Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
......The last time I checked, NM had the 5-6th highest number of state employees per resident in the US. So the right question is why doesn't the state have fewer employees?
Yep. That's the right question.
According to this article, New Mexico is THIRD in the top 10 states where a high percentage of the population works for the government in one capacity or another:
1. Wyoming
2. Alaska 3. New Mexico (almost 20% of all employees)
4. Mississippi
5. North Dakota
6. West Virginia
7. Kansas
8. Idaho
9. New York
10. Nebraska
... Percentage Of The Population Works For The Government ... 3. New Mexico (almost 20% of all employees)
I wonder what the breakdown of Municipal/State/Federal is.
If the stats include Federal employees - such as the national
labs then the comparison doesn't mean very much to me.
Of course, any state with as many Federal employees as NM
has, shouldn't have an unemployment rate of nearly 10%.
Since we do, the underlying economy is probably close to
that of Michigan rather than states with similar rates.
I see, the federal money just got picked off that tree that grows in Washington DC, so no one had to actually pay it.
Actually, that's exactly how it works (well, in an office, rather than a tree; and the big difference is a tree might run out).
Quote:
Unfortunately, some person, somewhere, paid it (or more likely, China or Japan loaned it to us) and Nm spent it.
Every holder of dollars paid for it in the form of inflation. Since most dollar holders are overseas (China and Japan both hold lots of dollars), this basically amounts to a tax on the rest of the world, and Nm spent some of it.
Quote:
Why should state government not have more employees? It shouldn't because there are too many state employess. The last time I checked, NM had the 5-6th highest number of state employees per resident in the US.
So the right question is why doesn't the state have fewer employees?
Here are some answers:
*NM is a rural state by most measures. State spending on education and public welfare has to be spread out over a large area, and as a result requires more money spent per recipient. Instead of high schools with 3000 students, it's more common to find schools of 1500 in cities and <500 outside of cities. If NM was to grow its population more in line with its size (say, to the population of Colorado), its ranking would go more toward the middle. Economies of scale and such.
*NM has many non-population-dependent factors that have to be paid for, regardless of the number of taxpayers to support them. These include fire protection (lots of acres under watch), maintenance of state parks and monuments, road maintenance, etc. Compare to a state like New Jersey where there is far less to maintain in general, and far more people to share the load.
*NM has a lot of people in poverty, particularly per capita. Until we decide that providing vaccinations, medical care, disability, education, etc. to the indigent nontaxpayer is a waste of money, that's going to keep our burden relatively high.
I get the distinct impression that candidate A and candidate B will face the same, and make the same choices, when it comes to the economy. They turn out to be no-brainers (which is a good thing). The public will complain regardless.
If the stats include Federal employees - such as the national
labs then the comparison doesn't mean very much to me.
As I understand it, the LANL people use to be California employees with the University of California holding the contract. Now they are employees of a group headed by Bechtel. I don't know the situation at Sandia but would GUESS it's similar.
Thus they are -- I would think -- no longer government employees.
On the other hand, an employee of the military would be national government.
As I understand it, the LANL people use to be California employees with the University of California holding the contract. Now they are employees of a group headed by Bechtel.
Thus they are -- I would think -- no longer government employees.
This goes counter to my understanding. Although LANS (a conglomerate which includes U of California) operates the laboratory, the funding and the ownership of the laboratory rests with the federal government, making all direct hires government employees. Similar with Sandia and Lockheed Martin's operations.
I guess it depends on your definition of "government employee" in the end.
According to yesterday's AP article I read in the Santa Fe New Mexican, New Mexico is 5th per capita in federal spending.
A quote from the article:
"It's very strange to see people railing against government when the federal government props up the whole economy here," said Gerry Bradley, an economist and research director for New Mexico Voices for Children, an Albuquerque-based group that advocates for social programs benefiting the needy and children.
This goes counter to my understanding. Although LANS (a conglomerate which includes U of California) operates the laboratory, the funding and the ownership of the laboratory rests with the federal government, making all direct hires government employees. Similar with Sandia and Lockheed Martin's operations.
I guess it depends on your definition of "government employee" in the end.
When I was with the Army, we had government owned facilities operated by private contractors which seems the equivalent of the LANL situation. We did not consider the employees to be government employees. (As I remember we called the organizations GOCOs. -- government owned, contractor operated.)
But the definition that counts would seem to be that employed by whoever prepared the listing.
Not true, unless you are extrapolating that if a government holds
dollars then, by extension, every citizen of that country holds dollars.
Most of the actual dollars that are held ( as opposed to individuals
that hold a bit of US currency ) are held here, in the US.
Most of the US money supply is in the US by US citizens.
Most bonds denominated in dollars are held in the US by US citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
... amounts to a tax on the rest of the world, ...
I was going to deduct points, but this is one of the most
excellent and inciteful points I have ever read on city-data.
( Some of the others in my list of "top points" have come
from you also, but don't tell anyone I said that. )
ObOffTopicTrivia:
Foreign bond holders ( billion$ ):
China ............. 843.70
Japan ............. 803.60
UK ................. 362.20
OPEC ............. 223.00
Carrib banks .... 165.20
Brazil ............. 158.40
Hong Kong ...... 141.00
Taiwan ........... 128.60
Russia ............ 123.40
Switzerland ..... 100.10
Luxembourg ...... 97.50
Canada ............ 94.00
Germany .......... 53.50
Total _______ 3,294.20
The national debt is 13,000+
Note that that is just debt. It's denominated in dollars, it's not the actual dollars.
M1 money supply is just under $2 trillion
M2 money supply is just under $10 trillion
Of course, there is a whole other class of debt - corporate debt - denominated
in dollars where the corporation pays back the bond with cheaper dollars.
This is larger than the above numbers.
According to yesterday's AP article I read in the Santa Fe New Mexican, New Mexico is 5th per capita in federal spending.
A quote from the article:
"It's very strange to see people railing against government when the federal government props up the whole economy here," said Gerry Bradley, an economist and research director for New Mexico Voices for Children, an Albuquerque-based group that advocates for social programs benefiting the needy and children.
A timeless quote from George Bernard Shaw is "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." What's fascinating about this day and age is that statement is proving false. Paul thinks he's Peter.
Did you make less than $160,000 adjusted gross income last year? Guess what: you're Paul.
New Mexico Republicans have hit rock bottom, voted out of all statewide offices, and are understandably upset with their situation and motivated to elect one of their own to whatever office they can, by any means necessary. They're outnumbered almost two to one in the Roundhouse, haven't held the governorship in 8 years, have zero senators and representatives in the US Congress. The best they can come up with now is a DA from Doña Ana County. If elected she probably won't be able to accomplish much with such a heavily Democratic legislature. I can only hope she will be a Mitt Romney Republican, the Massachusetts governor who signed same-sex marriage and universal health care into law there.
Someone remind me... WHY were the Republicans voted out of office in NM?
The last Republican governor we had, Gary Johnson, was a nice guy, but can anyone name something he accomplished besides becoming famous for favoring decriminalization of drugs?
Could you tell us where you get your information about Romney signing into law the same sex marriage law? I must have missed that somewhere along the way.
and what has Bill accomplished except to get himself in hot water a few times?
As for NM elected national candidates, until the sweep by the Pres 2 years ago the state was very split: 1 US Senator from each party and 2 Republican congressmen. It happened to be a one time election.
As for Republicans not having a NM governor for 8 years, couldn't that be said about the Democrats before that? What a stupid statement you made.
Nita
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
