Less Federal employees does not translate to less government

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why people think freezing the hiring of federal employees will result in a smaller government or cost savings. All that will happen is that government contractors will take over the positions at a greater cost to the taxpayer. The push to save money by reducing the federal workforce is just big business trying to stop the in sourcing of jobs.

I have worked in the government contracting field for a number of years and I can assure you that there are many services being offered that could be done in a more cost effective manner by government workers. Additionally, we are exasperating the problem with an aging federal workforce. Government contractors are often retired federal employees. When will we train the next generation to do the work?

[Anonymous]

Fer shur! (from another government contractor) Those folks who want to shrink the government, let me tell you that it's just going to be farmed out at a higher price to the private sector.

[Anonymous]

FEWER federal employees.

[Anonymous]

Who do you think is paying to get them elected? Let's see - fewer federal employees, more contractors and no cuts to defense spending - yep, I do believe Northrup Grumman and its ilk will be hiring soon...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FEWER federal employees.

This. Your title make you seem like an ignoramus, which ruins the whole point of your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FEWER federal employees.

This. Your title make you seem like an ignoramus, which ruins the whole point of your post.

No it doesn't. I said I have worked in the government contracting field, not the federal government. I'm sure a federal government employee would have used the word "fewer". And for the record, the title probably should have been: Fewer federal employees will not result in a smaller federal government.

[Anonymous]

Oh fer cryin' out loud! *Fewer* people are using "fewer" correctly these days. While it does grate on me a bit, it's not a cardinal sin or a capital crime or even a sign of an ignoramus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh fer cryin' out loud! *Fewer* people are using "fewer" correctly these days. While it does grate on me a bit, it's not a cardinal sin or a capital crime or even a sign of an ignoramus.

Quite right. Insisting on "fewer" rather than "less" is like insisting that "media" is plural. Fastidious English, one might say in these days of global warming, must "go with the floe".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh fer cryin' out loud! *Fewer* people are using "fewer" correctly these days. While it does grate on me a bit, it's not a cardinal sin or a capital crime or even a sign of an ignoramus.

Let's continue to bastardize the English language until we just point at things and grunt. Print will be reduced to emoticons.

[Anonymous]

Why does everything dissolve into a grammar debate? I could understand OP's point with either word.

[Anonymous]

When someone's first language is English and they can't use it properly, for me (and it seems for a lot of other people here) it takes away from the legitimacy and cogency of their post.

[Anonymous]

And as long as I'm nitpicking, "they" and "their" (above) should probably be "he" and "his," but that brings in the whole gender neutrality thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When someone's first language is English and they can't use it properly, for me (and it seems for a lot of other people here) it takes away from the legitimacy and cogency of their post.

Or perhaps many of us get off on bitching about whatever is handy.

[Anonymous]

NP here - I discounted the whole argument because of word choice. I agree with pp; if English is your first language, you should make sure you learn to speak it properly.

[Anonymous]

16:16 If I got a cover letter from a job application with this mistake in it, I would put it in the "no" file. Any employee who misuses language goes down a notch in their supervisor's eyes.