Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9,932,000

[GURPS]

Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9,932,000



Federal, state and local government employed 22,213,000 people in August, while the manufacturing sector employed 12,281,000.

The BLS has published seasonally-adjusted month-by-month employment data for both government and manufacturing going back to 1939. For half a century—from January 1939 through July 1989—manufacturing employment always exceeded government employment in the United States, according to these numbers.

 

[tommyjo]

1. Go into table B1 of the employment report and look at the breakdown of those govt workers. 14.3M of the 22.2M are local workers...teachers, cops, firefighters, etc.

2. Go back and look at the progression of increase in govt workers. What is the significance of 1989 being the crossover year? Under the Reagan Administration, federal employment exploded. Under Ronald Reagan, that bastion of "smaller govt" and "govt as the enemy"!

3. Now, and here is the real rub to explain why your sources suck so immensely, look at the progression of govt employment from Jan 2009 thru yesterday's report. I know you can't be bothered...so here are the figures: In Jan 2009, there were 22.6M govt workers (seasonally adjusted). In Aug 2016, there were 22.2M govt workers (seasonally adjusted). Not seasonally adjusted the numbers are 22.5M in Jan 2009 vs 21.1M in Aug 2016. In case you can't see the relationship, the total numbers of govt workers today are less than they were in 2009

4. As for manufacturing: not seasonally adjusted 12.5M in Jan 2009 (with a recession low of 11.5M in Jan 2011) vs 12.4M in yesterday's report. Seasonally adjusted: 12.6M Jan 2009 vs 12.3M Aug 2016 (recession low 11.6M in Jan 2011)

5. As for total employed; there are 12.2M (non seasonally adjusted) and 10.5M (seasonally adjusted) more people employed as of Aug 2016 vs Jan 2009. Roughly 14.5M more than the recession low.

 

[LC_Sulla]

1. Go into table B1 of the employment report and look at the breakdown of those govt workers. 14.3M of the 22.2M are local workers...teachers, cops, firefighters, etc.

2. Go back and look at the progression of increase in govt workers. What is the significance of 1989 being the crossover year? Under the Reagan Administration, federal employment exploded. Under Ronald Reagan, that bastion of "smaller govt" and "govt as the enemy"!

3. Now, and here is the real rub to explain why your sources suck so immensely, look at the progression of govt employment from Jan 2009 thru yesterday's report. I know you can't be bothered...so here are the figures: In Jan 2009, there were 22.6M govt workers (seasonally adjusted). In Aug 2016, there were 22.2M govt workers (seasonally adjusted). Not seasonally adjusted the numbers are 22.5M in Jan 2009 vs 21.1M in Aug 2016. In case you can't see the relationship, the total numbers of govt workers today are less than they were in 2009

4. As for manufacturing: not seasonally adjusted 12.5M in Jan 2009 (with a recession low of 11.5M in Jan 2011) vs 12.4M in yesterday's report. Seasonally adjusted: 12.6M Jan 2009 vs 12.3M Aug 2016 (recession low 11.6M in Jan 2011)

5. As for total employed; there are 12.2M (non seasonally adjusted) and 10.5M (seasonally adjusted) more people employed as of Aug 2016 vs Jan 2009. Roughly 14.5M more than the recession low.

This is the kind of data that Tilted used to be so good at. Where is Tilted?

1. So you are saying that the majority of Government workers are local and state, and the only makes sense. Those who rail against "big Government" would do well to act locally.

2 through 5. Even though numerically true, it matters not, it's politics, and Reality takes a back seat to politics. [SUP]TM[/SUP]

 

[Hijinx]

1. Go into table B1 of the employment report and look at the breakdown of those govt workers. 14.3M of the 22.2M are local workers...teachers, cops, firefighters, etc.

2. Go back and look at the progression of increase in govt workers. What is the significance of 1989 being the crossover year? Under the Reagan Administration, federal employment exploded. Under Ronald Reagan, that bastion of "smaller govt" and "govt as the enemy"!

3. Now, and here is the real rub to explain why your sources suck so immensely, look at the progression of govt employment from Jan 2009 thru yesterday's report. I know you can't be bothered...so here are the figures: In Jan 2009, there were 22.6M govt workers (seasonally adjusted). In Aug 2016, there were 22.2M govt workers (seasonally adjusted). Not seasonally adjusted the numbers are 22.5M in Jan 2009 vs 21.1M in Aug 2016. In case you can't see the relationship, the total numbers of govt workers today are less than they were in 2009

4. As for manufacturing: not seasonally adjusted 12.5M in Jan 2009 (with a recession low of 11.5M in Jan 2011) vs 12.4M in yesterday's report. Seasonally adjusted: 12.6M Jan 2009 vs 12.3M Aug 2016 (recession low 11.6M in Jan 2011)

5. As for total employed; there are 12.2M (non seasonally adjusted) and 10.5M (seasonally adjusted) more people employed as of Aug 2016 vs Jan 2009. Roughly 14.5M more than the recession low.

