Not since 2002 has the public sector seen such a hiring bonanza as it has experienced in the first quarter of 2008.
Federal, State, and Local governments are hiring new workers at the fastest pace in six years adding 76,800 jobs according to reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics while comparatively, the private sector has shed 286,000 workers.
Due out Friday, employment numbers will show whether the trend is continuing. But, the hiring bonanza has led some economists to conclude that such an increase in public sector jobs could soften a recession in the short term. While, they caution that the job expansion could lead to long term fiscal problems if government spending too continues to grow. And, because government begets more government, such fiscal problems will indeed arise.
The Commerce Department found that State and Local governments had run deficits for the last nine months while tax collections remained flat in middle of 2007 despite a sizeable growth in government spending.
With nearly 88,000 units of government, mostly local, the United States employs roughly 22 million people. And, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows, hiring remains strong at every level.
Consider:
- The Federal Government increased its workforce by 13,800 in the first 3 months of 2008. Local Governments by 47,000 and States 16,000
- The Rochester, N.Y. school system added 289 teachers despite that the school population actually shrank by 1,300 students. Touted as part of a state-funded (read taxpayer) effort to reduce class size. Florida and Texas are also adopting the practice.
- The Texas city of Weatherford (pop. 25,000) added an assistant city manager, nine firefighters, 3 police officers and extra crews for roads and parks.
Let us not forget, shifting private sector jobs to the public sector merely increases the burden on those of us in the private sector. And, at the same time, it increases the number of individuals feeding at the government trough. Those individuals in turn become advocates for yet more taxes and bigger expansion of government. And, therein lies the problem friends. It becomes a perpetual cycle of insanity.
And to think, is it really any wonder why many of us have come to loathe government?
17 comments:
For those keeping score at home, these statistics were taken during a so-called conservative president's term.
(Another example of the Republican party shifting to the left, rapidly.)
Soapbox,
This is scary. Even though the Government added 76,800 Jobs, since the Private Sector lost 286,000 Jobs, the net result is a loss of 209,200 Jobs. This whole thing is nuts and it appears that there's no way to stop it.
Beth,
I don't know about this particular "so-called Conservative President", but what I do know is that sometimes what happens during any President's term has just as much and sometimes more so to do with the House and Senate as with the President, so to be fair we would have to evaluate all of these facts.
"Even though the Government added 76,800 Jobs, since the Private Sector lost 286,000 Jobs, the net result is a loss of 209,200Jobs."
Nope. That's still a loss of 286,000 jobs. Because, you have to remember...Government doesn't produce, it consumes.
So, if 76,800 private sector workers now become public employees, the productivity of those 76,800 private sector workers now becomes 76,800 government workers consuming.
The same premise applies with respect to inflation.
If the federal reserve bank merely prints up money without the productivity behind it, no-one is going to be any wealthier because the inflationary rate rises in conjunction with the increase in the money supply.
Maybe I shouldn't be back on the computer again and yet I am. I guess I was just thinking about the unemployment rate part of the equation. Even jobs that don't produce anything, still give income to those who receive them.
You are referring to the GNP. I don't always understand all of the cause and effect relationships involved in this.
"I don't always understand all of the cause and effect relationships involved in this."
Now is the time for people to start (at the very least trying). Their "feel good" premises have consequences which they too often do not take into consideration. This being one of them. Minimum wage mandates being another. Smoking bans being yet another. And, the list tends to go on.
The unfortunate truth is that some of these things are hard to understand. I was actually a democrat in my earlier years. It wasn't until I took an economy class that I really began to understand the Republican way of thinking.
My parents were always Republicans, but my Dad never adequately explained the economics of it to me in a way I could understand. After taking an economy class, I said "Oh, that's what he was trying to tell me.", but it's complicated, Soapbox, and not everyone has a mathematical mind.
I still don't understand all the cause and effects relationships and I'm not a dumb person. There are a lot of people who are a lot less bright than myself, so we need to show some patience when explaining these things and not assume that everyone who doesn't get it is stupid.
Perhaps we need to learn to speak in very simple terms, if we want to reach those who do not already agree with us. Sometimes a humble attitude is even more effective than the most sound of arguments.
I couldn't agree more. But, first, before we can get them to understand the specifics, we must first get them to adopt an objective point of view. If they fail to look at things objectively, no matter how sensible the issue may be or how concrete the facts supporting it, they'll never embrace it or even consider embracing it.
As for the "Republican" way of thinking....at present and by and large, it's not differing much from the Democratic way of thinking.
This is becoming a problem.
I meant what was originally the "Republican way of thinking".
How exactly do you plan to convince them to "look at things objectively", while not trying to explain any objective facts?
You know what I found frustrating? Believe it or not, when I went to school, I got through grade school, junior high and high school without ever taking any Government or Economy Class. Even in College, I was give the option of taking either History or Government, so I could have gotten all the way through College too without ever having to take a Government Class, if that had been my choice. I chose Government, though, because I had not remembered ever taking such a class.
Later, after all of my schooling was finished, including College, I decided one day to sign up for an Economy Class just because I had wondered why it had never been required and decided that it was an important thing to study. I was a Democrat right up until the time that I took this not required class.
Fortunately, I've been told that the schools in California have gotten better since then, and I really do hope that this is true.
I figured you were referring to the traditional way of Republican thinking.
As for objective analysis, I don't know that you can convince them. All you can do is try. However, I think it is to their own detriment if they choose to look at things subjectively as opposed to objectively.
As far as what you might have heard with respect to Californial schools, I hate to come off as the pessimist but I don't share such optimism.
For, it is my belief that if the state of California (court of appeals really) favors the criminalization of parents who wish to homeschool, I'm inclined to believe that such an ideology extends in large part directly into the school system (public and private, K-12 and beyond).
Given that government has a monopoly on K-12, it really doesn't strike me as a coincidence that they wouldn't want students learning about economics. I think it is for the very reason that it doesn't gel with their overwhelmingly liberal philosophy.
See, Lista, a wealth of knowledge, right here for us to appreciate on the Internet!
:-)
And much cheaper than your everyday tuition rates. ;-)
Here's something else that's weird, Soapbox. I'm often told that it's easier to convince people of things by sharing your own personal experience, than by stating a lot of facts.
I guess this is more personal. The sharing of personal experience is warm and facts are so cold. I guess this makes some level of sense, yet the problem is that personal experience is subjective and the facts, whether "cold and impersonal" or not, are objective and are actually the a more accurate way to evaluate truth, providing that the research in question is not biased.
I've also been told that the current generation doesn't trust science anymore. In this "Post-Modern" era, the emphasis is more on the the subjective than it used to be.
Unfortunately, whether we agree with the current trends or not, we have to start with what works. Usually it's best to start by creating rapport and trust and showing that you also care what the other person thinks without judging them. In other words, start with friendship, because you don't really have the right to speak into anyone's life until you have first taken the time to listen and show that you care.
Amen to the Homeschooling issue. I couldn't believe that when I first heard that they were considering taking away the right to Home school. Once again I say WHAT?!!. I tell you! Anything that we might consider the most idiotic thing that could possibly be done, that is what the Government continually decides to do. It's totally unbelievable! Don't get me started!
The person who told me that she thought the schools where getting better is a grade school teacher that lives in a more conservative area of Northern California. I wouldn't be surprised if Southern California is just as bad, if not worse, as it ever was.
The city folk are so liberal it's frightening and they not only out vote me constantly, they actually out vote entire counties in the North. I guess that's at least one of the reasons why those in the North call themselves, not Northern California, but "the North State". The Southerners are so off base it's not funny, but than again, San Francisco and Sacramento aren't much better. Oh well.
I believe in the School Voucher System. It would create competition and give parents the privilege of choosing a school that teaches something a least a little closer to their own value system.
Why would you accuse Private Schools of having the same ideology as the public ones. The whole motive of parents for paying the extra money is to get away from that ideology and the very fact that private schools are a part of the private, whether than public sector, creates competition and keeps them in line. If such schools were not any better, parents would not be willing to pay the extra money. That's simple economics.
Hi Beth, Yes, he's a pretty smart guy.
When I was referring to Private I more referring higher education insititutions. Some of them actually do get public funding. Some of them have gone south big time on ideology (this is evident in their choice of commencement speakers).
As for vouchers, while that would indeed far preferable to what we currently have, I prefer tuition credits over them. Vouchers would likely have too many strings attached to them and I could see a situation where people are receiving vouchers even though they haven't taken their child out of the public school system.
With tax credits, you don't pay the tuition, you don't get the credit.
A Conservative grade school teacher?? Wow!!! They are hard to come by that's for sure. I pray she doesn't become corrupted by the union.
And really....I'm not that smart. I even have the highschool transcripts to prove it!!!!!
When I spoke of Vouchers, I was referring to all schools, including Grade School, though I do agree with you that institutions and Private Universities have gone way Liberal in their thinking. I actually went to a "Christian" University, but when I think about it now, I just shake my head and say to myself, "What a joke!" It's really too bad.
If I understand the Voucher program, it means that ALL students would have to use them, including those in the public school system. There would have to be no such thing as a none Voucher School, or it wouldn't work.
By Tuition Credits, I assume you mean Tax Credits. I just had this same conversation not long ago with Griper. I was thinking that some of the poor don't pay enough in taxes to benefit from the program, yet he explained how a tax credit is different than a rebate and I decided that maybe this could work.
What if a person does not have the resources to pay the tuition up front before receiving the credit?
I know lots of Christians that are school teachers. That's what my mom used to do, but she eventually quit because of all the ridiculous paper work. There's so much of it that you don't have the time to really teach.
You must live in a Liberal area. Bible Belt areas are much better and so are the schools. I was thinking you were in Southern California, but I guess that is Griper. Sometimes I actually get confused about who's who.
You're "not that smart"? You're self taught than because you really don't at all come across as an idiot. You have to have some training to be a Litigation Support Specialist, don't you?
Come on. Don't sell yourself short.
Oh and BTW Beth,
You'd be so proud of me. My email box is totally full again and I'm not even freaking out about it. I'm just ignoring some of it. Pretty good, huh?! lol.
Liberal area?? ROTFLMAO!!! Ummm yeah. I live in Minneapolis in the district of Keith Ellison (first Muslim elected to congress). That is not to infer that Muslims are bad. It just implies that Keith Ellison is insanely liberal. So yeah, you could say I'm in the thick of it. It's okay. I do my best work with my back against the wall.
Thanks for the compliments on my intellect. I guess I'm a sort of "jack of all trades (master of none)" kind of guy. Self taught...yeah most definitely. I've always maintained that I could do pretty much anything I put my mind to. So far, that philosophy has worked.
I've always been a skeptic. And an opinionated one at that. In fact, when I was a teenager, my mom used to call me "mouth" and "yeah but". It's been with me ever since.
There's a great lyric in a Pearl Jam song "Elderly woman behind the counter in a small town".
One of the lines is "I changed by not changing at all...."
I've always thought that sort of represented me.
I question just about everything and that's why I'm always on a quest for knowledge.
Lista, I am proud of you girl, you are doing fabulous at blogging!
Hello again,
Soapbox,
"ROTFLMAO!!!" Oh my!! Don't hurt yourself. lol.
My philosophy is that I can do anything providing there's enough time and no one cares how long it's going to take me. I can do anything that anyone else can Eventually, but unfortunately, Eventually is the key word and well, there are a lot of people who do care how long it takes. Oh well.
I'm not sure if I understand those lyrics "I changed by not changing at all." The only thing I can think of is that sometimes we change by getting better at standing our ground and not changing so much at every whim. In other words, we change by getting better at not constantly changing, yet even so, there is still a time when changing can be a good thing.
Beth,
Thanks so much for the complement and thanks for hanging out there at my blog. I need to get back to yours. I'm reluctant to, cause that is the place where I first got so stressed because your blog is quite busy and it's not because you blog daily either.
Apparently, there's another factor in attracting attention and increasing the number of hits on ones blog besides just making frequent entries. Apparently, if what a person says is interesting enough, a high frequency of posting isn't even necessary.
Or maybe it has to do with the frequency at which a person socializes as well on everyone else's blogs. I'm not sure what it is, but even my own blog is not without a certain following and I don't post all that often, nor have I even being doing this all that long.
Post a Comment