and hassles......plus two daily airplane flights to and from work....decided to skip that one and take up others - and the others worked out fine. t
OK>..show some some statistics.....on the actual breakdown of the federal workforce, education level required...and you might have some hope of proving your side of your story. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0572.pdfpercentage of civilian workforce with bachelor degree or higher2005 32.4%http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0482.pdffederal workers with a bachelors degree or higher 2005 43%http://www.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2008/12/11/best...Eighty percent of government employees are managerial and professional, compared with only 25 percent in the private sector. So, management opportunities abound in everything from human resources to finance, research to public relations, and technology to art, with jobs throughout the United States and the world. You might manage public housing or an embassy, an airport or disability services, a park or a prison, urban renewal, or healthcare reform. Also, many government positions involve collaborations with the private or nonprofit sectors.http://wherethejobsare.org/WTJA/analysis/federalworkforce.sh...Nearly 75 percent of federal workers have an associate/bachelor/post graduate degree or some college education, compared to 54 percent in the private sector.Want to compare service level industries salaries with government salaries? Even tougher. All of those folks working at Taco Bell, McDonalds, Dry Cleaners, Cleaning services, etc, you won't find working for the fed. Know why? Aramark and other similiar service companies has the contract for the Fed that includes cleaning and washing at many federal prisons. Any number of food caterers have contracts to serve up cafeteria food for federal workers. Care to guess what that does to average federal wages as their aren't any really low salaries to offset those managerial and professional salaries? This inflates federal wages when compared to the US civilian workforce - especially when Wankers at conservative think tanks lump it all together.I hope you'll actually 'get it' now especially since I've linked everything so that any rube who can't use a search engine can read it. cliff
Not really.They left out , what, 300,000 or 400,000 postal service workers intentionally.I'm sure that most postal service workers don't have college degrees.Strange, isn't it?YOu 'cherry pick' the data and you can show what you want.Add in the Postal Service folks....(and the taxpayer is throwing tens of billions at the post office, so don't give me any crap about it not being a government entity)....and you find that the high salaries aren't justified..t.
dd in the Postal Service folks....(and the taxpayer is throwing tens of billions at the post office, so don't give me any crap about it not being a government entity)....and you find that the high salaries aren't justified..you're pathological and it appears hopelessly ignorant.http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/08/news/economy/postal_service/...Even though it's a federal agency, the Postal Service has not received any taxpayer funding since the early 1980s, when it was phased into an independent, self-sufficient financial entity. "We're not seeking any tax dollars," said Postal Service spokesman David Partenheimer. "We don't use tax dollars for our operation."I'll leave it for the reader to determine why postal workers aren't counted as federal employees.cliff
I'll leave it for the reader to determine why postal workers aren't counted as federal employees.cliff You do realize that you are wasting your time and bandwidth, right?First, help us all look for tele's clue. He doesn't seem to have one.Count Uptoten
http://www.topgunfp.com/us-post-office-to-run-7-billion-defi..."US Post Office To Run $7 Billion Deficit In 2009"http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=awDt..."The U.S. Postal Service faces deficits of $5 billion or more “this year and every year” unless lawmakers ease restrictions and let the agency operate more like a business, Postmaster General John Potter said today. ""The service, after a reprieve from Congress that let it postpone $4 billion in future retiree-benefit payments, still expects a loss of more than $3 billion for fiscal 2009, which ended Sept. 30"The "POst Office" is building up tens of billions of liabilities which the tax payer will have to pay off. Thus, it is a tax payer funded operation now. Those Postal Unions need to be rewarded under Obaam.....What, you thought there was a free lunch? And that the postal workers would get no retirement? ha.....The Post Office is congress's little toy.Now, just who do you think pays for all the 'free mail' that Congresspeople can send out 'free'? Ha....another joke...of course it is the taxpayers ...subsidizing the post office.......You really bought into the joke of privitization?tt.
My PM friends who work for government get 10% - 15% or so less than they would in private industry - but much better benefits and a more stable job environment.