Is the figure right or wrong. Do we need an explanation that makes TJ happy.
If it is right it pretty much says the US is sucking about keeping manufacturing jobs in America.

Gee I wonder where they are going.

 

[BOP]

1. Go into table B1 of the employment report and look at the breakdown of those govt workers. 14.3M of the 22.2M are local workers...teachers, cops, firefighters, etc.

2. Go back and look at the progression of increase in govt workers. What is the significance of 1989 being the crossover year? Under the Reagan Administration, federal employment exploded. Under Ronald Reagan, that bastion of "smaller govt" and "govt as the enemy"!

3. Now, and here is the real rub to explain why your sources suck so immensely, look at the progression of govt employment from Jan 2009 thru yesterday's report. I know you can't be bothered...so here are the figures: In Jan 2009, there were 22.6M govt workers (seasonally adjusted). In Aug 2016, there were 22.2M govt workers (seasonally adjusted). Not seasonally adjusted the numbers are 22.5M in Jan 2009 vs 21.1M in Aug 2016. In case you can't see the relationship, the total numbers of govt workers today are less than they were in 2009

4. As for manufacturing: not seasonally adjusted 12.5M in Jan 2009 (with a recession low of 11.5M in Jan 2011) vs 12.4M in yesterday's report. Seasonally adjusted: 12.6M Jan 2009 vs 12.3M Aug 2016 (recession low 11.6M in Jan 2011)

5. As for total employed; there are 12.2M (non seasonally adjusted) and 10.5M (seasonally adjusted) more people employed as of Aug 2016 vs Jan 2009. Roughly 14.5M more than the recession low.

You forgot to call him bad names.

And make samiches.

 

[Inkd]

Is the figure right or wrong. Do we need an explanation that makes TJ happy.
If it is right it pretty much says the US is sucking about keeping manufacturing jobs in America.

Gee I wonder where they are going.

Nothing can make that tw@t happy.

 

[Hijinx]

Nothing can make that tw@t happy.

I disagree. I believe she gets off on believing herself the smartest person in the room and calling everyone else an idiot.

She cannot do it in real lie so she comes in the forums and gets her keyboard all sticky.

 

[Inkd]

I disagree. I believe she gets off on believing herself the smartest person in the room and calling everyone else an idiot.

She cannot do it in real lie so she comes in the forums and gets her keyboard all sticky.

You are right, she does seem to enjoy that.

 

[Millburn]

Just a question ?Could the loss of "manufacturing jobs" be made up in the another sector,IT for example?

 

[GWguy]

Just a question ?Could the loss of "manufacturing jobs" be made up in the another sector,IT for example?

If you are asking if the manufacturing folks move over to IT jobs, probably minimal. The skill set and knowledge base are very different, and would require years of retraining.

 

[Millburn]

If you are asking if the manufacturing folks move over to IT jobs, probably minimal. The skill set and knowledge base are very different, and would require years of retraining.

It's not that I think they all moved to IT work but just the general increase in IT numbers and the decrease of manufacturing numbers might offset.

 

[Gilligan]

It's not that I think they all moved to IT work but just the general increase in IT numbers and the decrease of manufacturing numbers might offset.

The best estimate I've found was from a study conducted by Prew.; A fairly broadly defined sector of computer tech, or "IT", jobs increased from 2.2 million in 1997 to 3.7 million in 2012. So, an increase of 1.5 million jobs over 15 years. Definitely not even close to offsetting the loss of manufacturing jobs.

 

[Millburn]

The best estimate I've found was from a study conducted by Prew.; A fairly broadly defined sector of computer tech, or "IT", jobs increased from 2.2 million in 1997 to 3.7 million in 2012. So, an increase of 1.5 million jobs over 15 years. Definitely not even close to offsetting the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Thanks,question answered.

 

[GURPS]

Just a question ?
Could the loss of "manufacturing jobs" be made up in the another sector, IT for example?

not directly .... skill sets don't carry over

but Junior goes to college and gets an IT JOB instead of joining his old man on the assembly lines putting on tires / wheels because after being owned by the Gov. GM is down sizing