611,000 gov't jobs slashed since 8/2008 - July was the 9th consecutive month, and the 29th out of the last 35, in which total gov't employment shrank

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

state and local only - the link doesn't specify that.

The link I provided references a report that it links to. So yes, it's state and local government employment. And you guys are just outrageous. Not as bad as commie Alaska or Wyoming but you are pretty bad. Kansas being such a red state with all those government haters living there that so heavily depend on, well, government.

[mawilson 2,133]

No, it hasn't.

Yes, it has.

Why don't we use the official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official statistician for the United States labor force.

Federal Government All Employees (in thousands), SEASONAllY ADJUSTED

Jan 2009: 2792

Dec 2010: 2852

Net increase: 60,000 employees

Federal Government All Employees (in thousands), NOT SEASONAllY ADJUSTED

Jan 2009: 2772

Dec 2010: 2846

Net increase: 74,000 employees

[mawilson 2,133]

Ah I get it. You're saying it hasn't added hundreds of thousands. Well who gives a ####. 70,000 or 200,000 - they are still *adding* jobs.

[웃 910]

Federal Government All Employees (in thousands), SEASONAllY ADJUSTED

Net increase: 60,000 employees

Federal Government All Employees (in thousands), NOT SEASONAllY ADJUSTED

Net increase: 74,000 employees

If we add in (well, subtract) state gov't jobs then aren't we looking at a massive cut in the size of government?

[mawilson 2,133]

If we add in (well, subtract) state gov't jobs then aren't we looking at a massive cut in the size of government?

I'm looking for a cut in the size of FEDERAL government. You know, those pricks in Washington who want to control every aspect of our lives. Not state or local.

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

The link I provided references a report that it links to. So yes, it's state and local government employment. And you guys are just outrageous. Not as bad as commie Alaska or Wyoming but you are pretty bad. Kansas being such a red state with all those government haters living there that so heavily depend on, well, government.

yawn. did you put too much hateraid in your coffee this morning?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

yawn. did you put too much hateraid in your coffee this morning?

Did I interrupt you while you were busy sucking on the government teat? Sorry about that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm looking for a cut in the size of FEDERAL government.

Civilian federal employment today is - in real numbers - right about it was 40 years ago. Meanwhile, the US population has grown by about 100MM (from 207MM to 307MM) and our GDP today - in constant dollars is about three times what it was 40 years ago (4.8TN vs 13.1TN in 2005 dollars). In other words, relative to the size of the population and relative to the size of the economy, the federal workforce hasn't been smaller than it is today in decades. But again, why worry about cold and boring facts when we can get all hysterical instead?

[mawilson 2,133]

Civilian federal employment today is - in real numbers - right about it was 40 years ago. Meanwhile, the US population has grown by about 100MM (from 207MM to 307MM) and our GDP today - in constant dollars is about three times what it was 40 years ago (4.8TN vs 13.1TN in 2005 dollars). In other words, relative to the size of the population and relative to the size of the economy, the federal workforce hasn't been smaller than it is today in decades. But again, why worry about cold and boring facts when we can get all hysterical instead?

Civilian only?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Civilian only?

Well, if you add the military in, the picture gets even better. There were 5.7MM federal employees (civilian and military) back in 1971. Today, that number is 4.4MM altogether. This is what the hollow discussion about the evil, ever growing gubmint conveniently omits. Relatively speaking, the federal government has nothing but become smaller decade after decade. If I remember correctly, state and local governments over the past few decades have more than tripled in size and collectively make up more than 80% of the total government workforce.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[mawilson 2,133]

Relatively speaking, the federal government has nothing but become smaller decade after decade.

If that's true, why do they need 3.8 trillion dollars in 2011 when they were happy with 210 billion in 1971?

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

Did I interrupt you while you were busy sucking on the government teat? Sorry about that.

now get back to work, it's your turn to pay my military retirement the end of this month.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If that's true, why do they need 3.8 trillion dollars in 2011 when they were happy with 210 billion in 1971?

That number comparison is a bit off. Looking at absolute dollars, GDP was 1.3TN in 1971 and is about 11 times that today at 14.5TN. Measured on GDP, 210BN then would be 2.4TN now. When you see federal spending in constant 2005 dollars, it was close to 1TN in 1971 and is just over 3TN in 2011. Yes, that's three times the money and one would have to look as to what the drivers of that are.

Let's stick with the constant 2005 dollars. Health related spending on Medicaid has gone up 20-fold from 14BN to 282BN over the last 40 years. Medicare has gone up 17 fold from 25BN to 430BN. Federal retirement and disability has gone up 4 fold. Unemployment comp has increased 5 fold, food and nutrition assistance 10 fold. Social Security 4.5 times in 2011 what it was 4 decades ago. All in constant dollars. Those and the 50% increase in defense spending (in cosntant dollars) would appear to be the main cost-drivers.

[mawilson 2,133]

Measured on GDP, 210BN then would be 2.4TN now.

Why measure it as a percentage of GDP, when you argued here that there were more federal

employees (in absolute numbers) in 1971 than there are today?

No, $210bn in 1971 would not be $2.4tn today. Adjusted for inflation, it would be just over $1.1tn.

What's this obsession to grow the size of government with GDP?

[mawilson 2,133]

Let's stick with the constant 2005 dollars. Health related spending on Medicaid has gone up 20-fold from 14BN to 282BN over the last 40 years. Medicare has gone up 17 fold from 25BN to 430BN. Federal retirement and disability has gone up 4 fold. Unemployment comp has increased 5 fold, food and nutrition assistance 10 fold. Social Security 4.5 times in 2011 what it was 4 decades ago. All in constant dollars. Those and the 50% increase in defense spending (in cosntant dollars) would appear to be the main cost-drivers.

Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment comp, disability, food stamps = Big Government

It's not just the number of federal employees.