PDA

View Full Version : A coworker asked me this today...




Starks
11-28-2007, 10:53 AM
"How many people in government would be out of a job if Ron implemented all the changes he speaks of?"

BTW, the guy is an independent but he comes off as apathetic more often than not.

What's a good way to respond to this?

sirachman
11-28-2007, 10:55 AM
Alot, but these changes would come slowly because he would be a president not a dictator so it wouldnt be all at once. Second, the free-market would get a huge boost from the lower taxes, sound money, etc which would increase jobs much more than the loss from the govt. sector PLUS private sector jobs pay more.

Smiley Gladhands
11-28-2007, 10:56 AM
How many people would be working more productively in the private sector if the government weren't controlling such a large portion of the labor market?

Arklatex
11-28-2007, 10:57 AM
sirachman put it great

davidkachel
11-28-2007, 10:57 AM
"How many people in government would be out of a job if Ron implemented all the changes he speaks of?"

As many as possible.

jake
11-28-2007, 10:57 AM
first of all, it would be a slow transition process
secondly, their would be new job opens in private industry to help pick up the slack (IF it is a needed, market-demanded service)

there will also be a number of departments and bureaucracies that, despite Ron Paul's goal of eventual complete elimination, would still be around after 1 or maybe even 2 terms of office. But even in this case, we would hope for major 'trimming of the fat', so to speak.

givemeliberty
11-28-2007, 11:00 AM
All the service that the gov't provides will then need to be provided by the private sector. Of course being market based it would be done in a far more efficient manner. Obviously most of the dead wood will get cut but the productive workers will find a place in the private sector, probably making more money.

The freeloaders will gripe the most and the loudest.

seapilot
11-28-2007, 11:00 AM
They dont fire anyone from federal government jobs, thats why they grow so big. Even if a person is a criminal they will just demote them , transfer them whatever. A person would have to be a convicted murderer to lose thier job, and thats after the trial and they are in jail.

Id be more worried about the coffee farmers, after Dr. Paul gets in office they wouldnt have as much coffee to sell to the Federal workers that drink it all day from 9 to 5.

Starks
11-28-2007, 11:01 AM
Alot, but these changes would come slowly because he would be a president not a dictator so it wouldnt be all at once. Second, the free-market would get a huge boost from the lower taxes, sound money, etc which would increase jobs much more than the loss from the govt. sector PLUS private sector jobs pay more.

I would hope that Ron sets up something that facilitate the transition and somehow help them find a new job or give a nice severance pay.


As many as possible.

<_< Not everyone who works in the government is a scumbag.

Kregener
11-28-2007, 11:01 AM
175,000?

This would be a good thing.

pacelli
11-28-2007, 11:01 AM
"How many people in government would be out of a job if Ron implemented all the changes he speaks of?"

BTW, the guy is an independent but he comes off as apathetic more often than not.

What's a good way to respond to this?

My read on it is that he isn't talking about firing people. He's talking about completely reforming agencies into useful functions that are in-line with the constitution. For instance when he discusses disbanding the CIA-- this is because the CIA's operational function is involved in meddling with foreign countries. Under a Paul presidency those people in the CIA would likely have a different tasking that doesn't involve the plotting of coups and assassinations of foreign dictators.

Dr. Paul is very emphatic that we need a strong national defense-- so I wouldn't see people making less than a six-figure salary as having to be concerned.

Regarding the apathy observation, I've never seen him as apathetic when talking about the constitution. In fact, it seems the other candidates are apathetic toward the constitution.

Ron LOL
11-28-2007, 11:02 AM
Agree: the point here is that these changes wouldn't happen overnight, many requiring a congressional mandate -- and Ron Paul acknowledges as much, with 20 years of experience in the House.

ashlux
11-28-2007, 11:02 AM
A lot of jobs would move to the private sector. Some jobs would move to the local government level. And some jobs would be eliminated altogether.

If a job can disappear and not emerge in the private sector (or local government), than it tells you the waste of the federal government. Your friend all but admits government is inefficient and wasteful. That should upset him and every other taxpayer.

Even if Ron Paul would magically snap his fingers and get everything he'd want, there would be a transition phase. For example, you cannot shut down the FAA and expect airplanes to safely fly until a private sector version is good to go.

jgmaynard
11-28-2007, 11:03 AM
With an extra 30% more money or so in most people's pockets, there would be many, many, new small businesses opening up, that means unemployment in the private sector will drop, and they will hire people which will further reduce unemployment. Further, with more people providing goods and services, competition will increase, meaning prices will decrease. With all those people removed from the available labor force, there's fewer people competing for more jobs, which raises wages. Those consumers spend money that goes into the businesses small and large, which gives them money to hire more people, that lowers unemployment thereby raising wages...

It's a feedback loop whereby ending the income tax will create the single largest economic boom in the history of mankind.

