Council 220 of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the union local that represents most Social Security employees, has posted its June 2012 newsletter, which includes the graphic posted above.
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Total fed employee numbers are one thing, but that figure ignores deficit as percentage of total GDP and total national debt.
Also, how much is the total federal payroll now as opposed to 1960? All those raises on the GS scale certainly affect how much the workforce costs, regardless of how many individual employees there are.
Why would adding a highly variable employment type, which is based on whether or not the nation is at war, help in determining the long term growth of government? Does your statement have any basis in fact or logic? If not, your post is meaningless.
I hope you people realize that this chart is not believable. According to the chart, in 1960, there was 1 federal worker for every 99 Americans, but in 2010 there was only 1 federal worker for every 147 Americans. That is not realistic considering the numerous government agencies, such as the EPA, Dept of Homeland Security, USAID, Federal Maritime Commission, EEOC, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Postal Regulatory Commission, OMB, NOAA, etc.
Fiddlesticks. Most of the new agencies since then are small, and most of the functions were being done before 1960 to some degree. Think about population growth since 1960; that's the driver behind these numbers, not the number or composition of Federal agencies.
8 comments:
Total fed employee numbers are one thing, but that figure ignores deficit as percentage of total GDP and total national debt.
Excellent point...in some other discussion, perhaps.
Also, how much is the total federal payroll now as opposed to 1960? All those raises on the GS scale certainly affect how much the workforce costs, regardless of how many individual employees there are.
Do these numbers count active military and/or miltary reservists? If so, the figures are meaningless.
Why would adding a highly variable employment type, which is based on whether or not the nation is at war, help in determining the long term growth of government? Does your statement have any basis in fact or logic? If not, your post is meaningless.
Up after 911.
Close thread.
I hope you people realize that this chart is not believable. According to the chart, in 1960, there was 1 federal worker for every 99 Americans, but in 2010 there was only 1 federal worker for every 147 Americans. That is not realistic considering the numerous government agencies, such as the EPA, Dept of Homeland Security, USAID, Federal Maritime Commission, EEOC, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Postal Regulatory Commission, OMB, NOAA, etc.
Fiddlesticks. Most of the new agencies since then are small, and most of the functions were being done before 1960 to some degree. Think about population growth since 1960; that's the driver behind these numbers, not the number or composition of Federal agencies.
Post a Comment