Slashdot Mirror


Federal Shutdown May Send Millennial Workers To Exits (techtarget.com)

dcblogs writes: The federal government measures the "engagement" of its federal workforce once a year with a massive survey of 1.5 million employees. And what it has found is that most federal workers are very dedicated to their work. Its most recent survey -- the 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey -- asked employees if they are "willing to put in extra effort to get their job done," 96% of the survey takers responded affirmatively. Moreover, 91% agreed with the statement that they "look for ways to do their jobs better," and 90% "believe their work is important." But this job dedication is being tested by the U.S. government shutdown, and most at risk of leaving are Millennial-age workers. Less than 6% of federal employees are under the age of 30 and represent half of all people who leave an agency within the first two years. The best employees have options, and "a major concern is that the brightest, hardest-working, and most capable, dedicated government employees may opt out of government service and take jobs in the private sector," Talya Bauer, professor of management at Portland State University in Oregon and president of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, said. The shutdown could hurt the reputation of the government as a good place to work, she said.

284 comments

  1. Well.. So? by bobbied · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Didn't Trump say he wanted a smaller government? Seems like a quick way to achieve that.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Well.. So? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Didn't Trump say he wanted a smaller government? Seems like a quick way to achieve that.

      Yes, this. I bet most of the Republican party are on cloud 9 right now, dreaming about their libertarian, small gubbermint ideologies. Meanwhile, millions of not so ideological people suffer from a lack of government services. In practice, Libertarians are just a bunch of sadistic perverts.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    2. Re:Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Trump gives a shit if it's larger or smaller. Like his voters he only cares about poking people in the eye and asking why are they hitting themselves. That is the intelligence level of the average Trump voter, around 5 years of age. Their orange haired leader has proven how infantile he can be.

      Let's elect adults and leave the children like Trump and that Brooklyn bitch AOC out of government completely.

    3. Re:Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DRAIN THE SWAMP

    4. Re:Well.. So? by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Republicans win by getting a smaller gubbermint. They win again by dragging the gubbermint through the mud thus tainting it for the future as a place to do good work. And they'll win again after they've fucked up the gubbermint operations by campaigning under the slogan that the gubbermint doesn't work well, so elect them to fix it.

    5. Re:Well.. So? by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 2

      DRAIN THE SWAMP

      ... of what talent is there.

    6. Re:Well.. So? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 0

      The Republicans win by getting a smaller gubbermint. They win again by dragging the gubbermint through the mud thus tainting it for the future as a place to do good work. And they'll win again after they've fucked up the gubbermint operations by campaigning under the slogan that the gubbermint doesn't work well, so elect them to fix it.

      Yep, this too. Please mod the above comment up :)

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    7. Re:Well.. So? by BeauHD++(3492052) · · Score: 0

      Send 'em to Slashdot to become Editors.

      ...or don't, le sigh...

      [[XxX _ xXx BeauHD xXx _ XxX]]
      [s][e][n][i][o][r] __ [e][d][i][t][o][r]

    8. Re:Well.. So? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      This is a tell for a Russian agent. Dividing us and making us fight with one another with ugly hate language. Nice try, Ivan but we Americans are stronger than you.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, are you even American? Wtf state borders stop you to confiscate your plants and produce? In what world is an inspector federal and telling you to cuts your weeds? Retard.

    10. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you've never traveled through the glorious State of California...

    11. Re:Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, millions of not so ideological people suffer from a lack of government services.

      I know, right? I don't know what to do with myself without the TSA grabbing my crotch.

    12. Re:Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Classic GOP. Reasonable terms = "my way or the highway"

      Trump didn't get his wall in 2017. He didn't get his wall in 2018. And he won't be getting his wall in 2019. This temper tantrum is the result of the "master" negotiator.

    13. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point stands, how does a federal shutdown impact California code inspectors, HOAs or people driving into the state from anywhere except Tijuana?

    14. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      You are an idiot. Trump has given them plenty of chances to negotiate which they refuse. Keep in mind these same democrats voted for a wall during previous administrations.

    15. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are too intelligent for my black ass. My sincerest apologies for being a retard and wasting your time. Carry on comrade!

    16. Re:Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What reasonable terms? Trump hasn't offered any! The supposed "dealmaker" doesn't have a clue how negotiation works. His only tactics seem to those of a playground bully: arm-twisting and name calling. I mean, I suppose he also knows how to shift goalposts and pretend that's what he meant all along. It seems to work amazingly well on his base! Just not well on anyone with any critical thinking skills.

      Seriously, when has Trump offered anything other than just a blanket demand for wall money? Where are the actual, concrete plans for what the "wall" would entail. What's the plan for dealing with all the people who will have their land stolen to build it? Seriously, aside from all of the other arguments about how ineffective and pointless and wasteful a wall will be, what about just the basic fact that all anyone seems to know about how the money would be spent is a long series of obvious lies from Donald Trump? How can anyone pretend that Donald Trump is negotiating in anything even resembling good faith? Donald Trump is a complete wreck of a human being who can't plan his way out of a wet paper bag, and his "gut" only seems to be good as a repository for fast food.

    17. Re:Well.. So? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Who gave you the idea that Republicans were libertarian? Democrats?

      Both sides slander libertarians; they don't want an effective third party.

      --
      -- Alastair
    18. Re:Well.. So? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Who gave you the idea that Republicans were libertarian?

      Indeed. Libertarians believe in small government, elimination of subsidies, reduced military spending, and free trade.

      This is the precise opposite of Trumpism, which is an ad-hoc blend of the dumbest ideas from both the left and right.

    19. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised you actually understand Ocrazio is nothing more than a leftist Trump - that is, a grenade thrown into the party by dissatisfied voters.

      Pity the DNC wears jackboots; there's not a chance in hell of burning that fucker down like is being done to the GOP.

    20. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stop it with your facts and common sense, this is democrat safe space, your reality isn't welcome here

    21. Re:Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

    22. Re:Well.. So? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. -- P.J. O'Rourke

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    23. Re:Well.. So? by kiminator · · Score: 4, Informative

      What I find interesting is that it seems the worst impacts of the shutdown are being felt by demographics that tend to vote Republican. That makes the political fallout for this shutdown potentially disastrous for Republicans.

      Maybe they'll forget come 2020. But we'll see. The Republican party's behavior has been pretty uniformly reprehensible, and there's a chance that these events will cause a few Republican voters to open their eyes and see the party for what it is: a party for the rich, by the rich, who only panders to non-rich voters by promising to harm "those people". When they find that they're often in the crosshairs, maybe they'll start expanding their news sources beyond the conservative bubble and actually learn something.

      Not many, of course. It's rare for people to change their minds like this. But it does happen. And it could be the beginning of the end for the Republican party (aside: if the Republican party ends, it will be replaced by another party: our system is only stable with two parties in power; hopefully that other party will be less terrible so that we can actually have a reasonable national political discussion for once).

    24. Re: Well.. So? by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What, putting five billion unbudgeted dollars into an appropriation bill is reasonable? For a project with no corresponding authorization bill?

      But you probably don't understand what any of that means, so how about this: Congress asked the president for a detailed breakdown of how he intended to spend the money and he only itemized 1.7 billion, meaning he's demanding 3.2 billion that he could spend any way he likes.

      If you think government spending is out of control, wait until this becomes the new normal.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    25. Re:Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry some more lil bitch.

    26. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the constitution, idiot. Pelosi hasn't brought anything to a vote. She's stonewalling.

    27. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why didn't Republicans vote for it in the last Congress?

      Look, the shutdown started before the new Dem majority had even taken their seats. How exactly can you blame them?

    28. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron. That is the whole point. There is no bill yet. He wants it on the bill. Someone so stupid and ignorant should not be accusing others of the same but that is normal with socialist scum sucking lying assholes like you.

    29. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dems shifted the goal posts. First it was no concrete fence but metal (steel) was fine. Trump said fine, we can do steel but its going to be longer than it was before.....and on and on.

      Both sides are being pretty sleazy about this. One side has better PR/media backers so on the surface come off a tad better. In person both are ... lets just say you wouldn't really want to shake anyone's hand or get involved in a personal business project with them outside of government oversight/tie in. They are almost cartoon characters in their belief of themselves and their disconnect from who they actually are.

    30. Re: Well.. So? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      For a project with no corresponding authorization bill?

      Authorized in 2006, spending stopped in 2009 when Obama took office in spite of the bill authorizing the spending.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    31. Re: Well.. So? by DethLok · · Score: 1

      didn't Trump agree to sign the funding, until Fox news etc. said that would be bad?

      https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

      Just as one link among a great many that seem to confirm my understanding...

      Government is about governing, not 'winning' or 'supporting your base'.

      A president is, I believe, supposed to work for the benefit of the ENTIRE country, not just their voters.

    32. Re: Well.. So? by DethLok · · Score: 1

      Bingo!

      You can't blame the Dems for the shutdown when the Reps had 2 years to "build the wall", "drain the swamp" and "lock her up".

      I mean, if such basic and simple promises can't be fulfilled within 2 years of total control of the US govt, doesn't that indicate that such 'promises' are worth.... nothing?

    33. Re: Well.. So? by DethLok · · Score: 1

      why do (apparently) US citizens object to socialism?

      are not your police, firepeople, emergency responders and military and (gasp!) social services funded by the principles of socialism?

      It's actually not bad.

      Maybe think a bit more before ranting about the evils of taxes paying for useful social services?

      I mean, you DO pay TAXES, right?

    34. Re: Well.. So? by DethLok · · Score: 1

      +1 as I've spent all my mod points on actually useful comments that don't relate solely to the US of A...

      (and... I deleted my explanatory post...)

    35. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think SLASHDOT is a safe space for the Democratic Party, then you're way the hell off the political map to the right. (Not to mention the fact of your posting, and as of my posting that you were upvoted to +1, disproves your point because you're right here representing whatever glorious anti-Democratism you represent)

    36. Re: Well.. So? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      This would be true in a parliamentary system, but the President isn’t elected by Congress, and may very well (as here) be actively disliked by a large fraction or even a majority of his own party. Even if he is well-liked, they may not go along with his ideas, because they are jealous of their own power. Look at LBJ - got a lot of his stuff through, no doubt due to his experience in the Senate, but was so far in the hole when 1968 rolled around that he didn’t even run despite being eligible.

    37. Re: Well.. So? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Ah.. Because of how the senate works..

      Republicans could not pass such a measure w/o democrat support though the Senate, unless they wished to change the Senate rules (go nuclear) over this issue. This is true today. If ANYTHING is going to get done now it will take compromise and deal making and so far both sides are pretty much saying my way or the highway.

      The PR battle is where this will be "won or lost" for either party and so far, it's looking like a pretty even draw.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    38. Re: Well.. So? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      didn't Trump agree to sign the funding, until Fox news etc. said that would be bad?

      No, and it was Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh not Fox news who said it was a bad idea. Trump was never going to sign this without wall funding and everybody knew it already. He was negotiating and effectively said "If you want to make a reasonable deal, I'm here to talk." which was interpreted by some as a "I will sign the deal." Go back and listen to Trump's public statements, he may be parsing his words a bit, but he clearly wants that wall and simply isn't talking about any "compromise" that doesn't include significant wall funding of some kind.

      For the life of me, I don't understand why the democrats don't just cave, or offer part of the funding and demand something they want in return. Surely they are not saying that 5.6 Billion out of 45 Trillion budget is going to break us. Or, to quote a meme I saw, the Democrats are refusing to spend ANYTHING when they make $45,000 / year and somebody wants to spend $58 on a fence, so they stop paying the bills, refuse to pay the kids allowances or buy gasoline for the lawn mower. Really?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    39. Re:Well.. So? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What I find interesting is that it seems the worst impacts of the shutdown are being felt by demographics that tend to vote Republican. That makes the political fallout for this shutdown potentially disastrous for Republicans.

