It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tillerson Cuts 2,300 Jobs From Bloated State Department

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: underwerks

NOBODY IS HAVING THERE #ING JOBS TAKEN!

Cant people read!

Its saving by attrition IE when people leave of there own free will they wont be replaced.

And every job that's taken from someone once they leave isn't available to anyone else after that, as it would have been.

So yeah, those are still lost jobs.




posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Is it any surprise that taxpayers pay the salaries of over 22,000,000 government employees?
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

The 2,300 positions being eliminated by the State Dept is a step in the right direction. A tiny baby step...


edit on 4/30/2017 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yea, I worked at Exxon. This is straight from the Exxon management playbook and it works! We were subjected to reorganization and layoffs every 18 to 24 months. It produces a work force in constant fear of not making the cut. It also produces, in the end, a very loyal work force among those who were promoted rather than being layed off. To get a promotion you had to tirelessly and daily prove up and demonstrate your loyalty.

In other words, Tillerson is draining the Foggy Bottom swamp of Obama loyalists.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

No, JOB implies work. If the work is no longer there because there isn't a need anymore, its completed.

Therefore, it isn't job loss, its jobs complete.

This isn't hard to understand.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I might hire the local high school kid to cut my grass from May through August or September. Then, I sunset that job.

Is it wrong of me to not keep paying that high school kid from October through April even though there really isn't much, if any, grass cutting work ... because, your know, job?

Seriously, I am not going to keep paying him just to keep him employed at nothing, so I only hire him for those months. The end of the job is called sunsetting. I might create the job again in the spring when my grass starts growing, or not.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
Obviously they feel like the work can still get done without them.


Do they? I'm not sure it's as obvious as you claim.

One trend I've noticed is manufactured failure.

A common tactic in politics is to spend years and years chipping away at an agency through reductions, and/or removing any enforcement powers (like with the EPA), only to later point and say "Look how ineffective 'agency X' is!". Well of course 'agency X' is ineffective after it's been stripped of workers and/or enforcement powers through years and years of chipping away at it, but that's not the fault of the agency itself. It's the fault of politicians meddling at the behest of lobbyists.
edit on 4/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Every single regulatory and enforcement agency in the government has just experienced 8 years of unparalleled growth, so they can afford to lose some weight.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Great.

Then why did you refer to "job losses" in Idaho?



I bet cost of living is lower in Idaho too.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That's a bold claim.

I'm all for smaller government when it's viable, but when it comes to D.C. I'm simply not convinced that these cuts lack sheer political and/or big business lobbyist motivations.

Is the State Department involved in anything that might shine a less-than-favorable light on the administration, or any large-donors/lobbyists that favor it? Would being short-staffed help to mitigate/postpone any possible issues that could arise?
edit on 4/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

In the rural areas, where we have always had jobs til 2008. There are a lot of rural towns in Idaho. The young people have moved to the cities of Twin Falls and Boise. That's why Idaho voted for Trump, because he was a businessman and said he would bring jobs to the rural counties.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That depends. Rent, food (which is taxed), medical is expensive like every where else. A three bedroom rents for $1300 month. Property taxes makes rent real high.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: yuppa

I live in a red state. They are not happy about job losses. Idaho is poor enough.



Hmmm

Idaho’s Unemployment Rate Declines to 3.5 Percent





Actually the low rate isnt a true count of the true number un employed. try prolly about 7-10 percent in reality.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Anyone placing bets on a government shut down next Friday? Think it will happen?



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 38181
Anyone placing bets on a government shut down next Friday? Think it will happen?


Good.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: yuppa

I live in a red state. They are not happy about job losses. Idaho is poor enough.



Hmmm

Idaho’s Unemployment Rate Declines to 3.5 Percent





Actually the low rate isnt a true count of the true number un employed. try prolly about 7-10 percent in reality.


Yeah, but it's like that all over because they count folks like me (part-time, but not by choice) as employed and ignore those who are out of work and not looking because they've given up.

How do you think Obama had such low employment stats during his time in office?



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: 38181
Anyone placing bets on a government shut down next Friday? Think it will happen?


I think the last government shutdown was 23 days. It was a total non-event to 90% of Americans.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: 38181
Anyone placing bets on a government shut down next Friday? Think it will happen?


I think the last government shutdown was 23 days. It was a total non-event to 90% of Americans.


Right it was back in 2013 and it was two weeks, the problem and screwed up part was it was basically a paid vacation for those who were furloughed. They received back pay all for doing nothing those two weeks.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 38181

There is no reason to shut it down. The republicans are in charge. There is no opponent with power like the last time.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Yeah, but it's like that all over because they count folks like me (part-time, but not by choice) as employed and ignore those who are out of work and not looking because they've given up.

How do you think Obama had such low employment stats during his time in office?


Yeah, it was pretty misleading when those new standards were enacted by Dubya's administration. The unemployment numbers have been way off base from reality for almost two decades now. They also exclude anyone who's had their unemployment benefits expire. Obama did enact legislation to extend unemployment benefits for Americans, but did nothing to solve the real root of the issue that Dubya created. False unemployment figures are one of those things that benefit both major parties, so don't expect anyone in Washington to actually correct it anytime soon.
edit on 4/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Much like Obama changed poverty from a hard line to a percentage of the mean? That means that no matter how prosperous the nation becomes, there will always be people in "poverty."




top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join