Why would that be? A few possibilities:
- They really are underpaid and are struggling to make ends meet in this cruel, cruel world.
- They take their personal finances as seriously as they take state finances.
- Because a government job is usually a sinecure, they didn't see a need for saving for a rainy day, because it never rains on government workers, especially those with pensions.
9 comments:
Can I take "all of the above"? I don't see them as being mutually exclusive.
J. Ewing
I don't see them as mutually exclusive, either, JE, but if someone is living paycheck to paycheck because they aren't saving money for a rainy day, I'm not sure how much sympathy that individual deserves.
I'm taking a mix of #2 and #3, which are basically the same reason. They don't take personal finance seriously because they think Ma Government is going to take care of them.
In which they aren't terribly different from all too many people in the private sector who pulled the lever for Comrade Obama, sad to say.
I think you're on the wrong trail with this one. People of a certain type are likely to be responsible with their finances no matter their job. Irresponsible folks likewise. My sister's household, for example, gets a government check because my brother in law is a university professor. They budget, save and use their money with the utmost responsibility. I suspect for them, the shutdown introduces a problem of liquidity into their budget. Having been very careful, they don't lack the money to get by for quite some time, but much of it is tied up in investments, their house, and so on and would be disadvantageous to touch.
That said, this wrench in the gears is courtesy of Mark Dayton.
My sister's household, for example, gets a government check because my brother in law is a university professor. They budget, save and use their money with the utmost responsibility. I suspect for them, the shutdown introduces a problem of liquidity into their budget. Having been very careful, they don't lack the money to get by for quite some time, but much of it is tied up in investments, their house, and so on and would be disadvantageous to touch.
Right, but your sister's example doesn't make for an effective sob story on the 10 p.m. news.
And of course it's disadvantageous to touch investments, but when someone in the private sector is facing that issue, there's no one from KARE 11 to film it.
That's the point I'm making; the public sector is only now getting a small, temporary dose of what the private sector has faced all along.
the public sector is only now getting a small, temporary dose of what the private sector has faced all along.
Indeed. I definitely feel for those people because threats of a layoff are a perpetual state for someone like myself who's in consulting.
Per WB's comment, it's worth noting that teachers and professors were pretty much the ONLY people that Stanley and Danko found actually benefited from an inheritance as a whole.
That said, teachers and professors aren't even a majority of employees in schools and universities anymore, so there could be a LOT of government workers who just don't get it, financially speaking.
if they want to know how it REALLY feels, there must be the very real an imminent danger of them not have a job to return to.
then they'll know what its like to be down here with the rest of us.
Just for the record, I'm happy for the shutdown to continue if that's what it takes to avoid spending the state can't afford.
Post a Comment