Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
I have seen some govt workers, and some contractors. I know the govt pays more to contractors, but IMO they get a lot better effort out of the contractors. That's not true in every single case, but a govt worker knows he/she has benefits and usually LOOOONG term employment, where as the contractors reasonably ofter have to re-bid and prove their competitiveness.
Also, and this is hard to explain, I fundamentally believe in small govt. I think that's known. IF we reduce by cutting contractors we do two things we make the equivalent govt workers jobs more stable, and thus promote more institutionalized govt, AND we reduce the competition around any given govt function. IF we reduce by cutting govt jobs, we increase the competition in the market place (assuming that the best of the cut workers would go to the contracting companies and compete for those jobs) and we create a more flexible and small central govt that can hire contractors as needed, or fire them if they get lazy or uncompetitive.
Also when you say it pays contractors more are you including the levels of benefits that many govt workers get in that? I don't know that stat so it is a honest question. I tend to think that the contractor may get paid more straight up, but then they have to turn around and cover their employees benefits.
|
I won't argue deeply into it.
Maybe my point is better said like this: a govt employee is intrinsically tied to a larger govt, a contractor while wanting govt money can turn to a commercial market to increase their profits.