🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Sep24.154858.6874@varian.com>,
Susan Finkelman <susan@csbvax.varian.com> wrote:
>In article <dsaCDqu0q.By4@netcom.com> dsa@netcom.com (David S.A. Stine) writes:
>>Really? Last I looked, IBM's financials were pathetically poor and they
>>were laying off people. The federal government's financials are worse, but
>>unlike a real business, they're not laying people off. If IBM ever does
>			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>shape up, it will be because the board of directors, representing
>>shareholder interests, told IBM's management "shape up, or _else_."
>
>The government is laying people off at NADEP in Alameda.  It's also
>offering early retirement, just like IBM, to get people off the payroll
>here.  I don't know if this will result in a streamlined military;
>actually I am skeptical.  But civilian employees are definitely being
>laid off.

Actually, over the last twenty years, manufacturing employment and
government employment have both decreased substantially.

To take California as an example, back in 1972, 20% of the population was
employed at some level of government employment.  By 1991, only 16% of
workers in the state were employed by government.

Despite all the rhetoric about "growing government", government has been
shrinking as far as employment goes.




-- 
	 **************************************************
         *    Nathan Newman:  newman@garnet.berkeley.edu  *
         *                 UC-Berkeley			  *