Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

[NobleSavage]

This is 6 months old, but interesting. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014...ent-now-employs-the-fewest-people-since-1966/

Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was the only one to shrink over the past year.

Anyone have the numbers on the military?













- - - Updated - - -

I'd also like to see the numbers of people employed by government contractors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Meaningless as it doesn't count contractors and outsourced work.

 

[dismal]

Or robots.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wel, there goes Obama destroying even more jobs.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Meaningless as it doesn't count contractors and outsourced work.

You mean hard working business owners?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Meaningless as it doesn't count contractors and outsourced work.

You mean hard working business owners?

Mostly, yes. (Note that I didn't say "offshored".)

The number of government employees is irrelevant. What the government spends on labor is what matters, no matter who their actual employer is.

 

[dismal]

And robots.

 

[Toni]

You mean hard working business owners?

Mostly, yes. (Note that I didn't say "offshored".)


The number of government employees is irrelevant. What the government spends on labor is what matters, no matter who their actual employer is.

But it still counts as government spending. Which, if you notice, the graphs show has taken a rather sharp nosedive as a percentage of the economy since about 2008-09, where it peaked. Percentage of the economy is the most meaningful measure.

 

[dismal]

Mostly, yes. (Note that I didn't say "offshored".)


The number of government employees is irrelevant. What the government spends on labor is what matters, no matter who their actual employer is.

But it still counts as government spending. Which, if you notice, the graphs show has taken a rather sharp nosedive as a percentage of the economy since about 2008-09, where it peaked. Percentage of the economy is the most meaningful measure.

Actually it took a nose leap upward in 2008-9 due to the massive bailouts, porkulus, etc. Since these were all marketed as temporary stimulus it's highly disingenuous to argue they establish some new level of spending to which the government is entitled forever.

In my view it is a pure fallacy to argue that government spending should be some fixed percent of the economy any way. As an economy grows government should be less and less of it. It's not like the borders become bigger and more people are required to defend them. It's not like you have more starving widows and orphans as your economy gets bigger. It's not like it costs more to educate a child as the economy grows.

 

[bilby]

But it still counts as government spending. Which, if you notice, the graphs show has taken a rather sharp nosedive as a percentage of the economy since about 2008-09, where it peaked. Percentage of the economy is the most meaningful measure.

Actually it took a nose leap upward in 2008-9 due to the massive bailouts, porkulus, etc. Since these were all marketed as temporary stimulus it's highly disingenuous to argue they establish some new level of spending to which the government is entitled forever.

In my view it is a pure fallacy to argue that government spending should be some fixed percent of the economy any way. As an economy grows government should be less and less of it. It's not like the borders become bigger and more people are required to defend them. It's not like you have more starving widows and orphans as your economy gets bigger. It's not like it costs more to educate a child as the economy grows.

Of course it does. If you are educating children, you need to teach them about the things they will encounter when they become adults. To do this effectively requires access to those things - either in the schools, or on field trips - both of which cost more money in a more developed economy.

You can teach English or Arithmetic with a simple chalkboard, and a teacher with only those basic skills needed for the job. But teaching someone to use a computer effectively requires a computer; and teaching children a wide range of subjects (something that becomes more important as the economy grows) requires a range of specialist teachers, all of whom are more expensive, because in a growing economy there are increasingly lucrative non-teaching opportunities competing for them.

 

[dismal]

Actually it took a nose leap upward in 2008-9 due to the massive bailouts, porkulus, etc. Since these were all marketed as temporary stimulus it's highly disingenuous to argue they establish some new level of spending to which the government is entitled forever.

In my view it is a pure fallacy to argue that government spending should be some fixed percent of the economy any way. As an economy grows government should be less and less of it. It's not like the borders become bigger and more people are required to defend them. It's not like you have more starving widows and orphans as your economy gets bigger. It's not like it costs more to educate a child as the economy grows.

Of course it does. If you are educating children, you need to teach them about the things they will encounter when they become adults. To do this effectively requires access to those things - either in the schools, or on field trips - both of which cost more money in a more developed economy.

You can teach English or Arithmetic with a simple chalkboard, and a teacher with only those basic skills needed for the job. But teaching someone to use a computer effectively requires a computer; and teaching children a wide range of subjects (something that becomes more important as the economy grows) requires a range of specialist teachers, all of whom are more expensive, because in a growing economy there are increasingly lucrative non-teaching opportunities competing for them.

Ignoring for the moment there is no evidence we are doing a better job of educating children as the money we have spent on them has spiraled upward, and ignoring the fact that efficiencies and automation should lower costs not raise them and ignoring the fact that computers have been getting cheaper for decades -- while these factors may affect the cost of education none of these things is but loosely tied to the overall size of the economy.

The economy grows because the value of the goods and services we produce grows. If people suddenly develop a taste for couple's massages or electric beard trimmers and begin spending money on them causing us to allocate more resources to producing them and less resources to producing less valuable things the economy grows. There is no reason why government inherently must grow at the same rate. It's a complete non-sequitur.

 

[Ford]

In my view it is a pure fallacy to argue that government spending should be some fixed percent of the economy any way. As an economy grows government should be less and less of it.

This strikes me as a baseless assertion.

 

[dismal]

In my view it is a pure fallacy to argue that government spending should be some fixed percent of the economy any way. As an economy grows government should be less and less of it.

This strikes me as a baseless assertion.

Do borders get bigger and harder to defend as economy grows? Do you get more poor people as economy grows? Do you need linearly more firemen and schools? Longer roads?

