«

»

This is what job creation looks like in liberal land

Unbelievable. How the left’s policies creates jobs on display! More government work that just sucks cash from the productive sector:

Economic woes have forced at least one city agency into a hiring spree — adding more workers to process the demand for food stamps and other assistance. The Human Resources Administration added more than 100 workers last July and plans to hire another 100 to serve the burgeoning number of New Yorkers applying for food stamps and rent assistance at their offices, according to the Daily News.

About 1.8 million New Yorkers are now on food stamps, which marks nearly a 65 percent increase from four years ago, according to city records. The increase in applicants has led to overcrowding at HRA offices throughout the city, and the agency said at a council hearing Tuesday that it had to hire scores of new workers and supervisors to manage the situation.

Yeah baby! We need more of these policies that force others to become dependant on government to solve our big jobs problem. You can not make this shit up to show how big of a failure the left’s way of doing things really is. Queue the people angry at me for being so insensitive to the needy, while completely ignoring the fact so many are needy precisely because of other such policies & priorities on the left.

For three years now they have blamed Bush for a bad economy they got “handed”. For the first two years after that, when they controlled both organs of congress with clear majorities and the WH, the priority was to implement costly and damaging policies intended to turn America into another Western European shithole nanny state. The last year has been spent blocking any real attempts to change the damage they caused in those first 2 years. This year looks to be more of the same, with things that provide great political sound bites to pre-empt any real action to address the disastrous consequences of the left’s reign of terror. Queue the morons that want to pretend the $5 trillion tacked on, in just the last 3 years, to the $10 trillion it took over 200 years to amass, was because of defense spending and not the massive bloated nanny state spending that was priority one for the crowd that wants to fundamentally change America. But it is all good. It’s being done to make things fair. Equal misery for all the plebes!

This is what “Hope & Change” looks like. Get used to it, and expect worse, if these class warriors are left in power for another 4 years. Ain’t this stuff all great? We need a lot fewer of the4se kinds of jobs created. Not more.

49 comments

No ping yet

  1. davidst says:

    I think welfare is unavoidable as long as we maintain a strong fiat dollar instead of a sound monetary policy. Perhaps the policies of the last 40 years were the best of several bad options, but it’s definitely time to end them now. In other words, I hope you are all supporting Ron Paul.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  2. Seattle Outcast says:

    I think our monetary policy is doomed as long as we maintain a central bank that plays Keynesian idiocy on a regular basis.

    I’ll go so far as to say the entire central bank idea is extremely questionable to start with. We should be seriously looking into ending the Fed and removing all the ill-conceived temptations to fuck with the economy.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  3. davidst says:

    We could potentially keep the central bank, but the government (i.e. we the people) needs to make sure it is acting in a sane manner. Even if we get rid of the Fed, If the people do not remain vigilant and well informed, they will just make a new central bank eventually. The Fed is not the first central bank in the United States.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. AlexInCT says:

    I think our monetary policy is doomed as long as we maintain a central bank that plays Keynesian idiocy on a regular basis.

    Emphasis on Keynesian idiocy I say, SO. Government should get out of the business of selecting what industries or people are allowed to succeed and which ones it will force to fail by fiat. And never spend more than it takes in, with the important distinction that this requirement doesn’t give them the go-ahead to just keep spending whatever the politicians want, and jacking up what it takes from us to cover that. Especially since this mechanism is a blatant vote buying scheme that relies on the fact that the majority of people are just outright unproductive and envious of those that produce.

    We could potentially keep the central bank, but the government (i.e. we the people) needs to make sure it is acting in a sane manner.

    Unfortunately I feel that is like saying Charley Mason needs to act in a responsible way David.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  5. davidst says:

    Alex, pretty much. I guess the whole point of big government is to divest ourselves of responsibility, so it’s nearly guaranteed to degenerate unless we make sure that big government actions are temporary by definition (an honest war vs. an open ended one).

    By the way, I’ve mentioned Eric Janszen several times. Here’s a link to his playbook for 2012, just finished yesterday (a bit late for his line of work, but worth the wait):

    http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/21580-Year-of-the-Jump-Ball-Part-I-Payback-Eric-Janszen?p=220615

    I’m extremely impressed with Janszen’s intellectual honesty and depth of research (as proven by his track record). He is the reason I suddenly believe that “peak oil” is a real thing and a near threat not a far one. If you disagree with his analysis, I’d be interested to know the details (of course, you would have to take his peak-cheap-oil cycle theory as a given for this article; if you want an explanation of that it’s in his 2010 book).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  6. CM says:

    So what’s the alternative to hiring more people to properly administer the food stamps (and other assistance programs) when demand rises because of a massive global recession? How is it in any way shape or form “unbelievable” that sufficient people are employed to ensure the programs are able to be delivered? How is hiring these people another example of a policy that forces “others to become dependant on government to solve our big jobs problem”? Are you suggesting the demand isn’t actually there and these new employees are actually just sitting around doing nothing?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  7. Seattle Outcast says:

    We could potentially keep the central bank, but the government (i.e. we the people) needs to make sure it is acting in a sane manner

    Aside from taking out the Chairman for summary execution in the middle of Times Square every so often, how do you propose we do that?

    The Fed is not the first central bank in the United States

    But it should be the last.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  8. Seattle Outcast says:

    How is hiring these people another example of a policy that forces “others to become dependant on government to solve our big jobs problem”?

