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

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

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.

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

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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

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?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

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?

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.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

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.

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.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

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.

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.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

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.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

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.

I thought paying taxes was virtuous.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

I thought paying taxes was virtuous.

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.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

I thought paying taxes was virtuous.

Ask Apple.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

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.

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