Job Growth Lacking in the Private Sector (over the last decade)

New York Times ^ | August 7, 2009 | Floyd Norris

[reaganaut1]

FOR the first time since the Depression, the American economy has added virtually no jobs in the private sector over a 10-year period. The total number of jobs has grown a bit, but that is only because of government hiring.

The accompanying charts show the job performance from July 1999, when the economy was booming and companies were complaining about how hard it was to find workers, through July of this year, when the economy was mired in the deepest and longest recession since World War II. For the decade, there was a net gain of 121,000 private sector jobs, according to the survey of employers conducted each month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In an economy with 109 million such jobs, that indicated an annual growth rate for the 10 years of 0.01 percent.

Until the current downturn, the long-term annual growth rate for private sector jobs had not dipped below 1 percent since the early 1960s. Most often, the rate was well above that.

As can be seen from the charts, there were some areas of strength in the economy. Health care jobs continued to grow, particularly jobs that involve caring for the elderly. Home health care employment rose at an annual rate of 5 percent, a rate that indicates a total gain of more than 60 percent. On an annual basis, that was twice the overall rate for health care of 2.4 percent a year.

There were also job gains in education and in a host of service industries, including lawyers (0.7 percent a year), accountants (0.9 percent) and computer systems designers (2.4 percent). The field of management and technical consulting leaped at an annual rate of 5 percent.

[reaganaut1]

If only government jobs are being added, who will pay the salaries of those extra workers? The U.S. population rises about 1% a year , so the size of the private labor force relative to the population has fallen 10% over the last decade. Democratic politicians welcome and accelerate such trends.

[BGHater]

[GeronL]

That evil private sector needs to be taught a lesson! They need punished for not providing jobs! yeah, thats the ticket!

/sarc

[Tolsti2]

The absolute product of ‘free trade’. Pathetic.

[1rudeboy]

[Tolsti2]

Again, the negative effects really start taking off right when that chart ends.

[A.Hun]

[1rudeboy]

So our GDP is where? Back to the 1990 level? 1980? 1970?

[mulligan]

This should come as no surprise. The government and many citizens think the private sector is ‘evil’. Greedy, selfish and whatever. The problem is the private sector creates new businesses, creates new jobs, and pays taxes. The government creates nothing. It is a parasite and lives off the private sectors profits. The very sector it is, along with many envious and jealous citizens, trying its very best to destroy. And when it does, all but those few in power and control, will live in misery. That should make everyone happy. Especially the politicians.

[mr_hammer]

...And your point is what?

The GDP number = goods and service purchased right?

If the gov’t sector is doing all the buying...all is we are doing is driving up the national debt.

Your good at finding these charts...is there one that seperates out let’s say government spending and medical services from the GDP.

Figures lie and liars figure...

I just attended a seminar that a similar point was raised...no one could answer it at the time.

[RipSawyer]

“But few expect that manufacturing will reverse its long decline as a major employer in the United States.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Ahh, but they couldn’t be more wrong! Manufacturing means making things. Huge numbers are being recruited by Acorn to make trouble. We will need at least a hundred thousand full time people to make excuses for the failure of the socialist schemes hatched in Washington. We will need another hundred thousand to make all the passports for people who want to leave this country. We will need huge numbers to make ammunition and guns for the civil war about to erupt. We will need construction people to make tarpaper shacks for us to live in. MILLIONS of retired printers will be called back to work to print all the worthless paper money that will be needed. Millions will make herbal remedies when the Obama medical scheme fails. There will be a booming business making caskets for all the millions who will starve after the government wrecks the food production industry that has made us all fat. Speaking of fat, the ones who don’t starve will need smaller clothing so there will be a boom in making American made clothing. Foreign manufacturers will no longer accept our currency so we will have to make everything we use here. There will be plenty of work for anyone who knows how to make whiskey that will dull the pain of living in,”The greatest country on Earth”. Manufacturing is going to see the biggest boom since the industrial revolution. Rah, rah, heil Obama!

[1rudeboy]

The GDP number = goods and service purchased right?
Not purchased, but produced.

Figures lie and liars figure...
I just attended a seminar that a similar point was raised...no one could answer it at the time.
That's a shame. There are various ways to do it, similar to the way one would approach the phrase "Words lie, and liars use words."

In any case, if you wish to apply strict scrutiny to every graph you see, then make sure you do it to every one (mine came from Heritage, the others here came from the NYT--if you choose to treat them equally, be my guest). I posted it in response to a comment about free trade, that was akin to claiming that school shootings are an absolute product of guns.

[mr_hammer]

Ok ...fair enough, can you find a chart that breaks down goods produced for the gov’t and our medical system?

[1rudeboy]

I wouldn’t know where to begin. Do you mean to combine, say, defense production with health? Are you sure you’re still not talking about spending?

[mr_hammer]

Call it what you want, pull out the amount out of the GDP that the gov’t is responsible for. The whole kit & kaboodle...state, local, county, federal, medicare / medicaid, militay / defense, social service...etc.

As an aside, 12% of the GDP is manufacturing, the last I heard. Wonder how much of that gov’t induced?

[1rudeboy]

Federal Outlays as a Percentage of GDP
Average over the past half century: 20.2 percent
In 2007, the year before the crisis: 20.0 percent
In 2009, from the Obama budget: 27.2 percent
Average 2010-19, in Obama budget: 22.6 percent
In 2019, last year of Obama budget: 22.6 percent

Source.

[mr_hammer]

I like to round, so it would be safe to assume that the feds are responsible for one quarter of the GDP. Where can I get the numbers on the State, County, City numbers as they relate to the GDP?

I guess my point is, everyone bitches about gov’t spending, but if we did have a serious pull back of spending by said gov’t what would be the impact to the overall economy. Maybe we are already in too deep as to what we have come to expect from the the government...what I really mean is, we are socialist that have been masquerading as capitalist for the last 20 or so years.

We really do not produce a lot of wealth, not printed money, but real wealth! If we did, we would not be so dependent on the gov’t would we?

Just asking?

[meyer]

I’m noticing from the chart that it really started to drop when the rats took over congress. Hmmmnnnn....

[WOBBLY BOB]

Despite budget cuts and layoff warnings, California still hiring and workforce still growing

http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2094403.html

The Sacramento Bee
Aug. 9, 2009

State job number on upswing despite recession

By George Avalos

California’s state government has managed to add thousands of jobs
during this past year, defying a mammoth budget deficit and a brutal
recession.

The job growth for state workers contrasts with the loss of 759,000
jobs in California’s private industry in the past 12 months

http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12984385?nclick_check=1&forced=true

not to mention gubermint employees and their pensions...

Reform advocates are spotlighting those with extravagant pensions
— $100,000 or more — as a way to get the public’s attention and
emphasize that the current system is unsustainable.

http://www.modbee.com/editorials/story/803636.html

[WOBBLY BOB]

Perhaps the real reason why public-sector pension costs have not been tackled is that the full bill has never been revealed to taxpayers.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13988606

From The Economist print edition
July 9, 2009

EDITORIAL

Dodging the bill

The great public-sector pension rip-off

It is time to recognise the full costs
of public-sector pension schemes to the rest of us