This could go any of a number of places in TSB, but I think I'll post it here:

Quote :

"In the just-so story of the evolution of our economy, our old manufacturing based economy has been replaced by an innovative knowledge economy. That's not quite true. In fact, the decline of the jobs in goods producing sectors of the economy--construction, manufacturing, mining and agriculture--has largely been met with an increase in jobs on the government payroll. We've gone from providing jobs in profit-making private industry to providing jobs in profit-eating government work. Toward the end of 2007, the total number of government jobs exceeded the total number of goods producing jobs. Welcome to the government payroll economy."

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-goods-producing-wrokers-vs-government-payroll-2010-1?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Clusterstock%20Chart%20of%20the%20Day%2C%20Tuesday%2C%201%2F05%2F10

1/6/2010 2:05:40 AM

Saying the gov. jobs are “replacing” manufacturing is 100% factually incorrect.

Replace implies that people are jumping ship, where the reality is that people are being fired from those manufacturing jobs. The loss of manufacturing jobs is due to increases in efficiency via technology, as well as outsourcing, not because mean-ol’-uncle-same is stealing workers.

The proof of this is in manufacturing output. It continues to increase, while manufacturing employment continues to decrease.

Not to mention that the chart doesn’t even show what that guys is asserting it shows.

1/6/2010 2:37:18 AM

Did you screw up that first post? That graph does not show what is described in that text.

1/6/2010 3:02:07 AM

Quote :

"Replace implies that people are jumping ship, where the reality is that people are being fired from those manufacturing jobs. The loss of manufacturing jobs is due to increases in efficiency via technology, as well as outsourcing, not because mean-ol’-uncle-same is stealing workers."

I don't think it does imply that. No one thinks that people are going directly from building cars to working for the federal government. You just have to look at all the jobs in the United States, and where those jobs are coming from. Less are coming from manufacturing, and more are coming from government. The government jobs are going to show up as actual jobs in the jobs report. And, sure, for the people working at those jobs, they are real jobs with real wages. Unfortunately, their wages come from the "public pool," so we need less of those jobs, and more jobs in the private sector.

1/6/2010 8:37:06 AM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, their wages come from the "public pool," so we need less of those jobs, and more jobs in the private sector."

That's pretty specious. You're saying that government jobs aren't as beneficial to the economy as private jobs because they're paid for by taxes?

1/6/2010 9:20:11 AM

Yes. We could just give everyone a government job, and everyone would be employed. Why shouldn't we do that?

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 9:23 AM. Reason : ]

1/6/2010 9:22:51 AM

Quote :

"You're saying that government jobs aren't as beneficial to the economy as private jobs because they're paid for by taxes?"

There is no mechanism for determining that now is there? Public jobs are a form of patronage, it is nearly impossible to fire a government employee, and you're compelled to pay for them by the power of the state.

The CIA isn't going to go out of business in favor of a better model because of the suicide bomber last week and the TSA isn't going to fail despite a string of highly public and embarrassing incidents. So what is the mechanism for determining the actual value that a government agency adds to the economy and if it needs to be axed? There isn't one.

1/6/2010 9:31:22 AM

^

^^

That's not the rationale used in your original statement. You said "Unfortunately, their wages come from the public pool." As if wages paid for by taxes were inherently less beneficial than wages paid for by profits.

And of course there's an ideal ratio of public to private jobs. But what evidence do we have to indicate which side of the happy medium we're on?

1/6/2010 9:36:44 AM

Quote :

"You're saying that government jobs aren't as beneficial to the economy as private jobs because they're paid for by taxes?"

Absolutely. Government jobs exist by taking money from the private sector. If the private sector continues to shrink while the public sector continues to grow, where does the money come from? Yes, government employees pay taxes, but you can't sustain feeding off of yourself.

1/6/2010 9:39:21 AM

all that graph shows is government jobs are growing slightly ahead of population growth, and manufacturing jobs are going away - no surprises there.

The "government employees" line is highly misleading when not taking into account population, because as it's drawn there now, it's meant to imply the gov't is simply hiring literally out of control.

In 1940 w/ population of 140M, that's about 3.6% employed by government. Now with a population of 310M, that's 7.2% employed by government. A significant increase, but not out of control and not surprising considering the number of new agencies since 1939

1/6/2010 9:44:56 AM

Quote :

"Government jobs exist by taking money from the private sector."

So do private sector jobs.

1/6/2010 9:45:02 AM

Quote :

"That's not the rationale used in your original statement. You said "Unfortunately, their wages come from the public pool." As if wages paid for by taxes were inherently less beneficial than wages paid for by profits."

No, I actually said that the wages paid to a government employee are just as valuable to them as any other person's wages. If they take their money to the store, it'll buy the same amount of goods. The problem is where the money is coming from: taxes.

Quote :

"And of course there's an ideal ratio of public to private jobs. But what evidence do we have to indicate which side of the happy medium we're on?"

The fact that government jobs are booming while private sector jobs are evaporating seems like a pretty good indication. I'm not sure there is an ideal ratio. I would advocate having as few government jobs as necessary, and as many private sector jobs as possible.

1/6/2010 9:45:11 AM

i always thought it was pretty fucking stupid that government workers had to pay income tax. Decrease their salaries and make them income tax free and get rid of the added irs bueracracy.

1/6/2010 9:46:06 AM

Quote :

"The fact that government jobs are booming while private sector jobs are evaporating seems like a pretty good indication. I'm not sure there is an ideal ratio. I would advocate having as few government jobs as necessary, and as many private sector jobs as possible."

yea if you're adding government jobs to match the increase in private sector jobs then thats not so bad. more people require more government (we can still debate the ratio though). The idea that we're going to fix the economy by creating only public jobs as we've done so far, is pretty stupid.

1/6/2010 9:47:48 AM

Quote :

"The fact that government jobs are booming while private sector jobs are evaporating seems like a pretty good indication."

It seems like the market is demanding a larger public sector.

1/6/2010 9:52:37 AM

Quote :

"So do private sector jobs."

for an exchange of goods and services. I give you a, you give me b. The government takes x amount of money from me, but I'll never see anywhere near the amount of services for the amount of money I 'contribute.'

It's like rape vs. consensual sex.

1/6/2010 9:57:09 AM

Quote :

"The "government employees" line is highly misleading when not taking into account population, because as it's drawn there now, it's meant to imply the gov't is simply hiring literally out of control."

You make a good point about exaggeration, but I don't feel it contradicts the implications of the original graph.


A few points to consider:
1. Since 2000, private non-defense jobs have declined. This means that the entire job creation during the 2000s was due, essentially, to the War on Terror and the increased government spending. In other words, the job growth of the 2000s was due not to productivity gains (though they certainly did exist) but funded almost completely by deficit government spending.

2. I don't know if either of these charts include government contractors, which they should. While contractors are technically private companies, and theoretically have the ability to add some efficiency, they are still consuming debt financed wages.

Quote :

"It seems like the market is demanding a larger public sector."

No, people are making vague demands for more services, which they subsequently do not want to pay for. There is no real time "market" for government goods and services, only the hollow promises of politicians, enforced by bureaucrats, and funded by the tax producing sector of society. Of course people want more if they can finance it through national debt they feel they'll never be held accountable for.

1/6/2010 10:06:14 AM

Quote :

"It's like rape vs. consensual sex."

Yep. And if you dont like the quality of your consensual sex you can choose another partner. But you dont get a say or stop who is raping you. hahah

1/6/2010 10:08:58 AM

Unfortunately for us rape victims, the rapists are the ones making the laws.

1/6/2010 10:15:09 AM

this thread needs LoneSnark

1/6/2010 10:32:19 AM

To be fair, this chart also does not account for service producing jobs, but as I already mentioned, overall job growth in private non-defense sector jobs since 2000 has been negative.


As I mentioned before, government growth has not been as a result of actual financed demand but debt expansion:



The rate of expansion for most of the decade was on par with the rest of the economy, but without the ability to forcibly confiscate wealth or print money we see how the other sectors turned out. The late massive increase in debt has not been met with a concurrent increase in employment, wages, or productivity growth, despite the promises of Keynesians everywhere.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 10:51 AM. Reason : (I can't find the chart for job loss / growth yet)]

1/6/2010 10:42:52 AM

Quote :

"for an exchange of goods and services. I give you a, you give me b. The government takes x amount of money from me, but I'll never see anywhere near the amount of services for the amount of money I 'contribute.'"

