[drbuzzard]

>The initial question was about 2000 to present, not 1940 to present.

Umm, who cares? The years of 2000 to the present are covered in my table. It is not overly demanding to only look at data of your choosing.

However my point was to dispute your claim that federal employment has been static since 1964. You made that claim. I found a source which demonstrated that you were playing games with it.

As for evasiveness, I’m not evading anything. We’re discussing federal employment. We’re not discussing me or you. This isn’t some flame site where we exchange insults. We discuss topics provided for in articles via links to external sources. I don’t care who you are or what you may do or have done. None of that makes any difference to me.

I care for whether you make sound arguments based on established verifiable facts. In this regard you fail.

I have made no argument about 1940. I haven’t brought that into the discussion at all. Yet for some reason you choose to bring it up. I’d say there is where we venture into the area of evasion.

But heck, if we want to bring up the total federal employment in civilian agencies (as listed in my provided table)

1940 443000
2010 1360000

As you just stated, the population back then was 150000000. Now it is roughly 300000000 (308 million actually according to the census, but rough numbers are OK).

So for a a population which has increased by 100%, we’ve increased in federal staffing by 200%.

You know, you really should leave numbers alone. You simply aren’t good at them. You just shot yourself in the foot.

[agere_contra]

Your patience on this thread is a credit to FR.

[muawiyah]

Again, you obfuscate. Someone might imagine I compared two years of federal employment against each other.

If you take a look at what I actually did I compared FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT over a long period of time (1964 to present) against PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYMENT over roughly the same period of time.

There's some change in federal employment in that period ~ but the private sector had a whoppingly huge increase of at least 40 million jobs!

The change in federal employment is of less magnitude than the rounding factor for private sector employment.

In short, whatever the federales were doing, they did it without much change in personnel complement ~ which, as I explain later in response to another ridiculous charge, was because the federal government in all sectors and departments became heavily computerized.

So far you haven't proved a thing that you claim you proved. Just wind

[muawiyah]

Your post at #40 covers 1940 on. My post at #31 starts at 1962.

[muawiyah]

My referenced INCLUDED the Postal Service. This fact is reported in a footnote at the bottom of the chart.

Your reference DID NOT INCLUDE the Postal Service. That fact is stated AT THE TOP OF THE CHART.

You are not using the same numbers.