Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 8/18/2012 3:57:56 PM EDT
I'm always being told the Federal Govt is growing bigger and bigger every year, but according to the U.S. Office of Personal Managment it doesn't seem to be so.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:01:19 PM EDT
The only drop is in the Uniformed Military, other branches increased by quite a bit.

Legislative/Judicial by 30%+

Executive by 13%+
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:01:35 PM EDT
And where is the table listing the amount of work now done by contractors?
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:06:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By spoonrobot:
The only drop is in the Uniformed Military, other branches increased by quite a bit.

Legislative/Judicial by 30%+

Executive by 13%+


Sad truth. I'd rather more military then more of the others.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:06:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2012 4:07:00 PM EDT by BSWilson]
How are they defining "federal employees"?

There are tens of thousands in the FBI, ATF, DEA, CIA, USPS, DHS, etc, right?
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:11:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
How are they defining "federal employees"?

There are tens of thousands in the FBI, ATF, DEA, CIA, USPS, DHS, etc, right?


Yeah, those numbers look off.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:13:27 PM EDT
That's still 4,443,000 employees. And we dropped 2.8 mil to 1.6 mil in military members. That's crazy.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:15:00 PM EDT
Considering all the extra departments, and not to mention contractors... I'd say those numbers are hilariously off.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:18:28 PM EDT
graphs are your friends

Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:19:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kstanton:
Considering all the extra departments, and not to mention contractors... I'd say those numbers are hilariously off.

Then again its OPM, there is an excellent chance they have lost the paperwork for everyone else.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:19:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2012 4:20:07 PM EDT by BSWilson]
Originally Posted By learath:
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
How are they defining "federal employees"?

There are tens of thousands in the FBI, ATF, DEA, CIA, USPS, DHS, etc, right?


Yeah, those numbers look off.


Derp, reading is fundamental.

numbers in thousands



My next question would be, how has the average federal wage changed in the same time (including all forms of compensation & benefits).
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:19:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By broken_reticle:

Originally Posted By Kstanton:
Considering all the extra departments, and not to mention contractors... I'd say those numbers are hilariously off.

Then again its OPM, there is an excellent chance they have lost the paperwork for everyone else.


Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:20:16 PM EDT
There are a lot of uniformed DOD civilians like myself that do the .mil job, but look like a civvy on the books.


We get paid more but are cheaper overall and generally more skilled than our active counterparts.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:21:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2012 4:21:34 PM EDT by 2minkey]
those numbers may be fine, but perhaps don't reflect the growth of money spent by the fedgov on projects where the work is contracted out.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:40:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:41:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven:
graphs are your friends




Can't find a graph.

Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:46:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lokifox:
There are a lot of uniformed DOD civilians like myself that do the .mil job, but look like a civvy on the books.


We get paid more but are cheaper overall and generally more skilled than our active counterparts.


And generally work a shit ton less. I've yet to come across a .mil civ who was worth half what their uniformed equivalent was, although, like most federal employees, they were experts at telling you what their job description did not entail, i.e. the work at hand. But who knows maybe I've only interacted with the bad apples.

The federal government would function exponentially better if it was as easy to separate the worthless from service as it is for the military. You have punitive discharges, admin separations, reduction in force, etc.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:47:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
My next question would be, how has the average federal wage changed in the same time (including all forms of compensation & benefits).


Depends on how you measure "compensation". There are now regional GS scales, because of regional differences in cost of living.

One big change––the Civil Service Retirement System hasn't been available to new employees for almost 30 years. Under CSRS a government worker never paid social security tax, and could retire at age 55 with 30 years in and get something like 80 percent of their salary as pension, plus cheap health care for life. The new retirement system is nothing like that.

The Feds are one of the worst places for a new PhD in economics to get a job. They pay worse than most universities and the private sector.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:52:43 PM EDT
Anyone who has listened to the news at all knows the federal government has been the biggest hirer for a number of years recently which has boosted employment numbers. That is bragged about by all the lefties as proof that .gov can save the economy.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:55:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:57:53 PM EDT
Don't need as many mail room clerks these days. Computers have taken up many of the more menial tasks. And those jobs are replaced with the type that make things shittier.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 4:59:05 PM EDT
And that doesn't include the army of contractors either.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 5:05:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Originally Posted By learath:
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
How are they defining "federal employees"?

There are tens of thousands in the FBI, ATF, DEA, CIA, USPS, DHS, etc, right?


Yeah, those numbers look off.


Derp, reading is fundamental.

numbers in thousands



My next question would be, how has the average federal wage changed in the same time (including all forms of compensation & benefits).


