Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9,977,000
 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tere...orkers-9977000

The United States lost 9,000 manufacturing jobs in October while gaining 19,000 jobs in government, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Government employment grew from 22,216,000 in September to 22,235,000 in October, according to BLS, while manufacturing jobs dropped from 12,267,000 to 12,258,000.

The 22,235,000 employed by government in the United States now outnumber the 12,258,000 employed in manufacturing by 9,977,000.

Over the past year—from October 2015 to October 2016—manufacturing employment fell by 53,000, declining from 12,311,000 to 12,258,000. During the same period, government employment climbed 208,000, rising from 22,027,000 to 22,235,000.

A parting gift from the current administration. This is a trend that is absolutely unsustainable.

We need more government jobs, not less.

We are at a 50 year low in the ratio of government jobs to the overall population.

Yes, I pulled that 50 year low figure out of my ass, but I'll bet it's pretty close to reality.

Whell this kind of post worked for the old GOP that Ryan, Kemp, and Reagan sort of represent. The old GOP that is dead I think.
Replaced by something less attractive if you ask me.

Who are you talking to now?

I was hired during the Bush administration so why don't you email him with your complaints.

Yep, that figure I pulled out of my ass wasn't that far off.

http://www.businessinsider.com/perce...ernment-2012-7

And that's just for civilian employment. if you add in the Military, which is government employment also, I'd say I was probably right on the money.

No substantive response to the content of the post, huh? :rolleyes:

Economic growth is flat, we're replacing manufacturing jobs, and higher paying jobs in general with lower wage jobs...

...so how is it that we can afford expanding gov't jobs?

Also, government is immune to inefficiencies that, for example, advancing technology might offer to managing labor costs? We just need "more gov't jobs " because we're at a 50 year low, regardless of the work that might or might now be available? Sounds like you want to bring back the secretarial pool with all the typewriters?

Under Obama, federal jobs: growth slowed, contracting out reduced and reversed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-growth-slows/

The downturn in the smokestack industries didn't start under Obama. In fact, his actions (opposed by many in the GOP) likely saved the domestic auto and homebuilding industries from the damage wrought by yer boy, Dubya. Moreover, public sector job growth under Obama is the least it has been in over 40 years. I again see that you're unwilling to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

http://www.businessinsider.com/publi...idents-2014-10

http://static2.businessinsider.com/i...icsept2014.png

Ya gotta replace jobs lost with something.

We now have robotics that eliminate many of the manufacturing jobs.

We are at an all time high in worker productivity.

We really don't need more than about 15-20 man hours per available worker to fulfill all of societies needs. Your options are:

A. Cut workers hours down to that

B. Put a whole shitload of people on the dole.

C. Put a whole shitload of people into government jobs.

D. Or just marginalize them and let them starve, in which case they will eventually revolt and kill everyone in the ruling class.

What's it gonna be?

No shit, nor is that even the point. I see you're unwilling to address the core issue so you can throw out unrelated lefty talking points.

Its a pretty simple question, really. As our job market continues to churn out lower wage jobs, how is a rise in gov't payroll affordable?

It is a huge dilemma. Government jobs offer reasonable salaries, benefits, and better security than what is generally available in the private sector.
However we must be wary of government ballooning.

How do we strike a balance is key and not the number of jobs in itself.

As to manufacturing jobs we have sold out so much to the Chinese that I
do not see too much hope there.

The question should be how is it affordable not to increase government jobs.

If there were more government jobs, with their decent pay and benefit packages, employees would have an option, instead of being forced to take whatever shit employers offer them.

Employers would have to compete with government for employees. That would be a good thing.

The other thing we have been producing is very healthy increases in very high incomes. Guess how we're able to afford that?

Anyway, the question of how we afford such increases as there are in government employment therefore has an answer.

Ask FDR.

Are government employees hired on contract included in this 22 million?

Government employment has exploded under Republican administrations is my point.

I thought all the wonderful GOP job creators would both pay their fair share of taxes and indeed create jobs, we'd be covered. I guess The Donald has shown has specious that premise is.

Encouraging commercial activity is the key to recovery. Employment by whatever reasonable means injects much needed capital into the process.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

For now limitless borrowing capability.

In Florida, when Jeb Bush took over he cut the number of FDOT's employees by 25% over a five year period.

At the same time he increased our "consultant" budget astronomically so that we could hire private firms to do what we used to do in house. Our overall expenditures ballooned. We had so much consultant money we had to have special meetings to try to brainstorm how we were going to spend it all.

We were also required to report all money spent for "consulting" under "production". That way our "productivity" went way up. It was such a fucking scam.

Good answer TJ, yet does not directly refute the point whell is trying to make, which is a dig at the Obama administration. My answer would be that how is the government able to add head count if their revenues are not expanding? So if it is over expansion, eventually there would be cut backs.

Nailer brought out a good point which is also very common these days in the private industry. A good friend lost his long term high paying job and is now hired by a completion for even more money. The catch? He is only a consultant, no contract and no promises. If this does not come through, he has yet another competitor in the wings. And these people do not show up in the head counts and we will be seeing more and more of these short term employment.

Also, instead of having income and social security taxes withheld, he'll get a 1099 at the end of the year and get fucked when he files his tax return.

Federally speaking there are also fringe benefit savings, such as health insurance and TSP. The desired effect behind contracting out federal jobs was/is reducing costs to help curb government spending and creating stealth personnel to inflate personnel reduction data.

Where does the money come from to support all these government jobs, and what (make)work are they doing in your scenario?

I'd rather ask Calvin Coolidge.

I thought paying taxes was virtuous.

The top 10% own 75% of the wealth.

http://www.mybudget360.com/wealth-in...ent-of-wealth/

So you take half of their shit away from them and they still have plenty left.

You use that.

If it ain't enough you fire up the presses.

Bring back the $500 and $1000 bills and start pumping em out 24/7 till you have enough.

If I were dictator not paying them would be hazardous to your health.

I'd have tax cheats crucified upside down along the rights of way of major highways like the Romans used to do.

Ask Apple.

Because there has been a reduction in government workers. The reason they outnumber manufacturing workers is that you can't ship the civil service overseas.

.....that you can't ship gov jobs overseas....

Exactly right.

You can outsource them to call centers in Mumbai.