Public sector v. private sector jobs

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.

Correct, the disastrous consequence of blind adherence to conservative dogma, the inane ‘small government’ fantasy that can never be realized if the Nation is to remain strong and the economy is to recover.

If we were smart, we would begin a process of taking the government jobs and converting them to private sector over the next 10-20 years. Why does the mail have to be done by the government? I think we could privatize the DMV as well.

Recall that there are many important services provided by government both individuals and corporations need to survive and flourish, many of these services are appropriate for government only to provide, as they are motivated by public service, not profit.

…the phony argument by the right wingers on this message board that Obama has caused the higher unemployment of women and Romney's constant lie that Obama has made our economy worse.

The loss of public sector jobs – as with private sector – is a consequence of the December 2007 recession and its aftermath, having noting to do with Obama’s ‘policies.’

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Has nothing to do with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.

S'funny we seem to have funds for the Joint Strike Fighter, Missile Defense, The Israeli Military, over 700 bases world wide, 1,458,697 enlisted members of the US military, another 857,261 in reserve, thousands of nukes and silos..

But we are broke when it comes to helping civilians.

That's some weird math.

Quit your partisan hacking. Social engineering, entitlements, military keep growing and growing and growing.........and we keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing..... Sure gonna be a blast when the party ends real soon.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The GOP clamors for job growth even as they clamor for smaller government. Since Jan. 2010 private sector jobs have been on the increase and public sector jobs have been eliminated. The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.

Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:

Public Versus Private Sector Job Gains - US News and World Report

Women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector? Do you have actual facts to back that statistic up, or did you make it up just to facilitate your war on women crap?
Read the link!
Tell me something, how does eliminating an unnecessary position in the government, thus reducing spending and the need for higher taxes, slow the economy? Even if this imaginary woman never found a job in the private sector there would be a net gain in productivity as a result of eliminating the position.

Sadly your bias colors your willingness to read the link and then think.

Unemployment in the public sector has caused the layoff of first responders, police officers, fire fighters and EMT's, probation & parole officers, animal control officers and building inspectors, etc, as well as clerical positions (which means the primary duties of these men and women are not being done as they are performing the work formerly done by a clerk.COLOR]

When someone loses a job they do not earn money. When they do not earn money they do not spend money and this slows the economy. And, btw, who are you to judge which jobs are necessary and which are not? To do so you would need to look at each job individually and evaluate its cost-benefit. I know it's hard work, but stop parroting the usual bullshit and think. I know your not dumb, stop acting as if you are.

My bias?

I don't give a frack what your link says, I was addressing your claim that any job loss always slows the economy. Your response is even more absurd.

Tell me something, if you go into a company and see that they have 20 people standing around while one person does all the work should that company keep all those people who aren't doing anything just because you believe that no one has the power to figure out which jobs are necessary and which aren't?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Has nothing to with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.

We have funds; the problems is a failed ideology. For those who actually think about our problems it isn't diffult to understand.

And, btw, you didn't read the link before passing judgment. I did, and then I offered my opinion, countered the phony argument by the right wingers on this message board that Obama has caused the higher unemployment of women and Romney's constant lie that Obama has made our economy worse.

If we had the funds we wouldn't be running trillion dollar deficits now would we?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correct, the disastrous consequence of blind adherence to conservative dogma, the inane ‘small government’ fantasy that can never be realized if the Nation is to remain strong and the economy is to recover.

You don't think the blind adherence to expanding government just because there is more money to spend has negative consequences? How do you explain California?

Recall that there are many important services provided by government both individuals and corporations need to survive and flourish, many of these services are appropriate for government only to provide, as they are motivated by public service, not profit.

Like, as an example, the TSA, even though the airports that have private screeners consistently have shorter waits and better performance on tests designed to slip things past the sceerners?

The loss of public sector jobs – as with private sector – is a consequence of the December 2007 recession and its aftermath, having noting to do with Obama’s ‘policies.’

