Now admittedly, this isn't about the "Swamp"(as in the power brokers), but remember how we wondered if the swamp could be drained?

Well, it's looks like it can be done.. but rather at a small brook level at a time.

Quote:The Trump administration has shed nearly 11,000 federal employees during its first six months, reversing a two year trend of gains throughout the executive branch.

A July jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Friday showed non-postal federal agencies employed 2,188,900 workers at the end of the month, down 2,200 from June and 10,700 from January, when Trump took office[quote]

11,000? Is that really a good number, considering there are 200K federal workers in DC alone?

Hot Air did some comparisons..

[quote] That’s particularly true if you compare Trump’s performance thus far to his recent predecessors. Over the past two years there were a total of 50K federal workers added to the previous staffing levels in 2015 and 2016. Barack Obama added 60K in his first six months in office and George W. Bush inflated the rolls by 36K during the same period of his first term. This shrinkage is fairly remarkable.

Its only meaningful if it isn't countered by an increase in consultant contracts. In-house staff versus consulted staff. It is the old government switcheroo.

(08-07-2017 12:51 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Its only meaningful if it isn't countered by an increase in consultant contracts. In-house staff versus consulted staff. It is the old government switcheroo.

I'm waiting to see if anyone will show the contract numbers, GBF.. so far, I haven't found any.

(08-07-2017 12:54 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 12:51 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Its only meaningful if it isn't countered by an increase in consultant contracts. In-house staff versus consulted staff. It is the old government switcheroo.

I'm waiting to see if anyone will show the contract numbers, GBF.. so far, I haven't found any.

Gotcha.

(08-07-2017 12:51 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Its only meaningful if it isn't countered by an increase in consultant contracts. In-house staff versus consulted staff. It is the old government switcheroo.

Even if true, contractors are chaeper and more agile. We won't know if your assertion is true until October 2018, however, since we are still spending Obama's appropriations. Contract spending appears pretty flat to me, but I only deal in the IT sector and as previously stated, Trump has yet to have any impact as most of the monies being spent right now were planned and obligated before the election.

(08-07-2017 12:39 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Now admittedly, this isn't about the "Swamp"(as in the power brokers), but remember how we wondered if the swamp could be drained?

Well, it's looks like it can be done.. but rather at a small brook level at a time.

Quote:The Trump administration has shed nearly 11,000 federal employees during its first six months, reversing a two year trend of gains throughout the executive branch.

A July jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Friday showed non-postal federal agencies employed 2,188,900 workers at the end of the month, down 2,200 from June and 10,700 from January, when Trump took office[quote]

11,000? Is that really a good number, considering there are 200K federal workers in DC alone?

Hot Air did some comparisons..

[quote] That’s particularly true if you compare Trump’s performance thus far to his recent predecessors. Over the past two years there were a total of 50K federal workers added to the previous staffing levels in 2015 and 2016. Barack Obama added 60K in his first six months in office and George W. Bush inflated the rolls by 36K during the same period of his first term. This shrinkage is fairly remarkable.

Not a bad start comparatively speaking.

Good, 10-11k removed from the federal Teet every 6-7 months or so for 8 years and we got something.

Would save billions.

Here's what trump thinks about the swamp, disregard Trevor Noah and skip to 4:41.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BB38DvTV5kc

(08-07-2017 01:23 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 12:51 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Its only meaningful if it isn't countered by an increase in consultant contracts. In-house staff versus consulted staff. It is the old government switcheroo.

Even if true, contractors are chaeper and more agile. We won't know if your assertion is true until October 2018, however, since we are still spending Obama's appropriations. Contract spending appears pretty flat to me, but I only deal in the IT sector and as previously stated, Trump has yet to have any impact as most of the monies being spent right now were planned and obligated before the election.

Not really. It depends on the function. The problem with contractors is the nature of the short term relationship.

Really, what needs to be done is the bureaucracy needs to be evaluated and functions prioritized. Whether done in-house or contracted, if the function isn't vital, it should be crap canned.

