Thread US Economy Making A Turn For THe Better?

Casper said:
I didn't mean to really direct my response at you, but more at the story in general.

You're good. Beer up.
Click to expand...

I know man, I know, I'm just trying to share some actual insight for once.

I think what I was typing was:

A significant portion is wasted on contract revisions, approvals, more approvals, and in my line of work, the entire bidding process and training.

From what I've been told about filling state/federal positions; the costs are quite extravagant, considering the testing, application process, benefits are factored into this cost, training (again), and a score of other things I'm forgetting by the second since it's Friday. IIRC it costs the Federal Government (snicker) several hundred thousand dollars to hire a single customs officer before you consider salary and benefits.
 
Okay, I finally got a hold of a primary document.

Contracted private sector jobs are not included in the job count. The money appropriated is for employee salary as well as the cost of the projects. The employment numbers are calculated based on hours worked, not number of employed staff so the data is misleading (to say 111million/55 persons). Most of the proposed projects have not started yet, which is apparently the point of the report -- and to show the funds are not misused. The agencies need to get better at streamlining how their projects get approved.

http://controller.lacity.org/stelle...ts/contributor_web_content/lacityp_011643.pdf

No wonder no other serious media sources come up with hits on this. The "story" is just spin. Ty Faux News.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh, I see, yes, the projects, that falls more into what my counterparts were talking about.

Even though they aren't "started" the money has been "spent", once money has been allocated for something that's all there is, and that's all it's for.

They tell me this is why they have six different vendors for the same types of systems, because they were different "projects" and that's who the lowest bidder was at the time.
 
Ya that makes sense. And apparently the way ARRA works is the agency has to spend its own money and then get reimbursed from the ARRA funds. They don't get cash up front.
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
Curious, yet not surprising. That opens it up to some interesting accounting games.
Click to expand...

I think it means the money will be spent slower. But I suppose that's better than giving some pencil pusher at some agency in some state a blank check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back