Big Government?

[mdgator05]

I found this graph when looking into federal employment for another thread. I thought it was a pretty interesting set of statistics given all of the hand-wringing about the size of the federal government.

The Y-Axis here is the number of thousands of civilian federal government employees (including the Postal Service) divided by the population in thousands of the US (including overseas Military and all ages). The X-Axis is the year.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=CES9091000001_POP&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1952-01-01&coed=2012-10-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a%2Fb&fq=Monthly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin_lin&vintage_date=2013-02-02_2013-02-02&revision_date=2013-02-02_2013-02-02

[gatorman_07732]

Yes I saw the bogus numbers you gave me before, to bad the whitehouse's own site doesn't agree. There are lies, lies and damn lies

[mdgator05]

Yes I saw the bogus numbers you gave me before, to bad the whitehouse's own site doesn't agree. There are lies, lies and damn lies

Once again, you fail to understand the difference between the metrics you are presenting (which exclude the Postal Service) and the metrics presented by BLS (which includes them).

[JerseyGator01]

A better graph would be to compare that with equivalent jobs in the private sector. Bill Gates and company made us a lot more efficient than we were 20 years ago. It's a rather meaningless graph by itself in light of technological advances. Plus it doesn't measure consultants in the age of massive early retirements are re-hiring as consultants. It's big business in the Trenton area at the state level.

My favorite all-time government consultant was someone who was hired to come up with a new slogan for NJ tourists. He was paid $260,000 for a five-word slogan that was never used ($52,000 per word) according to a former Dem governor.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

A better graph would be to compare that with equivalent jobs in the private sector. Bill Gates and company made us a lot more efficient than we were 20 years ago. It's a rather meaningless graph by itself in light of technological advances. Plus it doesn't measure consultants in the age of massive early retirements are re-hiring as consultants. It's big business in the Trenton area at the state level.

My favorite all-time government consultant was someone who was hired to come up with a new slogan for NJ tourists. He was paid $260,000 for a five-word slogan that was never used ($52,000 per word) according to a former Dem governor.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

Exactly so.The denominator is not a particularly revealing way to common size. I guess the OP is suggesting we add people to the public sector?

[mdgator05]

A better graph would be to compare that with equivalent jobs in the private sector. Bill Gates and company made us a lot more efficient than we were 20 years ago. It's a rather meaningless graph by itself in light of technological advances. Plus it doesn't measure consultants in the age of massive early retirements are re-hiring as consultants. It's big business in the Trenton area at the state level.

My favorite all-time government consultant was someone who was hired to come up with a new slogan for NJ tourists. He was paid $260,000 for a five-word slogan that was never used ($52,000 per word) according to a former Dem governor.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

An interesting idea. I went ahead and ran it for January every year from 1959-2012 (the population data I found ended in 1959). So this graph shows the total private sector employment divided by total population. This has the same denominator as the other graph.

http://i48.tinypic.com/eijmde.png

So while government employment has been declining, private sector employment as a percentage of overall population has been increasing.

It should be pretty obvious what Public Employment divided by Private Employment will look like, but I figured I would run it anyways, just so that we can see what it looks like.

http://i49.tinypic.com/e16suv.png

As for the consultancy business, that is a possible explanation for some of this change. However, we are talking about pretty large effects, so it would seem doubtful that the consultancy issue would explain the whole effect.

[mdgator05]

Exactly so.The denominator is not a particularly revealing way to common size. I guess the OP is suggesting we add people to the public sector?

Mostly just taking out sacred cows.

I was truly shocked when I saw the size of these effects. Based on political discourse on this board and in this country as a whole, you would think government employees were rapidly increasing as a proportion of our labor market. I probably would have told you that it was either staying constant or becoming slightly more private over time. In reality, our employment structure has been shifting more and more private at a fairly rapid rate for 50 years now.

That might be a good thing. As an economy changes, the percentage of people working for different employers will necessarily change. No doubt, the private sector is best equipped to deal with many issues. However, some amongst us should probably stop pretending that this economy is this huge socialist leviathan while trying to return us to the 1950s or 1980s or whenever when the federal government was a much bigger portion of our employment back in those days.

[gregthegator]

The O.P.'s premise is ENTIRELY false....

We start out w/a 100 crocodiles just hatched...now we take care of 25 crocodiles that are 14 feet long...

Which cost MORE to maintain???

It's public DEBT not # of employee's THAT matter...this thread is A CLASSIC troll...and some of you SWALLOWED....

[mdgator05]

The O.P.'s premise is ENTIRELY false....

We start out w/a 100 crocodiles just hatched...now we take care of 25 crocodiles that are 14 feet long...

Which cost MORE to maintain???

It's public DEBT not # of employee's THAT matter...this thread is A CLASSIC troll...and some of you SWALLOWED....

So "big government" is not determined at all by the number of people working for it?

