Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, I believe there are government positions that have an overall positive wealth contribution by enabling other producers, as in examples I gave. It is no different than the difficulty in quantifying the exact financial impact of some administrative assistant working at Intel, they aren't directly selling or creating something but (hopefully) they enable others who do.
If a government worker clears the streets of snow so that a few thousand other people can go to work, they do not contribute zero the country's GDP.
I suppose that by some folks definition, all management and professional services are valueless because they do not physically manipulate tangible property on an assembly line. Makes me wonder why we pay such people as CEO's and board chairmen anything since they "produce" nothing.
Of course, national income accounts value government services at their cost, and make no distinction between transfer payments, current expenses, and capital expenditures, which makes such statistics nearly worthless for many purposes and drives CBO nuts. Just look at their rationale for "dynamic scoring".
It's TOS policy..if you don't like it, don't do it...Sorry --- I didn't realize that was too difficult for you.Got a link...
... or is this fake news...
... can't find it on the CNSNews.com site.
Real Unemployment Rate: 9.5%
Fake news, my ass ....
Well, the more jobs the better...
I don't understand the hatred of government jobs that in many ways either help people or are part of the military, tech, science or any number of fields.
I understand we should cut the government in half but then we will flood the market with people looking for work. That won't bring wages up. Better do it slowly(CNSNews.com) - Jobs in manufacturing in the United States increased by 17,000 in December—the first post-election month—climbing from 12,258,000 in November to 12,275,000 in December, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Even so, over all of 2016, manufacturing jobs declined by 45,000--dropping from 12,320,000 in December 2015 to 12,275,000 in December 2016.
At the same time, jobs in federal, state and local government increased not only from November to December, but over the course of the entire year.
From November to December, government jobs climbed from from 22,211,000 to 22,223,000, an increase of 12,000.
From December 2015 to December 2016, government jobs climbed from 22,040,000 to 22,223,000--an increase of 183,000.
Last December, government jobs in the United States outnumbered manufacturing jobs by 9,720,000. This December, government jobs outnumbered manufacturing jobs by 9,948,000.
Didn't they invent the internet?Well, the more jobs the better...
I don't understand the hatred of government jobs that in many ways either help people or are part of the military, tech, science or any number of fields.
Hatred??? Good lord, man .... I spent 20 years in the military, and a government contractor for another 20.
Simply, you fail to understand that those jobs, whether in oversight or service, generate no real products. They contribute nothing to the wealth of the nation, but simply take it from one place and put it in another (it was taken from your pocket, and put in mine). I'm not saying that government doesn't provide valuable services --- I'm saying they produce nothing tangible that increases the wealth of the nation.
No, I believe there are government positions that have an overall positive wealth contribution by enabling other producers, as in examples I gave. It is no different than the difficulty in quantifying the exact financial impact of some administrative assistant working at Intel, they aren't directly selling or creating something but (hopefully) they enable others who do.
If a government worker clears the streets of snow so that a few thousand other people can go to work, they do not contribute zero the country's GDP.
I suppose that by some folks definition, all management and professional services are valueless because they do not physically manipulate tangible property on an assembly line. Makes me wonder why we pay such people as CEO's and board chairmen anything since they "produce" nothing.
Of course, national income accounts value government services at their cost, and make no distinction between transfer payments, current expenses, and capital expenditures, which makes such statistics nearly worthless for many purposes and drives CBO nuts. Just look at their rationale for "dynamic scoring".
Of course, you miss the entire point ..... to use your words, " ... national income accounts value government services at their cost " means that they add nothing to the collective profit of the country. The question isn't whether or not they are a valued expense, the question is whether they contribute economically.
No, I believe there are government positions that have an overall positive wealth contribution by enabling other producers, as in examples I gave. It is no different than the difficulty in quantifying the exact financial impact of some administrative assistant working at Intel, they aren't directly selling or creating something but (hopefully) they enable others who do.
If a government worker clears the streets of snow so that a few thousand other people can go to work, they do not contribute zero the country's GDP.
I suppose that by some folks definition, all management and professional services are valueless because they do not physically manipulate tangible property on an assembly line. Makes me wonder why we pay such people as CEO's and board chairmen anything since they "produce" nothing.
Of course, national income accounts value government services at their cost, and make no distinction between transfer payments, current expenses, and capital expenditures, which makes such statistics nearly worthless for many purposes and drives CBO nuts. Just look at their rationale for "dynamic scoring".
Of course, you miss the entire point ..... to use your words, " ... national income accounts value government services at their cost " means that they add nothing to the collective profit of the country. The question isn't whether or not they are a valued expense, the question is whether they contribute economically.
Please point me to the publication that defines "collective profit of the country". I haven't encountered it in economic literature to date.