      Maybe they'll forget come 2020. But we'll see. The Republican party's behavior has been pretty uniformly reprehensible, and there's a chance that these events will cause a few Republican voters to open their eyes and see the party for what it is: a party for the rich, by the rich, who only panders to non-rich voters by promising to harm "those people". When they find that they're often in the crosshairs, maybe they'll start expanding their news sources beyond the conservative bubble and actually learn something.

      Not many, of course. It's rare for people to change their minds like this. But it does happen. And it could be the beginning of the end for the Republican party (aside: if the Republican party ends, it will be replaced by another party: our system is only stable with two parties in power; hopefully that other party will be less terrible so that we can actually have a reasonable national political discussion for once).

      I chance that it will not be disastrous. We are talking about a core that's been willing to commit socioeconomic seppuku for years as long as someone blows wind through the right whistle.

      This problem is sociological and cultural in nature, and it is not one without precedent. Cultures have been known to walk off the proverbial cliff, engaging in self-destructive and self-defeating customs and practices in the name of identity.

      It's high time we need to recognize their voting patterns as another manifestation of said types of cultures. Shades of J.D. Vance's "Hillbilly Effigy."

      Even if perchance this causes a Republican blow-back in 2020, for as long as these social dynamics persists with these voters, they will continue with these patterns, with these exaggerated outlooks on what America is supposed to be, and animosity towards anything and anyone that doesn't fit the mold.

      Cruelty is the point. It's not a side-effect, not a tool. It is the point.

      Case in point , read this story of a voter saying "Trump is not hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting". It is quite revealing of the type of shi-that-never-dies we are dealing with. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida

    40. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not on the dems.. trump needs to compromise and move on..

      The wall is dumb, it does not work, and we dont want to spend the money on it.

      The house says no
      Congress says no
      A majority of the us population says no

      Trump should admit defeat and make america great again by signing the damn bill and put 800k people back to work

    41. Re: Well.. So? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Authorizations bills on discretionary spending are only for the current fiscal year. Also, you can't spend money because it's authorized. This is part of a belt and suspenders system that prevents Presidents overspending the budget (by dribbling out money in appropriations) or shifting appropriated money to uses Congress does not intend (by appropriating for a specific *authorized* program).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    42. Re: Well.. So? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well, I may be a moron, but I'm a moron who understands the difference between a budget, and authorization and an appropriation bill. The system is designed, among other things, to restrain presidential power and to force the government to work out its spending priorities in advance. I don't know if *you* are a moron too, but you're certainly an ignoramus.

      What Trump wants is off-budget spending to be put into a routine appropriations bill, without a formally authorized program that will prevent that spending for being diverted to other uses. What are his alternatives? Well he's wanted the wall for years, so he could put the five billion in his FY2020 request, which means shovels could be in the ground on October 1 of 2019.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    43. Re: Well.. So? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Libertarians believe, first and foremost, in kicking the poor.

      President Trump is a populist. He's not playing along with the idiotic, stultifying left/right game. Rather he's doing what he thinks will be best for America.

      ALL of America. Including the deplorable rednecks in the flyover. Not just the well-connected uptight latte-sipping queer snobs in the financial centers who are the sole beneficiaries of the bipartisan Establishment's disastrously failed economic policies.

    44. Re: Well.. So? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      "the only folks younger than 70 in the Democratic party are more or less full-tilt Socialists."

      Only a very very stupid socialist would join the Democrats, given their leadership's open contempt for working people.

    45. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "leave the children like Trump and that Brooklyn bitch AOC out of government completely."

      I, for one, only support politicians who have _completely_ sold out to the big banks. Impeach Trump and Cortez today! Down with working people! Long live the oligarchy!

    46. Re: Well.. So? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Libertarians believe, first and foremost, in kicking the poor.

      Democrats do it far better. They hand over their own social responsibilities to government and then whine about taxes just like anyone else. The end result are piss poor government services that are gravely under funded.

      If you point this out, liberals will either deny that there is a problem or they will cheer on the "cost cutting".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    47. Re: Well.. So? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      AOC is an innumerate moron that doesn't understand what things cost. All she will do is make sure everyone suffers as important things are handed over completely to the government and then deprived of necessary resources.

      The "poor" that rich liberals sneer at so much understand this because unlike rich liberals they have some experience with government and government programs.

      They are acutely aware of how government really works.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    48. Re:Well.. So? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      who only panders to non-rich voters by promising to harm "those people".

      Every year that goes by, that becomes less and less of a winning strategy. The republican party has not been friendly to either women or minorities, and I can't imagine that they're all going to suddenly forget the party's history at some point in the coming decades and vote republican.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    49. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Passing the bill required 60 votes. The Republicans had 51.

      But you know that. You're just fucking retarded.

    50. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because socialism demonstrably leads to massive human suffering and chaos.

      "B-b-but Norway and Germany!"

      Capitalist countries with small, homogenous populations are sometimes able to generate wealth by converting the sale of national resources into public funds. This doesn't make socialism magically viable. It's still capitalism.

      Most socialism looks like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.

      Millions starving or dead. Exploding inflation. Authoritarian government required to force people into an unnatural system that denies their humanity. Bread lines. No innovation, because no rewards exist for creators. Fixed prices, no competition, crony handouts, state-picked winners, massive prison systems, and anyone with money or education is forced to flee.

      This is why, you fucking moron.

    51. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOC looks to have DSL until you see those jackass treeth. I bet she can cloven an apple in two with one bite!

    52. Re:Well.. So? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

      who only panders to non-rich voters by promising to harm "those people".

      Every year that goes by, that becomes less and less of a winning strategy. The republican party has not been friendly to either women or minorities, and I can't imagine that they're all going to suddenly forget the party's history at some point in the coming decades and vote republican.

      Awww, that's so cute! You believe that people vote based on well-informed reason. They won't remember a thing when the next election cycle is in full swing. They'll be bombarded from all sides with appeals to emotion & vilifying anyone they identify as "other." All of this will be enthusiastically reinforced by the main stream media and especially social media. After all, that's what social media is designed to do; keep people's eyes on their web pages by promoting indignant outrage inducing comments, headlines, & memes.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    53. Re:Well.. So? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Republicans aren't Libertarians? Mmm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    54. Re:Well.. So? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      If you were in charge of spotting Russian agents, all you'd do is identify people who you don't agree with or dislike for some reason or other. I bet that'd be a very long list. Probably easier to not count the small group of knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Republican Libertarians you follow & declare everyone else a foreign agent. BTW, there are far more foreign agents with a great deal more influence at American citizens' expense from Saudi Arabia & Israel than from Russia. Your elected representatives & administrations sold you all out a long time ago.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    55. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarian - n. A Republican who smokes pot.

    56. Re: Well.. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By all objective measures, the US population is for the wall. You're definition of compromise is simply "let the loud-mouth Democrats have their way".

    57. Re:Well.. So? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You can always spot Russian agents because they're the ones trying to divide us into warring camps and spewing bitter hate against the Dumbocrats or the Rethuglicans. We can spot you a mile off, Ivan. And if for some reason you aren't getting paid to spread hate, you should be. Daddy Putin pays good money for posts like yours. Why be a sucker and work for free?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    58. Re:Well.. So? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      You can always spot Russian agents because they're the ones trying to divide us into warring camps and spewing bitter hate against the Dumbocrats or the Rethuglicans.

      Nah, Russian agents are much smarter & more subtle than me. What you've described sounds more like Fox News. Perhaps they need to be infiltrated by Russian agents to at least bring the quality of their journalism up to Russia Today's. Seriously, RT's news is waaay more accurate & balanced than Fox News'.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    59. Re:Well.. So? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're not getting paid to spread division and hate among Americans, all I can say is that you should be. Doing it for free is a sucker's job. Contact RT and see what they can do for you.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    60. Re:Well.. So? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      You don't need my help.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    61. Re:Well.. So? by renegadesx · · Score: 1

      How so? If a Government service is essential it will get funded anyway. If it's non-essential then what right does it have to exist? Let the states take it over. Military & border protection are really the only things that make sense at a federal level.

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
  2. Taking polls way too seriously here by bigdavex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How credulous do you have to be to think a survey like this means anything? Might as well ask, "Who here doesn't want to get fired?" Damn.

    --
    -Dave
    1. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because my current employer has to downsize? Me. My apprenticeship will help place me with another employer.

    2. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. A lot of these employees probably work for organizations that are infamous for sticking their noses in where they don't belong. Sure, this form is anonymous. Uh-huh.

    3. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by gtall · · Score: 2

      These surveys are not like private industry surveys. They are not used to root out malcontents and the people responding are well protected.

    4. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      These surveys are not like private industry surveys. They are not used to root out malcontents and the people responding are well protected.

      Exactly. If you give the wrong answers, you will not be fired. You will just be assigned to the cubicle next to the photocopier machines.

    5. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by kiminator · · Score: 2

      It's definitely not about getting fired (the funding levels aren't likely to change, so the jobs will still be there when the shutdown ends). My bet is it's because younger employees are far less likely to have savings. Without savings, they're basically forced to find other jobs just to make ends meet. I suspect that this is the strongest driving factor rather than any cultural issues.

    6. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by kiminator · · Score: 1

      Younger employees may also be more likely to be contractors who won't get back-pay for the duration of the shutdown.

    7. Re: Taking polls way too seriously here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attention all employees. Please fill out this optional mandatory voluntary obligatory survey, which is 100% anonymous and confidential.

      To begin, simply click on this innocent link below which when you hover on it points to a 3rd party website with a long ass URL that has a random long string of characters, but which is unique to each person that the survey is sent to.

      All submissions are fully anonymous.

    8. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contractors, by definition are not employees.

    9. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by swillden · · Score: 1

      How credulous do you have to be to think a survey like this means anything? Might as well ask, "Who here doesn't want to get fired?" Damn.

      Meh. Typically these surveys are anonymous, and collected and analyzed at a high level, over large groups, so there's no way to figure out who said what.

      Not always, though. Google's annual internal employee survey is confidential but not anonymous, and people answer quite honestly because they know that there will be no negative consequences for them. If an area of the survey shows lots of negative responses, it's just a signal that that's an area where something needs to be improved.

      Further, Google has an internal ongoing longitudinal study called gDNA that asks very invasive questions and is also confidential but not anonymous, because they want to compare peoples' responses over time. Much of it is about life and job satisfaction, but it also includes a lot of standard psychological tests which attempt to gauge personality, work style, personal attributes, capabilities, aspirations, etc., and these things are explicitly correlated against job performance. It's intended as an "work life" analogue of the Framingham Heart Study; a long-term (planned duration is 100 years), in-depth research project into how employee life and job satisfaction, personal characteristics and job performance correlate.

      This sort of thing is obviously potentially very risky for the employee, but everyone I know that participates (I do; I've filled out all but two of the twelve semi-annual surveys so far) answers honestly and fully. The HR team that runs the study takes confidentiality seriously, and employees are confident we can trust them -- which means HR can have confidence in our honesty. Participants get feedback on their personalized study results, including how they compare to coworkers in their product area and across Google. This is usually interesting and sometimes even useful information.

      Anyway, my point is that it's absolutely possible to get useful information from employee surveys. You just have to make sure that all of the employees can be confident that any "negative" responses won't be used against them individually, and might be used to make their jobs better, and/or give them ideas about how they can improve their performance and life and job satisfaction.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be credulous, you just have to have a tiny bit of common sense.

