9 ms·

How many of these were government jobs or government supported/subsidized?

hotpotamus 3y ago
I believe the military had one of the biggest recruiting misses ever in 2023, so that branch of the government at least seems to be shrinking.
nerevarthelame 3y ago
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm explains that "Government employment increased by 52,000 in December. Employment continued to trend up in local government (+37,000) and federal government (+7,000). Government added an average of 56,000 jobs per month in 2023, more than double the average monthly gain of 23,000 in 2022. " So, the government sector did see above average growth, and it was mainly through local governments. Tracking employment related to subsidies would require a lot of assumptions and analysis. I don't think it's done as a part of any regular reporting.
- thinkerswell 3y ago
  Yes this is my concern, 52k direct hires but with Medicare, Medicaid, etc the subsidy to employment in the medical space is massive.
  - nerevarthelame 3y ago
    Not a concern of mine. I'm happy that someone (the US government) is willing to pay for the health care of elderly and desperately poor people.
    - thinkerswell 3y ago
      To each his own, I'd prefer they be taken care of by locals who actually personally care for them, know them, and are invested in their lives.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        The majority of those government hires were locals, so you get part of your preference. To get the rest, you'd need to come up with an alternative for people who don't have others who personally care for them, or know them, or are invested in their lives.
        thinkerswell 3y ago
        I’d prefer this done privately as has been done before; different set of tradeoffs but ones I prefer, namely people getting options.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        It wasn't done privately before: many people in need without others who personally cared for them, or knew them, or were invested in their lives, just slunk off and died. That's why the government programs exist: the "private" idea turned out to be a failure, and new ideas were needed to solve the problem. That's why, if you want to get rid of government assistance to these people, you'd need to first come up with a workable alternative. 'Just slink off and die' isn't really a workable alternative.
        thinkerswell 3y ago
        > It wasn't done privately before Of course it was, and still is. It’s done less privately now because the funds that would be given to private resources are confiscated before they can be given. An excellent example: Catholic charities. > That's why the government programs exist One of the stated goals, but also a reduction of the influence of religious institutions is another. > Just slink off and die' isn't really a workable alternative. This is fallacious; look at the the homeless in SanFran. That’s what our current government programs amount to.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > Of course it was, and still is. It’s done less privately now because the funds that would be given to private resources are confiscated before they can be given. An excellent example: Catholic charities Of course it wasn't, and still isn't. An excellent example: Catholic charities don't help everyone in need, or there would be nobody in need. > One of the stated goals, but also a reduction of the influence of religious institutions is another. What religious institutions do is up to them, but they were failing to achieve the goal before, and they're failing now, so clearly we need public help as well. > look at the the homeless in SanFran. That’s what our current government programs amount to. Where are the Catholic charities solving the problem, then? That's what private assistance amounts to, as well. We can either find a way to increase private assistance, or increase public assistance, until the goal of a true social safety net is achieved. In any case, I'm still not hearing an alternative, and notwithstanding your claim that the following is somehow "fallacious", 'just slink off and die' still isn't really a workable alternative. So propose something better.
  - orwin 3y ago
    The government should spend when consumption/investment is low, and reduce spending when investment is high. For obvious reasons.

I believe the military had one of the biggest recruiting misses ever in 2023, so that branch of the government at least seems to be shrinking.

nerevarthelame 3y ago

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm explains that "Government employment increased by 52,000 in December. Employment continued to trend up in local government (+37,000) and federal government (+7,000). Government added an average of 56,000 jobs per month in 2023, more than double the average monthly gain of 23,000 in 2022. " So, the government sector did see above average growth, and it was mainly through local governments. Tracking employment related to subsidies would require a lot of assumptions and analysis. I don't think it's done as a part of any regular reporting.

thinkerswell 3y ago
Yes this is my concern, 52k direct hires but with Medicare, Medicaid, etc the subsidy to employment in the medical space is massive.
- nerevarthelame 3y ago
  Not a concern of mine. I'm happy that someone (the US government) is willing to pay for the health care of elderly and desperately poor people.
  - thinkerswell 3y ago
    To each his own, I'd prefer they be taken care of by locals who actually personally care for them, know them, and are invested in their lives.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      The majority of those government hires were locals, so you get part of your preference. To get the rest, you'd need to come up with an alternative for people who don't have others who personally care for them, or know them, or are invested in their lives.
      - thinkerswell 3y ago
        I’d prefer this done privately as has been done before; different set of tradeoffs but ones I prefer, namely people getting options.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        It wasn't done privately before: many people in need without others who personally cared for them, or knew them, or were invested in their lives, just slunk off and died. That's why the government programs exist: the "private" idea turned out to be a failure, and new ideas were needed to solve the problem. That's why, if you want to get rid of government assistance to these people, you'd need to first come up with a workable alternative. 'Just slink off and die' isn't really a workable alternative.
        thinkerswell 3y ago
        > It wasn't done privately before Of course it was, and still is. It’s done less privately now because the funds that would be given to private resources are confiscated before they can be given. An excellent example: Catholic charities. > That's why the government programs exist One of the stated goals, but also a reduction of the influence of religious institutions is another. > Just slink off and die' isn't really a workable alternative. This is fallacious; look at the the homeless in SanFran. That’s what our current government programs amount to.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > Of course it was, and still is. It’s done less privately now because the funds that would be given to private resources are confiscated before they can be given. An excellent example: Catholic charities Of course it wasn't, and still isn't. An excellent example: Catholic charities don't help everyone in need, or there would be nobody in need. > One of the stated goals, but also a reduction of the influence of religious institutions is another. What religious institutions do is up to them, but they were failing to achieve the goal before, and they're failing now, so clearly we need public help as well. > look at the the homeless in SanFran. That’s what our current government programs amount to. Where are the Catholic charities solving the problem, then? That's what private assistance amounts to, as well. We can either find a way to increase private assistance, or increase public assistance, until the goal of a true social safety net is achieved. In any case, I'm still not hearing an alternative, and notwithstanding your claim that the following is somehow "fallacious", 'just slink off and die' still isn't really a workable alternative. So propose something better.
- orwin 3y ago
  The government should spend when consumption/investment is low, and reduce spending when investment is high. For obvious reasons.