Well that's extremely subjective. Especially if you're considering the net benefit to the whole of society.

And the rape analogy is hyperbole. We live in a democracy.

1/6/2010 11:03:39 AM

Quote :

"And the rape analogy is hyperbole. We live in a democracy."

So it's no longer rape if the majority says that it's o.k.?

1/6/2010 11:16:10 AM

When a country loses its production based and heavy industry based economy it will decline on a global level. What good is a country that produces nothing? Seeing all the automaker jobs disappear is very troubling. It's highly unlikely they'll return.

1/6/2010 11:26:00 AM

Why do I need to be drawn into this?

The problem is far worse than the graphs here demonstrate. Government employees now constitute a large voting block, and have begun raiding the treasury. The number of government employees is growing faster than the population, their salaries are growing faster than inflation, and their pensions are growing faster still. In California government workers retire at 50 with up to 90% of their now routinely six figure salaries.

The Class War: Public Employees vs. the Rest of Us
http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/11/the-class-war-public-employees

Quote :

" The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data. Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted. Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm

Where does this end? This train wreck is inevitable: as the number of retired public employees continues to outstrip even the growth of government payrolls, bankruptcy is the only end for the states, followed by a federal assumption of state pension schemes (only they can print money). The rest of society will continue to break even, as the whole of private sector productivity growth (as in the 2000s) is consumed by transfer payments to former government employees.

Quote :

"No one thinks that people are going directly from building cars to working for the federal government."

Actually, that is exactly what we think the employees of General Motors have done. Very similar to what is going to happen to California if the Democrats have their way. Only a Republican takeover in 2010 would be guaranteed to stop it at this point (republicans will only bail out republican states, and none of those are currently on the verge of bankruptcy).

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/6/2010 11:26:35 AM

Quote :

""Government jobs exist by taking money from the private sector.""

Actually, government jobs exist because the public made them and then decided to pay for them with money from the private sector.

1/6/2010 12:04:36 PM

Even if you grant the concept that the present manifestation of our representative democracy accurately allocates job creation in accordance with the will of the public at large, unlike in the private economy where you can opt out of goods and services you feel you don't need, one cannot opt out of goods and services that the elected representatives of the United States want you to have.

Of course, this is assuming that the creation of Federal Bureaucracies are at the service of the public at large and not the special interest groups which actively lobby for new regulation / legislation / bureaucracy.


Again, even if I grant you the possibility that the public truly desires these goods, their cost (and thus the real measure of value to the end consumer, the citizen) is obscured through debt financing, inflationary monetary policy, and a convoluted tax scheme which very effectively conceals the true cost of the current bureaucratic regime.



The issue being, that once the tax consuming proportion of the economy exceeds the tax producing, acting in their own self-interest, the tax producers will be raided until their supplies are exhausted and the society collapses on itself.

1/6/2010 12:24:25 PM

Quote :

"That's pretty specious. You're saying that government jobs aren't as beneficial to the economy as private jobs because they're paid for by taxes?"

I would say that's fairly obvious. Taxes are taken by force (implied or actual) requiring a massive bureaucracy to collect, manage and set. In addition there are many more steps between your wallet and the wallet of the average federal employee than there are between your wallet and the wallet of say the average Toyota employee or the average Burger King employee. At each of those steps, a little bit is being skimmed off the top. I've never seen an actual set of numbers on it, but I would be money on it taking more revenue for every dollar of wage paid to your average federal employee than it does for just about any other job sector (though as pointed out, government contractors may potentially consume even more).

Quote :

"It seems like the market is demanding a larger public sector."

I think this is a factor of disguised costs, almost the exact same problem our health care industry is facing. Voters vote for more and larger government products and services because they can keep passing the costs up the chain. A perfect example is just looking at the flat tax / fair tax proposals and their opposition. One of the major points of opposition is that for it to be revenue neutral with current taxes, it would require a ~25% tax on everyone, and realistically no one would stand for that, but since that 25% is hidden away and shifted up the chain some, no one sees the real cost of the government or the real cost of adding more to it. Nearly 33% of Americans have 0 or negative tax liability. Is it any wonder then that politicians find it easy to get votes for more government services? 33% never pay for it, and if they can keep the costs low enough for the next 18% they can pass it.

Interesting side note on tax liability and voting. The current health care proposal provides subsidies on health care for Americans up to 300% of the poverty level. Noting the above statements about tax liability and costs, it turns out that 300% of the poverty level is just about 50% of the population (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22471.html). Funny how that works out.

Quote :

"And the rape analogy is hyperbole. We live in a democracy."

Gang rape is still rape, even if everyone involved votes first.


\/ Sure they do. The question is, do they have a right to tax the way they do and for the things they do now? To stretch our analogy further, can one spouse rape another?

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 1:22 PM. Reason : adsf]

1/6/2010 1:15:07 PM

Then government has no right to tax?

1/6/2010 1:19:44 PM

I'm a big supporter of ending taxes. We need more reasons to have our real businesses work harder and theyll make more money with no taxes and that just adds to our wealth and doesnt punish the hardest workers. its not a natural part of the free market.

1/6/2010 2:05:45 PM

^^ Let us concede that the Government has the right to tax if you will concede that it has no right to spend.
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

1/7/2010 11:59:56 AM

If you're confining this debate within the confines of the Constitution, then it's a no-brainer.

The gov't has the explicit, unquestionable right to both tax and spend. How exactly are we to establish navies, post offices, and whatnot without spending?

And really, you're going to have to explain how any gov't granted the right to tax does not also have the right to spend. What else shall it do with its tax revenue.

1/7/2010 12:22:46 PM

The things enumerated in the Constitution. Such as funding a Navy, or an Army, or building post roads.

1/7/2010 2:32:36 PM

Enumerated. Implied. Same difference.

1/7/2010 2:48:11 PM

Quote :

"The gov't has the explicit, unquestionable right to both tax and spend."

I was under the impression that governments had no inherent rights but only those delegated to it by the consent of the governed.

I guess I had it wrong.

1/7/2010 3:59:47 PM

Quote :

"i always thought it was pretty fucking stupid that government workers had to pay income tax. Decrease their salaries and make them income tax free and get rid of the added irs bueracracy. "

glad to know im not the only person that thinks this

1/7/2010 4:16:52 PM

Quote :

"The government takes x amount of money from me, but I'll never see anywhere near the amount of services for the amount of money I 'contribute.' It's like rape vs. consensual sex."

You more than likely get the majority of what you pay in, back in some way.

You're not that old, and you went to state, and the gov. funded the majority of your education (because tuition is only a small part of what is actually paid to educate you).

It's more like sex with a fat person vs. sex with a marginally attractive person. You're getting practically the same thing either way, but you aren't going to measure all the benefits the same way in both situations.

1/7/2010 5:59:45 PM

There were some stats I read last year explaining that the average 60 year old would get something like $60k more out of Social Security than they put in, while the average 25 y/o would put in on the order of $120k more than they'd get out.

But that's cool, I didn't need that money anyway.

1/7/2010 9:44:50 PM

We are becoming a nation of Pauls. The real question is what will happen when we run out of Peters.

1/8/2010 1:54:01 AM

In what sense? Are you implying government workers don't add value to society?

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 8:06 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 8:05:31 AM

I suspect we exceeded cost/benefit equalization back in the 1930s. There is no doubt that "Government Workers" provide value, the problem is that we keep getting more with no attempt at cost/benefit analysis. Especially when you look at compensation: it is not just that we keep getting more workers, but the workers we have now get aid far more than their private sector peers to do the same work. Check California: government provided services are worse than they have ever been and yet are costing California tax payers substantially more. All the money went to compensation, diverting funds from maintenance and the services that people actually use.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-59.pdf


The study's author, Chris Edwards, found that the wage premium for public sector employees was about 34 percent and for benefits about 70 percent.