    Because you never get rid of public employees. Now that they are on the payroll they will remain there, and the government will need to justify their jobs for eternity. They will also have union representation, which will work to ensure that those jobs never go away.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  9. JimK says:

    Government almost NEVER shrinks unless forced to, and when I say “forced” I mean most often BY force.

    So when you add thousands and then tens of thousands of government workers to the payrolls – many, if not most either locked in by union, contract or specific laws governing the hiring and firing of gov.workers – you will find it next to impossible to remove them once the “need” has passed. This is demonstrable throughout the history of the United States. It is also true for many other nations around the world, but right now I speak of the one that *I* pay for and the one that history demonstrates almost never, EVER shrinks its public sector workforce.

    So let’s say the “need” passes. And let’s further assume I am not completely off base by claiming that in the United States, government rarely shrinks its workforce at any level, from town to fed.gov. SO now the need has passed.

    What do these workers now do? They find ways to stay “needed.” That’s how it works. On every level of government there is a mentality that you need to use everything all the time so that you can get that much or more in the next budget, and that includes job positions. Agencies grow, they rarely shrink. Now we have a Human Resources Administration with 200 extra employees. How do they justify their jobs?

    One simple, easy way would be to change the definition of who qualifies for their services, thereby growing the number of citizens they serve, increasing the long-term poverty and expanding the underclass. The history of social agencies in this country is pretty god-damned apparent. Doesn’t take a genius to see that the current direction of ever-expanding “safety nets” is creating – not assisting or improving but creating – a permanent and growing class of people who cannot escape the treadmill of poverty thanks to the way the system is set up.

    I do NOT agree with your characterization of the need, BTW. I don’t know how much time you’ve spent in US social service offices, but I have personal experience with the system in New York. SS, FS, welfare and the lot. It is as colossal a goatfuck as you are ever likely to come across, with time wasted at every opportunity. Government employees who have guaranteed jobs work as little as possible at all times, because there is no incentive to do otherwise. I am comfortable saying that the need is partially bullshit. I don’t know for sure (and neither do you) but I would be willing to bet thousands of dollars that there was no real effort to improve efficiency or make the current employees handle the demand.

    One such solution? Move as much as possible online. A large portion of the 1.8 million applicants own a computer. Put kiosks in the job centers. But no…they hire more workers AND supervisors and expand physical waiting rooms at Christ knows what cost.

    Who pays for it? The already massively overburdened taxpayers in NYC.

    There are better ways than just growing agencies and handing out more “free” money.
    JimK recently posted..Re-discovering an old musical friendMy Profile

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  10. JimK says:

    Heh. SO, I was composing my missive as you posted your comment. I totally should’ve summarized. :)
    JimK recently posted..Re-discovering an old musical friendMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  11. CM says:

    That certainly sounds very fucked up. These new employees should be employed on temporary contracts (e.g. 6 months) with no expectation of further work, but if they’re still needed then the contract can be rolled over (e.g. for another 6 months). Union membership should be entirely optional.

    Inefficient govt departments annoy the hell out of me., because there is simply no need. There is no reason why they can’t be run efficiently. Make managers accountable for efficiency and productivity. Measured productivity should be a key part of performance appraisals.
    I’m pleased to say that most of the departments I’ve visited here in the last decade have had the appearance of lean and efficient organisations. This suggests to me that there is no reason govt departments cannot be run as efficiently as private businesses.

    Putting as much as possible online is something I definitely support.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  12. CM says:

    More government work that just sucks cash from the productive sector:

    How do these hirings suck cash from the productive sector?

    It appears the city’s welfare agency is hiring despite having less money:

    The agency also plans on adding 49 food stamp eligibility workers and 50 job opportunity specialists, even though it recently lost $200 million in state funding, officials said.

    In terms of going online:

    The city launched an online food-stamp application system last year. In total, 22% of all new applicants use that computer system to apply, a number the city expects to grow.

    Still, those applicants must be fingerprinted at centers. Gov. Cuomo and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn have urged the city to end that screening, which they contend deters many from seeking the benefit

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-welfare-agency-hiring-give-benefits-article-1.1015036?localLinksEnabled=false

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  13. davidst says:

    Jim, I think the Louisiana state government has definitely shrunk in the last 3 years due to declining tax receipts and Governor Jindal’s refusal to raise taxes or use debt to maintain the status quo. There have been huge budget cuts at the start of every fiscal year (and mid year) since 2009. There’s been a hiring freeze for “classified” positions (the unfireables) to go along with it. At LSU they fired a large number of instructors (“professional” positions) in favor of the entrenched professors of course. It’s far from perfect, but apparently recession can help shrink a state government at least a little bit in some circumstances…. Yeah, I think I just proved your point.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  14. Seattle Outcast says:

    These new employees should be employed on temporary contracts (e.g. 6 months) with no expectation of further work, but if they’re still needed then the contract can be rolled over (e.g. for another 6 months). Union membership should be entirely optional.

    I can’t argue against of that, but here’s how it works in the USA.

    1) Government does not hire temps except at census time.

    2) “Right to work” laws (voluntary union membership) are considered radical and dangerous by politicians who enjoy a healthy regular bribe (aka “campaign donation”) every election.

