Is my government too big?
Locked
 
|
This graph shows the government employees in the US, all levels of government, divided by the population of the US. Color me surprised. The government/capita has been 0.0725+/-0.0025 since 1982. Variation in the last digit, 0.0001, represents ~31500 employees in our current population of ~315 million, so there's room for a lot of wiggle there. But it looks like a resource limited growth curve that met its limit 30 years ago and has danced around the limit since then.
This graph shows the federal government employees in the US divided by the population of the US. The federal/capita fell from 0.016 to 0.009 over these 60 years, most steeply under the Clinton administration. The only federal/capita increases in the last 60 years were during Johnson's "Great Society" and Reagan's administration. The most recent federal contraction started under Bush1 in 1988 and has brought us from 0.013 to 0.009 federal employees/capita. Obama's stimulus started to reverse the trend, but he's now running the leanest federal/capita in the last 60 years.
The rough constancy overall since 1988 is a crowd sourced result combining decisions made by 50 state and ~87000 local governments while the federal government shrank. So, what's a big government? Are there any other national statistics for comparison?
-- rec -- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
So, what's a big government? Are there any other national statistics for comparison? The real question is: Why in hell does no one know just how good a job Obama is doing? He's mute! Why? The best speech at the DNC was Clinton, and then Michelle! Why is Obama so unwilling to defend what good he has done?
Makes me not want to vote for him. Sigh! -- Owen On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Michael Lew has a very nice profile of Obama in Vanity Fair.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: So, what's a big government? Are there any other national statistics for comparison? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
I dunno. It’s not a bad speech. Have you read it? N From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
The real question is: Why in hell does no one know just how good a job Obama is doing? He's mute! Why? The best speech at the DNC was Clinton, and then Michelle! Why is Obama so unwilling to defend what good he has done? Makes me not want to vote for him. Sigh! -- Owen On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: This graph shows the government employees in the US, all levels of government, divided by the population of the US. Color me surprised. The government/capita has been 0.0725+/-0.0025 since 1982. Variation in the last digit, 0.0001, represents ~31500 employees in our current population of ~315 million, so there's room for a lot of wiggle there. But it looks like a resource limited growth curve that met its limit 30 years ago and has danced around the limit since then. This graph shows the federal government employees in the US divided by the population of the US. The federal/capita fell from 0.016 to 0.009 over these 60 years, most steeply under the Clinton administration. The only federal/capita increases in the last 60 years were during Johnson's "Great Society" and Reagan's administration. The most recent federal contraction started under Bush1 in 1988 and has brought us from 0.013 to 0.009 federal employees/capita. Obama's stimulus started to reverse the trend, but he's now running the leanest federal/capita in the last 60 years. The rough constancy overall since 1988 is a crowd sourced result combining decisions made by 50 state and ~87000 local governments while the federal government shrank. So, what's a big government? Are there any other national statistics for comparison? -- rec --
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Is my government too big?
|
|
I asked how 300 million people settled on 0.0725 government employees/capita for 30 years and continued arguing the whole time about whether the government was getting too big. Did they not know that the size of the government/capita had stabilized? Did they not understand that the number of teachers, policemen, firemen, tax collectors, and inspectors scaled with the size of the population? Are our elected officials too stupid to understand or explain this? Are you all laughing at me because this is something that every school girl knows?
Owen, the glass is half full. I swear by 1+1=2, the glass is half full. And it's all going to turn out just the way it does, no matter how you feel about it. And not to further contribute to your self-centered hijacking of this thread, but, Obama took the hardest job in the world, hardly anything turned out as anyone expected or might have wished, but he did the job. If you're disappointed, then that's between you and your expectations. If you want a braggart for president, vote for Romney, he's clearly the sort who can confidently take credit for anything that happens, with only a few mis-steps on the way to victory.
But start your own thread and stop projecting your personal depressions over every question raised on this mailing list. -- rec --
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Is my government too big?
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Why are we having this discussion ? You folks have a President who
knows and operates on the Heisenberg Principle. >His desire to hear the case raises the obvious question: Why didn’t he just make it >himself? “It’s the Heisenberg principle,” he says. “Me asking the question changes >the answer.” On 9/15/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: > Michael Lew has a very nice > profile<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama>of > Obama in Vanity Fair. > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________* > *** Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Roger,
Two points: 1) Being a third party kind of guy, with no particular loyalty for or against Obama (though keeping a healthy fear of Romney), I share Owen's frustration at Obama's inability/unwillingness to clearly articulate his successes. His overall record includes a surprising number of major successes that few seem to know about. 2) I don't think anyone has a problem with the government scaling in needed ways to the population. Yes, as cities get bigger, they need more police officers, firemen, etc. When people complain about "the growth in government", I think what they are really complaining about is the proliferation of new laws, especially when they involve "mission creep", in which the government starts to regulate newer and less necessary parts of their lives. When there are too many rules for people (i.e., legislators) to keep track of, you start to get schizophrenic sounding contradictions, which are necessarily enforced arbitrarily. Much of our problems could be solved if, at least for a short period, we convinced legislators to brag about how many laws they repealed, rather than them feeling they had to justify their existence by proposing and passing new laws. To make matters worse, when the per capita size of government remains the same, and the number of new laws continues to grow at staggering rates, it must be the case that enforcement of the old laws and regulations starts slipping. This means even more arbitrary enforcement and uncertainty. Eric P.S. Not a Federal issue, but: I have a friend who does some fun looking pistol competitions, and have been considering getting the licenses to participate. The PA gun law is 126 pages thick. When getting the quick summary from my friend, I was surprised to learn, for example: 1) There is no license required to own and carry a non-concealed, loaded firearm. 2) The license to carry a concealed weapon is easy to get, and will even let you drive with a concealed loaded pistol on your person! 3) If you are hunting with have a rifle (or any long-barrel gun), and accidentally lay it in plain sight in the passenger seat of your car, that is a big crime, even if you have said permit. If anyone could explain how that combination of laws makes sense..... On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 04:28 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:
------------ Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Is my government too big?
