Government Employment 1976-Present

[renowiggum]

Government employment as % of Civilian Population (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/09/government-employment-since-1976.html).

I admit, I found this post a little surprising.

[AJ fan]

We all get to pay for their retirement anf health bennefits.

[Nevadan]

We all get to pay for their retirement anf health bennefits.

You should thank your lucky stars that the state you live in, presuming you reside in Nevada, has nearly the lowest number, per capita, of state and local employees of any state in the Union. So, your seemingly overwhelming burden isn't quite as bad as it could be.....:cool:

[student4ever]

Good find Wiggum. The question now is how will the two sides on this forum spin this graph into their own preconceived notions? I have my suspicions where each side will go, but early in the thread, both sides have so far ignored discussing the graph. Let's see how it plays out.

[AJ fan]

You should thank your lucky stars that the state you live in, presuming you reside in Nevada, has nearly the lowest number, per capita, of state and local employees of any state in the Union. So, your seemingly overwhelming burden isn't quite as bad as it could be.....:cool:


So I will make a direct analogy. This is like the Doctor telling you that you have an inoperable yet slow growing form of Cancer that will kill you in 6 years. Is this better than 6 months yes but you still have terminal Cancer. The bloated compensation and early retirements of public employees is a Cancer on our economy IMO.

[NMpackalum]

I wonder why the government stats always leaves out public school teachers and health care workers to the stats? Those add an additional 7+million.

[renowiggum]

I wonder why the government stats always leaves out public school teachers and health care workers to the stats? Those add an additional 7+million.

Public school teachers are included in the chart above (the first, while the second specifically excludes it for comparison).

And if you're talking about health care workers in general, it's because most are privately employed (by Renown, St. Marys, REMSA, and a number of other companies). I'm not sure why you would want to count private employees as public employees, but maybe I'm missing something on that count.

[NMpackalum]

Public school teachers are included in the chart above (the first, while the second specifically excludes it for comparison).

And if you're talking about health care workers in general, it's because most are privately employed (by Renown, St. Marys, REMSA, and a number of other companies). I'm not sure why you would want to count private employees as public employees, but maybe I'm missing something on that count.

I was checking the numbers on fact check and bureau of labor statistics. Their numbers were similar but excluded teachers and healthcare workers. I'm more specifically referring to VA and county/government/university hospitals that are government funded. Those stats increase thepercentages significantly. No value judgements as they are like fire and police employees and hard to reduce.

[renowiggum]

I was checking the numbers on fact check and bureau of labor statistics. Their numbers were similar but excluded teachers and healthcare workers. I'm more specifically referring to VA and county/government/university hospitals that are government funded. Those stats increase thepercentages significantly. No value judgements as they are like fire and police employees and hard to reduce.

My Data Source (http://data.bls.gov:8080/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=ce)

Care to link to what you're citing? I'm interested for comparison's sake, because I'm not seeing the same exclusion you are. In my experience Public Education is counted as "local government," unless it's specifically excluded for one reason or another. There are reasons to exclude it - to smooth out seasonal fluctuations relating to the school year, to model education employment separately, or the like.

The base employment data linked above for local government does include public education - representing over 1.6 million employees, while the data for (private) elementary and secondary schools represents about 800,000

Further, there's industrial slots for Federal, state, and local government hospitals - representing about 1.3 million jobs nationwide in the latest data.

[NMpackalum]

I'll try to retrace my search.

[wolfin1]

So what are people complaining about? The decreasing trend? That we actually have folks on the government payroll?

[Blueblood]

So what are people complaining about? The decreasing trend? That we actually have folks on the government payroll?

I'm still looking for the decrease in government employment during the Reagen years...That was the big deal, right?

As a matter of fact, the only thing I can take away from those graphs is that local government became bigger while federal (and state) government became smaller. Which is a good thing IMO.

[Nevadan]

So I will make a direct analogy. This is like the Doctor telling you that you have an inoperable yet slow growing form of Cancer that will kill you in 6 years. Is this better than 6 months yes but you still have terminal Cancer. The bloated compensation and early retirements of public employees is a Cancer on our economy IMO.

So, I will make a smartass remark and then a serious statement and then another smartass remark with a link.

Look on the bright side, all other things being equal and unchanged, it is a cancer that will grow until the peak of the baby boom (1957) starts to die off and then, without intervention, it will begin to decline on its own. Irony of ironies, a cancer that is dependent on death to shrink. You only have about 25 years to wait.