      Millennials:

      * Probably aren't tied to an area due to owning a house, having a spouse who works there, and having kids in school there.
      * Probably don't have financial security, don't likely have a second income in the family since they likely don't have one, and likely have student loans to pay back.
      * May not be vested in the retirement system or are too young to get much of a benefit from it if they don't stick around for another 20 years.

      All of this is probably not true for someone with 20+ years of service in their organization. If you're a decade or less from a decent retirement, it makes a ton of sense to get by for a month or two, and then get back to work. If you're not retiring for 30 years and don't have any other income or savings, it makes far more sense to scramble for anything else.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    11. Re:Taking polls way too seriously here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you work for the Federal government? I do, and my personal experience is that management will try everything in their power to make everyone "drink the cool-aid" in both the public and private sectors.

  3. Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to trade that in for the private sector. Even the furloughed workers are going to get paid (for not working) so it's decent work gig.

    1. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have a family member who is a federal agent. He has to work even when he is "furloughed." He just doesn't get paid until the next spending bill is passed. It's not like a paid vacation for all federal employees.

    2. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The longer the government shutdown lasts, the more this sounds like slavery. I mean not quite, because ostensibly air traffic controllers could quit and become baristas at Starbucks or whatever (assuming the government does not compel them to not do so), but pretty close.

      Particularly appalling is the fact that during the shutdown, all vacations are cancelled, and anyone on vacation is required to immediately terminate that vacation and return to work (because after all, otherwise everyone essential would take vacations), creating pretty significant hardship, particularly given that it happened during the Christmas holiday. I'm pretty sure if I worked for the federal government, I'd have said, "Screw you. I quit," and I'm not even a millennial. I can't imagine how they didn't have an absolute exodus.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can work or quit. It's entirely their choice, and not a bit like slavery.

    4. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by tlhIngan · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The longer the government shutdown lasts, the more this sounds like slavery. I mean not quite, because ostensibly air traffic controllers could quit and become baristas at Starbucks or whatever (assuming the government does not compel them to not do so), but pretty close.

      Particularly appalling is the fact that during the shutdown, all vacations are cancelled, and anyone on vacation is required to immediately terminate that vacation and return to work (because after all, otherwise everyone essential would take vacations), creating pretty significant hardship, particularly given that it happened during the Christmas holiday. I'm pretty sure if I worked for the federal government, I'd have said, "Screw you. I quit," and I'm not even a millennial. I can't imagine how they didn't have an absolute exodus.

      Well, most federal workers are off, just off. Unpaid leave, effectively (for now). There are however about 400,000 workers deemed "essential" to the functioning of the country, including ATC, TSA and other workers who are forced to work without pay.

      What's happening now is that those workers are basically calling in sick - because they have to attend to a second job to get some money flowing in.

      And imagine how much worse it is for those in a highly stressful job (Air Traffic Controller ranks in the top 10, if not #1 most stressful job). Now you have the added stress of working for free and worrying about the mortgage, food, etc. This isn't good.

      TSA agents are similar - they aren't highly paid people (about $30K or so annually), and now have to work long hours with no pay dealing with an increasingly irate public.

      And now half your coworkers call in sick because they need some money.

      The economy will grind to a halt - the highly efficient air transport system cannot sustain such pressure. Already you see some of the effects - long lineups at security, for example. But you'll see it worse in the air because stressed out controllers can't do anything to reduce their stress, other than to hold air traffic back. So instead of being able to have an aircraft take off and land every minute or so, they will be forced to slow down the rate - one aircraft every couple of minutes halves the airport throughput, but it will become a necessity in order to lower their stress. Ditto for increased spacing between aircraft so a burned out controller will have more time to think and process. This will lead to inevitable delays.

      Farmers are missing their subsidies as well, which may not matter to you, but they need the money to buy their supplies on time so they can plant on time.

      Of course, one wonders why they don't just give him his wall, and pay for it with a new "wall tax" that basically reverses the big tax cut that was given. He gets his wall, the tax cuts are effectively rescinded and you get to nail supporters with a new tax to pay for it.

    5. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by mark-t · · Score: 1

      How do they get you to immediately terminate a vacation if you are not in the country? What if you are not reachable?

    6. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think that may be the best reason I've ever heard for "losing" your official cell phone.

      You: Whoops. Sorry, I didn't get your voice mail. My phone went crazy in Paris.
      Boss: Crazy?
      You: In Seine.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Or you may be in an area that doesn't even have cellular service... happens to me regularly when I'm on vacation, for several days at a time.

    8. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, one wonders why they don't just give him his wall, and pay for it with a new "wall tax" that basically reverses the big tax cut that was given. He gets his wall, the tax cuts are effectively rescinded and you get to nail supporters with a new tax to pay for it.

      Won't happen, because it'd be perfect irony. Trump gets his wall, but with a tax hike! He could veto a budget like that too, but it'd make him look very foolish. Oh wait . .

    9. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Of course, one wonders why they don't just give him his wall, and pay for it with a new "wall tax" that basically reverses the big tax cut that was given. He gets his wall, the tax cuts are effectively rescinded and you get to nail supporters with a new tax to pay for it.

      Brilliant!

    10. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slavery...making America great again!

    11. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Actually, generally the federal workers who get furloughed don't go work a second job, they just collect unemployment.

      Then when they do get their big paycheck for the time they were on forced vacation, they are required to pay the unemployment back.

      Of course, some new workers are dumber than most and spend both the UI and the backpay windfall, then get caught out when later UI catches up with them and wants to get paid back and they've already spent it.

      Source: Lived in DC for 8 years, heard it again from furloughed workers this time around.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    12. Re:Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      The folks filing a 13th amendment lawsuit agree.

    13. Re: Pension, job security, 30 days leave, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wall cost is very small compared the tax cut revenue.

  4. In the long run i'm not too worried by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you think workers are concerned about politics resulting in a government shutdown, consider this:
    If you work in private industry, you can be a victim of a mass-layoff, and you never know its coming, so you should have emergency $$$ savings to prepare for that possibility, just as you should if you work for government - in case of political issues causing funding shortfall come the end of the fiscal year.

    With this US government shutdown... employees had more than 60 days' warning that this was extremely likely to happen, essentially; the coming political clash was evident from miles away immediately after the election --- this eventuality became almost certain. Unlike a mass layoff; its presumably going to be temporary, and many furloughed employees will be entitled to automatic back pay - full wages for the time they didn't work, when the deficiency is resolved.

    So, not only do they have ample warning to plan and make sure to reign in unnecessary spending: nearly 60 days warning is plenty of time for the best employees to have arranged some kind of alternate work or gig for earning money while on furlough, And after the shutdown's over, they come back on, and get paid double ---- making the whole thing essentially a 20+ day paid vacation where they could amplify their pay
      or avail themselves of other opportunities.

    1. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Not only that you are in a much better bargaining position with prospective employers 'I am off work now because of government shutdown' then 'I got laid off' which carries a certain stigma.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Basically, stop living paycheck to paycheck. I think only 40% in the US do but if you can't handle a disruption or an unexpected payment then you're doing personal finance wrong.

    3. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by gtall · · Score: 1

      Oh, want to quiz the rest of the country about that. It had your 60 days warning but the horror stories about the fallout are now coming out and they are not pretty. During Reagan's tenure, the government was forced to privatize many functions. Many of those functions are not getting done, and the people working in those private companies are getting hurt. The farmers are also taking it in the neck, but that's what they get for supporting a bozo.

    4. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by sjames · · Score: 1

      That is indeed easily said.

    5. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't completely disagree with you. However, given the low salaries of some of these workers, and the cost of living in many of the places, it's not always that easy to stop living paycheck to paycheck. I like how the person a little lower in the comment thread said "only" 40% of people are living paycheck to paycheck, as if that's no so bad. That should be a completely terrifying percentage of people.

    6. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some good victim blaming right there. Yeah, blame those poor suckers for not being able to predict the whims of Trump.

      What about those who are deemed essential, but still are not getting paid? They can't seek other employment because they're forced to work normal hours.. For fear of losing their job permanently, even when the shutdown ends.

      Fuck Trump, but more importantly, fuck you.

    7. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone is sympathetic to government shutdowns. I see banks, phone companies, and utilities all offering some kind of "assistance" to those affected. I don't think I have seen similar helping hands toward lay offs.

    8. Re: In the long run i'm not too worried by cyber-vandal · · Score: 0

      Most people don't live rent-free with their parents.

    9. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      employees had more than 60 days' warning

      They had 60 days warning of maybe. If it were me, I'd just look for other work - evidently I"m not alone in this idea.

      making the whole thing essentially a 20+ day paid vacation

      Except they don't get a vacation, they still have to work their government jobs for free, in most cases. And 20+ days? The president (the guy holding the country hostage, in the name of freedom from Mexicans, the guy that started this whole mess) is saying that this may go on for months or years.

      So your plan for these government workers is that they should work their free job AND a side job? I kind of get the feeling that you aren't one of these government workers. Or maybe you work in congress, where they seem to have a choice of getting paid or not.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    10. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was me I'd probably be happy that I got a long (even though unpaid) vacation. I can obviously ask for unpaid vacation (after I used the paid vacation guaranteed by the law), but then I would look like a lazy asshole. However, now I would get it without even asking.
      Also, when such a thing happens in the private sector, it usually means that the company is going down you you are in trouble. But the government will still be there after the shutdown ends.

    11. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.
      If I had 60 days warning that I wasn't going to be payed for a month I wouldn't arrange for a " gig while on furlough".
      I would have found another permanent job.
      I already get 24 days of vacation. I don't need 20 days of interruption in cash flow where I have to eat into emergency funds.
      Emergency funds are for emergencies, not for my boss deciding my pay can be delayed.

    12. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60 days notice to reign in my spending before Christmas?

      Bless you Mr. Scrooge!

    13. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Saving money on a budget really isn't anymore harder than getting completely broad-sided by an unexpected payment or income disruption and having to deal with the reality of that situation.

      Going to bed hungry sucks. Eating the same crappy rice and beans for a month sucks too. Having holey shoes is no fun when it rains or snows. Inhibiting impulses to buy something with the savings collected is hard too.

      But those are easier than dealing with pay-day loans and financial uncertainty when laid off or furloughed.

      I have been there and I have done all those things and it's easier than dealing with daily calls from debt collectors.

    14. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm self-employed. ALL of my work is done for "free" up until I can release and people start buying my product. A weekly or even monthly pay check would be fantastic during development, but that's not how things work.

      If these gov't workers are really in dire straits from being furloughed, they can get real and do what everybody else does in such a situation -- apply for unemployment benefits and look for a better job.

    15. Re: In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Personal financial responsibility requires living with parents rent free? That's news to me.

      I understand that we are at an all time high with multi generational homes but that is largely a separate issue.

      Everyone needs or should have personal financial responsibility. Not everyone is affected by the reasons for the new high of multi-generational homes (college expense is a big factor FWIU).

    16. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If you work in private industry, you can be a victim of a mass-layoff, and you never know its coming, so you should have emergency $$$ savings to prepare for that possibility, just as you should if you work for government - in case of political issues causing funding shortfall come the end of the fiscal year.

      Emergency savings to prepare for the possibility of being out of work has its limits, and generally still depends on being able to collect EI while you look for other work.

      But people are still employees of the government can't collect EI because they are, in fact, still technically employed. They can quit, but when the government reopens, they probably won't be able to get their old job back.

    17. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by guruevi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was about to say the same thing. Job dedication at any company would be 90%+ too if they paid 135% of industry wages nearly guaranteed for the rest of your life with limitless mobility within the company and some of the best benefits.