|
|
In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2
:)
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: I asked how 300 million people settled on 0.0725 government employees/capita for 30 years and continued arguing the whole time about whether the government was getting too big. Did they not know that the size of the government/capita had stabilized? Did they not understand that the number of teachers, policemen, firemen, tax collectors, and inspectors scaled with the size of the population? Are our elected officials too stupid to understand or explain this? Are you all laughing at me because this is something that every school girl knows? Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2
Well, I apparently was not clear:
1 - You are absolutely right about the size of gvt, love the graph, thanks!
2 - Obama knows this and could still the silly argument by pointing it out. 3 - He remains oddly quiet.
4 - I find this worthy of blame. 5 - But this is still fascinating, outside of the political sphere.
6 - Sorry if I hijacked the thread. -- Owen
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: I asked how 300 million people settled on 0.0725 government employees/capita for 30 years and continued arguing the whole time about whether the government was getting too big. Did they not know that the size of the government/capita had stabilized? Did they not understand that the number of teachers, policemen, firemen, tax collectors, and inspectors scaled with the size of the population? Are our elected officials too stupid to understand or explain this? Are you all laughing at me because this is something that every school girl knows? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Is my government too big?
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Roger, What you're ignoring is the hundreds of millions of unprincipled dollars poised to take anything Obama says and twist it into an attack ad. How do you argue with people who don't care about your arguments except as an opportunity to extract a sound bite that misrepresents them? You give them as little to work with as is possible. An itemization of this administration's accomplishments delivered in Obama's voice would be a cornucopia to the Republican SuperPAC's.
Meanwhile, out of nowhere, Sam Bacile's homage to Mohammed arrives, like some horrible caricature of Republican campaign ads -- who cares about facts as long as it works, the responsible parties hidden behind layers of aliases, the really effective bits added in post-production overdubbing and editing.
DNFTT -- rec -- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Is my government too big?
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Roger, Leaving aside the fact that Ron Paul and Paul Krugman were arguing on TV about the number of government employees just last Sunday, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/the-zombie-that-ate-rand-pauls-brain/ has a link to the video, this is the third "change the subject" response I've received:
1) The federal government is only getting smaller because it's outsourcing essential services to private contractors. 2) When people say government is big, they mean the money.
3) When people say government is big, they mean the laws. These are all interesting points, but I don't have any statistics to offer one way or the other. My puzzle is that I truly believed that the nature of bureaucracies was to bloat, but these numbers don't support that hypothesis. Why? Are the results peculiarly American? Do they vary between cultures? Is there a right size for government? Can we stop arguing about big (at least in numbers of employees) and start working on better now?
-- rec -- PS - The Pennsylvania gun laws gave me a chuckle, because I can imagine how that mess started. I had ancestors carrying long guns around western Pennsylvania in the 18th century, there's a 1790's will by a great^n uncle bequeathing his rifle to his brother and his whiskey still to his father, unless dad got carried away, in which case mom should sell it.
This life-style lead directly to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion. Western Pennsylvania rebelled and militia from the rest of the state had to invade itself to suppress the rebellion, all during the 8 years of George Washington's presidency. You're talking about a place with very complicated attitudes about firearms that go way back.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Well... "yeah"... on that
point... but Ron Paul isn't saying the government has been growing too big for
the last 30 years. The graph you sent showed a BIG increase in government
per-capita employment between 1950 and 1970, and Ron would probably argue that
it was too big in 1950. If I get to put my Libertarian hat on <goes to
closet>, then government is WAY too big, plus all the other things I
mentioned. In particular, federal government is way too big. You can't
argue for linear scaling there, because the federal government shouldn't be
doing most of the things that require that growth model (no fire department,
etc.). The size of the necessary permanent-defense force doesn't scale with the
population, our borders haven't changed in quite a while. The size of the
judiciary maybe does, but I'm not sure what else. Besides, if anything
technology should have dramatically reduced the size of the necessary federal
government over the past 50 years regardless of population growth, as human
calculators are rarely needed anymore, hand inspection of goods is less
necessary, most messages these days are transported electronically, and
everyone can type their own memos.
Most people though, are not Libertarians. I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that there WAS a real thing they were complaining about, while also recognizing your point that it could not possibly be an increase in the size of the government. I can now see why that seemed a bit like thread hijacking to you, but it did not seem so to me at the time. Eric On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 07:32 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:
------------ Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |