While I respect your opinion as I do all those, I would tend to disagree, because if those companies that have contracted with the Federal Govt. were to lose those contracts, those employee's are subject to the employers benefits not that Federal Govts. no less than any other "private sector" company.?
I don't think I said anything different. The taxpayer is on the hook for benefits and health coverage for vested civil service employees who leave their jobs or retire from a government job. I made a specific point to say that they are not on the hook for the same benefits for employees of the subcontractor even if the subcontractor works exclusively for the government.
The other thing that comes to mind here too, is that these companies are providing a service that they have been contracted to do no matter what that may be. In the case of those companies that depend on contracts completely , then they would cease to exist. Is this not the market sorting things out
How is what you are saying here in any way different from what I said? My point is, however, that the taxpayer will pay ALL the subcontractors costs for doing business for the govenment if that subcontractor works exclusively for the government. And that is what makes it just another government group though structured a bit differently than civil service jobs and much easier to terminate than are civil service jobs. If the government did not offer the contract, the business would not have existed in the first place. If the government terminates or does not renew the contract, the business ceases to exist.
Again, the business that contracts with government for some of its work but that does not need the government in order to exist is a private sector job. The government is not paying for the infrastructure, equipment, etc. except for whatever the employer needs to include in the contract to cover his expenses for wear and tear etc. And if there is no government work, the employer continues in business in the private sector.
What I tend to think here Fox, is that when those companies that exist just as means to fill Federal contracts ( Military, etc.), that does not seperate them from the "private sector" in that the benefits paid to it's employee's are done so by the company that is fulfilling the contract not by the taxpayer. One other thing to consider here too is that these companies may start out as Federal contractors, and then as means of increasing profits also market to the private sector. I can think of no better example of this than Space X, which was started by the founder of PayPal to fill the gap for the manned spaced flight program and now is selling lauch services to other nations as well as private companies. Lastly, when the contracts for these companies expire or run out, and if they do not win new one's they cease to exist or go on to new ventures, the company and its employee's for the most part are not supported through the taxpayers. I do see your point however.
And I see your point. But we should not try to fool ourselves that as long as that company exists solely to serve the government, the taxpayer IS paying for ALL the infrastructure, all the equipment and supplies, all costs of goods and raw materials, all the insurance, and ALL the wages, employer payroll and unimployment taxes, and health and retirement plans and all the profit associated with that business. To me, that makes it a government job.
The only distinction between that and a government job is the 'private' business has to file a tax return and the government isn't on the hook for the employee retirement and health plans once the contract is terminated. Otherwise, every penny to run that business comes from the taxpayer and thus is taken out of the economy while adding little or nothing to the economy any more than any other government job.