Friday, May 08, 2009

Atlas Shrugged Revisited

I’ll throw a bone to my Objectivist fans:

US Labor Department reported 539,000 jobs lost.

Government employment increased during this same period by 66,000 jobs.

If you’re scoring at home:

There are fewer producers.

There are more takers.


Gino said...

i'm always skeptical when figures are added up for govt employment.

usully, when liberals state them as jobs cut, they are talking military personel cuts.

the right tends to leave out the military when discussing increases in personel.

Tracy said...

I can say that you should be skeptical about the accuracy but the more important factor isn't's how they derive these statistics. I believe they collected this from actual new unemployment claims made from each state. This is already an inaccurate number of actual "jobless" but is effective at showing trends, especially regionally.

I would count Military as government personnel, no question.

Gino said...

i remember when clinton was claiming to have 'cut half-million govt jobs'.
this was after the draw down that occured in the 90s.

it was a lie, because he said it in the context of bearucrats, without saying it.
naturally, he was championing himself as a small govt kinda guy.

and the voters ate it up.

to me, military #s should be reported separately because of their unique function in terms of what the govt does.

only the berkley types and ultra-pure libertarians view an extra few thousand soldiers as govt that has grown too big.
the size of the military is a separate debate when the issue is brought up.
just like a few extra cops and firemen at the ready may not be a bad thing, though it does swerve a little from libertarian purity.

Tracy said...

I don't view government jobs in general as government expansion...military, even postal workers have a constitutional role. 50,000 extra soldiers doesn't expand the scope and role of government in the daily lives of people necessarily (you could argue it increases liberty) ...i'd like it counted though so we have at least an accurate (or consistent) private to public ratio of employment.

Because the average citizen pays for these wages/benefits through inflation rather than taxes, we don't seem to care to measure their cost.

Gino said...

i see what you're saying, but still, you cant let a clinton type get away with making claims that do not add up to beig the claim that is made.

govt employment was down in the 90's.
1/2 million is a pretty big #.
would you say govt intrusion receded as well?

Tracy said...

Clinton's administration in general was very skilled at misleading the public with numbers.

You're 100% right about their job numbers being crafted through...they did the same thing with their deficit reduction and eventual surplus...neither of which really existed much.

To your point, Clinton specifically increased "law enforcement" personnel on the federal level which I think was the beginning of the end for personal liberty in this country...Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Elian Gonzales were just 3 examples of countless other raids that happened against citizens using standing militias with agency names with large block letters on their backs.

It'd be nice to see unemployment numbers that are not politically motivated...just find a way to count people who aren't working and want a job.

Gino said...

you on another hiatus????

geez, if blogging was your job, you be an obama voter.