Silver Lining in New Orleans

I'm an optimist. No, really. I am a complete and total optimist. I really do seek out the good in things, wherever it can be found. I do it probably more often than I should, especially when it comes to trusting people, but that's the way I am.

Now hurricane Katrina was bad. Really bad. But there's almost always some good that can come from bad things. I read this morning something really good that's a direct result of the hurricane.

3,000 New Orleans City Workers will be laid off.

Hooray! This is great news! In fact, it may be the ONLY time government at any level has gotten smaller in the last 100 years! I certainly cannot remember ever reading any report of any reduction of any sort at ANY level of government in my lifetime! Have any of you?

Even stranger, the employees laid off are "non-essential." Well, idiots, if they're not essential, why in the heck were they employed? "Gee, we don't really need anyone here to do this job, but we've got all this tax money and we need to spend it, so I'll hire you to stand there and hold the wall up."

There's a silver lining to every cloud.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:05 AM

Comments

1 Now I've commented here before so you know I respect your views Ogre, but I think you are wrong to consider the 3000 laid off employees in New Orleans as non-essential. I believe Mayor Nagin was referring to employees whose jobs cannot be performed at present when he referred to them as nonessential. Few cities, bar perhaps Chicago and Tammany Hall New York City of the olate 1800s, have 3000 excess employees that serve no purpose. I believe they were simply people who couldn't do their duty because of the disaster and who couldn't be paid because of lack of an economy. CHEERS!

Posted by: Joseph (OK Liberal) at October 05, 2005 10:49 AM (ueATj)

2 *I* didn't call them non-essential, Mayor Nagin did.

But I do think most cities of any size have 3,000 excess employees. They might have a purpose, but I would suggest whatever they're doing is not a good or correct use of government.

Thanks for stopping along!

Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 10:59 AM (/k+l4)

3 Sigh. I will open mouth and insert foot... so there are now going to be 3000 more people on welfare? I would rather have them doing something in the government.

Posted by: vw bug at October 05, 2005 11:23 AM (mD8Rg)

4 ooOOOooo...now that's a tough choice. Would you prefer these people work for government or welfare?

Me, I'd prefer they go find jobs. If absolutely forced to choose, I'd choose welfare because that's cheaper than employment (and can be ended quickly if the right people ever get elected).

Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 11:59 AM (/k+l4)

5 I'm curious as to what function they filled prior to the lay off. As for the reduction of government... the city in which I live did that just last year, by about 500 workers.

Posted by: Contagion at October 05, 2005 04:17 PM (Q5WxB)

6 Really? Seriously? The city actually reduced itself by 500 workers? Surely they hired another 1,000 the next day.

Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 05:03 PM (iJFc9)

7 You haven't been keeping up with the Detroit fiasco lately have you?

Otherwise you would have known that the City of Detroit has not only layed off plenty of city workers but they are also laying off police and firemen.

Should be interesting come Halloween. If you look to the north and see a orange glow, then you know it's Detroit burning up on Devil's night.

Posted by: Machelle at October 06, 2005 01:27 PM (ZAyoW)

8 Then who else did they hire, Machelle? I've seen cities lay off police and firemen only to hire social workers and garbage men. I can't imagine any city actually reducing overall head count AND payroll -- simply cannot imagine it.

Of course, Devil's Night is when Detroit is SUPPOSED to burn, isn't it?

Posted by: Ogre at October 06, 2005 02:23 PM (/k+l4)






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0061 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.004 seconds, 16 records returned.
Page size 7 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.