Why do we have non-essential gov't workers?

[Cthulhu 2020]

We should just get rid of all the non-essential government workers. If they are non-essential then that means they arent needed. Why do we even hire people that arent needed? To buy votes I guess

- - - Updated - - -



To me, other than passport adminstrators, those all seem like wastes of money to me. They dont contribute to maintaining infrastructure nor do they support our national defense so therefore not needed

So basically allow research and development to become stagnant, allow all parks and our national heritage to slowly be destroyed, all medicare go unpaid, social security to disappear, various law enforcement agencies to get shut down, the poor go hungry and homeless...

Yeah, there's a reason our country hasn't gone that far right. We'd rather not become a third world country.

[Kellhound]

Essential and non-essential are short term terms in this case.
wow that was easy to explain.

IMO, add air traffic controllers to non-essential and you'll never see this happen again.

They should be like the Post Office anyway, self funded.

[Djuntas]

I think its mostly tourisme jobs, and the likes...you know services industry workers.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Because for the 40 millionth time. Knowing what is in space serves no purpose other than to amaze curious people and show off our tech. Anything NASA developed to explore space wouldve eventually be invented at some point by private companies, or we couldve gotten by without. Believe it or not, 150 years ago people made it just fine without even having electricity.

40 million repetitions doesn't indicate anything other than your own refusal to learn. The private inustry has profited immensely off of NASA's discoveries and rocketed us ahead as the world leader across many economies. The private industry has proven itself to be incredibly slow when it comes to innovation that's best left to scientists.

[Crissi]

They should be like the Post Office anyway, self funded.

The Post Office might be a bad example of that, with their 'funding the retirement of workers not yet born" crap...

[ptwonline]

The Post Office might be a bad example of that, with their 'funding the retirement of workers not yet born" crap...

That a problem with Congress, not the Post Office.

[bayushisan]

Actually some of the "non-essential" workers are food safety inspectors. Meat will still be inspected, but other foods may not be during the shut down. At least that's what one site was reporting.

[Payday]

They should be like the Post Office anyway, self funded.

More airline fees?

Also, re: NASA, a truncated list here.

[Realsykes]

Because we don't need to explore space in order for our country to function?

Sadly, this.

When we start talking about non-essentials, we strip down the areas to their bare necessities, and it's true, space is not essential to our survival as a country.

[Kellhound]

The Post Office might be a bad example of that, with their 'funding the retirement of workers not yet born" crap...

Just talking about the fact that the full funding for the FAA should come from direct fees to civil aviation.

[Crissi]

Sadly, this.

When we start talking about non-essentials, we strip down the areas to their bare necessities, and it's true, space is not essential to our survival as a country.

I dunno, when that mile long asteroid gets too close to be able to do anything about and hits America, you'll be singing a different tune

[Kellhound]

More airline fees?

Yes. The airlines and private planes should have 100% responsibility for the FAA.

[SirPiken]

who are you to say what is essential or not?

It's called being a fucking taxpayer and citizen.

[Payday]

Yes. The airlines and private planes should have 100% responsibility for the FAA.

Mail doesn't exactly require regulation in the sense that airlines do. I'm not too keen on safety/quality regulatory bodies being funded by the very companies that require their scrutiny. I mean, we could drop the budget of the EPA from $8B/yr down to zero if we crowd source it with environmental waste producers..what could possibly go wrong?

Also regarding the post office: Didn't they run up a budget deficit somewhere in the neighborhood of $15B last year? Self-sustainable? I would love to post links but all of these websites are shut down due to a lapse in funding.

[jimlow]

NASA and the center of disease control are considered non-essential. I would argue they should be considered essential and something like the TSA be considered non-essential.

[S7orm]

Sadly, this.