(08-07-2017 07:42 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 01:23 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 12:51 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Its only meaningful if it isn't countered by an increase in consultant contracts. In-house staff versus consulted staff. It is the old government switcheroo.

Even if true, contractors are chaeper and more agile. We won't know if your assertion is true until October 2018, however, since we are still spending Obama's appropriations. Contract spending appears pretty flat to me, but I only deal in the IT sector and as previously stated, Trump has yet to have any impact as most of the monies being spent right now were planned and obligated before the election.

Not really. It depends on the function. The problem with contractors is the nature of the short term relationship.

Really, what needs to be done is the bureaucracy needs to be evaluated and functions prioritized. Whether done in-house or contracted, if the function isn't vital, it should be crap canned.

What if a new software needs to be developed? You going to hire guvvies at $150k a pop that you can't get rid of whe the job is done? The short term nature of contractors is one of the primary reasons they are cheaper.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(08-07-2017 07:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 07:42 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 01:23 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 12:51 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Its only meaningful if it isn't countered by an increase in consultant contracts. In-house staff versus consulted staff. It is the old government switcheroo.

Even if true, contractors are chaeper and more agile. We won't know if your assertion is true until October 2018, however, since we are still spending Obama's appropriations. Contract spending appears pretty flat to me, but I only deal in the IT sector and as previously stated, Trump has yet to have any impact as most of the monies being spent right now were planned and obligated before the election.

Not really. It depends on the function. The problem with contractors is the nature of the short term relationship.

Really, what needs to be done is the bureaucracy needs to be evaluated and functions prioritized. Whether done in-house or contracted, if the function isn't vital, it should be crap canned.

What if a new software needs to be developed? You going to hire guvvies at $150k a pop that you can't get rid of whe the job is done? The short term nature of contractors is one of the primary reasons they are cheaper.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Of course not. But many outsourced tasks are not short term tasks. They are simply contractors that replace staff that would normally be in-house, which is what I referenced earlier. That is not a cost savings. It is typically done so politicians can claim head count is reduced, yet spending continues to go up.

Contractors have their place. Government workers have their place. Downsizing the size/cost of government should be the overall goal. Contracting everything out is not the answer to that.

One thing the government doesn't seem to get is that paying it forward and spending on preventative measures and societal maintenance is FAR CHEAPER than trying to fix the giant holes when you ignore things for decades.

The government has broke the contract between them and the taxpayer (business and personal). They were supposed to use the billions to maintain the country so that business could run smoothly and people could be happy. There was enough money to do it without extortionate tax rates.

Unfortunately, graft may be what ultimately dooms capitalism in the USA.

If he can get 80k removed by the time this term is over? I might even vote for him in a second term.

(08-07-2017 10:04 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  One thing the government doesn't seem to get is that paying it forward and spending on preventative measures and societal maintenance is FAR CHEAPER than trying to fix the giant holes when you ignore things for decades.

The government has broke the contract between them and the taxpayer (business and personal). They were supposed to use the billions to maintain the country so that business could run smoothly and people could be happy. There was enough money to do it without extortionate tax rates.

Unfortunately, graft may be what ultimately dooms capitalism in the USA.

(08-07-2017 07:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 07:42 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 01:23 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 12:51 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Its only meaningful if it isn't countered by an increase in consultant contracts. In-house staff versus consulted staff. It is the old government switcheroo.

Even if true, contractors are chaeper and more agile. We won't know if your assertion is true until October 2018, however, since we are still spending Obama's appropriations. Contract spending appears pretty flat to me, but I only deal in the IT sector and as previously stated, Trump has yet to have any impact as most of the monies being spent right now were planned and obligated before the election.

Not really. It depends on the function. The problem with contractors is the nature of the short term relationship.

Really, what needs to be done is the bureaucracy needs to be evaluated and functions prioritized. Whether done in-house or contracted, if the function isn't vital, it should be crap canned.