1/8/2010 1:38:26 PM

Quote :

"In a shot across the bow of Dems, the labor powerhouse SEIU is starting a new third party in North Carolina that hopes to field its own slate of candidates, part of an effort to make the Democratic Party more reliable on issues important to labor, I’m told. SEIU officials setting up the new party, called North Carolina First, are currently on the ground collecting signatures to qualify as a state party, SEIU officials tell me, adding that there are around 100 canvassers on the ground right now. The goal: To have the party up and running so candidates can run in this fall’s elections."

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/its-war-seiu-starting-third-party-in-north-carolina/

4/22/2010 10:30:12 PM

Quote :

"The fact that government jobs are booming while private sector jobs are evaporating seems like a pretty good indication. "

Your evidence of that is one recession?

Quote :

"The late massive increase in debt has not been met with a concurrent increase in employment, wages, or productivity growth, despite the promises of Keynesians everywhere."

They never promised any of those things, they just said it would be better than doing nothing.

Quote :

"When a country loses its production based and heavy industry based economy it will decline on a global level. What good is a country that produces nothing? Seeing all the automaker jobs disappear is very troubling. It's highly unlikely they'll return."

That's not true. Surely you learned about comparative advantage. And things are produced by other industries than manufacturing.

Quote :

"The number of government employees is growing faster than the population, their salaries are growing faster than inflation, and their pensions are growing faster still."

Proof?

And can we stop the stupid taxes-sex metaphor?

4/22/2010 11:34:56 PM

Quote :

"Are you implying government workers don't add value to society?"

From my perspective, sort of. I believe that the 'boots on the ground' government workers do provide a value to society (teachers, police, firefighters, etc.), but at the management level on higher (administrators, bureaucrats, politicians, etc.), they provide absolutely no value, and do not care about anything except running out the clock and collecting that pension.

4/23/2010 8:31:23 AM

This seems to fit here as much as anywhere else . . .

Inflation Makes a Poor Stain Remover

Quote :

"Entitlements, rather than discretionary spending, are especially problematic when it comes to debt reduction. They are very hard to cut. Once you extend a benefit to a population it is nearly politically impossible to take it away. And when your debts woes stem from entitlements, it undermines your ability to inflate away debt. That’s because entitlements in America are indexed to inflation. Social Security benefits for current retirees increase with CPI and workers’ future benefits are indexed to wage growth (wages historically have grown faster than CPI). Medicare promises a basket of services the price of which increases with health care costs (which historically have grown A LOT faster than CPI)."

http://ow.ly/1JAG3

5/11/2010 12:10:30 PM

^and then the riots come.

THat is exactly why I opposed adding ANOTHER entitlement when we cant pay for our current obligations. But reason be damned, the kids want thier toys despite having no money.

5/11/2010 1:51:43 PM

i'm not really sure what that first chart is trying to show...

there are a few problems with it... some of which have already been mentioned
- there is more to the economy than "goods producing industries". what about the huge service sector?
- government employees includes contractors?
- just because actual employment numbers in manufacturing goes down, that does not mean that goods produced goes down, especially not in this age of automation in the manufacturing industry.

5/11/2010 2:14:21 PM

Quote :

"and then the riots come."

Riots? Come on, Japan has four times our national debt as a percentage of GDP and there hasn't even been talk of riots.

Quote :

"But reason be damned, the kids want thier toys despite having no money."

We have money, investors are giving it hands over fist. If you invested in a US Treasury Bond Fund, you'd be a very happy camper right now.

5/11/2010 9:22:53 PM

Quote :

"Riots? Come on, Japan has four times our national debt as a percentage of GDP and there hasn't even been talk of riots."

only cause they haven't had to cut entitlements yet. which was his point, fucktard.

Quote :

"We have money, investors are giving it hands over fist."

So did Greece...

5/11/2010 9:26:58 PM

Quote :

"only cause they haven't had to cut entitlements yet. which was his point, fucktard."

They've talked about taking several steps, from cutting entitlements to raising taxes.

Quote :

"So did Greece..."

Only over the past few months have their bonds gone up and down. They weren't as rushed to as the market began to become unstable like US Bonds have been.

5/11/2010 9:50:06 PM