People in government frequently have a defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan and exceptional healthcare benefits. Even with these things, highly trained professionals who are top shelf in terms of talent are underpaid relative to those in private industry.At the middle level, however, this combination of benefits is very powerful. I should know. While I never worked for the government (except for the army, which was not my idea), I had all those benefits we usually associate with government.Now the army, it didn't pay so good. Let's see, I had housing (12 to a room) and healthcare, but as a drafted college graduate infantryman, between 1969 and 1971, I earned a total of $4,586. That's the total pre tax for two years, and it includes a night job as a bartender for one year. I was a Sergeant E-5 with eight direct reports who sometimes carried live ammunition, but I digress...My real job for years was in an industry where the stars can earn eight figure incomes at a young age and even the clerks get paid enough to live in New York. My employer didn't have the revenues to support that kind of compensation but they took care of us with fringe benefits; pension, 401K with matching of the first 6% and health benefits I never paid a dime for.As a result of all this, the amount in my tax deferred accounts as we speak is equal to an astonishing 78.75% of my reported Medicare earnings for my entire life! Yup, and I didn't pay one cent of taxes on any of it. That kind of compensation won't get you filthy rich, but it will get you pretty prosperous.
dd in the Postal Service folks....(and the taxpayer is throwing tens of billions at the post office, so don't give me any crap about it not being a government entity)....and you find that the high salaries aren't justified..Oops, as an autonomous GSE, the post office receives not a dime from taxpayers, and hasn't for nearly 30 years. In fact, quite the opposite, in most of the years of operation since transitioning to an independent agency, it has returned billions of dollars to the national treasury.you're pathological and it appears hopelessly ignorant.You understated the case.
Let's set the record straight once again.If, as you claim, the post office is a 'private company', then why are tax payers on the hook for?http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1246353.html"Taxpayers subsidize postal retirement and annuitant health benefit costs,"? "as well as reduced rates for a variety of mailers, as mandated by Congress."Congress gets a free ride on the back of postal customers, you and me...and.... "Moreover, the Postal Service is exempt from federal taxation and borrows from the Treasury to finance its capital program at lower rates than private corporations or even other government-sponsored enterprises must pay. "Compete? Hardly....they are sucking up our money, not paying a dime in taxes (where UPS and Fed Ex and others get socked with real estate taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes, contributions to pension plans and 401Ks, health benefits......UPS and Fed Ex have to borrow at normal rates,where the Post Office is subsidized at super low borrowing rates. and the post office is still going bust,and tax payers will be on the hook for tens of billions to keep it on life support.......and here comes the bailout request....(and don't forget that congress has thrown billions at the PO to buy 'greenie vehicles'.....)..http://wyblog.us/blog/dems-to-bailout-post-office.html"President Obama likes to cite the Postal Service as a positive example of a self-sustaining government entity that successfully competes with the private sector. He said "UPS and Fed Ex are doing just fine." My buddy Nadz also is fond of the Postal Service model saying it's his ideal example of how a public-option health insurance system could be set up.Both of them swear the Post Office receives no taxpayer subsidies. Unfortunately that statement is no longer operative. Four Billion of your tax dollars are headed to bail out their pension plan. (h/t Memeorandum)The Democrats in Congress say this is only a "temporary" measure to tide the Postal Service over while they're short on cash. Uh huh. No government program is ever "temporary". This particular bailout doesn't come due until 2017, at which time I'm sure it'll be kicked down the road again, having been only the beginning of an annual taxpayer lifeline to the Post Office. "t.
Gov't workers get pay that is 70% above similar workers in private industry, and tax payers will be on the hook for trillions in pensions and health benefits for decades....busting the budget....I've looked into working at a couple of agencies and I'd have to take a 30-40% pay cut to work for the government. Plus I would get worse benefits.Perhaps this is not the case for all careers, but the government pay scale is not very good from what I've seen.
"I've looked into working at a couple of agencies and I'd have to take a 30-40% pay cut to work for the government. Plus I would get worse benefits."You must work for a great company. How many do you know where you get 3 or 4 weeks at 15 years, and 26 days of vacation at 20 years? Where you can retire after 30 years? with fat pension and healthcare?I never worked at a job where I could have done 30 years and out. never...nor did I know anyone , other than auto companies, that had deals like that. But tens of thousands of government type jobs, state, local, feds...are 30 years and out with fat pensions and benefits.....t.
You must work for a great company. How many do you know where you get 3 or 4 weeks at 15 years, and 26 days of vacation at 20 years?3 weeks + 11 holiday days is standard from day 1 at most large tech and engineering companies. Most cap out at 4 or 5 weeks, based on years of service. So some would cap at 20 days, some at 25 days. In either case you would hit the cap well before 20 years of service...certainly you'd have 20 days by 10 years, many of them you'd have 20 days by 5 years.