    Jim was right about efficiency not existing for government jobs – as unionized employees they literally cannot be fired or subject to layoff in most circumstances, and money that should be spent upgrading technology and practices is instead spent on salaries and benefits.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  15. CM says:

    I’m totally for voluntary union membership, I’m totally for the govt to employ people on it’s own terms (short term contracts), and I absolutely expect govt departments to be transparent and fully accountable. They should be run like businesses.
    And yet apparently I’m a crazed left-wing ideologue.

    It’s far from perfect, but apparently recession can help shrink a state government at least a little bit in some circumstances….

    Three years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government jobs.

    Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

    That record, which will seem a dubious distinction to public-sector employees, is largely a result not of federal policy but of shrinking state governments. State employment fell 1.2 percent in 2011 — the largest percentage for any year since counting began in 1955. The number is down 2.2 percent over the last three years. It was up 1.2 percent during Reagan’s first three years, declining in only one of the years.

    Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent, while the total fell by the same amount in Mr. Reagan’s first three years.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/

    So yeah there’s a difference between local/state and federal, although not so much last year.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. CM says:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TjvUmSUVwro/TwekUMUYNzI/AAAAAAAAQqM/2zJ9Jj2LgRE/s1600/govjobs.jpg

    The chart above displays the annual change in total government employment (data here) and shows that the 589,000 reduction in government jobs between 2009 and 2011 was the largest reduction in government payrolls since the post-WWII period of 1945-1947. Total government employment (federal, state and local) in December 2011 was the lowest government payroll level since June 2006.

    As I reported earlier today, the Great Recession has been responsible for downsizing the total government workforce more than any other event since WWII. And the loss of government jobs post-WWII was really just a reversal of the huge buildup in military forces from 1941-1943. If some of those 589,000 government jobs losses are permanent, wouldn’t it be ironic if one of the legacies of the Obama administration was a long-term reduction in the size of government through reduced government employment? I don’t think that was really the “hope and change” that Obama was planning on.

    http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2012/01/06/chart-of-the-day-huge-drop-in-government-jobs/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  17. JimK says:

    So yeah there’s a difference between local/state and federal, although not so much last year.

    A bit short-sighted there. Let’s see a trend line for the last 10. And 15. And 20. And 50, etc. And I’d like to see public sector employees as a percentage of the general population. None of which I’m going to research, but I’m willing to speculate anyway. :)

    Barring small dips, I bet they go steadily upward at a percentage that exceeds the population growth.

    In the guise of helping “right now” the system has become one in which people are trapped and bureaucracy increases, as does the scope of the control they wield. None of this is good.
    JimK recently posted..Re-discovering an old musical friendMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. CM says:

    Not sure you correctly interpreted what I said. I was merely pointing out the difference in the period given, not suggesting it was a long-term trend or anything similar.

    Just for information purposes, here is a breakdown of what the public sector (state and local) jobs were in 2010, according to the Census.
    http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/10stlus.txt

    And here is the fed list:
    www2.census.gov/govs/apes/10fedfun.pdf

    This one suggests the fed employee total has been about the same since the mid 1960s.
    http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228

    This analysis suggests public sector employment makes up about 16% of total employment in the US. In Sweden it’s almost 34%. Singapore is at the other extreme with 6%. Most Western countries are between 12% and 19%.
    http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/09/too-many-government-workersposner.html

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  19. hist_ed says:

    And yet apparently I’m a crazed left-wing ideologue.

    The exception that proves the rule?

    I work with about as lefty a group of people as you could find in the US outside a university campus. I’m sure every one of them would agree that government workers should be more efficient, not waste time, etc. My union actually voted to increase our work time this year without increasing pay. However, none of them would ever vote for someone who would be likely to reduce public sector union power.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  20. CM says:

    This is the closest I’ve gotten:
    http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,3381,en_2649_34139_1_119656_1_2_37457,00.html
    If you open “Share of Public Employment to Total Employment” it brings up an Excel sheet which shows for the US:
    1985: 14.8%
    1990: 14.9%
    1997: 14.6%
    1998: 14.5%
    1999: 14.6%

    Stops at 1999 though, and only 15 years.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  21. CM says:

    The exception that proves the rule?

    Sure, along with all the other exceptions (e.g. immigration, gun control, opinion on own current centre-right govt, etc etc). If you ignore a vast amount of information, no doubt ;-)

    I work with about as lefty a group of people as you could find in the US outside a university campus. I’m sure every one of them would agree that government workers should be more efficient, not waste time, etc. My union actually voted to increase our work time this year without increasing pay. However, none of them would ever vote for someone who would be likely to reduce public sector union power.

    I voted to move to voluntary union membership back in the day. I certainly believe employees have the right to group together and try and organise collective agreements when it’s in their interests (otherwise there is a huge imbalance of power during a negotiation), but I certainly disagree with forcing anyone to take part. I would go so far as to consider that ridiculous.
    I’ve never been part of a union. For most of my time working I could been.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  22. davidst says:

    The second half of the iTulip article I linked above has several employment charts for 1942 to 2012, but they are behind the subscription wall so I can’t link it. I’ll summarize.

    Federal employment has stayed flat in absolute terms (about 2.5 million employees + spikes every ten years for census workers) and consequently shrunk as a percentage from 5% to 3% even while federal expenditures as a % of GDP are way up.

    State government employees went from about 1 million to 5 million employees and local government employees went from around 4 million to almost 15 million. In aggregate, government went steadily upward as a percent of the total from13% to 17% of all jobs from 1942 to 2012.

