Dot-Commers vs. Government Contractors

StrangeBeer writes: "When the dot-Com movement went bust, it sent thousands of former employees running for cover (or the unemployment line, whichever was closer). One place they didn't go was the way of the Government Contractor who, incidentally, is doing just fine right now with or without a recession. Various reasons are given for this and one I'd like to point out is that the government managers would rather hire an underqualified person with a security clearance and later train them in their tradecraft. The vast majority of these kinds of employees are coming from other kinds of federal work (military, civil service, etc.) and not defunct dot-Com companies."

Comments

The real reason

[pokeyburro]

The real reason gov't contractors are doing so well is actually because of cuts in government spending. Huge government agencies had to show that they were tightening their belts by laying off workers.

The logic gets really strange at this point. The agency heads then replace this lost labor by contracting out (hence contractors getting plenty of work). This actually costs more in some cases. Once you cut out all the government grunts, you can cut much of the personnel and admin departments as well, which looks great on the books. But you're also now paying money to a business trying to make a profit, so you end up paying more.

In some cases, the winners here are the employees they laid off - well, the bright ones at least. They often come back as contractors, now getting 50% more in salary. (They do give up the extraordinary amount of leave the government gives you, but many of them couldn't use all that leave anyway.)