Show me an example of "bloated compensation and early retirements of public employees" other than amongst...who? ...firefighters?... police?....or is your beef with upper-level administrators? No, that doesn't fit, because they have standard retirement age. So, you're pissed at the deal that fire and police get? Let me play the part of your tumor. Are you hearing me? I work for the University and I HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND I'M NOT GETTING RICH and I'LL BE LUCKY IF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ISN'T YEAR'S DEAD FROM INSOLVENCY WHEN I RETIRE (probably at age 75). You see, I was born in the last year of the baby boom and the way I'm trying to look at it...and plan for it is to assume it'll all be wrung out when it comes time for my "bloated compensation and early retirement." No disrespect...You and I will never see eye to eye on this. So, all I can say is that you should run for office or something, if you feel so strongly about it, because I don't see your little slice of an election total or words on a message board bringing about change on the scale you have in mind.

By the way, it isn't the retirement fund liability of the state, it's old folks. Maybe these guys had it right. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnLU9nyFSA):eek:

[Stuck in Seattle]

Good find Wiggum. The question now is how will the two sides on this forum spin this graph into their own preconceived notions? I have my suspicions where each side will go, but early in the thread, both sides have so far ignored discussing the graph. Let's see how it plays out.
I haven't ignored it...I just saw it.

This is mildly surprising to me...though there are lots of interesting comments at the linked site that help explain some of it like the heavy shift to contract employees. But it changes nothing from my general argument about unfunded pension liabilities and the future financial insolvency of municipalities due to having to make up the difference. The problem isn't so much the number of government employees as the compensation packages for the segment as a whole (it varies according to city, county, state and is therefore much worse in some areas than others).

As current government employees (mostly at city/county level though federal compensation is growing rapidly) continue to retire at ever younger ages while living ever longer lives the problem will become quite apparent. Well, actually it alread has as even liberal magazines and newspapers have written articles about it.

[Stuck in Seattle]

So, I will make a smartass remark and then a serious statement and then another smartass remark with a link.

Look on the bright side, all other things being equal and unchanged, it is a cancer that will grow until the peak of the baby boom (1957) starts to die off and then, without intervention, it will begin to decline on its own. Irony of ironies, a cancer that is dependent on death to shrink. You only have about 25 years to wait.

Show me an example of "bloated compensation and early retirements of public employees" other than amongst...who? ...firefighters?... police?....or is your beef with upper-level administrators? No, that doesn't fit, because they have standard retirement age. So, you're pissed at the deal that fire and police get? Let me play the part of your tumor. Are you hearing me? I work for the University and I HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND I'M NOT GETTING RICH and I'LL BE LUCKY IF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ISN'T YEAR'S DEAD FROM INSOLVENCY WHEN I RETIRE (probably at age 75). You see, I was born in the last year of the baby boom and the way I'm trying to look at it...and plan for it is to assume it'll all be wrung out when it comes time for my "bloated compensation and early retirement." No disrespect...You and I will never see eye to eye on this. So, all I can say is that you should run for office or something, if you feel so strongly about it, because I don't see your little slice of an election total or words on a message board bringing about change on the scale you have in mind.

By the way, it isn't the retirement fund liability of the state, it's old folks. Maybe these guys had it right. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnLU9nyFSA):eek:
I know this topic tends to anger you...and that's understandible. I don't beleive every government employee is overcompensated, lazy or a leech on society. I'm staying with a sister who is faculty at Nevada (she'll be with me at the tailgate today) and a brother-in-law who works for the county. We have these disagreements all the time without anger because we don't take it personally. Plus they have great jobs with great benefits, job security and the freedom to miss work, leave early, come in late and such that people in the private sector can almost never enjoy. So they have the last laugh. That doesn't make them corrupt...it's just the way it is and has long been.

I've debated the casino industry without anger when people want to tax it more heavily (that will force places to close and probably put thousands our of work) or, in the case of where I worked in WA, close it down completely because they are bad for society. Not because they hate me...they simply don't like my profession. And I agree that casinos are bad for society...I'd be screwed if they all closed, but I'd understand it. And I try not to personalize it.

But when I personally know a Reno PD officer that can retire at 46 with about $8k a month for life indexed to inflation and with free medical forever...we have a problem. Anger won't fix it. I've hung out with dozens of Reno PD that discuss how the system allows them to utilize overtime rules and retirement rules to maximize their retirement in the last few years of their career. I've read the articles about $200k a year firemen in Las Vegas and average compensation of $135k for firemen in Reno. And even at that level of pay their retirement plans are underfunded meaning actual compensation is higher than that.

That doesn't make me angry...it makes me motivated. Because if it keeps getting swept under the carpet the problem can only get worse. I'm not attacking you, S4E, Wiggum, Wolfin or any of you government employees personally. I'm attacking a political boondoggle created by the unionization of government employees (police, fire, teachers, Cal prison guards etc.) that has created a unified block of powerful special interests that has been able to raid the public treasury. Any politician that discusses this in public is attacked. When Police, Fire and Teachers post signs all over the city opposing one candidate and supporting another...people think it is because they are making a moral stand to protect the public or better education. Too often it's simply to pad their retirement.

