U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2013, 03:02 PM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,594,327 times
Reputation: 6391

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual View Post
So you are actually arguing that government creates private sector jobs.

Of course it does. I know what you are trying to say, but its a sign of a poorly thought out argument that you didn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2013, 03:19 PM
 
1,726 posts, read 1,257,709 times
Reputation: 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Not true at all. The GOP, and conservatives, love school teachers. They love good school teachers. Not crappy ones whose jobs are unreasonably protected by union contracts.
Republicans attack public education all the time and they blocked the AJA which was going to extend aid to states to hiring back the hundreds of thousands of teachers who lost their jobs do the shadow banking industry crashing the bank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
So government employment to population ratio dropped by 0.6%, but the public sector ratio dropped by 5% total. So I guess that is a 0.6% for public sector and 4.4% for the private sector
I am not sure were you are getting your numbers or what you are even trying to say. From December 2007 to January 2013, the employment to population ratio dropped by 4.1%.

As for job creation, the public sector has taken a substantial hit, especially in the light of the private sector. Here's public sector employment (red line) vs. private sector employment (blue line) since the beginning of 2009.



More data. Here is how the private sector is doing.



Here is how the public sector is doing. Again showing how much this recovery has been scarred by austerity measurements. This is unprecedented.


These austerity measurements have led to a reduction of at least 750,000 private jobs.

Second, the economic “multiplier” of state and local spending (not including transfer payments) is large – around 1.24.4This means that for every dollar cut in salary and supplies of public-sector workers, another $0.24 is lost in purchasing power throughout the rest of the economy. Teachers and firefighters stop going to restaurants and buying cars if they’re laid off, which reduces demand for waitstaff and autoworkers and so on. Add these two influences together (supplier jobs and jobs supported by this multiplier impact) and roughly 0.67 private sector jobs are lost for every public sector job cut. This means that the public sector being down 1.1 million jobs has likely cost the private sector 751,000 jobs (1.1 million*0.67).
Three years into recovery, just how much has state and local austerity hurt job growth? | Economic Policy Institute
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 03:23 PM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,594,327 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Maybe we should actually say that conservatives are liberals, when it comes to government and economics, as it applies to mankind's natural inclination towards collectivism thru more government control. Tyranny and misery of humans to be ruled over despotic and repressive governments is the norm of human history, so it's a conservative philosophy to wish to continue down that road.
They seem to curiously cling to some sort of fantasy ideology and cite the an eternal enemy Marxism which has been around for less than 200 years. I really don't know what their premise is. I conform to the "biggest gang" theory of government. Thus my idea is a strong central government strictly confined within the powers it was granted that delegates and distributes power, as in the initial design of the national government, leaving as much power as possible to the 13 colonies to prevent gang #2 from becoming despotic. Unfortunately gang number #2, big finance, has removed the culture to delegate to the states and now seeks to weaken the central state itself.

The national government has weakened vastly in its primary responsibility to delegate to the states and involved itself where it should not be. However that allows gang #2 to use it as a proxy, not easy to do with 50 powerful states. Thus my model sees absence of power as an absurd fantasy and attack the problem by distributing it. Conservatives would have us dance like faeries in the forest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 04:29 PM
 
8,399 posts, read 5,288,705 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff View Post
Paul Krugman Destroys GOP's Talking Points On Government Jobs | ThinkProgress


On Sunday, economist Paul Krugman hit back against GOP claims that public sector employment has increased under Obama, and that such jobs consist mainly of wasteful bureaucrats and somehow count less economically than private sector ones. Back in September it was tea party Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) toeing that line, and this morning it was former Republican gubernatorial candidate Carly Fiorina.

The exchange commenced immediately after Krugman made the point that, had government employment in the current recovery followed the same path it followed under previous recessions in the Bush and Reagan years, unemployment now would be slightly above 6 percent:

CARLY FIORINA: I think it’s important to remember, when we talk about the economy, that a private sector job and a public sector job are not the same things. They’re not equivalent. I’m not saying public sector jobs aren’t important. But a private sector job pays for itself. A private sector job creates other jobs. A public sector job is paid for by taxpayers. [...]
PAUL KRUGMAN: But when we say public sector jobs, it is not a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.
FIORINA: Oh, it is, actually.
KRUGMAN: When we talk about public sector jobs — when we look at the ones that have been lost in large numbers in this — it’s basically school teachers. Don’t think about bureaucrats. It’s school teachers. What we’ve laid off hundreds of thousands of school teachers.

And when we talk about the cuts in public spending that have happened, they are not, you know, some god awful who knows what. It’s actually public investment. It’s largely fixing potholes and repairing bridges.
So, you know, you have this image of these wasteful bureaucrats doing god knows what. What we’ve seen is an incredible drought of basic infrastructure, and laying off hundreds of thousands of school teachers.

