What is the private sector?

[Navy1960]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's very simple. Private sector means it's privately owned.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

Boeing Employee - Private Sector
NASA Employee - Public Sector

 

[Navy1960]

privately owned as in the business that makes the product? If that is the case I would point out that Boeing for example makes more than a few different aircraft for commercial carriers. The Air Force Tanker just so happens to be based on one of those aircraft, so then would it no be a true statement that the Federal Govt. is promoting the " private sector" if they seek to purchase goods and services that are produced by it ?

 

[Care4all]

so, billions funded by the tax payer, for those private sector jobs is not jobs created by our gvt?

 

[Navy1960]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

Boeing Employee - Private Sector
NASA Employee - Public Sector

Ahh, but the new programs at NASA are almost all run by Space X and Boeing, in fact if you look at it, NASA is even requiring Boeing and Space X to fly their own spacecraft to demonstrate them. So then by that measure, is this not a good example of promoting the "private sector" ?

 

[Foxfyre]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

Any company that is that is totally dependent on government for its income is not really private sector. For instance there are privately owned companies that do maintenance at Kirtland AFB here in Albuquerque and that is ALL they do. They were created to work exclusively for the government. Such companies in my opinion are not private sector because if their government contract is cancelled, they are essentially out of business.

The advantage of using such companies, however, is that these are not civil service jobs and the tax payer is not on the hook to provide retirement and health benefits to the employees once the contract ends though the taxpayer can still be on the hook for unemployment insurance until the laid off workers find other employment.

Contrast that with numerous other companies in New Mexico who bid on and receive government contracts at the labs, bases, and other federal installations, but that is only a portion of their work. Losing their government contract is painful, yes, but they have other work to do and would remain in business anyway. Such companies I consider private sector.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

Boeing Employee - Private Sector
NASA Employee - Public Sector

Ahh, but the new programs at NASA are almost all run by Space X and Boeing, in fact if you look at it, NASA is even requiring Boeing and Space X to fly their own spacecraft to demonstrate them. So then by that measure, is this not a good example of promoting the "private sector" ?

I think you're way over-complicating this. A private sector job may be funded by sales to the governent, that doesn't make it a public sector job.

I suggest you Google Military Industrial Complex while you're at it.

 

[Navy1960]

Boeing Employee - Private Sector
NASA Employee - Public Sector

Ahh, but the new programs at NASA are almost all run by Space X and Boeing, in fact if you look at it, NASA is even requiring Boeing and Space X to fly their own spacecraft to demonstrate them. So then by that measure, is this not a good example of promoting the "private sector" ?

I think you're way over-complicating this. A private sector job may be funded by sales to the governent, that doesn't make it a public sector job.

I suggest you Google Military Industrial Complex while you're at it.

I think you misunderstand me, I am not saying its a public sector job, in fact in my humble opinion its a private sector job no different than any other, the only difference is the source of the contract. That in and of itself does not change the fact that these jobs are all in the " private sector". Take Space X for example, before NASA had decided to end the Shuttle program Space X hardly existed as a company. The need for "private sector " launch services was only provided by one source and that was Boeing and Lockheed known as ULA. In that time Space X has developed 3 rockets and several services and launch systems that serive not only NASA but also offer private launch services as does Boeing. The point of this thread is simply to point out that , even though the Federal Govt. may create the need, that does not make the supplier any less of a " private sector" employer than the 7-11.

 

[rightwinger]

They are private sector jobs that are funded by the taxpayer. Same as a government employee

 

[Navy1960]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

Any company that is that is totally dependent on government for its income is not really private sector. For instance there are privately owned companies that do maintenance at Kirtland AFB here in Albuquerque and that is ALL they do. They were created to work exclusively for the government. Such companies in my opinion are not private sector because if their government contract is cancelled, they are essentially out of business.

The advantage of using such companies, however, is that these are not civil service jobs and the tax payer is not on the hook to provide retirement and health benefits to the employees once the contract ends though the taxpayer can still be on the hook for unemployment insurance until the laid off workers find other employment.

Contrast that with numerous other companies in New Mexico who bid on and receive government contracts at the labs, bases, and other federal installations, but that is only a portion of their work. Losing their government contract is painful, yes, but they have other work to do and would remain in business anyway. Such companies I consider private sector.