But if this is going to anger people that I like (including you G) then it's not worth discussing on this board. Just as I wouldn't discuss it with my family if it hurt our relatinship.

That's why I waited this long to even open the thread. I was going to avoid going down this road again as it is getting a little divisive. And I can't help myself once I read this stuff.

[NMpackalum]

My Data Source (http://data.bls.gov:8080/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=ce)

Care to link to what you're citing? I'm interested for comparison's sake, because I'm not seeing the same exclusion you are. In my experience Public Education is counted as "local government," unless it's specifically excluded for one reason or another. There are reasons to exclude it - to smooth out seasonal fluctuations relating to the school year, to model education employment separately, or the like.

The base employment data linked above for local government does include public education - representing over 1.6 million employees, while the data for (private) elementary and secondary schools represents about 800,000

Further, there's industrial slots for Federal, state, and local government hospitals - representing about 1.3 million jobs nationwide in the latest data.

Compiled from multiple tables from Bureau of Labor Statistics (too many to Link)
Summary is 150 million jobs in US of which 11,800,000 government jobs +7 million education and hospital employees for 12.5 percent of workforce is government. Data not exact since data from 2006 -2009 census but pretty close. The percentage of workforce seems more applicable than percentage to population since demographics of non working population seems to vary more.

[Paw]

Go Wolf Pack!

[Stuck in Seattle]

I have worked for the government for the going on 16 years. My salary + benefits are approximately right in the middle of the salary range that I could expect to make in private employment, although for many years I worked for much less than I could expect to earn privately. I can retire after 30 years and earn about 75%-80% of the average of my top three years. Also, Nevada PERS is a prepaid system. The money I invest now will pay my retirement later.

If I am a cancer so be it, but I don't see it that way. I think my compensation is reasonable.
I'm still waiting for the first comment from a government employee that suggest that there exists a single fellow civil servent that could be let go without creating any crisis for the rest of society. Seriosly (Paw, Wolfin, etc...) is there such thing as a government job that is not the vital cog around which all of society revolves?

[Paw]

I'm still waiting for the first comment from a government employee that suggest that there exists a single fellow civil servent that could be let go without creating any crisis for the rest of society. Seriosly (Paw, Wolfin, etc...) is there such thing as a government job that is not the vital cog around which all of society revolves?

LOL, SIS, we just purged more than half a dozen in my department this year. We are still up and running. I didn't mean to infer that at all. And to be clear, I do believe there are certain areas in government (who shall remain nameless) that wield a lot more power at the bargaining table than mine does. In other words, yes, there are some sweeeet labor contracts out there. There is no denying that.

I just don't think that one can make a blanket the statement that government salaries are bloated. Certain areas, yes, definitely. Other areas maybe not so much. At least where I work.

[renowiggum]

Compiled from multiple tables from Bureau of Labor Statistics (too many to Link)
Summary is 150 million jobs in US of which 11,800,000 government jobs +7 million education and hospital employees for 12.5 percent of workforce is government. Data not exact since data from 2006 -2009 census but pretty close. The percentage of workforce seems more applicable than percentage to population since demographics of non working population seems to vary more.

What I'm still looking for is the post that says that "those government jobs numbers always exclude local public school teachers." That's the statement you made that I think is pretty much unsupported. Not all hospitals, nor schools are public jobs, so adding those in everything in that industry without cause isn't a valid assumption. If your argument is rather that public funding significantly affects those industries, then that's valid... but you should add in private defense contractors, construction, utilities, and lots of other job into the analysis, too.

The Education & Health services industry is, by definition (in its location in the industry code schema) private employment. Education = Private schools and education services. Healthcare = Private healthcare providers. There's other industry codes for public teachers and public hospitals to be classified under, and they are. What I'm looking for is something refuting that, and giving you a reason to (I would say arbitrarily) treat all education and health positions as public, not private.

As far as the denominator, percentage of population has its arguments in its favor - if there's a baby boom in retirement, you might expect additional public employees in the SSA, for instance. If one believes that public employees exist to serve the public, then as the population grows (not just private employment), there's some rationale (debatable, but not nonexistent) for public employment to expand.

I'm not personally trying to make any argument one way or the other, just discussing the methodology (which probably sounds dull, but hey - I enjoy it!).

[NMpackalum]

What I'm still looking for is the post that says that "those government jobs numbers always exclude local public school teachers." That's the statement you made that I think is pretty much unsupported. Not all hospitals, nor schools are public jobs, so adding those in everything in that industry without cause isn't a valid assumption. If your argument is rather that public funding significantly affects those industries, then that's valid... but you should add in private defense contractors, construction, utilities, and lots of other job into the analysis, too.