    State and local governments lost job in the great recession while the federal government gained jobs (not counting the spike for census workers).

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  23. Poosh says:

    Because you never get rid of public employees.

    Is that true in this case? Perhaps. Contract jobs are given ( a year etc), or temps are hired to absorb the extra work. In the UK this sometimes happens. This sort of work also allows good work experience for people.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. Seattle Outcast says:

    Even if public employee numbers remain a steady percentage of the population, it shows that they haven’t cut waste in the slightest. In the private sector each employee now typically does the work of 3 or 4 people from 25 or 30 years ago. You no longer see a dedicated typing pool at an office, secretaries are a thing of the past (shorthand, who uses that any more?), etc. I can think of numerous examples, but you get the picture.

    Additionally, “Lean” has taken foot in the workplace – in order to remain competitive companies will root out waste and make it a workplace goal, stated in dollars. For example, in the past two years a four-man standing Kaizen Blitz team I’m a part of has implemented savings equal to a couple million $$$ on a recurring basis. My motivation is that when year-end bonuses are issued, they are based on profits. Every nickle I save the company is money in my pocket.

    The motivation of union members is to increase pay scale and benefits. Everything else can just fucking rot.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  25. sahrab says:

    The chart above displays the annual change in total government employment (data here) and shows that the 589,000 reduction in government jobs between 2009 and 2011 was the largest reduction in government payrolls since the post-WWII period of 1945-1947. Total government employment (federal, state and local) in December 2011 was the lowest government payroll level since June 2006

    Just for information purposes, here is a breakdown of what the public sector (state and local) jobs were in 2010, according to the Census.

    CM, no knock on you maybe your unaware, but its interesting your using Census data to backup your assertion that the Government reduced its employee size.

    Starting in 2005 the Census Bureau starts hiring temprorary workers for the 2010 Decennial Census. Hiring ramps up in effort to get the Census complete

    This is important to keep in mind when talking about reductions in Government workforce. Also important to note when its reported about how many Jobs were reduced, they reference how many Government jobs were cut (without specifying where, just a nebulous reduction). When they discuss how much Job Growth (in general) has expanded they dont detail that information included temprorary Decennial hirings.

    The first major employment begins in 2005 through 2006 when the Decennial hires semi-permanent employees. These start workign under the design and begin of Dress Rehearsal operations. This operation begins at the end of 2005 design carries through through 2006. Generally these employees stay on through the end of the Decennial.

    Beginning in 2007 through 2008 when the Census Bureau started its Canvasing efforts. This is, more or less, a mini census and is used by the Bureau to gather the address and physical location of each living quarter in the United States. During the address canvassing operation, the Census Bureau verifies that its master address list and maps are accurate which is then used to mail or hand-deliver questionnaires to housing units and potential group quarters.

    The Census Bureau estimated that it would need 140,000 to complete the 2008/2009 canvasing effort. I believe, from actual experience, that the number was higher but cant find reference so we’ll go with that.

    But “Ahah!” you say, thats only 140,000 temprory workers accounted for. Your source states 589,000 were reduced from 2009 through 2011. Thats an odd run of years dont you think? Why would they pick those particular years to show how effecient the Government has been by reducing its work force?

    At peak operations, June 2010, the Decennial had 635,000 temprorary workers on its payroll. These are temp employees which means they will be released. But, and this is interesting, your own source refutes itself. According to your source the Government reduced its workforce from 2009 to 2001 by 589,000 employees. At peak operation, in mid 2010 the Census had 635,000 employees. Right off the bat, that means the Government payroll GREW by 46,000 employees.

    But wait theres more

    Decennial employment was only for 6 months, your source uses a span of 2 years. Its not defined in your source but lets use June 2009 through June 2011. This means through 4 rounds of 6 month temproray employment *blitzes, they only let go 589,000 of those employees. We know that at peak operations in mid 2010 there were 635,000 employees. For the entire Decennial operation (2009 through 2010) 1.4 million temprorary enumerators were hired.

    589,000 your source states were reduced, or the 1.4 milion that were hired and let go through that same 2 year period? Seems kind of shifty to use temprorary workers as a source example of how the Government reduced its workforce. Especially when your own source proves the government increased its payroll by 46,000 government employees.

    * Decennial hirings were rolling affairs, with hirings occuring concurrently not consecutevily. But for the sake of this discussion i’m using 4 rolling hiring events.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  26. AlexInCT says:

    I do NOT agree with your characterization of the need, BTW. I don’t know how much time you’ve spent in US social service offices, but I have personal experience with the system in New York. SS, FS, welfare and the lot. It is as colossal a goatfuck as you are ever likely to come across, with time wasted at every opportunity.

    That pretty much sums up what I have heard too. And I should mention that I hear from many that the people that really need/deserve the help, especially if it is temporary, get turned away, while the people willing to game the system and want to make this their job are the ones most sought after. Saying that this systems sucks is being kind

    Government employees who have guaranteed jobs work as little as possible at all times, because there is no incentive to do otherwise. I am comfortable saying that the need is partially bullshit. I don’t know for sure (and neither do you) but I would be willing to bet thousands of dollars that there was no real effort to improve efficiency or make the current employees handle the demand.

    Sounds like Obama’s job’s program to me.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  27. CM says:

    And I should mention that I hear from many that the people that really need/deserve the help, especially if it is temporary, get turned away

    And hiring less people will help that how?