No, the loss of public sector jubs is a result of government expanding remorselessly and assuming that the would always be able to raise taxes if they needed more money. the recession is just a wake up call that taxes are limited.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Has nothing to do with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.

S'funny we seem to have funds for the Joint Strike Fighter, Missile Defense, The Israeli Military, over 700 bases world wide, 1,458,697 enlisted members of the US military, another 857,261 in reserve, thousands of nukes and silos..

But we are broke when it comes to helping civilians.

That's some weird math.

While I agree that we should reduce our military footprint in the world the government has a constitutional mandate to defend our country so military spending is a given.

The government does not have a constitutional mandate to provide jobs for civilians therefore the government should run with the absolute bare minimum of employees needed to perform its functions and should contract out everything that can be without compromising security.

 

[The T]

Has nothing to do with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.

S'funny we seem to have funds for the Joint Strike Fighter, Missile Defense, The Israeli Military, over 700 bases world wide, 1,458,697 enlisted members of the US military, another 857,261 in reserve, thousands of nukes and silos..

But we are broke when it comes to helping civilians.

That's some weird math.

Quit your partisan hacking. Social engineering, entitlements, military keep growing and growing and growing.........and we keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing..... Sure gonna be a blast when the party ends real soon.

And Sallow will blame everyone but those responsible for it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The GOP clamors for job growth even as they clamor for smaller government. Since Jan. 2010 private sector jobs have been on the increase and public sector jobs have been eliminated. The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.

Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:

Public Versus Private Sector Job Gains - US News and World Report

I hate to say I told you so, Wry...but right from the start I was pointing out that stimulus spending to prop up government jobs while ignoring the private sector would fail in the long run BECAUSE it's revenue from the private sector that ultimately has to pay for government. Barry's stimulus was fatally flawed from the get go.

So now you're back saying that the GOP is waging war on women because more women work in government? That's rather amusing. The people that screwed this up were Larry Summers, Christina Romer, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...not the GOP. That little group of progressives blew a trillion dollars of borrowed money on a stimulus that didn't work. THAT is the reason that women are getting laid off from their government jobs!

Trying to link the women thing to it was completely dishonest on Wry's part.

And, like you said oldstyle, the stimulus did fail which is why we are seeing the results you brought up Wry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector? Do you have actual facts to back that statistic up, or did you make it up just to facilitate your war on women crap?
Read the link!
Tell me something, how does eliminating an unnecessary position in the government, thus reducing spending and the need for higher taxes, slow the economy? Even if this imaginary woman never found a job in the private sector there would be a net gain in productivity as a result of eliminating the position.

Sadly your bias colors your willingness to read the link and then think.

Unemployment in the public sector has caused the layoff of first responders, police officers, fire fighters and EMT's, probation & parole officers, animal control officers and building inspectors, etc, as well as clerical positions (which means the primary duties of these men and women are not being done as they are performing the work formerly done by a clerk.COLOR]

When someone loses a job they do not earn money. When they do not earn money they do not spend money and this slows the economy. And, btw, who are you to judge which jobs are necessary and which are not? To do so you would need to look at each job individually and evaluate its cost-benefit. I know it's hard work, but stop parroting the usual bullshit and think. I know your not dumb, stop acting as if you are.

My bias?

I don't give a frack what your link says, I was addressing your claim that any job loss always slows the economy. Your response is even more absurd.

Let's consider the space shuttle and how the layoff of the NASA employees effected the private sector in FL. That didn't just slow the economy, it stopped it and nearly created a ghost town.

Tell me something, if you go into a company and see that they have 20 people standing around while one person does all the work should that company keep all those people who aren't doing anything just because you believe that no one has the power to figure out which jobs are necessary and which aren't?

Tell me something, should a person who does nothing but move other peoples money around earn $$$ millions of dollars, even when they lose the persons money? Should a CEO whose company went to hell get a multi-million dollar buy out?

