The Office of Personnel Management has released statistics showing the number of employees at Social Security as of June 2009. The numbers improved by 3,385 or 5.4%. Here is the latest number as well as earlier numbers for comparison.
- June 2009 66,614
- March 2009 63,229
- December 2008 63,733
- September 2008 63,990
- June 2008 63,622
- December 2007 61,822
- September 2007 62,407
- September 2006 63,647
- September 2005 66,147
- September 2004 65,258
- September 2003 64,903
- September 2002 64,648
- September 2001 65,377
- September 2000 64,521
- September 1999 63,957
- September 1998 65,629
10 comments:
I have worked for SSA for over 30 years--elections hardly ever matter, except to make things worse. When I retire soon, the agency will be in far worse shape than when I came in, with the least hope of meaningful inmprovement in all that time.
How is this evidence that "elections matter"?
Read what he/she said. "Elections hardly ever matter." What is it about English that you don't understand?
#3--It's probably safe to assume that #2's question is directed to Mr. Hall. #1's comment is not relevant to #2's questioning of Mr. Hall's choice of post title since it is unlikely that Mr. Hall is Anonymous#1.
So you see, in the English language, as in most, context matters. What part about that don't you understand?
#4--As an old Navy Captain once told me, when you "assume," you make an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me.'
Thus I try to avoid assuming anything. You might try that also.
#5--So who is #2 referring to? We don't even have to assume. Let's use common sense and reason.
What do we know?
First, #1 was not written by Mr. Hall. Experienced bloggers do not respond to their own posts, especially as the first commentor; they include updates. If Mr. Hall had been #1, he would be contradicting himself. He may have tried to stir up discussion, but the content of post, if it was Mr. Hall, would then be a lie (for Mr. Hall does not work for SSA at present). Either way, #1 should be treated as a separate entity responding to Mr. Hall.
Second, #2 specifically references the title of Mr. Hall's post.
It must follow that #2 is directing his/her comment at Mr. Hall. #2 is requesting why Mr. Hall's post received such a title. This would, on the surface at least, actually agree with #1.
Referencing #2 back to #1 does absolutely nothing to answer #2's question.
So you see, we really can use the word 'assume' in this. It is backed by logic or reason.
So there.
Nicely done, #6. Entirely possible. And quite possibly wrong, for that matter. Reading the minds of anonymous posters...priceless.
#7: If #2 wishes to leave a 7 word post whose words and structure have a specific meaning according to the commonly-accepted rules of English grammar (not to mention general rules of discussion, even on-line), then it is not so much "reading the minds of anonymous posters" as good old-fashioned READING.
If #2's post was not aimed at Mr. Hall, then his/her command of the English language is quite poor.
In order to converse in this society, it is necessary to treat all people as if the mean what they say according to the standard rules of conversation and language.
If we err occasionally, so be it. It is up to the person who caused the error to point it out if a misunderstanding arises.
#7--it all depends on whether commenters are commenting on the previous post/comment or on the item Mr. Hall posted in the first place. Sometimes it's one; sometimes it's the other, and sometimes it's an utter muddle. I'll leave it to you to decide whether spending time parsing out the meaning and/or intent of seven word partial sentences is worthwhile.
I think it's time to bring this thread to an end.
CTH
Post a Comment