JM

givemeliberty
11-28-2007, 11:04 AM
until a private sector version is good to go.

version(s) plural. A monopoly is the same as a government.

Steve4RP
11-28-2007, 11:04 AM
The increase in hiring by the private sector would far out-pace the number of people 'laid off' by the government due to the more efficient use of dollars by business over beurocracy.

nexalacer
11-28-2007, 11:06 AM
Before the abolishment of slavery, many people questioned what would happen to all of the freed slaves. There were suggestions that they would become wandering groups of murderers, rapists, and thieves. But the abolitionists won that battle because they said it like it is: it doesn't matter what happens to them because the entire existence of slavery is immoral.

So to answer your coworker, ask him if he thinks theft is moral. If he does, well, he's a sociopath and pretty much beyond hope. If he doesn't, then ask him if we should worry about jobs of people whose salaries are paid by theft. These people's jobs should not exist because they exist only due to the fact that there is a gun in each of our rooms, pointed at our throat, demanding our blood in the form of taxes. They are, like slavery, a product of an immoral system that should be abolished altogether, regardless of the amount of unemployed it creates

Starks
11-28-2007, 11:13 AM
You guys sound a bit overconfident that the floodgates of fired government workers will jump right into a healthy job market.

purepaloma
11-28-2007, 11:16 AM
Anyone that has ever worked in government KNOWS exactly how much pork and pathetic lazy people are in the system leaching a salary.

kotetu
11-28-2007, 11:17 AM
Answer like this:

"With all of the money saved by small, medium, and large businesses, not to mention consumers who would have more money to spend, think of how many private sector jobs would be created. Those companies would be falling over themselves hiring to cover the increased demand. They would look for professionals with exemplary records, and government service tends to look very good on a resume."

It's a fact that when people have more wealth, they want more goods and services. When people want more goods and services, private companies have to expand to cover that increased demand. That's true economic growth. It would offset most of the lost government jobs.

nexalacer
11-28-2007, 11:17 AM
No, I just don't care. Immoral institutions must be dismantled without worrying about the outcomes. If we support immoral institutions, we can never be free.

Fyretrohl
11-28-2007, 11:21 AM
Well, my cynical answer for the day.

Lots, but, with the illegal immigrants not having a reason to come here any more for freebies, lots of jobs will be open and these people can finally do a lick of work.

ashlux
11-28-2007, 11:22 AM
You guys sound a bit overconfident that the floodgates of fired government workers will jump right into a healthy job market.

Just because a job gets eliminated doesn't mean it won't get picked up by the private sector or local government. If it doesn't exist there, the job was wasteful and not needed.

Keeping useless jobs around is a form welfare.

Goldwater Conservative
11-28-2007, 11:23 AM
The government's job is to serve the people, not to give people jobs.

Anyway, in addition to Paul's emphasis on transition, he could always just send the people he's downsizing home with extra pay, which would be worth it if we wouldn't be paying for them in years to come. I think Clinton did that.

margomaps
11-28-2007, 11:28 AM
You guys sound a bit overconfident that the floodgates of fired government workers will jump right into a healthy job market.

And you sound a bit hyperbolic in your prediction of "the floodgates of fired government workers." ;)

I, for one, favor a slower transition away from a massive federal government toward a small constitutional government. "Opening the floodgates" would result in chaos and misery for millions of people. I believe Dr. Paul favors my approach.

madcat033
11-28-2007, 11:28 AM
Just ask him if we should have kept using typewriters so that none of the typewriter repairmen would lose their jobs...

davidkachel
11-28-2007, 11:34 AM
<_< Not everyone who works in the government is a scumbag.

I don't recall saying they were.
How many corporations when downsizing say, "Oh, but we shouldn't fire so-and-so because he/she's a nice person"?
The federal bureaucracy is a behemoth beyond imagination. Yes, cutting the government will put a lot of federal employees out of work. We give them a heartfelt apology along with their pink slip. Period.

ashlux
11-28-2007, 11:45 AM
Just ask him if we should have kept using typewriters so that none of the typewriter repairmen would lose their jobs...

There's a long, long list of these.

This reminds me of a story on NPR yesterday about the sock industry.

The world sock capital is (or was) Fort Payne, AL. Due to free(r) trade, socks can be bought cheaper overseas. Maybe not much cheaper, but when you're buying millions, it adds up.

Congressman Aderholt wanted to be the swing vote for the Central America Free Trade Agreement that President Bush wanted passed. So, Bush agreed to put tariffs on the sock industry. It would be just enough for the prices to be similar.

Lots (most?) of Fort Payne's sock makers have already closed. Many have now turned into better paying and more profitable industries. It has quickly turned out well for the small community in Fort Payne: they have better paying jobs and the local economy is more diversified.

The tariff hasn't gone into effect yet, but it's likely to now hurt foreign country sock maker employees, US companies, and US consumers for little to nothing.