Not what I missed. I missed the "contractors" being listed. Nice "math".
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 5:08:24 PM EDT
I'd like to see a chart from 1912 to 1962.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 5:11:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Middlelength:
Originally Posted By lokifox:
There are a lot of uniformed DOD civilians like myself that do the .mil job, but look like a civvy on the books.


We get paid more but are cheaper overall and generally more skilled than our active counterparts.


And generally work a shit ton less. I've yet to come across a .mil civ who was worth half what their uniformed equivalent was, although, like most federal employees, they were experts at telling you what their job description did not entail, i.e. the work at hand. But who knows maybe I've only interacted with the bad apples.

The federal government would function exponentially better if it was as easy to separate the worthless from service as it is for the military. You have punitive discharges, admin separations, reduction in force, etc.


Yep
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 5:11:47 PM EDT
There is no way that can be correct. Imagine all of the federal workers needed
for SS and Medicaid alone.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 5:13:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Banditman:
There is no way that can be correct. Imagine all of the federal workers needed
for SS and Medicaid alone.


It's all "Contractors". The real number is probably 3 times what's listed.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 5:22:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2012 5:23:26 PM EDT by WildApple]
Pretty sure they don't count many employees that they should

DHS....CIA...ECT....ECT....Seriously
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 9:55:54 PM EDT
We need to dump at least half of those letter agencies, the mil should be the greatest expense and the greatest number of employees bay far over everything else. We do not need an ATF, DHS, or TSA for sure.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 9:59:20 PM EDT
I'm a subcontractor and I guarantee that I am not counted there. I'm barely a line item on a spreadsheet with the primary contractor.
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 10:18:10 PM EDT
Fuck 0bama.


__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.3.2) (and the original thread).
Paultards: maximizing libertarian losses since 2008.
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»
Link Posted: 8/18/2012 10:22:23 PM EDT
The peak of federal employment occurred at the end of Ronald Reagan's term.

Contracting out, or the shift from federal employees, was pushed primarily by the republican party.





Link Posted: 8/18/2012 10:30:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Isenhelm:
We need to dump at least half of those letter agencies, the mil should be the greatest expense and the greatest number of employees bay far over everything else. We do not need an ATF, DHS, or TSA for sure.


It always has been.
Both the military and veterans are and have been the largest departments.
The problem is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security entitlements.
You could dissolve the entire government outside of the military and you still wouldn't solve the deficit.

Link Posted: 8/19/2012 5:11:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By retgarr:
Don't need as many mail room clerks these days. Computers have taken up many of the more menial tasks. And those jobs are replaced with the type that make things shittier.

Exactly. I was going to say that a huge proportion of those people in 1962 were secretaries and typists. Now those people don't exist. The government has grown vastly more efficient at screwing everything up.
Link Posted: 8/19/2012 5:27:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Houstons_Problem:

Originally Posted By retgarr:
Don't need as many mail room clerks these days. Computers have taken up many of the more menial tasks. And those jobs are replaced with the type that make things shittier.

Exactly. I was going to say that a huge proportion of those people in 1962 were secretaries and typists. Now those people don't exist. The government has grown vastly more efficient at screwing everything up.


There were little to no IT staffs in the 1960s, though.

Then we have to consider the regulations that impose manpower and costs on the private sector also affect the public sector, and the public sector has additional burdens of accountability and transparency.

Every new law, from the EPA, to the Privacy Act, to EEO, to the Freedom of Informations act imposes huge costs in both dollars and personnel requirements across the federal government.

And, even on an ostensibly small government advocacy site like this, I have read hundreds of threads where someone botched and most agreed) because some federal agency wasn't able to do something direct enough or fast enough to their liking. These kind of complaints filter up through congress and agencies grow and grow to please their constituencies.
Link Posted: 8/19/2012 5:28:02 AM EDT
Also consider the US population has nearly doubled since 1960.
Link Posted: 8/19/2012 5:37:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2012 6:03:38 AM EDT by hugh1]
It can be pointed out that many state and local jobs are supported by federal funding making them in fact federal employees. If you also throw in people on welfare and other programs(they have to work by going to the polls ever two years) the numbers would skyrocket. both above mentioned are government employees in true definition.

But them stats are what you want them to be.

Edit: It would also be good to throw in the people that are contracted by the fed. gov.

Edit: Let's also throw in people that are required by the private sector to insure federal compliance such as FDA, FCC, EPA and IRS rules. That number is very scare, and most likely hard to calculate as all employees do some federal paper work.



Top Top