The company I work for, like most companies, had a difficult 2009. Our revenues were down and so as a result, we had to reduce our staff some, be more frugal in our expenses, and be more selective in how we spent our money. Everyone had to make some sacrifices. We actually ended 2009 on a positive note and everyone is optimistic about 2010. Since we are in better control our expenses now and run more efficiently, as we hopefully grow our revenue in 2010, we should be more profitable and be in a better position to invest our surplus to help continue to grow the business.
On a personal note, everyone in the company took a salary reduction this year. As a family, we have had to learn to be more frugal in our expenses and more selective in how we spend our money. We survived and now as we enter 2010, we are in a better position financially since we run our household more efficiently.
Why is it that government never has to go through that? When their revenues are down, they end up spending more money which they borrow from future generations. Few in the government took a pay cut. Layoffs only happened on the local levels. As described above, having to cut back is not pleasant but as we go through it, we emerge in a stronger position. If government would make the hard choices and cut back when they don't have the money, it would be painful for some and the politicians would get complaints from many but in the end, it would make government run more efficiently. It is a natural process that works if allowed to be carried out.