What if a new software needs to be developed? You going to hire guvvies at $150k a pop that you can't get rid of whe the job is done? The short term nature of contractors is one of the primary reasons they are cheaper.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Eh, I don't believe that contractors are cheaper. My best friend from high school works as a software engineer who contracts with the DoD. He makes stupid money and told me that the $30mil contract his employer has could be done for 1/2 the money and 1/3 of the people. He said the biggest cost issue is, you guessed it, complying with federal regulations. They have several people whose sole job is to make sure that their software doesn't break bureaucratic rules.

(08-08-2017 08:27 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 07:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 07:42 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 01:23 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 12:51 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Its only meaningful if it isn't countered by an increase in consultant contracts. In-house staff versus consulted staff. It is the old government switcheroo.

Even if true, contractors are chaeper and more agile. We won't know if your assertion is true until October 2018, however, since we are still spending Obama's appropriations. Contract spending appears pretty flat to me, but I only deal in the IT sector and as previously stated, Trump has yet to have any impact as most of the monies being spent right now were planned and obligated before the election.

Not really. It depends on the function. The problem with contractors is the nature of the short term relationship.

Really, what needs to be done is the bureaucracy needs to be evaluated and functions prioritized. Whether done in-house or contracted, if the function isn't vital, it should be crap canned.

What if a new software needs to be developed? You going to hire guvvies at $150k a pop that you can't get rid of whe the job is done? The short term nature of contractors is one of the primary reasons they are cheaper.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Eh, I don't believe that contractors are cheaper. My best friend from high school works as a software engineer who contracts with the DoD. He makes stupid money and told me that the $30mil contract his employer has could be done for 1/2 the money and 1/3 of the people. He said the biggest cost issue is, you guessed it, complying with federal regulations. They have several people whose sole job is to make sure that their software doesn't break bureaucratic rules.

They are going to have several people doing that whether the employees are government or contractors. Contractors write their proposals to the government's requirements. If they could do the work with 1/2 the people and be in compliance with the requirements, they would have to do just that to be competitive. Regulations are a separate issue. The cost of a contractor employee generally fall at about 1.6x their salary. The cost of a government employee generally falls around 2.1x their salary, making the government employee about 31.25% more expensive. Yes, a lot of contractors make very good money. The pool of talent that have TS security clearance, US citizenship with no criminal record and good credit, required certifications, and X years of experience working on specific government/military/weapons systems is limited. These aren't resumes you can just get anywhere. A software engineer in the DC area with a TS clearance and successful experience can command $125k+.

(08-08-2017 08:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 08:27 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 07:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 07:42 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 01:23 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Even if true, contractors are chaeper and more agile. We won't know if your assertion is true until October 2018, however, since we are still spending Obama's appropriations. Contract spending appears pretty flat to me, but I only deal in the IT sector and as previously stated, Trump has yet to have any impact as most of the monies being spent right now were planned and obligated before the election.

Not really. It depends on the function. The problem with contractors is the nature of the short term relationship.

Really, what needs to be done is the bureaucracy needs to be evaluated and functions prioritized. Whether done in-house or contracted, if the function isn't vital, it should be crap canned.

What if a new software needs to be developed? You going to hire guvvies at $150k a pop that you can't get rid of whe the job is done? The short term nature of contractors is one of the primary reasons they are cheaper.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Eh, I don't believe that contractors are cheaper. My best friend from high school works as a software engineer who contracts with the DoD. He makes stupid money and told me that the $30mil contract his employer has could be done for 1/2 the money and 1/3 of the people. He said the biggest cost issue is, you guessed it, complying with federal regulations. They have several people whose sole job is to make sure that their software doesn't break bureaucratic rules.