The Education & Health services industry is, by definition (in its location in the industry code schema) private employment. Education = Private schools and education services. Healthcare = Private healthcare providers. There's other industry codes for public teachers and public hospitals to be classified under, and they are. What I'm looking for is something refuting that, and giving you a reason to (I would say arbitrarily) treat all education and health positions as public, not private.

As far as the denominator, percentage of population has its arguments in its favor - if there's a baby boom in retirement, you might expect additional public employees in the SSA, for instance. If one believes that public employees exist to serve the public, then as the population grows (not just private employment), there's some rationale (debatable, but not nonexistent) for public employment to expand.

I'm not personally trying to make any argument one way or the other, just discussing the methodology (which probably sounds dull, but hey - I enjoy it!).

bls.gov/oco/cgs042.htm No arguing, I was interested in methodology as well. Just a link showing general heading excluding education and healthcare.

[renowiggum]

bls.gov/oco/cgs042.htm No arguing, I was interested in methodology as well. Just a link showing general heading excluding education and healthcare.

Oddly, the link didn't work immediately, but when I searched the BLS site for cgs042 it came right up.

But this is not data, but rather a description of what some industries are like for people looking at future careers (it's not defining the data that generally gets counted as government employment, but rather describing a subset of government employment data):

Career Guide to Industries, 2010-11 Edition

If you're talking about working conditions and the nature of the industry for generic government jobs, there's good reason to exclude education and healthcare, which have significantly different hours, working conditions, and expected skills.

This is a descriptive page that intentionally excludes education and healthcare, not because they aren't counted in the government data as government employees when appropriate (which they are, as the link I provided earlier demonstrates), but because they are substantial enough, and distinct enough, that they merit their own description: education because of the size of that group within government, healthcare because government healthcare and private healthcare can be described together, and private healthcare is much larger.

If education and healthcare were not normally counted as government jobs, there would be no reason to say so in the table definitions (it would be like saying the population of earth is about 6 billion, excluding people who live on the moon - it's redundant, because it's included in the definition already), as follows:

Table 1. Wage and salary employment in state and local government, excluding education and hospitals

Hopefully, this helps clear up a misunderstanding.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I'm more curious about the percentage of citizens that are on government pension plans, the increase in wages for government employees when linked to inflation and as compared to the rest of society, and especially specific segments of the government work force...Police, Fire and Teachers. Also the percentage of each of these last three job sectors that are now administrative positions.

I do believe government employees serve the public, and many do a very good job. But quality of service and cost efficiency of that service means next to nothing to the public employee unions who's main goal is to leverage political clout into ever expanding pay, benefits and growth of their membership.

[NMpackalum]

Oddly, the link didn't work immediately, but when I searched the BLS site for cgs042 it came right up.

But this is not data, but rather a description of what some industries are like for people looking at future careers (it's not defining the data that generally gets counted as government employment, but rather describing a subset of government employment data):

Career Guide to Industries, 2010-11 Edition

If you're talking about working conditions and the nature of the industry for generic government jobs, there's good reason to exclude education and healthcare, which have significantly different hours, working conditions, and expected skills.

This is a descriptive page that intentionally excludes education and healthcare, not because they aren't counted in the government data as government employees when appropriate (which they are, as the link I provided earlier demonstrates), but because they are substantial enough, and distinct enough, that they merit their own description: education because of the size of that group within government, healthcare because government healthcare and private healthcare can be described together, and private healthcare is much larger.

If education and healthcare were not normally counted as government jobs, there would be no reason to say so in the table definitions (it would be like saying the population of earth is about 6 billion, excluding people who live on the moon - it's redundant, because it's included in the definition already), as follows:

Table 1. Wage and salary employment in state and local government, excluding education and hospitals

Hopefully, this helps clear up a misunderstanding.

My original question was why do they exclude education and healthcare, generic question. I also said that the last link was generic not intending to provide info, just an example of listing excluding education and health care in response to your query about where it excludes education and healthcare. No misunderstanding. Got a little more complicated than I was intending.

[renowiggum]

My original question was why do they exclude education and healthcare, generic question. I also said that the last link was generic not intending to provide info, just an example of listing excluding education and health care in response to your query about where it excludes education and healthcare. No misunderstanding. Got a little more complicated than I was intending.



Ah. I read it as "why do those numbers you linked leave out teachers and healthcare." Short answer is they don't, except in the second chart where education is broken out to show that absent a growth in teachers to keep things steady, government employment in all other sectors is declining, relative to the population.

The fundamental "government employment" statistics include public teachers and public healthcare, but occasionally people will look at government excluding education & healthcare for analysis ("why" would depend on the sort of analysis they are doing).

I thought you meant that government employment statistics always excluded those numbers (and if there was an example of underlying data that was defined that way, I was curious to see it), but if your question is one of "why do they choose to exclude those numbers sometimes in their analysis," then the misunderstanding is mine alone :)

Easy!