    This is important to keep in mind when talking about reductions in Government workforce.

    Unless they changed the metric/methodology to include census workers, when previously they didn’t, then it wouldn’t seem to matter. The take into account seasonal aspects, so why wouldn’t they take into account jobs like census-workers?
    Anyway, if a drop always just reflected non-census periods, that would show up in the graph during other census periods.

    Also important to note when its reported about how many Jobs were reduced, they reference how many Government jobs were cut (without specifying where, just a nebulous reduction). When they discuss how much Job Growth (in general) has expanded they dont detail that information included temprorary Decennial hirings.

    Nebulous? You make it sound like there is something dodgy going on here? Why?
    According to the source document:

    Government employment changed little in January. Over the past 12 months, the sector has lost 276,000 jobs, with declines in local government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

    Your source states 589,000 were reduced from 2009 through 2011. Thats an odd run of years dont you think? Why would they pick those particular years to show how effecient the Government has been by reducing its work force?

    Who said their goal was to show who efficient the Government has been?
    The graph goes back to 1940, not 2009.
    Why does there have to be an agenda behind everything?

    Seems kind of shifty to use temprorary workers as a source example of how the Government reduced its workforce.

    You’d have to show how this has occured, rather than just assuming so that it doesn’t potentially reflect well on Obama.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. sahrab says:

    And you wonder what how you can be accused of dismissing something that doesnt fit your message.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  29. sahrab says:

    A bit short-sighted there. Let’s see a trend line for the last 10. And 15. And 20. And 50, etc

    And thanks to CM and the link he provided, you can see that here. Change the date range to redraw the scale.

    Not only does it refute his assertion, my point about the 1.4 additional Census temprorary employees is supported by the chart.

    BTW the scale of the chart is in Thousands of persons

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  30. CM says:

    Oh good grief. I dismissed nothing, I mainly just asked questions. Here is another:

    Are census workers in “local government; state government, excluding education; [or]….the U.S. Postal Service”?

    If you don’t want to discuss it anymore, fine.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  31. sahrab says:

    No temprorary Census workers are in this group:

    The chart above displays the annual change in total government employment (data here) and shows that the 589,000 reduction in government jobs between 2009 and 2011 was the largest reduction in government payrolls since the post-WWII period of 1945-1947. Total government employment (federal, state and local) in December 2011 was the lowest government payroll level since June 2006.

    That would be the ifnormation you referenced.

    Important items to note, teh 589k figure was federal jobs. The note about lowest government payroll was in reference to federal, state and local. There is an important distinction your missing.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  32. CM says:

    And thanks to CM and the link he provided, you can see that here. Change the date range to redraw the scale.

    You mean I provided something that “doesn’t fit message”?
    Which is it?

    Jim wanted to see a long-term trend, so the last few years can be seen in context. You seem to think this is important, and yet at the same time seem to be claiming that census-workers will create spikes or troughs. Which is it – is it the long term trend that matters, or some cherry-picked periods?

    Not only does it refute his assertion, my point about the 1.4 additional Census temprorary employees is supported by the chart.

    What assertion of mine does it refute?
    How is your point about census workers illustrated in the graph?

    What about these?
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s1id=USGOVT
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s1id=USGOVT
    Again, no long term trend since 1940.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  33. AlexInCT says:

    And hiring less people will help that how?

    Nice straw man CM, but that question is meaningless. Your attempt to pretend that we are the ones that are insensitive for refusing to just go along with the idiocy that the left pushes is obvious and shameful. The fact is that the only programs experiencing job growth during these trying times of leftist economy destroying policies seem to be the ones that grow that segment of government that exists solely to help grow government, is indisputable. This is what the Obama and democrat economy produces: destitute people and the need for bigger government & government spending to help make more of us miserable and destitute. Hiring these welfare workers or not, is irrelevant.

    What we should be doing is killing the policies and regulations that are destroying our economy in an attempt to turn us into another failed Western European style socialist nanny state, not hiring people to help communist fuckwads and their government growing programs intended to grow their power and wealth. Thanks for playing though.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  34. CM says:

    No temprorary Census workers are in this group:

    How are you so sure how census workers are considered in these stats?

    That would be the ifnormation you referenced.

    I’m not claiming census-workers make a difference. My assumption is that they’re either included or excluded so that the stats are meaningful. They usually strip out certain workers (“seasonal adjustment”). I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. If you have, then you should certainly provide it.

    Important items to note, teh 589k figure was federal jobs. The note about lowest government payroll was in reference to federal, state and local. There is an important distinction your missing.

    I didn’t miss it. I specifically commented on it:

    So yeah there’s a difference between local/state and federal, although not so much last year.

    By which I was referring to the fact that it was fed jobs that dropped over the longer period, but in 2011 local/state jobs dropped as well.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  35. sahrab says:

    Jim

    Barring small dips, I bet they go steadily upward at a percentage that exceeds the population growth.

    Sahrab

    And thanks to CM and the link he provided, you can see that here. Change the date range to redraw the scale

    CM

    Again, no long term trend since 1940.

    Might want to reread your charts again. Popultion increases, so does Public Sector jobs (including Federal), the public sector increases at a higher percentage than the population increases (what Jim asked for)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. CM says:

    Nice straw man CM, but that question is meaningless. Your attempt to pretend that we are the ones that are insensitive for refusing to just go along with the idiocy that the left pushes is obvious and shameful.

    I’m suggesting nothing about anyone being insensitive. It seems you’re being overly-sensitive about that and making an assumption.
    Simply trying to understand the logic. What you are suggesting does not appear to be logical. How does not hiring sufficient people assist those who really do need help?

    The fact is that the only programs experiencing job growth during these trying times of leftist economy destroying policies seem to be the ones that grow that segment of government that exists solely to help grow government, is indisputable

    As opposed to what other programs?
    How is this segment of government growing if govt employee numbers are down?

    This is what the Obama and democrat economy produces: destitute people and the need for bigger government & government spending to help make more of us miserable and destitute. Hiring these welfare workers or not, is irrelevant.

    But hiring these workers is what you’re hanging all these arguments on. You’re saying it’s now irrelevant? Huh?

    What we should be doing is killing the policies and regulations that are destroying our economy in an attempt to turn us into another failed Western European style socialist nanny state, not hiring people to help communist fuckwads and their government growing programs intended to grow their power and wealth. Thanks for playing though.

    Riiiiiiiiiiight, even though government hiring is way down (and at all levels in 2011).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. CM says:

    Might want to reread your charts again. Popultion increases, so does Public Sector jobs (including Federal), the public sector increases at a higher percentage than the population increases (what Jim asked for)

    Your linked chart has a single line. No correlation with population, so we can’t conclude anything from it. The closest anyone has come linking govt-employment with any other sort of change was these figures:
    1985: 14.8%
    1990: 14.9%
    1997: 14.6%
    1998: 14.5%
    1999: 14.6%
    The percentages are the “Share of Public Employment to Total Employment”. That would seem to a reasonable alternative to comparing it to population growth.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  38. CM says:

    1946: US Pop 141m, Govt Workers 6m, so 4.3%
    1951: 154m, 6.8m, so 4.4%
    1956: 169m, 7.7m, so 4.6%
    1961: 184m, 9.1m, so 4.9%
    1966: 197m, 11.4m, so 5.8%
    1971: 208m, 13.3m, so 6.4%
    1976: 218m, 15m, so 6.9%
    1981: 229m, 16m, so 7%
    1986: 240m, 17m, so 7%
    1991: 252m, 18m, so 7.1%
    1996: 265m, 19.5m, so 7.4%
    2001: 286m, 21m, so 7.3%
    2006: 300m, 19.7m, so 6.6%

    Sources:
    http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm
    http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228
    http://www.govspot.com/ask/population.htm

    Not sure how or why this is far different from the 16% found in the international comparison, and don’t have time to look into it now.

    But this would suggest Jim was correct, up to 1996.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  39. sahrab says:

    But this would suggest Jim was correct, up to 1996

    Thanks!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. CM says:

    Thanks!

    No problem.

    Instead of saying “no long term trend since 1940″ about that one graph, I should have instead said that the growth rate seemed fairly steady. However that obviously also doesn’t include a correlation with either population or total employment.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. CM says:

    2010: US Pop 309m, US Govt workers 21.4m, so 6.9%.

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2012/02/03/how-many-government-workers-does-it-take.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census

    Same percentage as 1976.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  42. AlexInCT says:

    I’m suggesting nothing about anyone being insensitive. It seems you’re being overly-sensitive about that and making an assumption.

    No, you where trying to set up a straw man by asking your question hoping someone would take the bait so you could then point out that not hiring these people was a sign of insensitivity to the plight of the disadvantaged or some such nonsense. Nobody bit, and I exposed it. That’s why you didn’t make the suggestion directly, but then kind of pseudo infer it again right in that last sentence in the quoted text.

    Simply trying to understand the logic. What you are suggesting does not appear to be logical. How does not hiring sufficient people assist those who really do need help?

    What did I suggest again? I went back and reread my post. Nowhere does my post say “don’t hire these people”, and try as I might, I cant even find a hidden message that conveys a suggestion to the nanny staters in NY not to hire these people. In fact, my post specifically uses this example of how the only jobs that liberal policies create are welfare state service jobs, as a means to point out these policies are failures, and do nothing but cause more people to need assistance from those that push these policies.

    I pointed out that what we need is to get rid of the liberal policies and policy pushers. How you concluded that was a call on my part for the state of NY not to hire more welfare pimps didn’t baffle me however. You didn’t want to argue the actual point of the post. Just to move it tangentially into a zone that would allow you to then tell those of us saying this was a bad deal at best, that we where uncaring. You know, like I pointed out you wanted to.

    As opposed to what other programs?

    As opposed to no other government programs! I want the private sector to do the job creation. That is where jobs and wealth come from, and unlike you and people that believe like you that government does only good, I am aware that it doesn’t do anything but burn wealth. How hard is that to grasp? I already feel government – the wlefare state part – is at a minimum thrice as big as it needs to be, ever. Even in the current horrible economic climate our leftists have straddled us with.

    How is this segment of government growing if govt employee numbers are down?

    Where did you get this notion that employee numbers are down? The welfare state and the welfare pimps, both at the federal and state level, are thriving. Did you miss that near $1 billion give away that the welfare state pimps told us was a stimulus and where most of it ended up?

    BTW, cutting military personnel and then claiming you have shrunk government, like the leftist constantly do, is fucking bullshit. We heard all about how Clinton decreased the size of government when the greatest cut to government pool came at the expense of the military. Obama is about to do more of the same. I am not buying it.

    But hiring these workers is what you’re hanging all these arguments on. You’re saying it’s now irrelevant? Huh?

    No CM, this is your stupid straw man. My post basically points out that the only jobs Keynesian, Marxist, nanny staters and their policies create are these kinds of government growing jobs, and that what we need to do is to get rid of these policies and the people that push them, sooner than later. That is so we can get actual economic growth, which then will allow us to not have so many people being forced to depend on government to subsist. Then most of the welfare bureaucracy can be dismantled. Get it?

    My bet is you will again come back and make the ludicrous claim that I said not to hire them even though I never did anyhing of the sort. Arguing about hiring these people makes it a lot easier for you to then accuse me of being insensitive to the poor while arguing the actual topic at hand – how fucked up things are because of the left’s policies, priorities, and beliefs – doesn’t lend itself too well to you scoring cheap points.

    Riiiiiiiiiiight, even though government hiring is way down (and at all levels in 2011).

    Fuck government hiring being down. Government is too fucking big. This is more meaningless deflection from the real issue. While the private sector shed millions of jobs because of the damage leftard policies caused us, government prevented this from hitting their workforce, both at the federal and state level, by funneling most of the close to a billion dollars of tax payer money scam they called a “stimulus” to the entities that then propped up these government entity’s finances so they wouldn’t also have to cut employees. And the private sector keeps losing jobs while government keeps hiring. What we need is to cut government size by a minimum of half, and not by removing military personnel, but by cutting the massive fucking welfare state to the bone.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  43. hohokiss says:

    “Let them sell Contributor fliers on every street corner” say the right about the (nigh) homeless. “Survival of the fittest. Don’t forget to recycle bwahahahaah”

    Things haven’t changed much in US government

    40 years ago

    By 1965, Willowbrook housed over 6,000 mentally disabled children, despite having a maximum capacity of 4,000. Senator Robert Kennedy toured the institution in 1965 and proclaimed that individuals in the overcrowded facility were “living in filth and dirt, their clothing in rags, in rooms less comfortable and cheerful than the cages in which we put animals in a zoo” and offered a series of recommendations for improving conditions.[4] Although the hepatitis study had been discontinued, the residential school’s reputation was that of a warehouse for New York City’s mentally disabled children, many of whom were presumably abandoned there by their families, foster care agencies or other systems designed to care for them. Donna J. Stone, an advocate for mentally disabled children as well as victims of child abuse, gained access to the school by posing as a recent social work graduate. She then shared her observations with members of the press.[5]

    A series of articles in local newspapers, including the Staten Island Advance and the Staten Island Register, described the crowded, filthy living conditions at Willowbrook, and the negligent treatment of some of its residents. Shortly thereafter, in early 1972, Geraldo Rivera, then an investigative reporter for WABC-TV in New York, conducted a series of investigations at Willowbrook uncovering a host of deplorable conditions, including overcrowding, inadequate sanitary facilities, and physical and sexual abuse of residents by members of the school’s staff. The exposé, entitled Willowbrook: The Last Disgrace, garnered national attention and won a Peabody Award for Rivera.[6] Rivera later appeared on the nationally televised Dick Cavett Show with film of patients at the school.

    As a result of the overcrowding, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the State of New York in federal court on March 17, 1972. A settlement in the case was reached on May 5, 1975, mandating reforms at the site, but several years would pass before all of the violations were corrected. The publicity generated by the case was a major contributing factor to the passage of a federal law, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980.

    Aye, I remember hearing about this as a kid living in nearby NJ, I also had to think about the good old US govt as I toured a few state prisons this past week. Not the last disgrace, was Willowbrook

    Willowbrook State Hospital is mentioned in the 2009 documentary movie Cropsey, as having reportedly housed convicted child kidnapper Andre Rand, who had previously worked there as an orderly.[8] One of Andre’s victims, Jennifer Schweiger, was found buried in a shallow grave behind the grounds of the abandoned Willowbrook State School which was built under the same design as Pilgrim State Hospital. In 2011, a former resident of Willowbrook State School, a savant named Anthony Torrone wrote a Christian prayer book titled Anthony’s Prayers that was inspired by the his time and the abuse he experienced at the school.[9][10].

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  44. CM says:

    No, you where trying to set up a straw man by asking your question hoping someone would take the bait so you could then point out that not hiring these people was a sign of insensitivity to the plight of the disadvantaged or some such nonsense. Nobody bit, and I exposed it. That’s why you didn’t make the suggestion directly, but then kind of pseudo infer it again right in that last sentence in the quoted text.

    Nope, sorry, it just didn’t make logical sense. If any organisation is short of staff to undertake whatever work they need to do, the logical solution is to hire more people.

    In fact, my post specifically uses this example of how the only jobs that liberal policies create are welfare state service jobs, as a means to point out these policies are failures, and do nothing but cause more people to need assistance from those that push these policies.

    Your post in no way demonstrates that welfare state service jobs are the only jobs created by liberal policies. Not even close. First you’d need to show that it was liberal policies that created the unemployment experienced by these people (i.e. they’re not just employed because of the global financial crisis which has many factors to it) but you’d then need to show that ‘liberal policies’ don’t create any other jobs. And then you’d need to demonstrate, beyond simply repeating a mantra, how alternative policies result in a different outcome. I.e. recessions won’t occur in your alternative utopia.

    You didn’t want to argue the actual point of the post.

    The point of the post doesn’t make sense.

    As opposed to no other government programs!

    You said “…the only programs experiencing job growth …” though. What other programs were you talking about, that are presuming not experencing growth?

    How is hiring more people (because more people are needed) a ‘program’? It’s just employment to meet a demand isn’t it?

    I want the private sector to do the job creation.

    I think most people want that. But then most people realise that when recession hits, the private sector can’t do it themselves.

    That is where jobs and wealth come from, and unlike you and people that believe like you that government does only good, I am aware that it doesn’t do anything but burn wealth.

    I’ve never said goverments only do good, or anything even remotely close. However I don’t subscribe to mindless binary positions like you require, so it’s not a surprise that you can’t comprehend that.

    How hard is that to grasp?

    I get the impression it’s impossible for you to grasp.

    Where did you get this notion that employee numbers are down?

    Read the thread. As a percentage of the population, it’s the same as the mid 1970′s. What alternative numbers are you going with, and why are they better?

    The welfare state and the welfare pimps, both at the federal and state level, are thriving. Did you miss that near $1 billion give away that the welfare state pimps told us was a stimulus and where most of it ended up?

    Stimulus spending, much of which was tax relief, is different to government employment numbers, which is what we’ve been discussing here for a while now.

    BTW, cutting military personnel and then claiming you have shrunk government, like the leftist constantly do, is fucking bullshit.

    That’s nice for you. Who said the cuts were military personnel?
    As above, quoted three times now:

    Government employment changed little in January. Over the past 12 months, the sector has lost 276,000 jobs, with declines in local government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service.

    Perhaps you should try reading the thread.

    We heard all about how Clinton decreased the size of government when the greatest cut to government pool came at the expense of the military. Obama is about to do more of the same. I am not buying it.

    That’s nice.

    No CM, this is your stupid straw man.

    Ah no, sorry, these hirings are apparently the only jobs that the leftists can create. These hirings are your example that you’re wrapping your narrative around. Notwithstanding that it doesn’t work because you’ve demonstrated nothing, it’s inarguable that you’ve hung your hat on these hirings. They’re not ‘irrelevant’ to your ‘point’ at all.

    My post basically points out that the only jobs Keynesian, Marxist, nanny staters and their policies create are these kinds of government growing jobs, and that what we need to do is to get rid of these policies and the people that push them, sooner than later. That is so we can get actual economic growth, which then will allow us to not have so many people being forced to depend on government to subsist. Then most of the welfare bureaucracy can be dismantled. Get it?

    Yep, it’s the same post you write every week. Almost word for word. Every week you pick some example that doesn’t work, and try to wrap your narrative around it.

    Arguing about hiring these people makes it a lot easier for you to then accuse me of being insensitive to the poor while arguing the actual topic at hand – how fucked up things are because of the left’s policies, priorities, and beliefs – doesn’t lend itself too well to you scoring cheap points.

    Please point out where I went on about how insensitive you are etc etc. I’ve actually offered no opinion on anything related to that (including whether the additional people who qualify for assistance deserve it). I’m simply attempting to try to work out your logic. I’ve detemined that it’s same old poor reasoning.

    Fuck government hiring being down.

    Yeah, fuck the facts! Fuck reality! Fuck making sense! Fuck logic!

    Government is too fucking big.

    Sure. Holding that opinion doesn’t mean you can make up your own reality though. Well, clearly it does for you. But not to normal people.

    This is more meaningless deflection from the real issue.

    Well then discuss the ‘real issue’ without pretending you’ve demonstrated something you quite clearly haven’t.

    While the private sector shed millions of jobs because of the damage leftard policies caused us,

    Again, the global crisis involved many factors.

    government prevented this from hitting their workforce, both at the federal and state level, by funneling most of the close to a billion dollars of tax payer money scam they called a “stimulus” to the entities that then propped up these government entity’s finances so they wouldn’t also have to cut employees.

    How did the government prevent this from hitting their workforce if the employee numbers are all down (despite the need to employ more to adminster welfare to more people)? That doesn’t make logical sense.

    What we need is to cut government size by a minimum of half, and not by removing military personnel, but by cutting the massive fucking welfare state to the bone.

    And the private sector keeps losing jobs while government keeps hiring

    Where do you get this from? From which planet?

    Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in January, and the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

    Read the thread in terms of government job numbers.

    Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/

    What we need is to cut government size by a minimum of half, and not by removing military personnel, but by cutting the massive fucking welfare state to the bone.

    Ok, give me the details of your cuts. Show us how you’d actually do it. It’s very easily to take an arbitrary figure like 50% if you don’t have to back it up with detail.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  45. JimK says:

    WHAT THE FUCK DID I SAY ABOUT THE PETTY BULLSHIT ARGUING?

    Am I not being clear? Do I have to start banning people before this childish bullshit stops?

    Have a conversation without being cunts. What the fuck are you people, 12?
    JimK recently posted..Re-discovering an old musical friendMy Profile

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  46. mandingo says:

    Crazy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  47. hohokiss says:

    Ima do it. I’m going to explore welfare, disability, the free ride, lawsuit , etc. starting next week.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  48. hohokiss says:

    Looks like American greed makes American unions necesssary, one type of greed begets another and both camps are equally good at it, same breed of lazy gangsters

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  49. balthazar says:

    Greed like when an organization that is supposed to represent you gets its cronies in the government to FORCE you to join and take money directly from you for it? Greed like that?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.