      The government seems to "work" fine, everything essential is self-funding or exempt from shutdowns including many national and state parks. The bean counters and middle managers and a few millennial hipsters - things would function a lot better without all of them there.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    18. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by mark-t · · Score: 1

      They can't apply for unemployment benefits while they are still employed, even if they are not being paid.

      They can quit, but of course they might still be looking for work by the time the government shutdown ends, and there's no assurance they'd be able to get their old job back.

    19. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      They can't apply for unemployment benefits while they are still employed, even if they are not being paid.

      If they are furloughed they qualify for unemployment benefits. If they are essential since they have not been furloughed they do not since they are still employed and working.

      They can quit, but of course they might still be looking for work by the time the government shutdown ends, and there's no assurance they'd be able to get their old job back.

      Very true. They are better off working another job and calling in sick if essential.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    20. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people that pay attention to this type of "stigma" are assholes.

    21. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap this is arrogant. Somebody works for 20 years in a government job and close to getting their pension just has to give up their annuity and get another job? You also understand that you can only apply for unemployment if you are fired from your job. If you quit you don't get anything.

      What world do you live it? Government jobs have always been the most stable and predictable. People usually take them even though they pay less because they have good benefits and one of the few employers to still offer a pension.

    22. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      and many furloughed employees will be entitled to automatic back pay

      Um, no. Those "essential" employees who've been forced to work without a paycheck are entitled automatically. Everyone furloughed is at risk of never seeing a dime for the time that they expected to be working but weren't. No government shutdown has ever led to employees missing out on their paychecks but it wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't another trumpian first.

    23. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      . employees had more than 60 days' warning that this was extremely likely to happen,

      The flipside is that the employers also had more than 60 days to make sure that it wouldn't happen. In fact, they had decades to do so.

      The USA is adjacent to another country which doesn't have shutdown panics at all. This is handled by two methods - first is that the governor can issue warrants from the treasury to ensure that public employees get paid, and second is that failing to pass a budget is known as a non-confidence motion and causes a new election so that the replacement government can fix things.

    24. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by sjames · · Score: 1

      For some people, that works out. Others have kids or medical debt or the car drops the transmission, etc and there goes their safety margin and then some.

    25. Re: In the long run i'm not too worried by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I understand that we are at an all time high with multi generational homes but that is largely a separate issue.

      Honestly; If you can make it work without too much of a sacrifice, and you can make it work without interpersonal conflict,
      then a "multi generational home", or otherwise sharing a home with as many families or people the premises will comfortably accommodate with each person or family still being able to have private areas and enough personal space is a financially efficient thing to do ---- this is one of MANY possible different strategies that can be utilized to lower costs on the expense side.

      Another possibility is renting a small plot of empty land and living permanently in a tent or vehicle on your little piece of land, or squatting on random pieces of land during evenings and hope to evade discovery for as long as possible, but the quality of life is considerably lower than sharing a house; the quality of live involved in sharing a multi-gen house can be the same or better as owning one's own house, since more people can = more help with a lot of fixed per-residence necessities.

    26. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Those "essential" employees who've been forced to work without a paycheck are entitled automatically.

      Regardless of how "essential" an employee is thought to be --- unless they're military enlisted, they cannot actually be "forced" to work without pay. The employee can simply decline, go on strike, be a no-show, call in sick, etc.

      After every shutdown; Congress consistently passes a bill providing backpay for the furloughed employees.
      That's what is in the works already.

    27. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried? Because I think few companies are interested in hiring people that are going to leave the moment the government get its shit back together.

      It is also not surprising that younger people are more likely to quit over salaries being held.
      They typically don't have as much money saved up as the older workers and can't afford to stick around for that possible future payday.

    28. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No I can't just leave my job and find another. That's called being AWOL and could put me in military prison. As an enlisted member of the Coast Guard I have a military contract binding me to serve the government. Currently that means without pay and it will continue to mean without pay until a resolution is found.

      Yes we had warning and yes I could have saved a couple hundred extra dollars by tightening my belt. In the end though a couple hundred dollars isn't going to cover the mortgage and being thrifty is a tough sell to the family over the holiday season.

      The situation sucks and it's ok to be empathetic. Being kind isn't being lame.

    29. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think only 40% in the US do but if you can't handle a disruption or an unexpected payment then you're doing personal finance wrong.

      When a little under half of the country is doing something, it's not exactly their fault now is it? Or are you really going to sweep that under the rug as "stupid democrats"? BTW: The actual percentage is around 78%. Over 3/4 of the country lives paycheck to paycheck, and it sure as hell isn't the result of them wasting their money.

    30. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      People can't create a personal budget to save money that can help them when a car drops the transmission, etc because they have debt and kids?

      Perhaps, you have never gone to bed hungry or ate food out of trash can but I can assure you that if someone doesn't have a personal budget they will be able to save some money if they create one.

      Saving money is hard. But having a mustard sandwich and drinking water for dinner to not have hunger pains until you sleep is very much easier than dealing with pay-day loans, debt collectors, foreclosure, and repossession.

      A late start is better then never starting. Many people don't have a budget which is probably why there is 40% of people that live pay check to pay check. I don't think it will ever be 0% but it can certainly be lower even if there are kids and/or debt.

      Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic but 40% not able to afford an unexpected expense or brief income disruption is not displaying the personal financial prowess of many Americans.

    31. Re: In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Power to ya. I guess I don't understand your initial comment.

    32. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Government jobs are not 135% higher than the equivalent in private industry. Though I do agree that government jobs are one of the last holdouts for having decent pension plans.

    33. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Unpaid government workers just collect unemployment and then have to pay it back when they get their backpay. It nets out to a forced paid vacation. I'm happy to take a bonus vacation if you just require me to do a little paperwork.

      It's not like this has never happened to them before and they don't know what to do or how to navigate the system.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    34. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      They also just collect unemployment in the meantime, then have to pay it back after they get their check.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    35. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Not 135% higher, 135% of (or 35% more)

      $76,470 for average federal government wages vs $44,600 for average private sector wages - actually 42% although it's misleading because government workers don't make as much at the high ends (eg >250k) whereas private sector it isn't nearly as rare.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    36. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I have a project for all those living paycheck to paycheck.

      Get a spreadsheet for your smart phone or bring a note pad everywhere. Note down every expense you incur and what it was for, the time of day, etc.

      Judging by what I know of the bay areas of California, I suspect a very large amount of people there spend significantly over $100/mo just in coffee shops and that they themselves have no idea that its as much as it is. Almost all of this money can only be attributed to convenience even if coffee is considered a necessity (I understand for some it may be) because you can just make a pot at home and bring it with you.

      The first step to good budgeting is knowing what you are spending money on, and by knowing this does not mean guessing and ballpark figures.. it means knowing.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    37. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not always, no. If you feed the kids mustard sandwiches or trash can food, CPS may come knocking. A few hours in the ER can wipe out more than a year's salary quicker than you can say "what's all this going to cost?". Sometimes that happens even WITH health insurance. If your expenses exceed your income, you won't be able to save money. And not all expenses are optional.

      I'm not saying nobody in financial trouble is the architect of their own problem, but I am calling BS on the idea that everyone is able to save enough for an emergency.

    38. Re: In the long run i'm not too worried by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Because he doesnt know what he is saying.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    39. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      They had 60 days warning of maybe. If it were me, I'd just look for other work

      Good on you. This makes it easier for the smart people that, you know, take advantage of the unemployment insurance they have been paying into.

      But meh... to each their own I guess.. dont want to discourage you from stupidly leaving money on the table...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    40. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      If they are essential since they have not been furloughed they do not since they are still employed and working.

      Stop making stuff up. Its called partial unemployment and can be used whenever your income significantly decreases.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    41. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Basically, stop living paycheck to paycheck.

      Yeah those fuckers should just be rich and screw them if they're not.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    42. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      $76,470 for average federal government wages vs $44,600 for average private sector wages

      Those are misleading figures, because you're aggregating over industry sectors and the representation in those sectors is not uniform. Many of what would be low-paid government employees are now subcontracted out. If you go sector-by-sector, the government pays OK, but not stellar.

      IOW, It's not like a programmer in the governemnt is earning 35% more than a programmer in industry.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    43. Re: In the long run i'm not too worried by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Yes mate everyone's situation is just like yours and everyone has spare money they can just put away. Meanwhile in the real world, shit happens and for many reasons it's not possible. Then some spoilt clueless child says "you should've been saving".

    44. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have cites for this? I'd be happy to see evidence that it's happening, but this sounds more like Trump handwaving the misery he's causing (See claims that landlords will totally let them do chores for a break on their rent)

    45. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, the stereotype for government work is that the pay sucks, but the job security and benefits are rock solid. But of course now Trump and the Republicans are breaking that down because government is evil and should be destroyed, and what better way to do it than to make the government the worst place to work? As usual, they get in on claims that the government is terrible, and they break it even more.

    46. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear Hear. I have been laid off 3 times. If have any warning at all it sure isn't 60 days. Once I was given two weeks notice. Yes, you can have emergencies that wipe out your emergency funds, but would bet my bottom dollar that is not the vast majority of these federal workers. I doubt the woman claiming she was going to have to sell family heirlooms was in that situation. Could be, but have my doubts. Have a family member in this shutdown and they claim that most of these people just don't save.

      Can they collect Unemployment Benefits? I've also experienced several times, layoffs with a call back date. In those cases you can collect. So not sure if they don't have a date. But suspect they can as long as they haven't quit. Then like someone else mentioned will have to pay back any they received when they get back pay. Which in every shutdown so far I believe they have received.

      I have sympathy for anyone laid off, but come-on. They will get back pay, most haven't saved for emergency. They are not in the same category as all the laid off workers in the private sector who won't get back pay or likely called back to the job and with little or no notice.

    47. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unemployment insurance doesn't pay full wages. It pays much, much less. If people are living paycheck to paycheck then they can still wind up carless, evicted etc. relying on unemployment insurance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    48. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      if someone doesn't have a personal budget they will be able to save some money if they create one.

    49. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Somehow you can turn "40% live pay check to pay check unable to handle a unexpected payment or income disruption" into a "Fuck the poor" thing.

      Do you think there are more than one way to lower that number? Do you think maybe personal responsibility is a big part part of why people live paycheck to paycheck (hint, living paycheck to paycheck doesn't imply poor)? Is your ability to think any idea restricted to stupid class division?

    50. Re: In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Maybe you have problem reading. "Shit happens in the real world" is an unexpected payment or an income disruption. The point of trying to save is to help when shit does happen.

      Do you think that entire 40% paycheck to paycheck that can't handle any kind of disruption or payment have budgets? Do you think if those 40% had a budget that number would be lower?

    51. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saving money on a budget really isn't anymore harder than getting completely broad-sided by an unexpected payment or income disruption and having to deal with the reality of that situation.

      Seriously, just fuck the hell off. Everybody thinks federal civil servants are making megabucks, when many of them are not. I'm prepared; I'm a GS-11 step 4 (68k) about ready to pickup GS-12 (74k), so i'm good to go. In my particular career (in which I have pair of relevant undergraduate degrees and fifteen years experience) a coworker (Millennial) decided that he no longer wanted to be an 11 step 2, and went from about 65k a year to 120k a year in the private sector. There's an implicit message that if we're going to work for less, we're going to have more security.

      Look for talent to head toward the gates; I have regular job offers and I've thought about it as well. If you think contractors are cheaper.. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I have a bridge to sell you. That's right, you still need to pay market value for good people yet you stick a profit making profit taking operation in between employer and employee...