Tell me where 20 staff are doing nothing and one person does the work? I was a public service manager, and while not directly involved in the decisions I was involved in evaluating - nearly every single year after prop 13 passed in CA. - how many positions we needed and how many we could keep.

If you could find such a apocryphal public sector company, the person to blame is the agency head and his executive staff. In some cases the agency head is the problem and hi/hers staff grows in proportion to how incompetent s/he is (more underlings means more people to throw under the bus). In local government, of which I am most familiar, the City or County Manager and his/her staff give the city/town council or Board of Supervisor data from each department and s/he telsl the agency head how much s/he has to cut.

 

[Sallow]

Has nothing to do with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.

S'funny we seem to have funds for the Joint Strike Fighter, Missile Defense, The Israeli Military, over 700 bases world wide, 1,458,697 enlisted members of the US military, another 857,261 in reserve, thousands of nukes and silos..

But we are broke when it comes to helping civilians.

That's some weird math.

Quit your partisan hacking. Social engineering, entitlements, military keep growing and growing and growing.........and we keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing..... Sure gonna be a blast when the party ends real soon.

What hacking?

What part of the country are you willing to give up to get your dream of a "small government", ace?

We're not 13 states anymore.

 

[Sallow]

Has nothing to do with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.

S'funny we seem to have funds for the Joint Strike Fighter, Missile Defense, The Israeli Military, over 700 bases world wide, 1,458,697 enlisted members of the US military, another 857,261 in reserve, thousands of nukes and silos..

But we are broke when it comes to helping civilians.

That's some weird math.

While I agree that we should reduce our military footprint in the world the government has a constitutional mandate to defend our country so military spending is a given.

The government does not have a constitutional mandate to provide jobs for civilians therefore the government should run with the absolute bare minimum of employees needed to perform its functions and should contract out everything that can be without compromising security.

No it isn't. The only permanent constitutional mandate is for a navy. And there's nothing in the Constitution that dictates what size or how much to spend. Every other part of the military is subject to a vote every 2 years.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The GOP clamors for job growth even as they clamor for smaller government. Since Jan. 2010 private sector jobs have been on the increase and public sector jobs have been eliminated. The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.

Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:

Public Versus Private Sector Job Gains - US News and World Report

I hate to say I told you so, Wry...but right from the start I was pointing out that stimulus spending to prop up government jobs while ignoring the private sector would fail in the long run BECAUSE it's revenue from the private sector that ultimately has to pay for government. Barry's stimulus was fatally flawed from the get go.

So now you're back saying that the GOP is waging war on women because more women work in government? That's rather amusing. The people that screwed this up were Larry Summers, Christina Romer, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...not the GOP. That little group of progressives blew a trillion dollars of borrowed money on a stimulus that didn't work. THAT is the reason that women are getting laid off from their government jobs!

Trying to link the women thing to it was completely dishonest on Wry's part.

And, like you said oldstyle, the stimulus did fail which is why we are seeing the results you brought up Wry.

Explain how my post is dishonest? Your side has blamed Obama for the higher rate of unemployment for women; the link explains why more women have lost their employment; the why is the Republican's attack on public sector employment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

S'funny we seem to have funds for the Joint Strike Fighter, Missile Defense, The Israeli Military, over 700 bases world wide, 1,458,697 enlisted members of the US military, another 857,261 in reserve, thousands of nukes and silos..

But we are broke when it comes to helping civilians.

That's some weird math.

While I agree that we should reduce our military footprint in the world the government has a constitutional mandate to defend our country so military spending is a given.

The government does not have a constitutional mandate to provide jobs for civilians therefore the government should run with the absolute bare minimum of employees needed to perform its functions and should contract out everything that can be without compromising security.

No it isn't. The only permanent constitutional mandate is for a navy. And there's nothing in the Constitution that dictates what size or how much to spend. Every other part of the military is subject to a vote every 2 years.

So in your world we build a ship then what not perform maintenance? Or build a ship use it in a battle then scrap it?

A military large and well equipped enough to repel any attack is a minimum requirement. Or would you rather have a military too small to defend our rather large country?

How about a little reason? I know it's a lot to ask.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The GOP clamors for job growth even as they clamor for smaller government. Since Jan. 2010 private sector jobs have been on the increase and public sector jobs have been eliminated. The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.

Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:

Public Versus Private Sector Job Gains - US News and World Report

I hate to say I told you so, Wry...but right from the start I was pointing out that stimulus spending to prop up government jobs while ignoring the private sector would fail in the long run BECAUSE it's revenue from the private sector that ultimately has to pay for government. Barry's stimulus was fatally flawed from the get go.

The stimulus provided private sector jobs. Local and state governments solicited bids for the work to be done. Road repairs and widening, retro fitting bridges, etc are down by private contractors who hire from the private sector

So now you're back saying that the GOP is waging war on women because more women work in government? That's rather amusing. The people that screwed this up were Larry Summers, Christina Romer, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...not the GOP. That little group of progressives blew a trillion dollars of borrowed money on a stimulus that didn't work. THAT is the reason that women are getting laid off from their government jobs!

Trying to link the women thing to it was completely dishonest on Wry's part.

And, like you said oldstyle, the stimulus did fail which is why we are seeing the results you brought up Wry.

Explain how my post is dishonest? Your side has blamed Obama for the higher rate of unemployment for women; the link explains why more women have lost their employment; the why is the Republican's attack on public sector employment.

If either of us is being dishonest it is you.

 

[Trajan]

Has nothing to with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.

We have funds; the problems is a failed ideology. For those who actually think about our problems it isn't diffult to understand.

And, btw, you didn't read the link before passing judgment. I did, and then I offered my opinion, countered the phony argument by the right wingers on this message board that Obama has caused the higher unemployment of women and Romney's constant lie that Obama has made our economy worse.

we have funds? whose we white man?

I guess when yo panhandle on Telegraph ave all day you have funds....we are borrowing 40% of every dollar we are spending, which encapsulates your idea having money.

have a credit card? have credit left on it? you've got money.....whats a simp.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The GOP clamors for job growth even as they clamor for smaller government. Since Jan. 2010 private sector jobs have been on the increase and public sector jobs have been eliminated. The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.

Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:

Public Versus Private Sector Job Gains - US News and World Report

Public sector spending has a multiplier of 1; all it does it suck money from the private sector

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Has nothing to with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.

We have funds; the problems is a failed ideology. For those who actually think about our problems it isn't diffult to understand.

And, btw, you didn't read the link before passing judgment. I did, and then I offered my opinion, countered the phony argument by the right wingers on this message board that Obama has caused the higher unemployment of women and Romney's constant lie that Obama has made our economy worse.

What failed ideology? You mean cutting spending, lowering taxes and shrinking overall Government like Harding did that ended the depression of 1919 ? Or the idea of spending more than you have on everything you can think of while over regulating and raising taxes like FDR did? FDR who's whole time of President of 12 years was dominated by the Great depression VS Harding’s amazing booming economy WHILE he was President not years after like in FDR’s case, when someone cut the spending and cut taxes.

The bold never happened. Pre US involvement in WW2 federal spending was below 10% of GDP. Only 1 year after would ever see less then 12%. 1940 tax receipt rate was 6.8% of gdp, post WW2 would never see a rate of less then 14%. The only way your statement remotely makes sense is if you ignore his first 8 years in office and only look at the numbers during WW2.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

The GOP clamors for job growth even as they clamor for smaller government. Since Jan. 2010 private sector jobs have been on the increase and public sector jobs have been eliminated. The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.

Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:

Public Versus Private Sector Job Gains - US News and World Report

Most of the public sector job loss has been at the state and local levels. Many of these places are drowning in debt and deficit. I know many on the left are choosing the economy over the debts and deficits, but it is a greater problem then you like to admit. While the federal government hasn't yet reached the tipping point were it becomes disasterous, that day is getting closer, and the issue does need to be addressed, even at the expense of the economy.
The goal should be to lower the deficit while still improving the economy. I believe it can be done. To totally ignore the debt and deficit at this point is total lunacy to me. This cannot be ignored for another 2-4 years. I sincerely believe that. Even if we managed to lower the deficit by 100B per year for the next 4 years, I'm not sure that would be enough. If the debt/GDP ratio was 70 or 80% you might convince me to just let it continue for a few more years. But its not. Its over 100% and climbing rapidly.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Uhhh.... More jobs have been lost every year Obama has been in office by like 3x that of than have been created in the privet sector. Secondly, did you really just try and claim its Governments role to hire chicks as some form of welfare for women?

Bullshit.

 

[Avorysuds]

We have funds; the problems is a failed ideology. For those who actually think about our problems it isn't diffult to understand.

And, btw, you didn't read the link before passing judgment. I did, and then I offered my opinion, countered the phony argument by the right wingers on this message board that Obama has caused the higher unemployment of women and Romney's constant lie that Obama has made our economy worse.

What failed ideology? You mean cutting spending, lowering taxes and shrinking overall Government like Harding did that ended the depression of 1919 ? Or the idea of spending more than you have on everything you can think of while over regulating and raising taxes like FDR did? FDR who's whole time of President of 12 years was dominated by the Great depression VS Harding’s amazing booming economy WHILE he was President not years after like in FDR’s case, when someone cut the spending and cut taxes.

The failed ideology as posted by Contumacious (#3) and Old Style (#12) + the idea that taxes are the root of all evil and the private sector is always more efficient than the public sector. The failed argument that cutting taxes to the rich will provide more jobs - if true the Bush Tax Cuts would plus the War in Iraq would have created a robust economy. As in cutting regulations will stimulate the economy where we learned too little regulation allowed predatory practices to be commonplace and the housing industry to nearly bring us back to the economy Hoover left as his legacy and FDR battled for a decade.

As in your post, where you post facts (which like statistics) do not offer an honest picture of what went before. The link in the OP explains the numbers; you may not like the answer but taken together they are convincing.

Once again, and I don't know why I bother...

You have to cut spending, cut poor regulation and then if possible you lower taxes. What Bush did is the same thing Clinton and Obama have done so stop playing dumb. Just as the Republican party has shifted greatly left and adopted big spending habits through wars and social programs Democrats have adopted cutting taxes from Republicans. The problem is they never do away with bad regulation and cut spending.

Cutting taxes is the new SS. It’s nothing more than a way to buy votes. Why do you think Obama claims we should raise taxes on the 1% and then claims 99% get tax breaks? It’s because Obama knows playing class warfare where he claims to be on the side of the 99% (the larger voting pool as there are more people by 99%) will buy him more votes. In the end Obama gives tax cuts/credits to the rich too and never raises the 1%’s taxes so it’s all just bullshit games.

This is important because once again, you have to cut the overspending, cut poor regulation then, if possible and affordable you lower taxes. When you run massive deficits as Rep/Dems do the only part of the scenario that you can do that historically buys voters is cut taxes… cutting regulations and spending does not buy you votes… It’s REALLY not hard to understand. Bush was a Progressive liberal, we all understand that… So don’t try and pass him off as some conservative that shrunk Government, the mother fucker did Medicare part D, 2x stimulus and TARP for fuck sakes, that’s anti cutting spending in its most pure form. Not to mention unconstitutional.

Is it any wonder that all the programs that are clearly unconstitutional run massive deficits in this country? That’s why the FF clearly left out the powers to create these kinds of programs in article 1 section 8 of the constitution.