PDA

View Full Version : Interesting stat on Federal government employment levels



Uncle Duke
02-16-2011, 10:17 AM
Lost in the arguments about shrinking the size of the government is this little factoid: on a per-capita basis government employment is actually the smallest that it has been in years.

Measured by number of government workers per 1,000 population, it has dropped from 13.3 under Kennedy, 12.3 under G.H.W.Bush to 8.4 under Obama.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)

Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+

Tylerdurden
02-16-2011, 10:41 AM
Lost in the arguments about shrinking the size of the government is this little factoid: on a per-capita basis government employment is actually the smallest that it has been in years.

Measured by number of government workers per 1,000 population, it has dropped from 13.3 under Kennedy, 12.3 under G.H.W.Bush to 8.4 under Obama.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)

Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+

Lie by omission, many of these things especially DOD, State department and letter agency's farm out to commercial contracts now. Money is still being spent but more of it goes to corporate interests.

john l
02-16-2011, 10:52 AM
At he hgt of the Iraq war there were at least as many private contractors on the us payroll as soldiers. but individual private contractors made 2-4 times or more of the soldiers. the private contractors likely billed the us gov 2-3 times the salary of the individual and the cost per person must have been 4-12 times what the typical cost would have been. this was done during "W" who had this biggest drop in gov employees. so while these
employment/size of gov figures might appear to be of value they really don't equal size of gov or those employed by gov.

redbopeep
02-16-2011, 10:58 AM
Lie by omission, many of these things especially DOD, State department and letter agency's farm out to commercial contracts now. Money is still being spent but more of it goes to corporate interests.

Yes, that was the amazing thing that GWB did. And in DOD the contractors cost far more than having active duty military or DOD employees do the same work (even after you've accounted for retirement bene's). I imagine that many/most of the DOD contract labor that was brought in during the Bush administration remain now in the Obama administration though Obama admin is cutting actual government employees.

Tylerdurden
02-16-2011, 11:03 AM
Yes, that was the amazing thing that GWB did. And in DOD the contractors cost far more than having active duty military or DOD employees do the same work (even after you've accounted for retirement bene's). I imagine that many/most of the DOD contract labor that was brought in during the Bush administration remain now in the Obama administration though Obama admin is cutting actual government employees.

Obama/Bush same animal. Soon many will understand that fact.

genglandoh
02-16-2011, 11:20 AM
Lost in the arguments about shrinking the size of the government is this little factoid: on a per-capita basis government employment is actually the smallest that it has been in years.

Measured by number of government workers per 1,000 population, it has dropped from 13.3 under Kennedy, 12.3 under G.H.W.Bush to 8.4 under Obama.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)

Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+

I looked up the source of the data from the White House Office of Management and Budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Table 17.1—Total Executive Branch Civilian Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees, 1981–2012

So the Executive Branch of Government has kept their number of employees down are a percent of the population, great.

Our tax money supports many many more people
1. All the other Federal Government Employees
2. The State and Local Government Employees
3. Public School Teachers
4. The Military
5. Police and Fire
6. All the people who are dependent on Government programs

There was a thread earlier that showed the total number of people that tax money is supporting is almost 50% of the population.

skipper68
02-16-2011, 11:53 AM
So, can I see a percentage of where the money is coming from to support both the 50% from government and the remaining 50%? My understanding is that 10% of the rich have 80% of the money. I'm just curious. I know someone here can explain it. Thanks.

isla
02-16-2011, 02:48 PM
Lie by omission, many of these things especially DOD, State department and letter agency's farm out to commercial contracts now. Money is still being spent but more of it goes to corporate interests.

Isn't that just what you were arguing in favour of here (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?126730-welcome-to-the-new-consertive-world&p=2878964#post2878964).. Fire them all, I am sure we will get by just fine. Any necessary functions can be put out to bid.

Tylerdurden
02-16-2011, 02:50 PM
Isn't that just what you were arguing in favour of here (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?126730-welcome-to-the-new-consertive-world&p=2878964#post2878964).. Fire them all, I am sure we will get by just fine. Any necessary functions can be put out to bid.


Not in the same context as this thread but yes. Fire them all. we can sort it all out while making sure we erase as much corruption as possible.

wardd
02-16-2011, 02:53 PM
Not in the same context as this thread but yes. Fire them all. we can sort it all out while making sure we erase as much corruption as possible.

no corruption with private sector contractors, why haliburton did a bang up job

Tylerdurden
02-16-2011, 02:56 PM
no corruption with private sector contractors, why haliburton did a bang up job

Oh I see corruption in government and corporations would be much better than just corruption in corporations. How stupid of me.