      So, in contrast:

      A shit ton of the federal working class falls in between GS-1 (starting at 11 bucks an hour) through GS-5 (about 16.50 an hour). Be a single parent and have a family on that. I know single mothers and single fathers with children working on that. And don't get me started on COLA not compensating the lower pay grades appropriately. You can make more at a fucking McD's in DC than you can as a GS-5.

    52. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not 135% higher, 135% of (or 35% more)

      $76,470 for average federal government wages vs $44,600 for average private sector wages - actually 42% although it's misleading because government workers don't make as much at the high ends (eg >250k) whereas private sector it isn't nearly as rare.

      I did development in the public sector and this wasn't true for me or any of my co-workers. I wasn't paid poorly but I doubled my salary, not including bonuses and stock benefits, by going to private sector with minimal changes to my work load.

    53. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Fencepost · · Score: 2
      $76,470 for average federal government wages vs $44,600 for average private sector wages

      What? That's an insane comparison. That's like complaining about how overpaid programmers are because average salaries at high-tech firms are higher than average salaries at janitorial companies. Why, I'm really upset that my neighbor the VP of finance at a large company makes huuuuge bucks while I'm getting $12/hour for my cashier job at the local grocery store while living in my parents' basement! We both work with money, so we should both be paid the same, right?

      Among other issues, a significant percentage of lower-paying jobs being done for the government or at government facilities don't get counted because they're contracted out, often to the lowest bidder (which often charges more than it cost when things were being done in-house, but since part of that money can then be spent to invest in 'friendly' politicians....).

      --
      fencepost
      just a little off
    54. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by fyzikapan · · Score: 1

      The thing is that much of the appeal of working in government is the stability. People sacrifice a lot on income in exchange for having a stable job with nice hours.

      Take away that stability and what motive do good workers have to stay in a position where they earn far less than they could make in the private sector?

      And 60 days is not a lot of time. How much savings can you amass in two months? Probably not much if you're on a government salary.

    55. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by sjames · · Score: 1

      Re-asserting the proposition does not constitute proof.

    56. Re: In the long run i'm not too worried by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      You are a miserable excuse for a human being. Your lack of empathy makes this world a worse place to live in. One day you might learn that the world is not the simple place you think it is. I hope people are kinder to you than you are to others should that happen.

    57. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      If that's not enough, there are also places offering 0% loans to tide people over until they get their check.

      For most, it's not their first (or even fifth) shutdown, so they've adapted to planning and dealing with it.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    58. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      If they are essential since they have not been furloughed they do not since they are still employed and working.

      Stop making stuff up. Its called partial unemployment and can be used whenever your income significantly decreases.

      Exepcted employyes (those paid by appropriations and working but not getting paid) are generally not eligible dor unemplyemnet becasue states ofthn consider them employed and thus not eligible. See Question #3 https://nasapeople.nasa.gov/sh... Those collecting unemplyment may ahve to repay it if they get paid or the furlough days.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    59. Re: In the long run i'm not too worried by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Right. I lack empathy and am a miserable human being for giving advice that can help people. You sound like you have never had any financial trouble in your life and yet have the audacity to shit on personal experience that can actually help and is easier to do than dealing with a repossession, foreclosure, or pay-day loans.

      Blow it out your ass.

    60. Re:In the long run i'm not too worried by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Government jobs have always been the most stable and predictable.

      The government is shut down right now. It's shut down because the president refuses to sign a budget that doesn't include money for a wall to stop Mexicans from entering the country illegally. Being that a wall has never, and will never stop people from crossing a boundary, this means that the whole ordeal at the border will continue waaay into the future, and whatever fucktarded president of that time may claim the need for more money for whatever elaborate business venture he can appease, and the shutdown never ends. No matter if you're a democrat or republican, the American government is as broken as ever. Given these facts, you may want to rethink the stability and predictability of government jobs.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  5. TSA will quit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's going to happen when the TSA, which has to work without pay, quits? It's not a great paying job, and these workers are the most likely to quit and work somewhere else. Each time one quits, you have to cover the hours somehow, and it's going to be near impossible to replace them during the shutdown.

    We can't operate a country without air travel. This is going to be the lynch pin in the whole system.

    1. Re:TSA will quit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Air travel doesn't really depend on the TSA though.
      The most likely result would be airports hiring their own security to replace the absent TSA, the more hilarious result would be juts not having security at airports given the two would probably have comparable result as the TSA is demonstrably not very effective.

    2. Re:TSA will quit. by nwaack · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's going to happen when the TSA, which has to work without pay, quits?

      Travelling by air will become a somewhat smooth process again.

    3. Re:TSA will quit. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      A lot of airports have rejected TSA in favor of private security; TSA security is not required by law at airports, just security.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:TSA will quit. by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points, I need one!

    5. Re:TSA will quit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that they're not legally allowed to. That would require new legislation.

    6. Re:TSA will quit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you think the airports are going to be able to do this before the system starts breaking down? Replacing TSA would take months, maybe years.

      Miami is ALREADY shutting down part of the airport because of worker shortages:
      https://boingboing.net/2019/01/11/miami-airport-is-shutting-down.html

    7. Re:TSA will quit. by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Airports aren't mandated to use TSA. Some airports (San Francisco International for example) have private organizations performing the passenger screening.

    8. Re:TSA will quit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to set up tip jars for TSA agents!

    9. Re:TSA will quit. by swillden · · Score: 1

      Airports aren't mandated to use TSA. Some airports (San Francisco International for example) have private organizations performing the passenger screening.

      Only under TSA supervision. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:TSA will quit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a former TSO for TSA (5 years), I can affirmatively state that airport screening is there to make travelers FEEL safe. We are no safer now than we were in 2000, or even 1980.

  6. Yep. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The federal government is a great place to work...for free.

  7. lololol by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    "The federal government measures the "engagement" of its federal workforce once a year with a massive survey of 1.5 million employees. And what it has found is that most federal workers are very dedicated to their work. Its most recent survey -- the 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey -- asked employees if they are "willing to put in extra effort to get their job done," 96% of the survey takers responded affirmatively. Moreover, 91% agreed with the statement that they "look for ways to do their jobs better," and 90% "believe their work is important.""

    Okay, I know we pretend these things are serious in office pc meetings but you know only the absolute dumbest people ever say anything else when given options like "willing to put in extra effort to get their job done," in supposedly anonymous workplace surveys.

    "But this job dedication is being tested by the U.S. government shutdown, and most at risk of leaving are Millennial-age workers. Less than 6% of federal employees are under the age of 30 and represent half of all people who leave an agency within the first two years."

    If they lack job dedication why should we employ them? This seems to make some sort of odd claim that these could be the "best of employees" having no dedication makes you a shit employee by definition.

  8. Numbers w/out context are meaningless by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    'When asked if they are "willing to put in extra effort to get their job done," 96% of 2018 survey takers gave a positive result, said Mallory Bulman, vice president of research and evaluation at the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that works with government officials on workforce management issues. Moreover, 91% agreed with the statement that they "look for ways to do their jobs better," and 90% "believe their work is important."'

    96% sounds amazing... but when you ask that same question of non-government workers in similar jobs, is it any different? Is it higher, lower, ...?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Numbers w/out context are meaningless by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Not comparable to private industry surveys because anybody that admits that they would be willing to work harder for the same money in the private sector is a complete moron and will get exactly that.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  9. Wait - I thought you said "Millennials" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    >> the brightest, hardest-working, and most capable, dedicated government employees may opt out of government service

    Wait - I thought you said "Millennials"

    1. Re:Wait - I thought you said "Millennials" by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Who better to waste taxpayer money ; )

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Wait - I thought you said "Millennials" by Early+Six+Digit+UID · · Score: 1

      I'm either an old Millennial or young X-er depending on which metric you use, so I've spent time with Boomers, X, and Millennials and I have to say that most Millennials I've come across have been hard working. This goes against the stereotype, but they generally work at least as hard as anyone else. What they're less likely to do is put up with nonsense and meaningless ritual at work. They don't seem to feel as strongly about "paying dues" - they want to be paid for what they actually do. Many of them are automators and innovators and they expect to be paid well to automate away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of labor, and I think they should be.

      Institutional knowledge and experience are tremendously important, and I think we can all agree that in general people tend to slow down a little as their career progresses. Older workers can better see though hype and understand that not everything needs to be a twenty level stacked microservice written in Haskell. I really can't see a huge difference in drive and quality overall simply based on age.

      Millennials do have a harder time affording life in general, and I can completely understand why someone who is an entry-level employee making just enough to get by would want to switch to a better paying job with perhaps less bureaucracy.

    3. Re:Wait - I thought you said "Millennials" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for the government, and I agree - the Millennials are among the harder workers.
      They accomplish almost a quarter as much as the contractors, which a major improvement over the Boomers, who have to be woken from their daily naps to sign stuff.

      Of course, they do take off time (unannounced) far more often, but since they do occasionally act productive at the office, it still puts them ahead of the Boomers.

    4. Re:Wait - I thought you said "Millennials" by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      I'm either an old Millennial or young X-er depending on which metric you use, so I've spent time with Boomers, X, and Millennials and I have to say that most Millennials I've come across have been hard working. This goes against the stereotype, but they generally work at least as hard as anyone else. What they're less likely to do is put up with nonsense and meaningless ritual at work. They don't seem to feel as strongly about "paying dues" - they want to be paid for what they actually do.

      Millennials who decided government work was glamorous based on their starry-eyed Obamania and HOPE posters in 2008, thinking they were going to be the next break-out data.gov rock star were going to be in for a rude awakening one way or another.

      If they're replaced by Gen-X'ers who wouldn't mind the general stability and have a realistic outlook on both the world and the US government, I'm not really sure that's a bad thing. When people get disillusioned, someone has to pay for that phase change (usually in the form of training for turnover). Better that everyone has their eyes open at the beginning of the employment transaction.

    5. Re:Wait - I thought you said "Millennials" by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the premise is correct, it may be the best news coming out of this.

    6. Re:Wait - I thought you said "Millennials" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millennials who decided government work was glamorous based on their starry-eyed Obamania and HOPE posters in 2008, t who decided government work was glamorous based on their starry-eyed Obamania and HOPE posters in 2008,

      A good number of Millennials were barely eligible to vote back then. Try again.

    7. Re:Wait - I thought you said "Millennials" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Millennials do have a harder time affording life in general, and I can completely understand why someone who is an entry-level employee making just enough to get by would want to switch to a better paying job with perhaps less bureaucracy.

      Well if they just cut out those soy lattes and avocado on toast and saved the money instead, then in 10 or 20 thousand years they'd be able to afford a house. No sympathy.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  10. The plan is working by rnturn · · Score: 1

    "The shutdown could hurt the reputation of the government as a good place to work..."

    Isn't that just what conservatives have been working toward for decades?

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:The plan is working by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      Small good government != small ineffectual government.

    2. Re:The plan is working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives != effective anything

    3. Re:The plan is working by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      "The shutdown could hurt the reputation of the government as a good place to work..."

      Isn't that just what conservatives have been working toward for decades?

      No.

      If the only reason you work for the government is because the pay and promotion is (was) a guaranteed thing, then maybe you need to look for a different job.

      If, OTOH, you are working there because you want to do the work and do something you feel is beneficial to your fellow citizens and all that, then the government is still a good place to work, because it is doing a lot of things that aren't done in private enterprise.

  11. Sounds good to me, too! by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I live near DC and never hear the end of all the moaning and whining when government does a shut-down. I mean, it really does reach the absurd at times. I remember last time there was a shutdown, I was at a full service car wash in Gaithersburg, MD. This lady in front of me rolls in with a high-end luxury full size SUV, and asks to have it fully detailed and waxed. While we're standing in line, she proceeds to tell me how the government shutdown has made everything so stressful for her.... and she just decided to get the car all cleaned up since she had all this time to kill now.