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. 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?

 

[Care4all]

Ahh, but the new programs at NASA are almost all run by Space X and Boeing, in fact if you look at it, NASA is even requiring Boeing and Space X to fly their own spacecraft to demonstrate them. So then by that measure, is this not a good example of promoting the "private sector" ?

I think you're way over-complicating this. A private sector job may be funded by sales to the governent, that doesn't make it a public sector job.

I suggest you Google Military Industrial Complex while you're at it.

I think you misunderstand me, I am not saying its a public sector job, in fact in my humble opinion its a private sector job no different than any other, the only difference is the source of the contract. That in and of itself does not change the fact that these jobs are all in the " private sector". Take Space X for example, before NASA had decided to end the Shuttle program Space X hardly existed as a company. The need for "private sector " launch services was only provided by one source and that was Boeing and Lockheed known as ULA. In that time Space X has developed 3 rockets and several services and launch systems that serive not only NASA but also offer private launch services as does Boeing. The point of this thread is simply to point out that , even though the Federal Govt. may create the need, that does not make the supplier any less of a " private sector" employer than the 7-11.

why are public sector jobs vilified vs these type of government taxes paid jobs?

If NASA had decided to put up their own engineers and staff to manufacture their own needs instead of going to Space x or boeing etc on contract for the job, those jobs would have been up for criticism and critiquing to eliminate waste etc or to just rid them of their promised benefits due to the cost, while those employed by the gvt through the private sector contracts with the government, are not up for the same scrutiny? In a way, going through the private sector allows for more waste or over compensation, no?

Honestly, if the private sector employee is employed due to the money us tax payers pay the company for the job he is doing....then it is a job the government created....and we the people are paying for....which means it is NOT a job the private sector created for private sector business....it is a job our gvt created....that's all I am saying.

 

[Navy1960]

I think you're way over-complicating this. A private sector job may be funded by sales to the governent, that doesn't make it a public sector job.

I suggest you Google Military Industrial Complex while you're at it.

I think you misunderstand me, I am not saying its a public sector job, in fact in my humble opinion its a private sector job no different than any other, the only difference is the source of the contract. That in and of itself does not change the fact that these jobs are all in the " private sector". Take Space X for example, before NASA had decided to end the Shuttle program Space X hardly existed as a company. The need for "private sector " launch services was only provided by one source and that was Boeing and Lockheed known as ULA. In that time Space X has developed 3 rockets and several services and launch systems that serive not only NASA but also offer private launch services as does Boeing. The point of this thread is simply to point out that , even though the Federal Govt. may create the need, that does not make the supplier any less of a " private sector" employer than the 7-11.

why are public sector jobs vilified vs these type of government taxes paid jobs?

If NASA had decided to put up their own engineers and staff to manufacture their own needs instead of going to Space x or boeing etc on contract for the job, those jobs would have been up for criticism and critiquing to eliminate waste etc or to just rid them of their promised benefits due to the cost, while those employed by the gvt through the private sector contracts with the government, are not up for the same scrutiny? In a way, going through the private sector allows for more waste or over compensation, no?

Honestly, if the private sector employee is employed due to the money us tax payers pay the company for the job he is doing....then it is a job the government created....and we the people are paying for....which means it is NOT a job the private sector created for private sector business....it is a job our gvt created....that's all I am saying.

Theres a couple of ways to look at that Care, one is that in general "private sector" launch service companies generally cost much much less than NASA because in general they do not have the same amount of red tape that NASA has thus leading to cost overruns. While it's true in the Defense business waste is a BIG BIG problem and I would submit to you that is because DOD purchasing has largely become a rubber stamp and single sourced group, plus they tend to tolerate these overruns on projects. A good example of this is the Comanche helicopter, after 21 years in development and billions spent NOT a SINGLE helicopter made it to the field. I could not imagine, Curtis LeMay, or any Kelly Johnson ever putting up with this kind of thing. However, when it comes to NASA, private launch with NASA management is a better way to approach the issue because it will reduce cost and also be offset by the commercial launch services. You know , when people talk to me about this thing , I always refer them to the original plan for the Space Shuttle, they intended to have up to 50 flights a year with this system and reduce the cost of space services to the point it would start a boom in the space business, the problem was that NASA became too mired in its own red tape. Getting back though, these private sector jobs are a good thing and good for the nation and I invite everyone to take a look at what these companies are doing, it will cheer you up, I know it does me, gives me hope.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

Any company that is that is totally dependent on government for its income is not really private sector. For instance there are privately owned companies that do maintenance at Kirtland AFB here in Albuquerque and that is ALL they do. They were created to work exclusively for the government. Such companies in my opinion are not private sector because if their government contract is cancelled, they are essentially out of business.

The advantage of using such companies, however, is that these are not civil service jobs and the tax payer is not on the hook to provide retirement and health benefits to the employees once the contract ends though the taxpayer can still be on the hook for unemployment insurance until the laid off workers find other employment.

Contrast that with numerous other companies in New Mexico who bid on and receive government contracts at the labs, bases, and other federal installations, but that is only a portion of their work. Losing their government contract is painful, yes, but they have other work to do and would remain in business anyway. Such companies I consider private sector.

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.

 

[Londoner]

The private sector is an organism which gets subsidies and bailouts and FDIC insurance and patents and legal infrastructure and physical infrastructure and military protection of overseas supply chains & trade routes and massive no-bid weapons contracts and sweetheart no-bid drug deals through medicare spending and skilled workers educated at world class public universities ...

but denies their utter dependence on Big Government . . .

while, at the same time, setting up a trillion dollar lobbying industry so that it can parasitically suck at the taxpayer's teat . . .

while investing billions into think tanks/radio/TV/internet for the purpose of convincing useful idiots that they actually hate government interference.

Folks, the private sector craves big government. The only people who don't see this are Republicans who get 100% of their information from the same corporate interests who own government.

If Government didn't exist, the private sector would invent it in order to get subsidies, bailouts, and protection.

 

[bripat9643]

Honestly, if the private sector employee is employed due to the money us tax payers pay the company for the job he is doing....then it is a job the government created....and we the people are paying for....which means it is NOT a job the private sector created for private sector business....it is a job our gvt created....that's all I am saying.

I agree with that definition. Also, there is a whole range of jobs in between. For instance, if you work at Staples, the government may make some of its purchases for office supplies there, so your job is partly funded by the government.

If you work at Raytheon, most of what the company does is funded by the government. Although they do sell products and services to the private sector.

 

[Douger]

The "private sector" are entities that you give bailouts without knowing you did so. Those are the folks that own the politicians that you think you voted for.
Fun, isn't it?

 

[Flopper]

The federal government spends over half trillion dollars a year on private sector goods and services. If you eliminate the entitlements, then almost 1 in every 10 dollars spent by the federal government goes directly to the private sector. Whether we like it or not, government spending on goods and services is a huge part of our economy.

Total federal government spending is almost 40% of our GDP. Factor in state and local government and we approaching almost half of the total economic output of the country originating from government spending. Whether this spending enters the economy through direct purchase of goods and services or indirectly through entitlements or other spending, any reduction in this spending will result in a decrease in economic growth as measured by the GDP because it is a component of GDP. Conservatives will claim that reduction in government spending will lead to more productive growth via the private sector. There is no evidence that this will occur but it is a mathematical certainty the a reduction in government spending will reduce growth.

 

[Foxfyre]

The federal government spends over half trillion dollars a year on private sector goods and services. If you eliminate the entitlements, then almost 1 in every 10 dollars spent by the federal government goes directly to the private sector. Whether we like it or not, government spending on goods and services is a huge part of our economy.

Total federal government spending is almost 40% of our GDP. Factor in state and local government and we approaching almost half of the total economic output of the country originating from government spending. Whether this spending enters the economy through direct purchase of goods and services or indirectly through entitlements or other spending, any reduction in this spending will result in a decrease in economic growth as measured by the GDP because it is a component of GDP. Conservatives will claim that reduction in government spending will lead to more productive growth via the private sector. There is no evidence that this will occur but it is a mathematical certainty the a reduction in government spending will reduce growth.

The thing that you are forgetting, however, is that every dollar spent by the private sector is a dollar added to the economy. Every dollar spent by the government has to be taken out of the economy before it is available to spend.

 

[The Infidel]

What is the private sector?


A target for the Obama regime