(02-02-2010 11:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 08:10 PM)Rebel Wrote:  How is it misleading? I would think he wouldn't have posted something about a paltry 2.15 million dollars.

...also, 215 billion? Is a little bit of money.

(02-02-2010 08:20 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Just a little help for GTS who couldn't be bothered with reading the article above.

pay·roll
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-ˌrōl\
Function: noun
Date: 1740
the sum necessary for distribution to those on a payroll; also : the money to be distributed

That's how it's misleading. That's the only way I've ever heard payroll used. The way it's used there could be better replaced by "employees" or "work force".

Just a little help for GTS who couldn't be bothered with reading his own definition.

The first two sentences I quoted did specifically make it clear by using "employees" and "work force".

(02-03-2010 08:23 AM)Paul M Wrote:  pay·roll
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-ˌrōl\
Function: noun
Date: 1740
the sum necessary for distribution to those on a payroll; also : the money to be distributed

Just a little help for GTS who couldn't be bothered with reading his own definition.

The first two sentences I quoted did specifically make it clear by using "employees" and "work force".

You chose the incorrect noun. "Sum" is the noun of the definition, "those on payroll" is simply the noun that receives the verb action from the original noun of the definition.

Just a little help.

GTS, when you look around and all you see is dirt, You quit digging.

(02-03-2010 10:17 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-03-2010 08:23 AM)Paul M Wrote:  pay·roll
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-ˌrōl\
Function: noun
Date: 1740
the sum necessary for distribution to those on a payroll; also : the money to be distributed

That's how it's misleading. That's the only way I've ever heard payroll used. The way it's used there could be better replaced by "employees" or "work force".

Just a little help for GTS who couldn't be bothered with reading his own definition.

The first two sentences I quoted did specifically make it clear by using "employees" and "work force".

You chose the incorrect noun. "Sum" is the noun of the definition, "those on payroll" is simply the noun that receives the verb action from the original noun of the definition.

Just a little help.
[/quote]

It wasn't "those on payroll". It is "those on a payroll".

(02-02-2010 11:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It's like being all concerned about losing weight -- so you get angry over the calorie content in Coke (federal payroll) and switch to Diet Coke. Never mind the 4 large combos from Burger King (medicare, medicaid, social security, wars) every day ....

Should the federal government employee RADICALLY fewer people at RADICALLY lower wages? Abso-friggin-lutely. But you're not going after the source of the problem. Even is the average federal employee makes $500K ... you're still not talking about the real big time major league drains of money. It's like getting pumped up about going to go beat San Jose State in college football. Can we please get excited when we're taking down a ranked team instead? kthnxbai.

Ok, I get your point... and agree... but a big part of the problem is that there are so many billions running around that we lose track of how much bigger a b is than a m, or a t than a b. It's all just words to them. Sort of a mind the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves attitude. Cut the payrolls (number and/or dollars) and you have to find other ways to pay for things... you know, like cutting fraud and waste.

I don't consider a plan to cut 10% from a small part of the budget a major feather in someones cap... but I consider a plan that seemingly adds 10% to ANY part of the budget when money is in short supply to be worthy of rebuke and correction. The idea that it's a rounding error to the overall budget is exactly why they thought they could get away with it... and why we're where we are.

(02-03-2010 10:42 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  GTS, when you look around and all you see is dirt, You quit digging.

The dictionary agrees with me.

(02-03-2010 10:54 AM)Paul M Wrote:  It wasn't "those on payroll". It is "those on a payroll".

the sum necessary for distribution to those on a payroll

Where do you think the phrase "make payroll" comes from in a struggling business? Do you think they're trying to manufacturer additional employees?

(02-02-2010 11:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  pay·roll
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-ˌrōl\
Function: noun
Date: 1740
the sum necessary for distribution to those on a payroll; also : the money to be distributed

That's how it's misleading. That's the only way I've ever heard payroll used. The way it's used there could be better replaced by "employees" or "work force".

(02-03-2010 02:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='SumOfAllFears' pid='5125654' dateline='1265211761']
GTS, when you look around and all you see is dirt, You quit digging.

The dictionary agrees with me.

(02-03-2010 10:54 AM)Paul M Wrote:  It wasn't "those on payroll". It is "those on a payroll".

the sum necessary for distribution to those on a payroll

Where do you think the phrase "make payroll" comes from in a struggling business? Do you think they're trying to manufacturer additional employees?

The definition you gave is but one of the definitions. If you've never heard it used in the way Sum used it, that's on you.

Other definitions:

a list of employees and their salaries; "the company had a long payroll"
A list of employees receiving wages or salaries
a list of employees
a list of employees to be paid
The financial record of employees' salaries, wages, bonuses, net pay, and deductions.

As you can surely see, the title is not misleading. 2.15 million people on the Fed payroll.

By the way, the article was titled "Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million". Obviously an editor knew the correct definition being used here.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010...-of-big-g/

(02-03-2010 03:36 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 11:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  pay·roll
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-ˌrōl\
Function: noun
Date: 1740
the sum necessary for distribution to those on a payroll; also : the money to be distributed

That's how it's misleading. That's the only way I've ever heard payroll used. The way it's used there could be better replaced by "employees" or "work force".

(02-03-2010 02:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='SumOfAllFears' pid='5125654' dateline='1265211761']
GTS, when you look around and all you see is dirt, You quit digging.

The dictionary agrees with me.

(02-03-2010 10:54 AM)Paul M Wrote:  It wasn't "those on payroll". It is "those on a payroll".

the sum necessary for distribution to those on a payroll

Where do you think the phrase "make payroll" comes from in a struggling business? Do you think they're trying to manufacturer additional employees?

The definition you gave is but one of the definitions. If you've never heard it used in the way Sum used it, that's on you.

Other definitions:

a list of employees and their salaries; "the company had a long payroll"
A list of employees receiving wages or salaries
a list of employees
a list of employees to be paid
The financial record of employees' salaries, wages, bonuses, net pay, and deductions.

As you can surely see, the title is not misleading. 2.15 million people on the Fed payroll.

By the way, the article was titled "Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million". Obviously an editor knew the correct definition being used here.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010...-of-big-g/

He is still digging.

(02-03-2010 03:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  He is still digging.

And a simple "thanks for pointing out my error guys, my apologies" would have sufficed.

(02-03-2010 03:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-03-2010 03:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  He is still digging.

And a simple "thanks for pointing out my error guys, my apologies" would have sufficed.

An approach like that would reduce message board traffic by 60%.