    It only took about 2 days of this shut-down before people were on all the news stations, talking about their struggle. (None of them were even close to missing 1 paycheck yet!)

    I really do get that the younger people, who just got a first "real job" doing something for Federal govt., would be far more impacted ... But hey, I *never* accepted a government job for this reason. Always felt like the private sector made more sense. I don't like knowing my paycheck is covered by tax revenue they forcibly take from everybody else who works, and everything is subject to voters voting people in or out of office, legislation changing what government plans to do next, etc. Federal govt. jobs have different sets of perks, too, though. It's very difficult to get fired from most government jobs, for example. Even the idiots trying to watch porn while on the job often just got a slap on the wrist and kept their employment.... If you're a real screw up, you sometimes even get a promotion, because it's the only easy way for your superior to get rid of having to deal with you.

    1. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      I live near DC and never hear the end of all the moaning and whining when government does a shut-down.

      Oh no please, feel moan and whine about it on Slashdot. -_-

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by sjames · · Score: 1

      It only took about 2 days of this shut-down before people were on all the news stations, talking about their struggle. (None of them were even close to missing 1 paycheck yet!)

      If they actually wait until they miss that paycheck to scramble and make arrangements, they're doing it wrong.

    3. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      :-) Awww you meanie! Don't you know the truth hurts, is more boring, and is depressing to the 70% of folks living paycheck to paycheck so they can buy an iPhone 7? Plus, it doesn't sell ads on news networks (unacceptable!). How dare you suggest people should take responsibility for their own finances. You're gonna make Uncle Sam and the media powerful angry with talk like that. Next thing we know, you'll be suggesting that parents plan their pregnancies or pay for their own kids (since, ya know, they made them). Crraaaaazzzy Talk! Imagine the world we'd live in if big brother didn't take a third to half our wages to bicker like children and waste our money. I mean to quote Peter Venkman, "dead would come out of their graves, human sacrifice would ensue, and we'd have dogs and cats living together! "

    4. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grow up. Taxes are not forcibly taken from anyone.

    5. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like knowing my paycheck is covered by tax revenue they forcibly take from everybody else

      Why? Should police, firemen, teachers, military feel this way? Government, and by extension you, have a job to do. You might not want to think real hard where your paycheck comes from anywhere else either if it really bothers you, seriously.

    6. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. You will get force.

    7. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only took about 2 days of this shut-down before people were on all the news stations, talking about their struggle. (None of them were even close to missing 1 paycheck yet!)

      If they actually wait until they miss that paycheck to scramble and make arrangements, they're doing it wrong.

      Say coulda shoulda all you want but most people live paycheck to paycheck. You can’t say they should protect themselves and therefore it shouldn’t hurt to stop paying someone...

      Not getting a paycheck on time has serious implications, like why the fuck would your good employees stay around?

    8. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

      But, would we have twinkies 35 feet long and weighing 600 pounds (well 54 tons if you run the math)?

    9. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's not like they are taken out of every paycheck. I totally pay my taxes voluntary. Those few times I forgot, they sent me a friendly reminder that they would garnish my wages unless I voluntary paid them asap.

      Unless your getting paid under the table, taxes are taken from you. Or how about the next time your at the store you hand the clerk the money for the products minus the taxes. Tell them they can't forcibly take the tax from you. I'm sure they will totally understand and be cool with it.

    10. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL
      ever heard of a tax lien?

    11. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with the idea that the serious stress doesn't start until the first paycheck is actually missed.

    12. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by tooyoung · · Score: 0

      Interesting points.
      1. A government worker shouldn't have a high-end luxury SUV.
      2. Given that the woman was stressed, she should have obviously sold the high-end luxury SUV - despite the fact that she hadn't missed a pay check.
      3. If you're going to own something expensive, you had better have enough money that the prospect of being out of a job doesn't make you stressed enough to bring it up during smalltalk.
      4. Getting a car detailed is a wasteful thing for a government worker to do. That's better reserved for other people who were at the full service car wash, like you.
      5. You're aware of actual cases where government workers watched porn in the office and only got a slap on the wrist.

    13. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really do get that the younger people, who just got a first "real job" doing something for Federal govt., would be far more impacted ... But hey, I *never*

      Ehhhh..... In MY DAY, we did things differently than you, and the world never changes! *mumble**mumble*

      You done grandpa? The rest of us are trying to make living the best way we can. We don't have the patience to deal with a self-entitled moron right now.

      I don't like knowing my paycheck is covered by tax revenue they forcibly take from everybody else who works

      So we can stop paying your social security checks now? How about medicare, can we stop paying that too? You do realize those programs are a transfer of wealth from the young to the old right? We'd love to stop paying into them. Especially since the chances are we'll never see a cent of what we pay in come back to us when we're that age.

      everything is subject to voters voting people in or out of office, legislation changing what government plans to do next

      Replace voters with consumers, and legislation with shareholders. Private sector jobs are just as volatile. They depend on the will of the public. The only difference is one counts it's currency in US dollars, the other in US ballots.

      If you're a real screw up, you sometimes even get a promotion, because it's the only easy way for your superior to get rid of having to deal with you.

      Nice to see you consider the government screwed up. Now maybe you'll do something about that during the next election.....

    14. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was not stressful for her in the sense that she was not paid? I can imagine the organization will be quite chaotic now for people that do need to work, that is also stressful.

    15. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! I totally know the lady you're talking about.

    16. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont live near DC. How do I know?

      The rest of your post was complete bullshit

    17. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like knowing my paycheck is covered by tax revenue they forcibly take from everybody else who works

      So you always turn down projects and clients that get public funding?

      Even the idiots trying to watch porn while on the job often just got a slap on the wrist and kept their employment.... If you're a real screw up, you sometimes even get a promotion, because it's the only easy way for your superior to get rid of having to deal with you.

      Well then, a competent person such as yourself going to work for the government could be really good thing and save a lot of everyone's money, because then they wouldn't have to hire so many incompetents and use expensive contractors.

    18. Re:Sounds good to me, too! by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      https://www.nbcwashington.com/...

      That's just ONE news investigation about the prevalence of govt. workers watching porn while on the clock. And clearly, they weren't ALL arrested or lost their jobs over it. So yes, I'm aware of actual cases related to this ....

      I have no idea what you're going on about with your other points? Sure, a government worker can own a high-end SUV. But it's also clear that if they're able to afford to do so, they're making pretty good money in their government position. Someone like that should really be able to weather the occasional "storm" of a government shut-down, since it's known that's a risk of doing that type of work. I'd guess that in at least some cases like that, their significant other earns a good paycheck someplace else too. So they probably still have that part of their income coming in (assuming they don't both work together in government jobs).

      I can tell you when I was at that car wash, I was simply buying the $20 or so standard wash from them. I can't afford to pay hundreds to get my car detailed and hand waxed like that.
       

  12. Putin is loving it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump will get his Moscow condo building yet! But he'll have to enjoy it only in pictures from prison.

  13. In soviet Russia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the government shuts down you!

  14. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lazy gov't workers are the best! They don't give you lip and just go about their business. It's the busybody, in your face, out to prove they're in charge ones that you have to watch out for.

  15. What are millenials doing working for the governme by melted · · Score: 2

    What are millenials doing working for the government anyway. Private sector is on fire. Go make some money while it's easier to make.

  16. Brightest will go private sector for money? by poity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why didn't they do that in the first place?

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:Brightest will go private sector for money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think? Lets see if you can figure out this hard problem. :)

    2. Re:Brightest will go private sector for money? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they do that in the first place?

      Not wanting to be at the whims of offshoring and quarterly results? Desire for a more stable job? Wanting to work in a particular location? Wanting to so interesting work that's hard to find in the private sector? Stability? Lack of inane crunch time?

      There's tons of reasons that government jobs can be good. But not being paid is not one of them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Brightest will go private sector for money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't they do that in the first place?

      Not wanting to be at the whims of offshoring and quarterly results? Desire for a more stable job? Wanting to work in a particular location? Wanting to so interesting work that's hard to find in the private sector? Stability? Lack of inane crunch time?

      There's tons of reasons that government jobs can be good. But not being paid is not one of them.

      If you're talented in a skilled labor field none of these are really a concern, at least in equivalent industries. For example, you're most likely not going to be doing game development for the government. Federal or federally adjacent delivery and warehousing, such as with the USPS, can be just as hard as their private sector counterparts. Pensions might be something but again, a good private sector job will be as good if not better and not anymore reliable. If you're mediocre at your job or your job is unskilled maybe a federal job is better because it's harder to be fired but it shouldn't be.

  17. I hope both sides feel the squeese. by Dusanyu · · Score: 0

    http://www.people-press.org/in... this trend needs to stop this movement by both parties to extreme left and right is not working. hopefully with some real pressure it will force these fools more towards the center and get some bloody work done.

    1. Re:I hope both sides feel the squeese. by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      Sorry. There's only two of us moderates left.

  18. This affects intel agents and data security by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A large quantity of patriotic native born Americans, who are millenials, are impacted by this. I personally know of quite a few that had been considering work in data security and in intelligence or law enforcement services for the US who are affected.

    How can you trust people when they throw you under the bus because they don't want to look foolish?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:This affects intel agents and data security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that the Intelligence Community and law enforcement are entirely funded? Not one of them is off because of this "shutdown".

      So, uh, no. You don't personally know anyone in "intelligence or law enforcement" that was affected.
      Except maybe some janitors.

    2. Re:This affects intel agents and data security by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Did you know that the Intelligence Community and law enforcement are entirely funded? Not one of them is off because of this "shutdown".

      So, uh, no. You don't personally know anyone in "intelligence or law enforcement" that was affected.
      Except maybe some janitors.

      Security clearances are not being done. You can't be hired or promoted or suborned to a useful position without one.

      I know quite a lot about this, as a former SME who could declassify and reclassify information.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:This affects intel agents and data security by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Nice backtrack and goal post move you did there.

      If your first attempt to be right was just complete bullshit, then why should we consider your second attempt to be right genuine? Thats right, we shouldn't, because a fucking liar cant be fucking trusted, and your first attempt proved that you are a fucking liar.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:This affects intel agents and data security by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Patriotic? You mean racist jingoists? Because that's what patriotism means in 2019. We're all citizens of the world, there's no reason to recognize obsolete concepts like citizenship and borders.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:This affects intel agents and data security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been using patriotism as a shield to excuse your actions for so long you've corrupted the word and people don't respect it any more. It's the exact same thing you've done to "capitalism"-you've used that as a shield for widespread looting and oppression of the lower classes for so long people read it as "feudalism" because that's how you've been using it. In converse, "socialism" has been redeemed because you stopped using it to mean Maoist China and the Soviet Union and you now mean Sweden, the minimum wage, and environmental protection laws.

      TLDR If you don't like it, take personal responsibility for your actions.

    6. Re:This affects intel agents and data security by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      TSA isn't law enforcement?

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  19. Historical survey results by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Normally you want to compare stats like these against the general population as a basis for comparison, to figure out if an organization (the government in this case) deviates substantially from the average for the population. Failing that, you can compare a subset of the population (government workers) against itself in past years. That won't tell you where that subset stands relative to the general population, but it will tell you changes (first derivative).

    The 2018 report has historical results for the same survey questions from 2014-2018, and 2013 report show results from 2010-2013 (it appears the questions in the summary were introduced in 2010).

    "willing to put in extra effort" has remained consistent at 96%. "look for ways to do job better" consistently between 90%-91%. "work is important" consistently between 90%-91%. Basically, government employees' attitudes about these factors has not changed in 8 years (which takes us through one change in President's party, control of the House, and control of the Senate). And there is no evidence to indicate they are changing.

    The survey questions whose results did change are:
    • "I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization." Dipped from 66% in 2010 to 59% in 2014, back up to 66% by 2018.
    • "I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things." Same trend as above. 60% to 55% to 61% in 2010, 2014, and 2018
    • "My training needs are assessed." 54% in 2010, dropping to 50% in 2014, rising to 55% by 2018.
    • "I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal." 61% from 2010-2014, but rising to 66% by 2018
    • " In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at different performance levels (for example, Fully Successful, Outstanding)." 67% from 2010-2014, but rising to 71% by 2018.

    These are the survey questions which indicate changes in government employee attitude (apparently there was more doom and gloom around 2014). That TFA focuses instead on three survey questions whose results have not changed, and discussed them with respect to a current event which could not yet have influenced the survey results, suggests the authors of TFA were just looking for an excuse to write an opinion piece, not report the news.

    1. Re:Historical survey results by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Narrative. Thats what it is.

      As you have noted, they are generally more confident about things since Trump got elected.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  20. Self-serving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what it has found is that most federal workers are very dedicated to their work.

    Shocking that a government survey "found" this out from a government body. The lazy ones probably didn't bother with the survey, so I guess maybe 50 people answered it?

    I've seen what "dedication" looks like from the VA workers that my brother has literally suffered with, as well as my friend's husband that used to work at the VA -- where he was sent home after 38 hours each week!

    The majority of people that work for the government are just like the rest of the idiots that you see in the private workforce, except government employees get a guaranteed pension after a very short amount of their live by comparison, and it's incredibly hard to get rid of the truly bad ones.

    There's nothing dedicated about that in the general case.

  21. Re:What are millenials doing working for the gover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being a whiny opinionated cunt doesn't pay very well in the private sector ... unless you manage to land a job at Google.

  22. Re:Traitors hang, faggot Drumpftards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you're obviously super-duper gay...

  23. Re:Traitors hang, faggot Drumpftards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will be no hangings. There will be no jail time. Obviously, the elites don't have to obey the law like us proles, otherwise we would have seen Hillary in prison by now or, on the flip side, we would have seen Mueller do something other than pick up a paycheck. All this talk about hangings and jail is just cheap kabuki theatre.

  24. Really nothing new here by owlaf · · Score: 2

    Having been a fed employee, the problem of younger people leaving has been a problem known for a while. I remember taking a survey around 2006 (may have been the one mentioned in the article) and accompany info for the survey included the high leave rate of young employees. One can deal with less job satisfaction for more job security if they have things such as marriages, kids, mortgages the younger don't have. This shutdown will just encourage a little more of the known issue

  25. Something feels off about that story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, right, there it is: "brightest, hardest-working, and most capable, dedicated government employees"

    1. Re:Something feels off about that story by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      If they're so good, then they can get a job in private industry and make much more money then.

  26. Re:Traitors hang, faggot Drumpftards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many indictments and convictions does Mueller have to produce before people stop this stupid idea that he isn't getting anything done?

  27. Bad for economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a very painful part of democratic governance. Like a war need to reflect how to manage better. No easy answers and the challenges go deeper than this conflict.

  28. If you have a college degree it's cake to get by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    another job. The reason to work for the government is so you don't have to do that every 2-3 years when the stock price dips a little or the CEO wants a new boat. If you take that away you'll end up with bottom feeders.

    But that's kind of the point. The GOP is actively trying to sabotage the government so they can privatize everything and turn every aspect of our lives into cash cows. They even have a name for it, they call it "Starve the Beast".

    TL;DR; Put people in charge of government who either don't believe in gov't or believe gov't is only for them and you get bad outcomes. Who knew?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:If you have a college degree it's cake to get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOP is responsible?
      But it was the Democrats that filibustered the first several spending bills, preventing any budget from passing until they took power in the House.

      And now that they HAVE power in the House, they're refusing to pass any budgets that the Senate will accept. They have very publicly stated that they will never allow the 0.1% of one year's budget to be spent on something they don't like.

      This is very much also the responsibility of the Democrats. They are equally refusing to pass a budget, or compromise.

  29. Re:Traitors hang, faggot Drumpftards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Trump or Hillary in jail yet? No. Wake me up when something of importance happens...

  30. Coast Guard by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    Plenty of millennials in the Coast Guard, who aren't getting paid.

    1. Re:Coast Guard by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Plenty of millennials in the Coast Guard, who aren't getting paid.

      These are truly people who are doing it for the job and not the money.

      Why is the USCG not under DOD who are still being paid? It now looks stupid that they aren't. Every person who is pointing at the Coast Guard and using them as a talking point against the shutdown is calling them a necessary coastal defense. Why not Department of Defense, then?

    2. Re:Coast Guard by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Because they are part of the Department of Homeland Security and perform law enforcement duties.

      You really really really dont want the DoD to be a law enforcement agency. Seriously. If the government ever moves to make that happen , then I implore you to march with me on Washington with rifle in hand.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  31. The shutdown could hurt the reputation of the government as a good place to work, she said.

    Since when has it had that reputation?

    1. Re:Huh? by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Most government jobs I've seen are slacker jobs.

      If one has skills and wants money, they don't work for the government.

      It's a haven for liberal arts graduates.

  32. Um.. Gov't jobs are traditionally much more stable by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it's only because the GOP has been actively sabotaging the government that this is a problem. This entire shutdown mess is entirely a creation of the GOP.

    And I see what you did there with your anecdote where you tell a story with the most obnoxious person anyone can imagine (Big SUV, detailing, of course a Lady because there's a meme for that). Let that rub off on anyone who complains about the shutdown.

    I mean, if we're gonna talk about obnoxious folks in the shutdown there's this gem. But there's also a lot of folks trying to figure out how to afford gas. Real Wages are down yet like the article says the GOP base is thrilled. Meanwhile it's not free to go to work. That "hurting the people he's supposed to hurt" lady (meme intended) has a 7 hour commute. Some folks need money for daycare too. Screw this noise.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  33. Re:Traitors hang, faggot Drumpftards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then there's you, the star in a cheap bukaki theatre.

  34. Libertarians are morons. There's the link to GOP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the Tea Party did. They cannibalized the adults in the Republican party with their Libertarian idiocy, which is why your comment is so funny - as if Libertarians would ever be a viable or effective third party, lol. 100% morons.

    Thomas Paine would have shot each and every single modern day "libertarian" in their dumbass faces with a Belgian pistol, at any time day or night.

  35. Re:What are millenials doing working for the gover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Being a whiny opinionated cunt doesn't pay very well in the private sector" = That's very true, Trumptard went bankrupt SIX TIMES lol!

  36. Re:2 out of 3 Branches agree, tell third to get si by guruevi · · Score: 0

    Then how about both branches pass a bill, then override the veto. Guess what: will never happen, GOP needs the votes from their base that are more than willing to can them (and if it happens, Trump may even run third party and still win), Dems need the media to hold on to their votes for Beardo or Ms. Stalin.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  37. Re: Libertarians are morons. There's the link to by hey! · · Score: 1

    Libertarians generally aren't morons, but plenty people who think they're libertarians are.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  38. median age is 50 by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    What the heck are you talking about?

    Young people do not to get stuck in the 2.5% salary increase for the rest of their lives.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  39. Deal with it snowflake GOP faggots, Trump owns it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump just walked out of a negotiation because he's not being offered 100% of the 5+ billion his punk lying traitor faggot ass weakly demands. He also said "I own the shutdown, okay?" He said that.

    You'd have to be beyond retarded to think anyone is going to cave to this weak draft dodging faggot. Mueller will literally send him to the electric chair, Trump is a fucking traitor.

  40. https://nyti.ms/2CfI5ys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump's lawyer and campaign manager and associates are in jail, his son is going, his daughter is going, there are dozens of ongoing investigations sending people to jail as we speak. You're a faggot traitor.

    Trump will hang. He sucked Putin's cock on camera, anyone still supporting him should hang with him. Traitors hang. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html

  41. Re:Traitors hang, faggot Drumpftards by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 0

    How many indictments and convictions does Mueller have to produce before people stop this stupid idea that he isn't getting anything done?

    If there was Russian collusion, then I hope that charges and convictions are coming. I would think that we would have heard about it by now at least. But So far, that's not what we've seen. Here's what's come of the Mueller investigation to date:

    George Padadopoulos: Found guilty of making false statements to the FBI.

    Paul Manafort: indicted on 25 counts, mainly financial crimes in relation to work with Ukrainian politicians. All prior to working for Trump

    Rick Gates: Plea deal for false statements and conspiracy in relation to finances related to working with Manafort. Prior to working for Trump

    Alex van der Zwaan: False statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates.

    Michael Flynn: Making false statements to the FBI

    Richard Pinedo: Identity theft in connection to three Russian companies and/or a dozen or so Russian nationals. No relation to Trump that's been reported.

    A dozen Russian officers have been charged in relation to hacking Democrats emails. Another dozen Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted in relation to a propaganda campaign during to the 2016 election. None have been shown to have any connection to Trump.

    Michael Cohen: Trump's lawyer pleaded guilty to tax evasion and bank charges in relation to his own personal/corporate finances. Additionally campaign finance violations related to Stormy Daniels et. al. As far as I know, this is the only thing that could even conceivably stick to Trump. But it's campaign finance. Many politicians have been caught for this over the years. Damn near every politician could be convicted for this. It's a nothing charge and certainly has nothing to do with Russian collusion.

    If there is any evidence of collusion between Trump and any foreign entity, there has been no report of it to date. This investigation has been going for over a year and a half now. If there was any evidence of collusion, you would think something would have come out by now. The public should be demanding Mueller's head if he's known for over a year and a half that the president of the United States colluded with Russia and sat on it through half of his term.

  42. oh, gimme a break! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever notice the following facts:

    1. Nearly all "shutdowns" occur around the holidays. Congress can push anything off to any date, and yet Democrats and Republicans alike (the ones who've been in DC too long anyway) always manage to cooperate "across the aisle" on one damned thing: making the shutdown fights happen around the holidays.

    2. Both political parties always cooperate to make sure the workers get "back pay". In other words: These "shutdowns" only ever take services from the citizenry - the whining, griping, complaining unionized workers in the government who generally have better pay and benefits than the taxpayers are actually getting PAID VACATIONS.

    I've seen too many of these fights over the decades to see tham as anything more than what they are: efforts by politicians ON BOTH SIDES to win some intractable argument by trying to get some foaming-at-the-mouth journalists to convince the voters to get angry enough to put fear into one side or the other in congress. If this were a REAL problem, Nancy Palosi would not have just sent the congress home - she'd be working on some sort of compromise with the Republican Senate and the President. As it is, I suspect that she is all too happy to give her supporters in the federal workforce a paid holiday and they in-turn will happily distract the taxpayers from noticing this huge benefit by pretending to be suffering even though they are going to get full pay and benefits while many of them are not showing up to work.

    Oh, and if you are too stupid to save-up enought to always have a couple of month's woth of expenses money in the bank (which any federal worker can certainly afford if they've been on the job for more than a year) then you ought to be classed as too dumb to get hired into any job with responsibility. Further more, there are banks and credit unions across the nation offering these workers 0% loans to tide them over during the shutdown - so there's no excuse whatsoever for any federal worker complaining about this, indeed they ought to be required to show up and work since they WILL be paid for that time.

  43. Trump is still President of the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a break. Do you think anyone really cares about Trump's associates being indicted on flimsy/fabricated charges?