By your logic, a government that spends $3 but only taxes $1 is bigger than a government that spends $1 Billion but taxes $1.1 Billion, as it would have more debt. I don't think that is true and I doubt many other people agree either.

BTW, I am not sure you know what a troll is, but discussing the number of employees in government in a reasonable manner is not really it. I am sorry that this particular sacred cow seems to have hit so close to home.

[Gatorrick22]

Yes I saw the bogus numbers you gave me before, to bad the whitehouse's own site doesn't agree. There are lies, lies and damn lies

Exactly! These "lambs" must think that all graphs are honestly, intelligently put together.

How many of those government employees are military downsizing too?

[Lawdog88]

So the premise is . . . that the number of federal employees MUST increase as the population increases ?

And the rate of increase compared to the population increase is the same . . . or expanding ?

[mdgator05]

Exactly! These "lambs" must think that all graphs are honestly, intelligently put together.

How many of those government employees are military downsizing too?

None. These are civilian employees. It is possible that it is DoD cutting civilian employees, but not active duty as BLS numbers are for the Civilian Noninstitutional Population.

If you have some actual criticism of the numbers, let me know and I would be happy to deal with them. It sounds more like you just don't like the numbers. That is different.

[mdgator05]

So the premise is . . . that the number of federal employees MUST increase as the population increases ?

And the rate of increase compared to the population increase is the same . . . or expanding ?

No. The premise is that our economy is becoming more and more private sector dependent in the labor market. So maybe people shouldn't be freaking out about the size of government as much, at least within the labor market.

So many on here is freaking out about socialism, and yet the government makes up a smaller proportion of the labor force than at any time since the before the 1950s in the last 5-10 years.

[gatorman_07732]

None. These are civilian employees. It is possible that it is DoD cutting civilian employees, but not active duty as BLS numbers are for the Civilian Noninstitutional Population.

If you have some actual criticism of the numbers, let me know and I would be happy to deal with them. It sounds more like you just don't like the numbers. That is different.

The complaint would be that they are a lie, but hey feel free to keep perpetuating your falsehood. Nobody in their right mind would buy what you're peddling. Somehow I can see the numbers and CNN can see the numbers and deduce that Obama how grown government and you somehow have him is the great consevative.

[mdgator05]

The complaint would be that they are a lie, but hey feel free to keep perpetuating your falsehood. Nobody in their right mind would buy what you're peddling. Somehow I can see the numbers and CNN can see the numbers and deduce that Obama how grown government and you somehow have him is the great consevative.

So the postal service (not counted in your CNN numbers) shouldn't be considered the federal government? An interesting position. Care to defend it. Or would you just prefer to keep this as surface level as possible.

[gatornana]

The complaint would be that they are a lie, but hey feel free to keep perpetuating your falsehood. Nobody in their right mind would buy what you're peddling. Somehow I can see the numbers and CNN can see the numbers and deduce that Obama how grown government and you somehow have him is the great consevative.

If its a lie, please post a link.

[gatorman_07732]

If its a lie, please post a link.

It's on the other thread

[gatorman_07732]

Here you go nana

This is from a year ago, and you can't tell me there has been major pink slips handed out in that time.
So really that number I provided you is pretty accurate

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.


******Edited********

So I went to White House's Office of Management and Budget myself and found that there has also been growth in this last year as well. So you puffed out your chest in attempt to scold me with data that reflects god knows what. So that 140K number was right after all.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

[mdgator05]

If its a lie, please post a link.

The problem is that he doesn't want to believe it or he refuses to try to understand what he is discussing.

He used a set of stats that excluded postal workers. I have attempted to engage him on the difference between the numbers I am using, which are the total federal employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the main employment statistics group in the US government, and his numbers which are from the OMB, and explicitly exclude postal workers and workers in the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government, on several occasions on both threads.

He has refused or been unable to discuss this difference time-and-time again. Now he has resorted to calling me a liar for using federal employment stats from the BLS rather than his from the OMB, which as I have stated exclude postal workers. I have prompted him several times to attempt to defend the use of this statistic excluding postal workers, but he has either been unwilling or unable to do so.

[gatorman_07732]

Just wow


http://www.foundry.org/wp-content/uploads/fed-job-gains.jpg

[gatorman_07732]

The problem is that he doesn't want to believe it or he refuses to try to understand what he is discussing.

He used a set of stats that excluded postal workers. I have attempted to engage him on the difference between the numbers I am using, which are the total federal employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the main employment statistics group in the US government, and his numbers which are from the OMB, and explicitly exclude postal workers and workers in the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government, on several occasions on both threads.

He has refused or been unable to discuss this difference time-and-time again. Now he has resorted to calling me a liar for using federal employment stats from the BLS rather than his from the OMB, which as I have stated exclude postal workers. I have prompted him several times to attempt to defend the use of this statistic excluding postal workers, but he has either been unwilling or unable to do so.

