Economic Illiteracy in America

[rah]

I think I'd rather do a furlough than a pay cut since at least while I'm getting screwed I'd get the day off.

[KrazyHorse]

Wife's furloughs were half-days off.

[Whoha]

That's what happens when you let the gov't write laws about economics.

For example, the standard applied in "permanent labor certification" is absolutely hilarious; the business has to prove that:

"there are no qualified U.S. workers able, willing, qualified and available to accept the job at the prevailing wage for that occupation in the area of intended employment and that employment of the alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers."

That was all just to look good so that they could actually pass it.

[JEELEN]

Interesting. You also think US health insurance shouldn't be reformed? It's about 60 years overdue. (Personally I think allowing 20% of the general population to go around uninsured is an abomination...)

[Darius871]

I'm only arguing for some effect, not necessarily a significant one. I doubt the .4% cut will have a significant effect, but a further cut in the locality pay increase might.

You'd think that working 9 to 5 with a 1-hour lunch break and getting away with screwing around on the internet would be reason enough to stick around, raise or no raise.

[Drake Tungsten]

You'd think that working 9 to 5 with a 1-hour lunch break and getting away with screwing around on the internet would be reason enough to stick around, raise or no raise.

Yes, because you can't screw around on the internet in the private sector.

[Darius871]

Not anymore.

[Drake Tungsten]

Seems to be some of them on Poly every weekday...

[Darius871]

Huh, I'd just assumed they were all unemployed.

There are actually companies out there too clueless to have blockers?

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't underestimate the ingenuity of an internet-addicted person.

[Darius871]

Don't underestimate the ingenuity of an internet-addicted person.

Ingenuity or no ingenuity, it's damned hard to hide a history of URLs & IP's as it's being made, and even harder to circumvent keylogging (if possible at all?). At the FTC there was a whole division devoted to looking over your shoulder from 1000 miles away, with good reason. Even a guy spending 30 seconds running a Lexis search on his ex-girlfriend somehow got caught and canned.

But then you have to pay someone whose job it is to actually respond to whatever "red flags" the software picks up, which is probably only worthwhile for the government, defense contractors, financial institutions, and other places with especially sensitive information. Oh well, laziness wins again...

[Drake Tungsten]

At the FTC there was a whole division devoted to looking over your shoulder from 1000 miles away, with good reason. Even a guy spending 30 seconds running a Lexis search on his ex-girlfriend somehow got caught and canned.

I thought you said internet access was a perk of the public sector?

[Darius871]

At the FTC there was a whole division devoted to looking over your shoulder from 1000 miles away, with good reason. Even a guy spending 30 seconds running a Lexis search on his ex-girlfriend somehow got caught and canned.

I thought you said internet access was a perk of the public sector?

I should have been more clear - they only track movements of sensitive information and abuse of certain online tools, which I noted as an example of how watchful an IT department can be if it wants to be. Productivity-oriented blocking and/or tracking (forums, blogs, youtube, etc.) I've only seen in the private sector, which would make sense given the profit incentive, but looking around here I'm obviously a nonrepresentative sample.

[rah]

Of course if you're in charge of all those guys tasked with watching this kind of stuff, it isn't an issue.

[MRT144]

What's the point of working in the public sector if you're going to get screwed in downturns just like the folks in the private sector? Public sector workers certainly aren't going to get a share of the wealth in the next boom period. Obama is completely wrong about this not affecting future hiring and retention, as he's undermining the very security that makes government work attractive.

I'll reply for Obama;

He wants people who want to be there for reasons besides money and job security. It's crazy and could fail but there's also the possibility you start getting people dedicated to the job above all else.