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?