 

[Ford]

This strikes me as a baseless assertion.

Do borders get bigger and harder to defend as economy grows? Do you get more poor people as economy grows? Do you need linearly more firemen and schools? Longer roads?

Do private industries take over border defense as an economy grows? Do you need fewer schools and firemen? Fewer roads?


"I'm sorry, officer Krupke, but with the economy going so well, we need fewer police officers, so we'll have to let you go...but don't worry, there's a non-government job out there for you somewhere!"

 

[bilby]

This strikes me as a baseless assertion.

Do borders get bigger and harder to defend as economy grows?

Well they rarely get bigger, but as your neighbours become more advanced, so must you, if you wish to continue to be as effective in defending your borders. This can even lead to a positive feedback, where the militaries grow much faster than the economies of the nations that support them - It's called an 'arms race'. I am sure you have heard of it.

Do you get more poor people as economy grows?

You might or might not; It depends on the nature and distribution of the growth.

Do you need linearly more firemen and schools?

Again, it depends on the nature of the growth. More firemen might be needed if housing expands into wooded areas; or fewer may be needed if that expansion results in the removal of the forest altogether. If the growth includes diversification of knowledge based industry, then more teaching specialists will be needed, so the cost per pupil of schools might increase; alternatively it might fall due to other factors. Certainly it is possible that these cost will rise. Do you imagine that it is not possible?

Longer roads?

More traffic - particularly the greater number of trucks required to shift goods and raw materials - may require better roads, more roads, wider roads, and/or more road maintenance. But as the distances between locations doesn't change, the one thing that is not needed is longer roads. Do you imagine that a mile of little used single lane dirt road costs about the same to build and/or maintain as a mile of eight lane superhighway?

 

[Axulus]

Do borders get bigger and harder to defend as economy grows? Do you get more poor people as economy grows? Do you need linearly more firemen and schools? Longer roads?

Do private industries take over border defense as an economy grows? Do you need fewer schools and firemen? Fewer roads?


"I'm sorry, officer Krupke, but with the economy going so well, we need fewer police officers, so we'll have to let you go...but don't worry, there's a non-government job out there for you somewhere!"

Basic math fail: if the economy grows and the number of police officers stays the same, then the percent of the economy spent on police officers _shrinks_.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Actually you don't need the borders to expand to require more services, you just need more people within those borders. Roads don't get longer but the do get wider and need to be maintained more frequently. There is greater exposure to fires and crimes, and we would need more schools. So if economic growth is also tied to population growth, I would expect the government proportion of services to remain relatively constant.

OTOH if there has been a sustained period of economic growth without an increase in population (or population is growing slower than the economy) then I would expect the proportion of services to decrease over the same interval.

aa

 

[ronburgundy]

Actually it took a nose leap upward in 2008-9 due to the massive bailouts, porkulus, etc. Since these were all marketed as temporary stimulus it's highly disingenuous to argue they establish some new level of spending to which the government is entitled forever.

In my view it is a pure fallacy to argue that government spending should be some fixed percent of the economy any way. As an economy grows government should be less and less of it. It's not like the borders become bigger and more people are required to defend them. It's not like you have more starving widows and orphans as your economy gets bigger. It's not like it costs more to educate a child as the economy grows.

Of course it does. If you are educating children, you need to teach them about the things they will encounter when they become adults. To do this effectively requires access to those things - either in the schools, or on field trips - both of which cost more money in a more developed economy.

You can teach English or Arithmetic with a simple chalkboard, and a teacher with only those basic skills needed for the job. But teaching someone to use a computer effectively requires a computer; and teaching children a wide range of subjects (something that becomes more important as the economy grows) requires a range of specialist teachers, all of whom are more expensive, because in a growing economy there are increasingly lucrative non-teaching opportunities competing for them.

Beyond all that, there is the simple fact that GDP growth nearly always causes inflation, which means that nearly every single thing related to education costs more including the materials and labor to build and maintain schools, energy to heat and cool them, the cost of lunches, and the cost of standard teachers and all other employees.

 

[ronburgundy]

# of Fed employees certainly does matter to the many conservative arguments based in the assumption that private for-profit organizations are superior in efficiency and competence of their employees, and in every other way to public ones.
Based upon this assumption, government funds are being spent more efficiently and on more competent employees.
The other article of conservative faith is that the more money that is transferred from government into the pockets of the already rich, the better off everyone will be. Private contractors means millionaire CEOs and stockholders of those companies getting richer in contrast to when the projects are run directly by government.

In reality the profit motive among the decision makers in the contracting corporations means that shifting spending from Fed employees to private contractors is often a very bad thing for all but the corporations getting the contract. But according to conservative faith and talking points in which profit motive has nothing but magically positive effects, there should be massive economic benefits to all and in increase in government effectiveness the more that spending goes toward contractors and away from Fed employees.

 

[dismal]

Do private industries take over border defense as an economy grows? Do you need fewer schools and firemen? Fewer roads?


"I'm sorry, officer Krupke, but with the economy going so well, we need fewer police officers, so we'll have to let you go...but don't worry, there's a non-government job out there for you somewhere!"

Basic math fail: if the economy grows and the number of police officers stays the same, then the percent of the economy spent on police officers _shrinks_.

I guess this proves our economy has gotten bigger and we need more expensive teaching robots. Ones that can teach ratios.

Either that or it proves spending more money on education would be good money after bad.