Here's the story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16661333

JosephTheLibertarian
11-28-2007, 11:46 AM
"How many people in government would be out of a job if Ron implemented all the changes he speaks of?"

BTW, the guy is an independent but he comes off as apathetic more often than not.

What's a good way to respond to this?

How many people will join the economy? I think of these people as parasites.

ashlux
11-28-2007, 11:48 AM
How many people will join the economy? I think of these people as parasites.

LOL! You sound like Andrew Ryan on BioShock. :D

"What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds, a parasite asks 'Where's my share?' A man creates, a parasite says 'What will the neighbors think?' A man invents, a parasite says 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God...'" -Andrew Ryan

troyd1
11-28-2007, 11:49 AM
I would hope that Ron sets up something that facilitate the transition and somehow help them find a new job or give a nice severance pay.
I am sure they would have that already in their contract. All government employees are union. Most would be eliminated through attrition and not firing. Many retire or quit for whatever reason every year. Every eliminated government worker is one less person getting paid my tax payers and another person paying in.

Oddball
11-28-2007, 11:54 AM
"How many people in government would be out of a job if Ron implemented all the changes he speaks of?"

BTW, the guy is an independent but he comes off as apathetic more often than not.

What's a good way to respond to this?

Ask these counter-questions:

How many people who lost their bureaucrat jobs would be put to work by the massive influx of cash into the economy??

Do you really think that if the gubmint didn't employ those peeps, that they'd have no job at all??

westmich4paul
11-28-2007, 01:38 PM
I think most could easily become border guards or office personnell for sending the illegals back. I am sure there is a role for them to play somewhere for a period of time.

Energy
11-28-2007, 01:43 PM
Send your friend this:

"Google Could Outspend the Federal Government (Department of Energy)"

Google's Goal: Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/google-renewable-energy-47112801

FTA (Link above has the rest): Google aims to make electricity derived from the wind and sun and other renewable sources of energy cheaper than burning coal, and the Web search giant has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars toward the effort, including tens of millions in 2008. It didn't release specific figures, but it did set the goal of producing enough electricity to power San Francisco in "years not decades."

The Google initiative will create jobs, though how many is unclear. It's the latest sign that renewable energy technology development can be a growing source of economic power in the coming years.

Google's Press Release:

http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20071127_green.html

slantedview
11-28-2007, 01:45 PM
Yes, the irony of being a Ron Paul supporter and recently considering a position with Intuit (makers of turbotax) is not lost on me :)

Whatever happens, happens.

mconder
11-28-2007, 01:46 PM
"How many people in government would be out of a job if Ron implemented all the changes he speaks of?"

People are pretty resilient when push comes to shove. I guess it all comes down to whether you think people are programed for survival or not. There have been massive layoffs in the tech & manufacturing industries with people's jobs displaced by the Indians and Chinese, yet where is the sensitivity from people in Washington? They have only accelerated this phenomenon with their policies, like "most favored trade partner" status for China. If the people in the manufacturing and tech industries have to retrain and find a new way, than so should the people who have government jobs.

Government jobs produce nothing, they are a drain on the economy because they employ people who do not produce anything, but are employed to do the opposite of produce. They are employed to confiscate from the producers and give to the non producers. This arrangement can never work long term.

amakris
11-28-2007, 01:46 PM
See "Petition of the Candlestick Makers":

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

mconder
11-28-2007, 01:47 PM
How many people who lost their bureaucrat jobs would be put to work by the massive influx of cash into the economy??

True...people would have more disposable income and they would need a place to spend it.

jumpyg1258
11-28-2007, 01:48 PM
I know I risk losing my job if Ron gets elected but its for the greater good so I am doing the right thing. I am not the only RP supporter here either, I have seen several RP bumper stickers on cars here and know a few peeps personally that support Ron where I work.

Paulitician
11-28-2007, 01:49 PM
Very, very few people, for reasons already explained here (transition, free market, low taxes etc). There are always more jobs availabe.

johngr
11-28-2007, 02:20 PM
Just once, I'd like to hear him tell an NPR or PBS interviewer, that he'd better have his resume up to date, just in case.

F3d
11-28-2007, 02:25 PM
....

runderwo
11-28-2007, 04:40 PM
How many people would be working more productively in the private sector if the government weren't controlling such a large portion of the labor market?

How many people would be voting for liberty if their jobs didn't depend on voting against it?

Adamsa
11-28-2007, 04:41 PM
Those jobs would go to state governments though.

adpierce
11-28-2007, 04:45 PM
People who lose their federal government jobs will either go to state jobs due to states FINALLY being given more respect in the political landscape, or to the private sector which ought to be taking care of much of what the federal government bureaucracy does incredibly inefficiently.

VIDEODROME
11-28-2007, 04:50 PM
I can already hear the world's smallest violin playing for all the unemployed IRS agents.

kylejack
11-28-2007, 04:59 PM
Let's shoot for all of them, and if we come up a little short, we'll still celebrate.