Economy 19 Million Public Employees Cost Taxpayers Nearly $1 Trillion

[HunterSdVa29]

Loan repayment for is relatively new for who? Federal employees? Hardly. Loan repayment at the Federal level has been around for over 25 years. Especially in Federal programs providing healthcare to hard-to-fill/isolated hardship duty stations.

There are also scholarships available with a Federal payback obligation that has been around for just as long or longer.

the most recent, current program was passed under Obama tho
and it requires the loan be in good standing, and you're employed in Federal Service (military doesn't count either) and paying on the loan for at least 10 years

not a whole lot of people fit into that category

 

[panamaican]

The problem with those articles is that she can't quantify those intangible benefits. Across the board we see these benefits.

First in admissions

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/diagnosing-the-flutie-effect-on-college-marketing

That quote should start "IF schools rise from mediocre to great..." In the links I provided, they already addressed that the impact even of a championship season is short term, often only one year. It's good that they highlighted the occasions with longer effects but that's not the norm. More importantly, since only one school is winning each year...it's pretty much irrelevant in 95% of the school conversations.

As well as in revenue

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/what-s-the-value-of-a-win-in-college-athletics

I'm not sure what the point of this is. The NCAA already stated that only 24 schools are net positive on athletics. 24.

350 basketball teams. 290 baseball. 250 Football. D1.

24 schools are making money off athletics.

And I already posted the median profit is $6 million. It's great that 1-5 schools make a lot of money from athletics. But that's the college equivalent of saying that American economic policy should be based off of what Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett are experiencing.

As I said, schools that cannot pay to keep their programs afloat cannot and should not. But for those who are able, there are benefits not only in revenue but also academic exposure in the short term. If you spend a million dollars to subsidize the football team, but you bring in five million in freshman tuition, did you lose? According to the sources you provided, yes. In reality, not so much. And those effects have shown carryover from year to year.

The benefits simply don't exist the way that you're suggesting. I posted a ton of information that shows that over 90% of college AD's are losing money. The universities (of which many are public and taxpayer funded) subsidize their AD's with fees from the students. They borrow significantly to expand their athletic footprint. That borrowing reduces how much debt they can take on for academic growth.

For teams that win big, there is a benefit. But only 1 team wins annually in basketball or football. They tend to be the same few schools year after year.

You can ignore all of that data and reduce the conversation to "Doug Flutie 30 year ago." Duke Basketball and Alabama football. Yay...but hardly an accurate representation of what the economic landscape looks like for the majority of schools regarding athletics.

Because an accurate representation is that 300+ schools are subsidizing athletics with money from the academic departments. And that's not a good use of tax payer money.

 

[panamaican]

Oh come on dude . . . my point wasn't to completely dismiss the topic of the thread, but how you addressed my original comment and my opinion of how it all ties together.

I didn't say I didn't care about your response I said it irrelevant.

 

[panamaican]

Loan repayment for is relatively new for who? Federal employees? Hardly. Loan repayment at the Federal level has been around for over 25 years. Especially in Federal programs providing healthcare to hard-to-fill/isolated hardship duty stations.

There are also scholarships available with a Federal payback obligation that has been around for just as long or longer.

And in state and local employees? Because that's a big chunk of the government employee sector that now qualifies for loan forgiveness based on entering the public sector. And for them, it's relatively new.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Fine, cut out the salaries of those few egregious examples by 1/2 or even 2/3. Then use the remaining money to give everyone else a raise. That'll bring the average from $52k/year to $52.5/year.

Outrage solved.

 

[spamking]

the most recent, current program was passed under Obama tho
and it requires the loan be in good standing, and you're employed in Federal Service (military doesn't count either) and paying on the loan for at least 10 years

not a whole lot of people fit into that category

I'm not familiar with with what States/Locals or other Departments/Agencies my offer . . .

The Indian Health Service has a long-standing loan repayment program that's been around much longer for healthcare providers and other hard-to-fill positions. This includes both civilians and the Commissioned Corps of the USPHS.

 

[spamking]

And in state and local employees? Because that's a big chunk of the government employee sector that now qualifies for loan forgiveness based on entering the public sector. And for them, it's relatively new.

My comments were 100% reflective of my experiences with the Federal system. I don't know anything about the opportunities that may or may not exist for state or city employees. Outside of what my wife may have presented to her as a teacher, but she doesn't have student loans for us to be concerned about.

 

[spamking]

I didn't say I didn't care about your response I said it irrelevant.

Except it is relevant . . . at least to the discussion point about the number of employees (Federal level anyway). If the layers upon layers of red tape didn't exist those employees responsible for managing the red tape wouldn't be needed.

 

[spamking]

to add on to some of yall's pts, the city nearest to me Yucca Valley pays their City Supervisor something like 250k or something extremely egregious.

It has like 26k people ffs

Sounds like some of the public school superintendents here in Oklahoma . . . some make close to or just over 6 figures with anywhere from 150-500 total students. While others with several thousand students are nearing the $250k range.

 

[Falsedawn]

That quote should start "IF schools rise from mediocre to great..." In the links I provided, they already addressed that the impact even of a championship season is short term, often only one year. It's good that they highlighted the occasions with longer effects but that's not the norm. More importantly, since only one school is winning each year...it's pretty much irrelevant in 95% of the school conversations.




