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.
When you lay off 595,000 public employees in an 18 month period, subtract the decline of their spending and that the fact that in public sector employment (most of which is state and local) constituted 19% of all employment, it doesn't take the math skills of a Steve Hawkins to understand why economic growth is slow or why the private sector is struggling to pick up the slack.
From 1955 to 2010, the growth in public sector employment occurred mainly among state and
local governments. At the local level, employment rose by an estimated 10.8 million jobs (from
3.6 million to 14.3 million, after rounding). Employment at the state level rose by about 4.0
million jobs (from 1.2 million to 5.2 million)
Yes, let's put more people working on the government teat which can only be funded through taxation.
ABSOLUTELY! Just look at all the geniuses, innovators and job creators working in our local, state and federal government. We should be grateful for the 17% unemployment rate we've been blessed with. The best thing about an Obama re-election is that it will only last another 4 years. I just hope there is something left to resurrect if he holds office for another 4 years.
This scares me that 19% of all employment is government.
Say everyone makes $40k/yr and is taxed at 25%, that means 4 people work just to pay the salary not including benefits of 1 government worker. No wonder we have such a large deficit.
I understand you cannot just lay them all off and expect the huge loss of aggregate demand not to badly hurt the economy but we need to start building a real economy soon and slowly off at least 50% of these people.
The April 2010 spike is census workers. Anyway the proportion of gov't employees going down is a good thing. It is too high at 19% and would work well in the 12% range.
This scares me that 19% of all employment is government.
Yes and you should also be angry as well.
Also frightened (and angry)...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawa1992
The April 2010 spike is census workers.
Good call.
Spiking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
When you lay off 595,000 public employees in an 18 month period, subtract the decline of their spending and that the fact that in public sector employment (most of which is state and local) constituted 19% of all employment, it doesn't take the math skills of a Steve Hawkins to understand why economic growth is slow or why the private sector is struggling to pick up the slack.
So?
True, Economics contains many theories, but it also has hard and fast Laws. Those Laws can never be violated and for those who just don't get it -- never means "at no time ever."
When you violate the Laws of Economics, you are eventually slammed with a penalty. It's not a question of "if" rather it's a question of "when."
Bureaucracies are inherently inefficient, and government is the worse bureaucracy that ever existed. Recessions are about efficiency. The Laws of Economics cannot be violated, you violated them, and now you're upset because you have to pay the penalty.
Get over it already.
I can walk through any government office anywhere in the US right now, and fire 20% of the employees because they are not necessary and the only thing they're doing is creating gross inefficiency which violates the Laws of Economics.
As soon as you jettison all of the dead weight sucking the life-blood out of your Economy, and you have a lot of it at both the government and also at the private levels, things will be much better, but don't expect 5% unemployment.
And why on Earth would be you quoting idiots from a web-site like the Federation of Ass-Clown Scientists?
Repubs aren't interested in logic. They're still pining for the Bush years.
Things were so good back then..
Explain to me the logic, where does the money come from to pay the salaries if not removed from the private sector? And when you remove that money from the private sector, how do you expect the private sector to spend the money that you just took from them?
Explain to me the logic, where does the money come from to pay the salaries if not removed from the private sector? And when you remove that money from the private sector, how do you expect the private sector to spend the money that you just took from them?
I agree. Government is wasteful, and many of these public workers simply aren't necessary. The problem is, this problem should have been address years ago, when the market could have absorbed the displaced workers. Trying to do it all at once right now would have disastrous consequences. My fear is, if and when the economy recovers, this matter will all be forgotten, and the bloated government sector will continue to grow unchecked.
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.