It’s a myth. Public sector jobs at the federal level have actually remained pretty stable over the last forty years. They began and ended the period around approximately 2.8 million, with a bounce to about 3.1 million circa-1990. Public sector jobs at the state and local levels increased significantly over those forty years, peaking at a bit over 19 million total when President Obama entered office. (They’ve fallen since, accounting for the decline in overall public employment.) But nearly all of that growth was in teachers and support staff for the education system, who now total nearly 7 million of those state and local workers.


The other major categories of jobs in state and local public employment are, as Krugman noted, police, firefighters, health care workers, and maintenance workers and drivers for the country’s transportation infrastructure. And the overall population of the country has also been growing, so even though the raw number of state and local workers increased significantly, the ratio of those workers to the overall population did not — 59 per 1000 in 1980 versus 65 per 1000 today.

In fact, the hit the U.S. economy took in the fourth quarter of 2012 was almost entirely due to a drop in government spending, and the economy is in for another blow should the sequester cuts kick in. We’ve been cutting jobs that provide demand in the economy and invest in the country’s potential for future economic growth, at a time when both are sorely needed to help the economy recover.

conservatives are liars. If you think you are going to discuss reality with a conservative as it concerns public policy you are wasting your time.

Here is basic reality, the conservative argument has already lost, and it lost a long time ago.

This is why conservatives resort to nonsense and fantasies, because this basic reality about government remains.

The largest federal government programs are the most popular amongst the American people. This is objective reality.

The largest groups of government workers, military, teachers, fire fighters, and policemen are extremely popular with the American people.

So conservatives can't speak honestly about big government because conservatives have long ago lost the argument against big government.

All most conservatives do is lie about the reality of big government, pander for the wealthy and big corporations, and hate on other groups of Americans they don't see as real Americans.

Last edited by Iamme73; 02-03-2013 at 04:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 04:43 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,670,505 times
Reputation: 478
This guy is trying to become a celebrity, thats all... (remember, money can be made in any economy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,683 posts, read 14,144,272 times
Reputation: 15867
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff View Post
KRUGMAN: When we talk about public sector jobs ó when we look at the ones that have been lost in large numbers in this ó itís basically school teachers. Donít think about bureaucrats. Itís school teachers. What weíve laid off hundreds of thousands of school teachers.
Prove it.

Prove it to me that it was necessary to lay off teachers and that there were no alternatives to school budget issues that did not require laying off teachers.

You can't prove it. I can guarantee you that given the choice of eliminating the positions of unnecessary administrators or firing teachers, they chose to fire teachers.

Given the choice of eliminating the $3 Million annual budget for IT services, or firing teachers, they chose to fire teachers.

Given the choice of contracting out janitorial services or retaining over-paid union janitors, in order to save money to keep teachers on board, they chose to fire teachers.

And "they" is not the GOP......that would be the local ******* Administrators in the school districts.

You impress me less than Krugman, and I know Krugman to be an idiot (unless he happens to be discussing comparative trade advantage).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff View Post
The other major categories of jobs in state and local public employment are, as Krugman noted, police, firefighters, health care workers, and maintenance workers and drivers for the countryís transportation infrastructure. And the overall population of the country has also been growing, so even though the raw number of state and local workers increased significantly, the ratio of those workers to the overall population did not ó 59 per 1000 in 1980 versus 65 per 1000 today.
Again, prove it.

Hiring public servants for the sake of hiring public servants neither creates jobs, nor sustains jobs, nor helps the economy.

In the military we have to justify everything.

I spent hours and hours and hours writing up justifications to prove that we need a piece of equipment, or certain weapons, or personnel of certain ranks or with specific MOS. When I was TRADOC and we were redoing the TO&E for some of the units to conform to the new AirLand Battle 2000 concept, we had to justify everything. I had to stand before general officers and elaborate in detail for some things. For the new Abrahms, somebody cut out the tank for the CSM. So then of course armor officers and CSMs in armor units are screaming about it, but they had to justify why the CSM (and Battalion XO) should ride in an Abrahms and not a Bradley.

It's like here in Cincinnati. The damn police chief says "We don't need any more police officers" and so the stupid city hires 125 more police officers --- that aren't even needed and are not wanted by the police chief.

The city ended up laying off 144 police and demoting 160 others.

Even today at 1,053 officers, that still 200 too many police officers.

Whether you are in the public sector, the private sector or the military, one thing is sure....necessary jobs waste money and create inefficiency which is ultimately costly and harmful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff View Post
In fact, the hit the U.S. economy took in the fourth quarter of 2012 was almost entirely due to a drop in government spending,....
Uh, wut?

That is an outrageous lie.

Want proof? Read and weep....

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

For those who have "issues"....

Period Receipts Outlays Deficit/Surplus (-)

Jan-12 234,319 r261,726 r27,407
Feb-12 103,413 r335,090 r231,677
Mar-12 171,215 r369,372 r198,157
Apr-12 318,807 259,690 -59,117
May-12 180,713 305,348 124,636
Jun-12 260,177 319,919 59,741
Jul-12 184,585 254,190 69,604
Aug-12 178,860 369,393 190,533
Sep-12 261,566 r186,386 r-75,180
Oct-12 184,316 304,311 119,995
Nov-12 161,730 333,841 172,112
Dec-12 269,501 269,760 260

From the data courtesy of the United States Treasury Department we can do see quarterly activity...

12-Jan 234,319 261,726 -27,407
12-Feb 103,413 335,090 -231,677
12-Mar 171,215 369,372 -198,157
1st QTR 508,947 966,188 -457,241
12-Apr 318,807 259,690 59,117
12-May 180,713 305,348 -124,635
12-Jun 260,177 319,919 -59,742
2nd QTR 759,697 884,957 -125,260
12-Jul 184,585 254,190 -69,605
12-Aug 178,860 369,393 -190,533
12-Sep 261,566 186,386 75,180
3rd QTR 625,011 809,969 -184,958
12-Oct 184,316 304,311 -119,995
12-Nov 161,730 333,841 -172,111
12-Dec 269,501 269,760 -259
4th QTR 615,547 907,912 -292,365

To simply that for easy reading.....

1st QTR 508,947 966,188 -457,241

2nd QTR 759,697 884,957 -125,260

3rd QTR 625,011 809,969 -184,958

4th QTR 615,547 907,912 -292,365

Clearly government spending increase in the 4th quarter over the 3rd Quarter, and also was more than the 2nd Quarter.

In fact, government spending increased 12.09% in the 4th Quarter.

The fantasy claim by Liberals that spending decreased is debunked.

Not impressed...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Krugman, like most who talk about government workers, ignore the millions of contract workers, not classified as "employees." That number grows as the government outsources more and more work to private firms.
Yes, I interned at OSHA, and through attrition, they replaced government workers with contractors. For example, the secretary left, and instead of hiring a government employee, they hired a contractor. That was also true when I worked as a contractor at the federal court house.

I forgot what I was going to say.

Oh, the reason the cost of government has not been [substantially] reduced, is because the only thing that's happening is federal workers are being replaced by contract workers.

Replacing a $39/hour worker with a $27/hour worker doesn't save much money, and it saves even less when you dump two $39/hour workers and replace them with three $27/hour workers.

Concurring...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly View Post
It amazes me that most of them have no taken basic economics, yet they think they are smarter Krugman. Then again, they are all about conspiracies and ignoring data.
Did Krugman warn you of the possibility of GDP contraction and a recession?

No.....but I did.......note the date....11-02-2012, 04:47 PM.........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
It is not great news. If you go back a year ago, you'll see the same nonsense. Employment always picks up around the Holidays.

In October, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was 34.4 hours for the fourth consecutive month. The manufacturing workweek edged down by 0.1 hour to 40.5 hours.

Do you understand that?

Do you understand that your GDP declined 2nd Quarter?

Do you understand that your GDP AND Payroll declined 3rd Quarter.

Do you understand that when your GDP and Payroll simultaneously decline when GDP is already under 2% that can signal a recession?

I didn't think so. Maybe one day you'll finally understand. Maybe.

Amused....

Mircea
So, uh, who's ignoring data? Looks like Krugman is ignoring data (and reality). I'm smarter than Krugman. Krugman hasn't been right yet, but on the other hand, I've never been wrong. Granted, I only have a BA in Economics, but I have a PhD in International Relations. Krugman hasn't figured out how big the world really is yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly View Post
These austerity measurements have led to a reduction of at least 750,000 private jobs.
Have you ever considered the possibility that those jobs should never have existed in the first place?

Well, now you have something new to think about.

Economically...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 06:34 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,560,929 times
Reputation: 8847
StinkProgress! LOL

Who cares what Paul Krugman thinks? He is an idiot!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Jawjah
2,468 posts, read 1,591,712 times
Reputation: 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Prove it.
....
Clearly government spending increase in the 4th quarter over the 3rd Quarter, and also was more than the 2nd Quarter.

In fact, government spending increased 12.09% in the 4th Quarter.

The fantasy claim by Liberals that spending decreased is debunked.

Economically...

Mircea
What the hell are you talking about?

Government spending DID decrease during the 4th qtr - here, checkout heritage.org if you dont like "liberal" Krugman:

In the fourth quarter, defense spending dropped drastically, falling at a 22.2 percent annualized rate. But defense spending had grown at a 12.9 percent rate in the third quarter, suggesting that at least half the decline is an artifact of the timing of defense purchases. Elsewhere in government, there was a slight increase in federal non-defense spending and a slight decrease in state and local government spending.

GDP Fell in the Fourth Quarter of 2012


Full BEA stats:

News Release: Gross Domestic Product


Go burn your PhD...you use a lot of words but your analysis is always wonky and wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:50 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top