To be fair, I think we’ve all grown desensitized after watching so many of our families and friends lose jobs and houses since 2008. Not to say it’s right, but with so many private-sector and local/state employees who have lost jobs, it’s unfair to say federal workers should be immune. And yes, I lost my job [not furloughed] along with 50% of my school last summer for bullshit politics between our superintendent and the State Dept of Education.
Well, good, 'cause it’s not. Does it make you feel better about your own job loss that a bunch of other people are now also missing out on paychecks for a totally bullshit reason? I’m not going to judge you too much if the answer is yes, because I know that losing a job is a real punch to the gut. But that’s hardly a good rationale for thinking that this whole situation is A-OK or even a little bit OK, or OK in any way at all.
This many people losing out on work hurts the economy, which hurts all of us. And that’s not even mentioning the people missing out on necessary services like WIC.
That’s a criticism? 
Why? If it isn’t fair, what principle are you saying should be at work which means that some people should lose their jobs because other people are losing theirs?
In the 1990s, when the economy turned around after the recession and civil servants (not to mention uniformed military) were being laid off, should private sector workers have lost their jobs, too, based on that same principle?
I think you should also explain the extent of this principle, in that some people should lose their jobs today because others lost their jobs four or five years ago. Should a public sector worker lose their job today because the late 1970s recession was pretty bad, too?
Anyone who thinks that federal jobs have been immune during our prolonged economic slump is wilfully plum ignorant and so casually comfortable.with that ignorance that they cannot be bothered to do a 10 second Google fucking search to educate themselves.
Jesus Christ, there is literally a world of information at people’s fingertips and they prefer the blissful solitude.
For all those flaming me, maybe you should reread “Not to say it’s right”. And I didn’t say it made me feel better Ms Whatsit. My point was after so many people have been losing jobs in mass layoffs over the last 5 years, the American public has grown desensitized to more job losses. I don’t want people to lose their jobs but considering most Americans can count with double digits the friends and family members that have lost jobs and with unemployment at 7.3% (it was low 6’s when the economy took a dump) that hearing more people are losing jobs is just noise. Yes I feel bad for the single mom of 3 that lost her job - just like I felt bad all the other times I heard this story over the last few years.
And Ravenman, my point was not that fairness means all sectors have to lose their jobs equally, but rather that Federal employees are likewise possible to suffer from unemployment. Maybe I’m reading too much into how the news is presented but I seems to me that Federal employees are being singled out because THEY are victims of the SHUTDOWN. Maybe it’s because they wouldn’t be losing their jobs if Congress weren’t idiots but you know what? We all lost jobs because of idiots whether you want to blame the people who didn’t want to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac or the idiots that securitized bad mortgages or the idiots that didn’t realize you can’t pay a $2000/mo mortgage when you only make $1500.
And that answers Hentor as well. I know federal jobs have been lost but I feel the reporting implies that THIS round of layoffs is somehow unfair because of the shutdown and again, with so many jobs lost (including Federal) why is this round of layoffs unfair.
And I’ll further point out that if history is any indicator (and yes I know this is not guarantied), all the people furloughed will get backpay covering this time so while it may be tough going until the shutdown ends, after it is all over the workers may (most likely) not lose any money from it.
I hope you are right about that, and wholly agree that is the reasonable and sensible result. That is the problem, it is the reasonable and sensible result.
Are we dealing with reasonable and sensible people?
Don’t forget the demagoguery!
Well, it doesn’t exactly answer me, because what you said originally was different than what you’re saying now, but that’s not especially germane. I think it is crucial for people to understand what is actually going on with job gains and losses, and it doesn’t take any special expertise to get that information.
I’m tempted to ask for a cite of the media portraying this as “unfair” to federal employees, because I strongly doubt those exist. Generally, hopefully, the media still take a more intelligent perspective on.the matter. Your perspective seems to confuse job losses related to the economy with totally preventable (if temporary) job losses due to a wrongheaded partisan political ploy.
A mature perspective would recognize that all these major job losses (yours and the current shutdown job interruptions) are bad for us all collectively. Breaking it up into teams and seeing if the other guys are taking it in the seat in equal measure seems like a childish and petty way to look at it. (That said, job losses accruing more for one sector over another is important in terms of figuring out what is wrong and how to fix it. It isn’t useful though when your interest is in applying the Golden Rule backwards.)
One would also hope that your reaction to others suffering a similar difficulty to your own would be more “wow, I feel for them since I know how hard it is” and less “good, I’ve suffered so why shouldn’t they”.
Thanks for giving an honest answer, at least. Nobody else would admit this.
Personally, I think it’s a bit nuts to say that an accomplished economist who advised a president doesn’t know something so basic about how Medicare works. But you’re entitled to your opinion.
I don’t know what you are searching for here, but I’ll try to answer. It basically depends on how you define terms. We’re talking about a “basic level” of both health care and education.
I would argue that everyone in the US, even those in the inner city get a basic level of healthcare. It’s obviously not optimal, but if even the poorest person from the inner city gets into a car accident they will be taken to a hospital and get patched up. That’s a “basic level” of healthcare.
Education on the other hand is failing 50% or so of those same people. Inner city schools are graduating kids who literally can’t read. That’s failing to meet even a “basic level” of education.
This what you were looking for?
You are conflating outputs with inputs. You should either compare access to access, or outcomes to outcomes, not access to outcomes.
I think you’re seriously underestimating how much resentment there is among people towards government workers. There’s been a lot of suffering in this economy and meanwhile Washington has been booming.
Bzzzzt. Since 2009, 5 million jobs have been added in the private sector while the public sector has shed 721,000 jobs.
He said Washington. Not “public sector”.
I dunno, I don’t live in a particularly wealthy part of the country and I have a lot of conservative friends and family, and I don’t really get the sense from any of them that they harbor resentment towards rank-and-file government employees. Those guys are just working to earn a living like the rest of us. Now, government administration: Yes, definitely. But not the worker bee types.
Heh. Ok, Terr. I’m sure that was his intended point.
Yes, cuz Washington’s booming has nothing to do with the government. At all.
This is just…I’ll let it stand for itself.
The economy in Washington has been good because of lots of non-government businesses and industries opening or relocating here over the past ten years. The government-related sector in the DC area isn’t growing, it’s actually shrinking as a share of the local economy.