"3 weeks + 11 holiday days is standard from day 1 at most large tech and engineering companies. Most cap out at 4 or 5 weeks, based on years of service. So some would cap at 20 days, some at 25 days. In either case you would hit the cap well before 20 years of service...certainly you'd have 20 days by 10 years, many of them you'd have 20 days by 5 years."Dream on...most folks get 8 or 9 holidays.Most folks get , at best, 2 weeks vacation, and many only get 1 week vacation for the first few year........and almost no one gets more than 4 weeks ever these days. And no, most companies are 4 weeks at 20 years. It has been going down year after year. And most folks aren't going to last 10 or 20 years at any company these days. Their operations will be sold, combined, merged, bought out, etc. Folks move company to company. They get downsized, rightsized, and otherwise unemployed. Unlike the fed, where almost no one ever is unemployed.....in the real world, folks get shuffled like dominoes and benefits chopped back to starting levels continuously. Unlike the private sector, you don't get to carry your gov't seniority between jobs at the fed and fed employment.t.
Dream on...most folks get 8 or 9 holidays.Most folks get , at best, 2 weeks vacation, and many only get 1 week vacation for the first few year........and almost no one gets more than 4 weeks ever these days.Not among large engineering and tech companies. Go find out for me what Intel or IBM or Accenture or Apple or AMD or EDS or similar companies are offering for benefits.
"Not among large engineering and tech companies. Go find out for me what Intel or IBM or Accenture or Apple or AMD or EDS or similar companies are offering for benefits."Let's look at themhttp://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2007-09-...EDS "PLANO, Texas (AP) — Electronic Data Systems (EDS) said Wednesday it has offered extra retirement benefits to about 12,000 U.S. employees if they will leave the technology-outsourcing company.EDS went through a round of 5,000 job cuts starting in 2003, and the following year, the chief executive announced that the company would shed another 20,000 jobs."EDS employees got the boot. Those folks had to start over somewhere else. Lost all their seniority.IBMhttp://www.cio.com/article/499219/IBM_Union_Layoffs_Could_Hi..."Based on a count by the Alliance@IBM, at least 10,000 IBM employees have already been culled from the company's workforce so far this year because of the recession and offshoring."Wow.....that is only in 2009....they've been shedding jobs by the tens of thousands for years...."IBM's annual report, which is due out next winter, will likely sum up the net impact of the company's shrinking U.S. workforce. In 2006, IBM employed 127,000 in the U.S; in 2007, 121,000; and last year, 115,000. Meanwhile, its employment in India, Brazil and other nations has been increasing."So you were telling me about job security and benefits? Getting the 'boot' from the big engineering firms? The feds, on the other hand, have been hiring and hiring and hiring, and almost no one laid off.....no one loses vacation weeks. No one goes back to square one. No one is off for weeks or months or years without a job and income. No one gets forced out early whether they are ready or not. and Accenture?http://www.crn.com/it-channel/219500366;jsessionid=5V2VGG030..."Accenture has announced restructuring plans that involve both layoffs and real estate sales. The actions will result in a pretax restructuring charge of roughly $247 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009, ending Aug. 31.Accenture said it will reduce senior executive ranks by approximately 7 percent"Accenture laid off people world wide in 2008 and 2009.....thousands of them. Out the door. Given the 'boot'......So what was your point? Working for the private sector gets you unemployed at large rates where the feds never lay off? Working in the private sector means long time unemployment and no income at all?I'm curious....you mentioned those companies. It didn't take more than 15 seconds to google 'company layoff' and a whole list came back...t
So what was your point?I'm curious....you mentioned those companies. It didn't take more than 15 seconds to google 'company layoff' and a whole list came back...We weren't discussing layoffs, so I'm not surprised you didn't get the point.I guess you're admitting that they offer great benefits though. I'm glad we're on the same page.
Apple 2 weeks vacation initially, up to 24 days/year after 10 years.Partial match of 401K contributionsMedical coverage, including dental and vision benefits. Dependents covered at an extra charge.Retirement medical: None (That is, you're eligible for 18 months of COBRA.)Retirement pension: None
We were discussing 'job benefits' including job security.Obviously, you forgot to read your own post.All but one of the companies you listed in your post have laid off 100,000 workers...all in the private sector. You have no benefits when you are laid off. None. No retirement. Nothing. No income....At the same time, the federal government has added a million workers......and laid off almost no one. Benefits? Job security is job 1......without out, you are out in the cold.How silly. Your own companies show that your argument is toast...Maybe you should have said "if you are still lucky enough to still be employed by these companies......."......Obviously, they aren't hiring too many when they are laying off 100,000 workers....t.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |