21,995,000 to 12,329,000: Government Employees Outnumber Manufacturing Employees 1.8 to 1

21,995,000 to 12,329,000: Government Employees Outnumber Manufacturing Employees 1.8 to 1. Well let's not sugar coat it...DOUBLE is the correct term to use here.

cnsnews.com...
(CNSNews.com) - Those employed by government in the United States in August of this year outnumbered those employed in the manufacturing sector by almost 1.8 to 1, according to data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. www.bls.gov...

I won't go into it because quite frankly my head is spinning from attempting to digest the numbers. ADHD and all...

The BLS has published seasonally-adjusted month-by-month employment numbers for both government and manufacturing going back to 1939. In the first 50 years of the 76-year span since then, manufacturing out-employed government.

But in August 1989, government overtook manufacturing as a U.S. employer. That month, government employed 17,989,000 and manufacturing employed 17,964,000. Since then, government employment has increased 4,006,000 and manufacturing employment has declined 5,635,000.

I am not an economist nor am I a politician. What I see here is a lot of people working for the business of Govt. and that's never good in my books. These are people that will stand against a neighbor in favor of their job with Govt. It's a numbers game.

With all the 3 letter agencies being created to monitor, search, report on the average citizen and more and more laws passed in order to take more money from the public it's no wonder there are so many people lining up to work for the Govt. It's security with a pension!

How many times are you going to hear: "I'm just doing my job." as the excuse before it becomes an acceptable excuse?

And this thing about War being profitable seems to roll out in the numbers as well:

There were more Americans employed in manufacturing in 1941 in the months leading up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor than are employed in manufacturing in the United States today, according to data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Anyways, just something to chew on.

How about taking half of that money paid to Govt. employees, create jobs which would in effect drop crime rates and call it a day?

As a side note my sister in-law stated not too long ago that she wanted to get into local politics. I asked her why and her only reason was that she could work part time and collect a pension for life after one term. Speaks volumes.

Jude

Wow.

How can a country survive with so much bureaucracy and so little production?

originally posted by: Metallicus
Wow.

How can a country survive with so much bureaucracy and so little production?

It can't

Jude

a reply to: jude11

that's messed up.

especially when you consider how ineffective and inefficient most government programs are.

Very disheartening stat...

a reply to: jude11
I don't know how accurate this number is but I usually check the nation debt clock, it has a bunch of info on it. The clock states there are 23.6 million government employees, I believe this is state and Federal, check it out.



National Debt Clock

By looking at the numbers, it appears that we have more of a problem in the manufacturing sector, than we do with the size of government. Manufacturing declined at a bigger rate than the increase in government.

I'd be willing to say that technological advances and business' deciding to move their operations to countries with cheap labor is probably what we should focus on.

Of course, government policy could have played a role in the loss of manufacturing jobs, but that has nothing to do with it's size.

"21,995,000 to 12,329,000: Government Employees Outnumber Manufacturing Employees 1.8 to 1"

A clear and alarming indication of massive big government failure.

a reply to: jude11

Reminds me of that old saying, "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians".

Waiting to be called a racist in 3,,,,2......1

originally posted by: introvert
By looking at the numbers, it appears that we have more of a problem in the manufacturing sector, than we do with the size of government. Manufacturing declined at a bigger rate than the increase in government.

I'd be willing to say that technological advances and business' deciding to move their operations to countries with cheap labor is probably what we should focus on.

Of course, government policy could have played a role in the loss of manufacturing jobs, but that has nothing to do with it's size.

Did you break any bones trying to come up with that spin?

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: jude11

Reminds me of that old saying, "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians".

Waiting to be called a racist in 3,,,,2......1

Racist.



Jude

SnF

sheer hipocrisy!

i mean , hello take a look at the national deficit then TAKE A HINT fat lazy emps!

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: jude11

Reminds me of that old saying, "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians".

Waiting to be called a racist in 3,,,,2......1

Racist.

Jude

Not possible Jude!

I believe in equality therefore I hate everyone!

a reply to: jude11

For quite some time is a well known secret that the US government is the biggest employer in the nation, if the government goes belly up guess what, the nation will come to a stand still.

Now let just think about how many of retirement accounts and government benefits pay offs are within this group.

My husband no only receive retirement from the government as for his years in the military service, but also he works full time for the government too.

what that tells you, is a say so remember, never bite the hands that feed you.

So far the government employment feeds a lot of people.

originally posted by: xuenchen
"21,995,000 to 12,329,000: Government Employees Outnumber Manufacturing Employees 1.8 to 1"

A clear and alarming indication of massive big government failure.

Not necessarily. The population of the US in 1941 was 133 million and the number of people employed by governments was 7 million. That's only about 5%. Source

Today's population is almost 319 million with almost 22 million government employees. That's around 7%.

Not much of a change.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: introvert
By looking at the numbers, it appears that we have more of a problem in the manufacturing sector, than we do with the size of government. Manufacturing declined at a bigger rate than the increase in government.

I'd be willing to say that technological advances and business' deciding to move their operations to countries with cheap labor is probably what we should focus on.

Of course, government policy could have played a role in the loss of manufacturing jobs, but that has nothing to do with it's size.

Did you break any bones trying to come up with that spin?

Take a look at my post above. The size of government relative to the population has not changed much since 1941. I chose that date since it was used in the OP.

By the numbers, it appears that the loss of manufacturing jobs is more of an issue than the size of government.

a reply to: introvert

A clear and alarming indication of massive big government failure for decades.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
"21,995,000 to 12,329,000: Government Employees Outnumber Manufacturing Employees 1.8 to 1"

A clear and alarming indication of massive big government failure.

Not necessarily. The population of the US in 1941 was 133 million and the number of people employed by governments was 7 million. That's only about 5%. Source

Today's population is almost 319 million with almost 22 million government employees. That's around 7%.

Not much of a change.

What the article argues is the decrease of jobs in the manufacturing sector and the increase in the Govt. sector.

Saying that the US population increase ratio to Govt. employment ratio is about the same so there is really no change is a misleading argument.

Population increase is a fact

Govt. increase is a fact

But you left out the manufacturing sector decrease which is also fact. In fact, if we use only your numbers it's much worse isn't it?

Jude

Just like to point out, quite a few govt employees are not useless blood sucking ticks.

There are hourly wage earners that are govt employees, also many reserve military members are full time doing there military jobs as civil service, and as military when the unit gets orders. It's called Air reserve technician. It's a thankless job, a handful of people have to do the work of a squadron so when orders drop the unit can deploy with a quickness.

Also, all those military jobs that have been farmed out to civilian contractors, this is what happens when you scream cut the military budget and don't do targeted cuts but leave it up to dod to do the cuts.

All those jobs are needed, when dod cuts them either a gs, or WG job is created.

a reply to: marg6043

what that tells you, is a say so remember, never bite the hands that feed you.

Exactly my point.

And that's what the Govt. banks on as well.

Jude

a reply to: jude11

But you left out the manufacturing sector decrease which is also fact. In fact, if we use only your numbers it's much worse isn't it?

I mentioned that in my very first post, jude. The loss of manufacturing jobs is the big issue here, not the size of government.

It is much worse because this would show a trend that the jobs have left the US altogether.

Edit: Also, government employees and jobs were a focus in your OP.