Nobody in their right mind would agree that Obama has reduced the federal work force. The whole idea is preposterous and the data on the site from the whitehouse refutes that claim.

[mdgator05]

Just wow


http://www.foundry.org/wp-content/uploads/fed-job-gains.jpg

Look at the bottom of your graph. What does that sentence say?

"Excludes postal workers"

Wow indeed.

[gatorman_07732]

And in fact

http://www.mygovcost.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/obama-spending-future-white-house-budget-projections-fy2009-fy2013-652x472.png

http://www.mygovcost.org/2012/02/16/the-growth-of-government-under-president-obama/

Look how gov is getting smaller

[mdgator05]

Nobody in their right mind would agree that Obama has reduced the federal work force. The whole idea is preposterous and the data on the site from the whitehouse refutes that claim.

Here is the actual data again from the BLS, which is the group that your last chart used (although they used a different series that excluded postal workers).

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CES9091000001.txt

That statistic, gathered by BLS and reported by the St Louis Federal Reserve's econ data group (FRED), shows that we are down 5000 federal workers since February 2009 and up 2000 since January 2009.

I am sorry that you don't like the results. But burying your head in the sand and using a subset of federal workers, with no justification as to why the subset you are using is better than the overall measure, is not an appropriate reaction to data disputing your beliefs.

[gatorman_07732]

Here is the actual data again from the BLS, which is the group that your last chart used (although they used a different series that excluded postal workers).

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CES9091000001.txt

That statistic, gathered by BLS and reported by the St Louis Federal Reserve's econ data group (FRED), shows that we are down 5000 federal workers since February 2009 and up 2000 since January 2009.

I am sorry that you don't like the results. But burying your head in the sand and using a subset of federal workers, with no justification as to why the subset you are using is better than the overall measure, is not an appropriate reaction to data disputing your beliefs.

If its someone's buring their head it's not me

[mdgator05]

And in fact

http://www.mygovcost.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/obama-spending-future-white-house-budget-projections-fy2009-fy2013-652x472.png

http://www.mygovcost.org/2012/02/16/the-growth-of-government-under-president-obama/

Look how gov is getting smaller

Spending is different than the presence of government in the labor market.

However, take a look at the actual bars (the ones in green). After fiscal year 2009 (originally a Bush budget although later increased by both Bush and Obama), we have actually seen a drop. This of course is reliant on a particularly high baseline. And as I said, it is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the labor markets, as this thread was intended. But interesting nonetheless.

[mdgator05]

If its someone's buring their head it's not me

So then answer the question as to why your stats excluding postal workers are more appropriate than the ones not excluding postal workers?

[gatorman_07732]

So then answer the question as to why your stats excluding postal workers are more appropriate than the ones not excluding postal workers?

It has nothing to do with or without postal workers. You're trying to create an argument where none exists. The point is the BLS as been caught cooking the numbers by making gov jobs appear as private sector jobs. The only people out there attempting to perpetuate this myth of reduction in federal jobs are far leftists such as thinkprogress and mediamatters. Not even CNN is going along with this because the reality if so obvious that Obama has created a ton of federal jobs.

[mdgator05]

It has nothing to do with or without postal workers. You're trying to create an argument where none exists. The point is the BLS as been caught cooking the numbers by making gov jobs appear as private sector jobs. The only people out there attempting to perpetuate this myth of reduction in federal jobs are far leftists such as thinkprogress and mediamatters. Not even CNN is going along with this because the reality if so obvious that Obama has created a ton of federal jobs.

But you just used BLS stats in your chart, just the ones excluding postal workers.

So since your concern is the accuracy of BLS numbers compared to OMB numbers lets try to make a more apples-to-apples comparison of the number.

There is still one difference that can't be separated out, which is that the BLS always counts legislative and judicial branch workers in addition to executive branch workers, while the OMB only counts executive.

So in December 2011, BLS stated that the federal government excluding the postal service had 2,197,000 workers, without seasonal adjustments. OMB gave a figure of 2,102,000 workers. Legislative and judicial branch employment appears to be approximately 70K. So that means that the OMB estimates would have federal government employment at approximately 2,172,000 while BLS estimates that number at 2,197,000, about a 25K person difference, or about 1% different (with the BLS estimates being higher). This could be due to one reporting intelligence agencies while the other does not (I have found some stats report intelligence agencies while others don't). But either way, it is somewhat interesting that I used the numbers that made federal employment look larger, not smaller.

In 2010, BLS reports 2,208,700 workers in the federal government excluding the postal service, while OMB reports 2,128,000. So assuming approximately 70K legislative/judicial employees (which is about average), we get 2,198,000 for OMB and 2,208,700 for BLS, a difference of about 11K, with BLS again higher.

So I actually have been using the organization with the higher estimates of federal employment, although those estimates are fairly close.

Stats taken from: http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm#2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Legislative/Judicial estimate based on historic observations found here:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34685_20110419.pdf