When we start talking about non-essentials, we strip down the areas to their bare necessities, and it's true, space is not essential to our survival as a country.

investments into NASA in the past 60 years brought to the US economy an immense amount of money from innovation and technology. The point is we (high developed countries) redefined the concept of "essential" in the last 100 years
if one investment brings money, then it IS essential to a country (and NASA brought A LOT of money from innovation and technology to the States compared with a little investment)

[Kellhound]

Mail doesn't exactly require regulation in the sense that airlines do. I'm not too keen on safety/quality regulatory bodies being funded by the very companies that require their scrutiny. I mean, we could drop the budget of the EPA from $8B/yr down to zero if we crowd source it with environmental waste producers..what could possibly go wrong?

Also regarding the post office: Didn't they run up a budget deficit somewhere in the neighborhood of $15B last year? Self-sustainable? I would love to post links but all of these websites are shut down due to a lapse in funding.

Don't confuse self-funded with self regulated. And the USPS budget issues are caused by the decline in the use of mail, be it because of the internet or companies like UPS. I don't think we will see a mass decline in air travel soon.

[Zecora]

I understand that saying that someone is non essential does not mean that they do not add some sort of value or serve some meaningful purpose, but I think it may be a bit of a stretch to say that every non essential employee is important. From a numbers standpoint, our government has deemed that 800,000 members of its workforce are not needed to operate our country safely and securely on a day to day basis. Are some of these people valuable? Of course; but at a time when we are currently running nearly one trillion dollar budget deficits, does it really make sense to keep nearly a million people in positions that we don't absolutely need and can't currently afford?

Can't afford? The economy is doing better than it has in years. As for whether you can afford keeping them, ask yourself instead whether you can afford putting 800 000 more people out of a job, people who will then stop buying products, stop servicing their own loans and quite possibly need public support if you do...and that does not even go into the value these people create by way of their work.

- - - Updated - - -

Mail doesn't exactly require regulation in the sense that airlines do. I'm not too keen on safety/quality regulatory bodies being funded by the very companies that require their scrutiny. I mean, we could drop the budget of the EPA from $8B/yr down to zero if we crowd source it with environmental waste producers..what could possibly go wrong?

Also regarding the post office: Didn't they run up a budget deficit somewhere in the neighborhood of $15B last year? Self-sustainable? I would love to post links but all of these websites are shut down due to a lapse in funding.

Well, currently GMO companies are the ones safety-testing their own products (usually for 3-8 weeks)...and they even have a law saying they aren't responsible if something goes wrong. So just saying, it wouldn't be something new...

[OzoAndIndi]

With the government shutdown now in 'full effect,' it begs the question (from an economic standpoint, if nothing else) as to why we have so many 'non-essential' government workers. Logically, it would seem that if someone's job is not important, then there really is no need to keep paying that individual to perform a job that is not needed. With over 800,000 of our government employees now deemed non-essential by their very own employer, shouldn't the American people be looking for a much better return on their investment than simply continuing to pay billions of dollars each year to those who are 'essentially' not important?



cnn.com/2013/10/01/politics/government-shutdown/

Essential people are those that need to work to make sure government, a society, a community, etc still functions. There are many other people who still do important jobs... it can withstand a break but not forever, they're still needed in the long run.

Non government example: lets say you live in a region with a nuclear power plant. A really bad snow storm causes the state or county to give orders that "all non essential" people must stay off the roads and just stay home.... so most people are staying home. Many who work at that plant are probably staying home, but being what it is there are no doubt people with a job title there who are essential to making sure the plant remains running normally... those people probably still have to go to work. The people at home are still needed there though once it's open again.

[Symphonic]

There are lots of things the government does that are useful and good, but not "essential," especially in the short term. Like National Parks. Could the country continue to operate without them? Sure. Should it? Hell no!

From a logical perspective, how does shutting down a national park save any money? Why is the government funding it? They should be able to run off of "ticket sales" or "entrance fees" to pay their one or two park rangers. I see no reason why a national park would need to be shut down if it is able to self fund.

I think that people need to take a step back, see what the government can cut spending on ANYWAY, so that when the government is back "up and running" they're spending less money. Isn't that what this is all about? Making them create a budget?