    As long as Trump remains in office as President of the United States of America, he holds the power of the presidential pardon. Think about that. None of the above is really going to matter as long as Trump holds this power.

    Mueller is riding on the tax payer's dole for as long as he can... If Mueller actually came up with something to put Trump away, he would have come out with it, but no, instead he's taking pot shots at Trump's family and friends instead...

    1. Re: Trump is still President of the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Mueller takes as long as the average previous special prosecutor investigating a president, he's not even at the halfway point yet. And yet he's already produced more indictments than any of them. Even if you exclude the indictments of Russians who will never come to trial, he's still batting well above the average.

  44. hypocriiiiiiiiisy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck are you pretending to be offended by? You are CONSTANTLY posting divisive bullshit on here. Your republitards can do zero wrong. Fluffybunny has been on here for ages. There is absolutely zero chance he's a russian spy. The russians did not "long game" Slashdot. They didn't install a sleeper cell here. You aren't that important. What the fuck is wrong with you?

    1. Re:hypocriiiiiiiiisy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll contradict the idea that a poster that's been around for ages as a shield. I lurk on Fark, and there's a widespread suspicion of lazarus accounts that the userbase thinks Drew sold off to people who might want to influence opinions with greater gravitas than a more recent account. Which is to say it might not be a sleeper cell so much as wearing someone's face as a mask cell. It doesn't mean it happens here (nor does it mean it happens there), but it's not impossible. Your greater point is dead on, DNS is only whining because people aren't falling in line with glorious leader. Descent was the highest form of patriotic[sic] when Obama was president, and now as usual when a Republican is at the helm, dissent is treason.

  45. Re:What are millenials doing working for the gover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are millenials doing working for the government anyway

    Probably because of their bad credit score due to all of their student loan debt, the record number of degree holders driving up hiring requirements and lowering wages, the mass dumbing down of our society over generations leaving them unprepared for the real world post high school, and the general social stigma of when they were born, has them looking for any job they can get their hands on.

    This isn't the 70's anymore grandpa. Times have changed and not for the better. You may be well off, but you started off in calmer waters compared to the shitstorm people starting out today have to put up with.

  46. The irony for me is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All but one of my Republican family members leeches off a state or government job (that last one is actually a retired contractor, although he started drinking the modern neocon kool aid in his later life), while telling everyone how if they have problems with the medical coverage their companies give out, or they can get independently in the private sector, maybe they should get a nice cushy government job instead.

    Honestly I really wonder how many of the vocalist Republicans are living off government welfare, whether it is called that, or just a cushy job.

  47. Re:Um.. Gov't jobs are traditionally much more sta by Rockoon · · Score: 0

    Its the Democrats that are in the pockets of the banks. If the bailouts didnt prove it to you, then the fact that campaign donation databases are easily searchable should. The Democrats are the big corporate party going by the only important numbers... the money.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  48. Re:A good Matlab replacement, not the next big thi by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    It's not 135% on a like-for-like job basis, though.

  49. Go, Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Master of LEAN GOVERNMENT! I'll make you a GReat LEan GOVernment, I'll just STOP PAYING lazy GOVernment WORkers!

  50. we need more bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "willing to put in CUTextra effortCUT pretend/act to work harder to get their job done," 96% of the survey takers responded affirmatively.

    96% federal employees aren't doing their job as they should? im shocked, i tell ya!
    How about clean up your act and set some standards :)

  51. shutdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know my creditors wait for me to pay my bills never hurts my credit when I cant.

  52. Millennial? Workers? by Chas · · Score: 0

    Is THAT what they're calling the little fucking grievance-mongers now?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  53. Re:Deal with it snowflake GOP faggots, Trump owns by DethLok · · Score: 2

    Ha ha, well said AC, well said.

    Trump IS on record (video is available) as saying he'll accept the blame for the shutdown.

    And he IS on record for dodging the Vietnam draft due to, apparently, "bone spurs" (whatever they are).

    Dunno about the electric chair, but I strong suspect that Trump doesn't have the best interests of the USA in mind as president, rather the best interests of the Trump family business.

    As has been mentioned, with examples, on many other sites including YouTube.

  54. Re:Traitors hang, faggot Drumpftards by DethLok · · Score: 1

    As someone who usually has mod points, it's quite interesting to browse the detritus after I've used them all on upvoting useful, constructive and explanatory comments.

    Because...

    if the above is typical of the average USAnian.... well....

    May your god/s help you all.

    That said, I can't say that I disagree with the AC, like many watching the USA and UK, I think that their current govs are . . . absolutely retarded as evidenced by their actions/inactions.

  55. So they should only ask you for what's real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kinda full of yourself, aren't you? You don't like polls and think they are a waste of time, all by your own decision. I guess we should just ask you what people think, then, instead of polling thousands...

    Moron.

  56. So tell me about these other layoffs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many have been due to someone specifically saying they want to shut it down and for any period of time needed to get their way in negotiation?

    None?

    Then I guess THIS "layoff" is very different from any corporate layoff. Unless you want to clam that CEOs also fire people merely to get their pet project funded and that everyone knows about this secret motivation...

  57. made up bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about 2/3 of private industry pay. Look at the pay of the average C*O and compare to the various secretaries, the same sort of job, just for a "company" of 250million+. Look at upper executive pay in private and compare that to senator/representative pay, they're equivalent.

    And when you get to the bottom end, the actual workers, it's still waaay down for government employee.

    If it were so damn well paid, why the fuck are you not working there? Or are you too dumb to either work out 135% is better than 100%, or too dumb to get a job in government?

  58. Drive a car unpaid off the lot, see how that works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get stuff for your payments. You take that and refuse to pay. Guess what happens when you fail to pay for stuff you used, retard.

  59. No, libertarians ARE morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way libertarian ideals work is if they are fantasy lands they are applied to. The ideology is completely idiotic in any actual system on planet earth. Yet libertarians insist that it's workable, proving they are morons.

  60. Re:What are millenials doing working for the gover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I graduated college in 2007, and after months of looking, got into my present job and profession of construction consulting engineering. I gave my boss a mild scare when I declared at my 2 year anniversary with the company that I was employable now-because so damn many of the job postings I was seeing at the time I was searching advertised "Entry level position-2 years experience required". That's not what entry level means! Of course, I had the fortune of searching during the start of the Great Recession, but I'd be shocked if that bit of idiocy is gone.

  61. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free university education for all makes you smarter. That's what we call "teaching". And you earn more if you have a degree, and that makes you richer. It's what "having more money" means.
    Pity that RWNJ ideologies just make you poorer and dumber.

    1. Re:And? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Education doesn't make you smarter, it teaches you to make use of of the capabilities you already have, and it gives you a piece of paper which may convince others to employ you.
      Free education for all on the other hand means there will be more people competing for the jobs, and might actually make you poorer.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  62. Re:Libertarians are morons. There's the link to GO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, fiscal responsibility, Constitutional adherence, and staying out of peoples personal lives are horribly "moronic" ideals.

  63. Re: Traitors hang, faggot Drumpftards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "USAnian"

    Is that similar to a Euro-peon?

  64. Re: Libertarians are morons. There's the link to by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, the "no true libertarian" argument, we've seen this bullshit before. All libertarians are idiots because they are ignoring human nature, which has not changed appreciably throughout recorded history. Libertarianism can only work in an environment free of bad actors, which means it's unworkable.

    Libertarians are those who want police protection from those who they would abuse, and are incapable of understanding that if they can buy services that harm others, someone else with more money can do it to them just as easily as they can do it to someone else.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  65. funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My career was working at DOD. The feds never took a survey that was honest. There was and is always an agenda. Not to be believed.

  66. Re:Deal with it snowflake GOP faggots, Trump owns by UsuallyReasonable · · Score: 1

    Oh well if it's on YouTube, then I guess it couldn't be as cataclysmically stupid as your rendition made it sound.

  67. Re: Libertarians are morons. There's the link to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translation: "I'm going to pretend anarchists are libertarians, then attack anarchists. See how I can win arguments? I'm a fucking moron."

  68. Re: Libertarians are morons. There's the link to by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Translation: "I'm going to pretend anarchists are libertarians, then attack anarchists. See how I can win arguments? I'm a fucking moron."

    Libertarianism isn't anarchism, but that's where it would naturally lead. You can't implement it anyway, so no worries there, but it is unfortunate to have the libertarians out there wasting their effort on sky pies.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  69. Really? PROVE IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move to a barbaric country where you are likely to be killed.

    Are you gay? Try Iran or Saudi Arabia.

    Reject Islam? Move to Pakistan.

    Are you white? There are places in Africa that would like to kill you.

    I find that most of the complete fools who are for "open borders" are either people fleeing non-Judeo-Christian nations who want the Judeo-Christian nations to let them in, or idiots who grew up in Judeo-Christian nations and have been so sheltered that they simply assume the other nations are just as good/safe.

    Borders are the geo-political equivalent of firewalls - they limit the spread of toxic political and cultural badness. Without borders, the entire world could be easily plunged into global evil dictatorial tyranny and there would be no place to escape to and no place to fight back from.

  70. because the Coast Guard is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    part of the Department of Transportation and not the Department of Defense.

    Their origin is in the collection of tariffs and restriction of smuggling that would avoid those tariffs. All that "saving people" stuff was added later, just like "protect the President" was added to the job of the Secret Service, whose original job was the protection of the currency.

    Don't like it that the USCG is not a "mandatory" expenditure? Blame the Democrats who long ago saw to it that vital things like the Pentagon and Department of Transportation are optionally funded every year but most social spending programs are on auto pilot and get auto-funded every year with or without a shutdown. Most of these priorities were locked in during the 40 straight years (prior to 1994) when the Democrats held the House of Representatives.

    When properly activated (cannot think of the proper terminology at the moment), the USCG becomes and auxilliary of the US Navy so I suppose Trump *might* be able to get them funded by activating them, but I have not looked into it and it might require an actual declaration of war (which congress would never do).

  71. Re: " daily calls from debt collectors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screen your calls. Problem solved.

    The proper response to debt collectors is polite non-compliance. When I was on unemployment I applied lessons from my "professional deadbeat" bros. I have the proper fuck you attitude and commend it to others.

    Unsecured loan/credit card? Fuck 'em. Credit reports are overrated.
    Overdue on car payments? Know if your county requires Claim of Delivery paperwork for repos and keep the car tucked away where it's not visible and inaccessible to others. Repo men can't just drive onto your property though many rely on the assumption they may. No Claim of Delivery paperwork? Call the police to remove the trespasser if the repo guy is on your property. The gent I learned repos from did that successfully. (He later surrendered the car to a different repo guy who wasn't a dick.)

    The system relies on compliance from uninformed submissives so don't be one. Feel no guilt and fuck the system since it fucks you.

  72. Re: Libertarians are morons. There's the link to by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

    1. Yes, consistent libertarianism would lead to a state in which most if not all human interactions were guided by mutual interest rather than coercion. Some call this "anarchism," but that term is highly ambiguous, so many of us prefer to describe it as "voluntaryism." 2. Libertarianism differentiates itself from most other "isms" not by ignoring human nature, but by advocating social constructs that are compatible therewith. We do not say "humans are flawed, and therefore need to be ruled by other at least equally flawed people," but, rather, "no one has a right to rule over another without consent, and, therefore, human interactions should be governed mostly if not entirely by voluntary, consensual agreement."

  73. Re:Deal with it snowflake GOP faggots, Trump owns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a puppet of Putin. A disgusting traitor. And the GOP are protecting him. He belongs in jail. Americans are fucked in the head for electing him.