A story today should prompt some discussion in how our society is changing as more and more Americans work for the government. For years, there has been a concern that we are becoming an institutionalized society with millions of Americans serving or working in prisons while millions more work for police and government agencies. Now, a report shows that one out of every 100 Americans work for the Defense Department. That is an astonishing figure. That figure balloons further when one considers the number of citizens working in the internal security, police, and intelligence systems.
The Economist magazine shows that the Defense Department employed 3.2 million people, including 700,000 civilians.
We beat out the Chinese Army and even more frightening Wal-Mart (which comes in third after the Red Army). McDonald’s follows in fourth. The remainder in order are the China Petroleum Corporation, the State Grid Corporation of China, National Health Service of England, Indian Railways, China Post Group, and Taiwan’s Hon Hai Precision Industry Company.
Despite such huge numbers, Sen. Jon Kyl announced that he will resign from the Super Committee if the members consider significant cuts in the defense budget.
Source: Washington Post
anon,
🙂
Thank you Roco. I was amused to find out that in the midst of all of that, my arguing against the total war employment of engineers and scientists made me a fascist (and brown noser.)
Blouise, I don’t believe I’ve ever said or believed that most women stink.
And I have often placed myself in position to find out. (When washed, they do not.)
Gene H, same reply to you as to Frankly, here is my original statement:
“The nonsense about the Feds not creating jobs is about comparative jobs. A Fed job is not an extra job, it’s a job taken away from private sector employment.
With that as the argument employing 1/100 people is a huge problem — it’s a huge drain from private sector employment.”
If you put aside your lawyer spectacles and read this as an informed human and not an alien lawyer bug would, you would understand from my first five words that this is not my argument. This is the argument that Fresh Water economists and conservatives make. The second paragraph is a conclusion of that argument.
However, I concede that up until Gene H came along, I thought the second paragraph was a conclusion of progressive economics and politics as well.
That we all prefer a society in which scientists and engineers work on water quality, transportation, electricity, beautiful and safe structures, computing, aircraft, boats, food quality.
Now under Genesian economics, I understand that you prefer our scientists and engineers fully employed in the armory and that you call that progressive.
Me, I’ll stick with saying that having 1/100 people working for the DOD (and I don’t think that figure includes civilian engineers working for Boeing or Lockheed) is a huge problem — it’s a waste of lives, talent, intellect, and taxpayer dollars.
I think that Krugman would tell you he’d prefer to have these guys burying the money only to have others dig it up than to build weaponry for use in pointless wars.
But I do appreciate your staunch defense of progressive Genesian economics.
The professor mentions Americans, so we could add to that a large number of foreigners who work for the war department.
There are literally 700-1000 bases in over 120 countries around the world where foreigners work, not Americans exclusively.
The psychological impact of these figures is far more debilitating than the financial impact, yet neither is insignificant.
anon:
correct me if I am wrong but isnt fascism when the government creates employment and controls the private sector?
So I am curious, your posts seem to imply you would rather have the private sector supply jobs. How does that make you a fascist [brown shirt]?
anon,
semantics … how about…all lawyers suck and most women stink …
anon,
And I find it simply amusing that you state statistical nonsense and then resort to attack mode when your basic mathematical incompetence is exposed. What you said is still nonsense no matter how you want to attack me. Enjoy promoting your agenda of corporate wage slavery over creating jobs for people who need them. It looks good on you. It goes with your brown shirt. Which of course matches your nose.
As to “so easily and readily and eagerly mangle what other people say and shove words down their mouths”? That’s called logic and it doesn’t require mangling, merely simple dismantling. Your statement came pre-mangled.
Now. Do you care to address the insufficiency of your original statement (which you can’t without admitting that you don’t know what you’re talking about) or do you want to try to attack me again? It makes no difference to me either way as my mission – exposing the basic ignorance of your statement – is done and was met with exactly the sort of response expected.
“You left out … “all lawyers suck” and “women stink”.”
But that’s because I don’t believe that, and have never said that, and it’s just your own bullshit idiocy projected onto me.
However,
All lawyers suck.
Gene H.
“Peace dividend” — you should look it up. Sadly, I’m still waiting for it.
Arguing that as a nation we have better things to do than have a huge army and direct scientists and engineers to weapons is of course not at all an argument for unemployment.
I am pretty sure you’re a lawyer, is that right? If so, using Blouise’s postulate, it would explain how you so manage to so easily and readily and eagerly mangle what other people say and shove words down their mouths.
Again, I find it simply wonderful that holier than thous are now arguing for full employment through defense projects.
You mistake arguing against unemployment as arguing for DOD specific employment. I’d much rather to government put people to work building new and repairing existing infrastructure creating many short term and long term jobs in the process. Your original statement was statistical nonsense when you made it. It still is. Unless of course you like having a large pool of poor and desperate people who will take shit terms for private sector employment. Then your comment makes perfect sense.
anon,
“So called progressives arguing in favor of massive DOD employment. Why? Because their partisan hackery does not permit them to see the obvious, much less speak it.”