They are going to have several people doing that whether the employees are government or contractors. Contractors write their proposals to the government's requirements. If they could do the work with 1/2 the people and be in compliance with the requirements, they would have to do just that to be competitive. Regulations are a separate issue. The cost of a contractor employee generally fall at about 1.6x their salary. The cost of a government employee generally falls around 2.1x their salary, making the government employee about 31.25% more expensive. Yes, a lot of contractors make very good money. The pool of talent that have TS security clearance, US citizenship with no criminal record and good credit, required certifications, and X years of experience working on specific government/military/weapons systems is limited. These aren't resumes you can just get anywhere. A software engineer in the DC area with a TS clearance and successful experience can command $125k+.

Well, in the infrastructure industry, the cost of the contracted employee is usually 2.8 to 3 times their salary.

(08-08-2017 09:16 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 08:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 08:27 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 07:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 07:42 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Not really. It depends on the function. The problem with contractors is the nature of the short term relationship.

Really, what needs to be done is the bureaucracy needs to be evaluated and functions prioritized. Whether done in-house or contracted, if the function isn't vital, it should be crap canned.

What if a new software needs to be developed? You going to hire guvvies at $150k a pop that you can't get rid of whe the job is done? The short term nature of contractors is one of the primary reasons they are cheaper.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Eh, I don't believe that contractors are cheaper. My best friend from high school works as a software engineer who contracts with the DoD. He makes stupid money and told me that the $30mil contract his employer has could be done for 1/2 the money and 1/3 of the people. He said the biggest cost issue is, you guessed it, complying with federal regulations. They have several people whose sole job is to make sure that their software doesn't break bureaucratic rules.

They are going to have several people doing that whether the employees are government or contractors. Contractors write their proposals to the government's requirements. If they could do the work with 1/2 the people and be in compliance with the requirements, they would have to do just that to be competitive. Regulations are a separate issue. The cost of a contractor employee generally fall at about 1.6x their salary. The cost of a government employee generally falls around 2.1x their salary, making the government employee about 31.25% more expensive. Yes, a lot of contractors make very good money. The pool of talent that have TS security clearance, US citizenship with no criminal record and good credit, required certifications, and X years of experience working on specific government/military/weapons systems is limited. These aren't resumes you can just get anywhere. A software engineer in the DC area with a TS clearance and successful experience can command $125k+.

Well, in the infrastructure industry, the cost of the contracted employee is usually 2.8 to 3 times their salary.

I'm not familiar with that industry, but I would imagine the bonding, insurance requirements, and the procurement, supply chain, and logistics of large and heavy equipment, and inventory of building materials create a very high overhead pool.

(08-08-2017 09:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 09:16 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 08:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 08:27 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 07:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  What if a new software needs to be developed? You going to hire guvvies at $150k a pop that you can't get rid of whe the job is done? The short term nature of contractors is one of the primary reasons they are cheaper.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Eh, I don't believe that contractors are cheaper. My best friend from high school works as a software engineer who contracts with the DoD. He makes stupid money and told me that the $30mil contract his employer has could be done for 1/2 the money and 1/3 of the people. He said the biggest cost issue is, you guessed it, complying with federal regulations. They have several people whose sole job is to make sure that their software doesn't break bureaucratic rules.

They are going to have several people doing that whether the employees are government or contractors. Contractors write their proposals to the government's requirements. If they could do the work with 1/2 the people and be in compliance with the requirements, they would have to do just that to be competitive. Regulations are a separate issue. The cost of a contractor employee generally fall at about 1.6x their salary. The cost of a government employee generally falls around 2.1x their salary, making the government employee about 31.25% more expensive. Yes, a lot of contractors make very good money. The pool of talent that have TS security clearance, US citizenship with no criminal record and good credit, required certifications, and X years of experience working on specific government/military/weapons systems is limited. These aren't resumes you can just get anywhere. A software engineer in the DC area with a TS clearance and successful experience can command $125k+.

Well, in the infrastructure industry, the cost of the contracted employee is usually 2.8 to 3 times their salary.

I'm not familiar with that industry, but I would imagine the bonding, insurance requirements, and the procurement, supply chain, and logistics of large and heavy equipment, and inventory of building materials create a very high overhead pool.

Not construction staff. Engineers, environmental sciences, etc. Technical staff.