I'm not sure what the point of this is. The NCAA already stated that only 24 schools are net positive on athletics. 24.

350 basketball teams. 290 baseball. 250 Football. D1.

24 schools are making money off athletics.

And I already posted the median profit is $6 million. It's great that 1-5 schools make a lot of money from athletics. But that's the college equivalent of saying that American economic policy should be based off of what Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett are experiencing.





The benefits simply don't exist the way that you're suggesting. I posted a ton of information that shows that over 90% of college AD's are losing money. The universities (of which many are public and taxpayer funded) subsidize their AD's with fees from the students. They borrow significantly to expand their athletic footprint. That borrowing reduces how much debt they can take on for academic growth.

For teams that win big, there is a benefit. But only 1 team wins annually in basketball or football. They tend to be the same few schools year after year.

You can ignore all of that data and reduce the conversation to "Doug Flutie 30 year ago." Duke Basketball and Alabama football. Yay...but hardly an accurate representation of what the economic landscape looks like for the majority of schools regarding athletics.

Because an accurate representation is that 300+ schools are subsidizing athletics with money from the academic departments. And that's not a good use of tax payer money.

Again, if you spend a million, but get 5 back in tuition, are you a loser?

You're saying yes. I'm saying no. Schools losing money to subsidize athletics means a whole bunch of nothing if you aren't considering the intangible value included in it. If you just wanna talk dollars and cents then we need to cut useless degrees since something like journalism isn't providing a concrete value for the school nor a public value especially in the age of decentralized news.

Then again, if you're like me and see a journalism school as a message shaping tool for the university, you might weight those benefits accordingly. Not great donors, but great for optics. That's athletics.

Those intangible benefits are a worthy pursuit for a university as defined by those universities investing in those benefits. If athletics had no value, they wouldn't be emphasized to this degree, period.

The value analysis for the UAB football program bears this out. UAB is basically the lowest of the low tier, but made a point to express their derived intangible benefits from the existence of the football program. Start at page 9 and tell me that small programs don't get any value from athletics. They can't have made it any clearer why the football program is important to them.

 

[JamesRussler]

Government employees should work for free!

Maybe not free, but there should be fewer of them. And if the government finds itself "understaffed," perhaps that's an indication that government shouldn't be involved in that particular field.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I'm not familiar with with what States/Locals or other Departments/Agencies my offer . . .

The Indian Health Service has a long-standing loan repayment program that's been around much longer for healthcare providers and other hard-to-fill positions. This includes both civilians and the Commissioned Corps of the USPHS.

But those were very specific and for certain fields

The entire Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is a recent thing. This now includes State/Local as well as Federal
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Maybe not free, but there should be fewer of them. And if the government finds itself "understaffed," perhaps that's an indication that government shouldn't be involved in that particular field.

Put them on welfare I guess

 

[spamking]

Maybe not free, but there should be fewer of them. And if the government finds itself "understaffed," perhaps that's an indication that government shouldn't be involved in that particular field.

Not necessarily. I supervise a team of 7 FTEs at the moment. Our department is down 2 FTEs due to transfers and promotion to different positions internally. I've advertised 2 different positions 2-3 times and can't find someone with the requisite experience needed. So no, being understaffed doesn't many what you think it means.

 

[streets ahead]

another thing that gets me is, EVERY government department gets a budget based off their last budget. If they don't spend the entire budget, they get cut the next year....they never do that, they always spend every penny allocated to them

there is no taxing problem, there's a spending problem

Every September their is a massive spending spree to get rid of the budget before October 1st.

 

[G-19]

Maybe not free, but there should be fewer of them. And if the government finds itself "understaffed," perhaps that's an indication that government shouldn't be involved in that particular field.

Please give an example.

 

[JamesRussler]

Not necessarily. I supervise a team of 7 FTEs at the moment. Our department is down 2 FTEs due to transfers and promotion to different positions internally. I've advertised 2 different positions 2-3 times and can't find someone with the requisite experience needed. So no, being understaffed doesn't many what you think it means.

It depends. What is it that your department does?

 

[G-19]

Every September their is a massive spending spree to get rid of the budget before October 1st.

“Use or lose” is the scam, anyone who works in any level of the government will tell you that.

 

[JamesRussler]

Please give an example.

For example, the federal government is shut down right now and life has gone on like normal for everyone not employed by the federal government. That's because essential services are still running. Makes you wonder why we need those nonessential services.

 

[G-19]

For example, the federal government is shut down right now and life has gone on like normal for everyone not employed by the federal government. That's because essential services are still running. Makes you wonder why we need those nonessential services.

Not exactly fair since people are working while not being paid. Other departments and agencies are forcing people to stay home without pay so they’re operating on the bare minimum. In some cases diminishing mission capabilities. Do you work for the federal or state government?

I’m currently a state government employee, previous federal employee, trying to go federal again. Anyway, I’ve seen some unreal fraud, waste, and abuse but the benefits far outweigh the costs. I agree to a certain extent that we can definitely trim up some loose fat. However, people have become far too accustomed to a certain lifestyle and the services these agencies/departments/employees provide are valuable to everyday people.