You left out … “all lawyers suck” and “women stink”.
“Frankly, you should learn how to read. Not only do you misunderstand the RNC position, you understand my own position.”
GAH!
“Frankly, you should learn how to read. Not only do you misunderstand the RNC position, you misunderstand my own position.”
But let’s face it, flame points to Frankly, based on my own mistyping.
“Funny, thats not what the RNC says – they say “government does not create jobs”
Add to that, there is no evidence that a government job eliminates a private sector job outside of your delusional world.”
Frankly, you should learn how to read. Not only do you misunderstand the RNC position, you understand my own position.
Hint: when I say “The nonsense about the Feds not creating jobs …” do you think that is a statement I believe the proposition or a statement that I disbelieve it.
You guys should read Krugman if you’re going to mangle Keynesian economics so horribly. That goes for you too Gene.
““The nonsense about the Feds not creating jobs is about comparative jobs. A Fed job is not an extra job, it’s a job taken away from private sector employment.”
Yeah. There’s some nonsense here. It’s all yours too.
1% is not a “huge drain on private sector employment”.
1) What private sector employment? Do you understand the news when you read it? Real unemployment is at about 16%. If you add in long term discouraged workers, it’s about 22%.”
This is cool. So called progressives arguing in favor of massive DOD employment. Why? Because their partisan hackery does not permit them to see the obvious, much less speak it.
“The nonsense about the Feds not creating jobs is about comparative jobs. A Fed job is not an extra job, it’s a job taken away from private sector employment.”
Yeah. There’s some nonsense here. It’s all yours too.
1% is not a “huge drain on private sector employment”.
1) What private sector employment? Do you understand the news when you read it? Real unemployment is at about 16%. If you add in long term discouraged workers, it’s about 22%.
2) Do you understand what “statistical significance” means? A number is not statistically significant unless it’s at least twice the margin of error in the sample space. 1% is not statistically significant by any measure as I’ve never seen any statistical analysis of a sample space even remotely the size of the one in question with a MOE of +/- 0.5%.
3) When government employment starts exceeding actual unemployment then – and only then – would it be a drain on private sector employment. Until that time, the private sector has the same pool of 16-20% of the population to draw from as the government does. That they aren’t hiring and “want to keep their options open” is the private sector’s problem. If they don’t want government hiring away the people they’d rather keep dangling in the wind then maybe they should get off their dead asses and start creating some jobs.
Funny, thats not what the RNC says – they say “government does not create jobs”
Add to that, there is no evidence that a government job eliminates a private sector job outside of your delusional world.
This is like the Laffer curve, at some point, if government takes a large enough amount of the available resource private industry would have a problem. We are not near that point now as unemployment is around 16% – we don’t need to get anywhere near that point either. The goal would be short-term employment to increase demand.
But this is beyond the point of the original post. The point there was that DoD employs 3.2 million people but if you listen to Peneta has no room for reduction.
“Frankly
1, September 13, 2011 at 2:34 pm
This is not possible – we all know that the government does not produce jobs. We have been told this by supposedly serious thinkers so it must be true. I don’t know what those people are doing but they do not have jobs at DoD.”
This is ignorant even by the low standards we keep for you.
The nonsense about the Feds not creating jobs is about comparative jobs. A Fed job is not an extra job, it’s a job taken away from private sector employment.
With that as the argument employing 1/100 people is a huge problem — it’s a huge drain from private sector employment.
Oh, also, Having done work under contract for DoD, NSA and NASA my guess is 1% is probably less than half of the number of people drawing a paycheck on the DoDs dime.
This is not possible – we all know that the government does not produce jobs. We have been told this by supposedly serious thinkers so it must be true. I don’t know what those people are doing but they do not have jobs at DoD.
Is this really as remarkable as your post implies? Prior to the end of the draft in December 1972, the US Army alone had 1.3 million members — roughly twice its current manpower. I couldn’s find a source for contemporaneous Air Force, Navy, and Marine end strength, but I believe that it was comparably larger — all at a time when the US population was considerably smaller — 203,392,031, according to Wikipedia’s summary of the 1970 census.
In the mid-1970’s, many jobs that had been filled by military members were civilianized, which allowed for a draw-down of uniformed strength, but really didn’t impact the overall number of personnel. For example, Navy Commissarymen (cooks) used to have shore duty billets working in . . . Navy Commissaries. They were replaced there by civilians, and had to spend more time in sea duty billets. Marine guards at the gates of naval stations were sometimes replaced by civilians.
how many people work in various social welfare programs and how many people receive all of their income from social welfare?
Since only 20% of the federal budget goes to defense and around 62.5% goes to social welfare programs, I imagine the number of people is huge.
I did not include veterans benefits in either.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html
I also might point out that defense is a constitutionaly mandated expense.