If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Government Accountability Office counts up the number of federal jobs cut by the devastating evil budget sequester, and finds...one   (reason.com) divider line 42
    More: Followup, Government Accountability Office, Office of Management and Budget, Stephanie Cutter, evils, austerities, federal employees, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

1085 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 3:17 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-08 11:53:46 AM  
6 votes:
So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

cloudfront-media.reason.com

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.
2014-05-08 03:51:11 PM  
3 votes:

DrPainMD: Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country.


I remember my college professors emphasizing that basic econ isn't meant to be applied to complex real world solutions and really is just an overly simplified view of how it works.

Trying to apply basic econ to the real world just reminds me of how delusional and misguided people on the right are when it comes to the economy.
2014-05-08 03:47:41 PM  
3 votes:

DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


Because you're assuming that government workers don't provide a service. Most businesses rely upon the infrastructure and regulation of the government to stay in business. It is vital to have working roads, environmental protections, a justice system, a well-regulated financial system etc. etc. The free market can't exist without a functional government.
2014-05-08 12:26:08 PM  
3 votes:
We hurt job and GDP growth because the party that ran up our deficit/debt all of sudden gave a damn about it.
2014-05-08 04:55:34 PM  
2 votes:

DrPainMD: Individualism and Economic Order

A Free-Market Monetary System and The Pretense of Knowledge


Today the Austrian tradition is kept alive by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a think tank financed entirely by wealthy business donors. It is part of a broader phenomenon, the explosion of far-right think tanks in the last 20 years, funded by such conservative and libertarian donors as the Bradley, Coors and Koch family foundations. These foundations have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the creation of an "alternate academia" of right-wing think tanks, after the failure of mainstream academia to support right-wing dogma. This alternate academia comes complete with extensive media ties to publicize their research, which is why Austrians are so frequently found on conservative talk radio. Austrian economist Israel Kirzner describes the critical role that their primary backer, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), has played in the "revival" of Austrian economics:

"It was their vision which brought Ludwig von Mises to FEE at a time when he was, to put it mildly, all but ignored on the academic scene. It was through the resources of FEE, its skilled use of the tools of communication and public education, which ensured that Mises' message would survive." (6)

Link
2014-05-08 04:18:34 PM  
2 votes:

GoldSpider: Does putting money into the economy necessarily create jobs?  Just ask the banks!


No, that's why supply-side economics doesn't work. You have to put the money into the hands of people who will buy things.
2014-05-08 03:59:18 PM  
2 votes:

DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant.


DrPainMD: People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs)

2014-05-08 03:56:27 PM  
2 votes:

DrPainMD: If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy?


Now try it with 10 fire fighters who spend all day putting out a fire, preventing it from spreading across an entire city. Or 10 FDA inspectors who observe unsanitary practices at a factory and save a couple hundred thousand people from getting sick and dying. Or 10 CDC scientists who notice a trend early and stop an outbreak of infectious disease, saving tens of thousands of lives.

If you only choose scenarios that fit your view that the government and its workers are useless, you'll only ever end up thinking government and its workers are useless. It's a self-fulfilling mindset that reaffirms your world view. Safe. Unchangeable. Juvenile.
2014-05-08 02:46:02 PM  
2 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Also, the headline implies that jobs = employees, but the chart shows that job positions were left unfilled through retirement and leaving positions vacant.


Which, much to the chagrin of government haters, is exactly where most government cuts start.

REASON: LESS SPENDING!

Gov't: We have left positions vacant which has resulted in significant salary savings

REASON: BUT WE WANT TO SEE ACTUAL PEOPLE FIRED!!

Gov't: This saves money and doesn't reduce our ability to provide services

REASON: GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS INCOMPETENT!!
2014-05-08 12:35:21 PM  
2 votes:
And... how many contractors lost their jobs because of it?
2014-05-08 12:21:12 PM  
2 votes:
FTFA "As Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) explains:..."

I see where this is going.

Also from TFA: "19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and 7 reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from 1 to 7 days. "

Gee, Tom (R-at bastard), please 'splain to me again how it didn't affect the Gov or the economy at all.
2014-05-08 07:33:21 PM  
1 votes:

Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: Isitoveryet: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: f anybody should be deemed parasites it is those who think they deserve more than they can earn in the free market.

Right, investors.

Hmm. Know how I know you don't know how investing works?

are you suggesting that investors do so to better society?

I'm saying the return they get on their investment is a fair market return, and therefore not "parasitic".

If Burlington northern issues bonds to expand/refurbish their railway lines, the return is based on supply and demand. I'll lend to them for 10 years at 3.7%, but others will lend for less. The railway gets use of the funds, the investors get a return on their investment.

They aren't doing it for the betterment of society (although obviously in aggregate investing absolutely benefits society), much like the average joe going to his job isn't doing it for society but for the pay.

you're right.

it's unfortunate, we've become this great society not from striving for it but as a byproduct of self interest. imagine what we could accomplish if we let profit be the byproduct and instead focused on the welfare of our society & the betterment (I like that word) of the human race.


Regulated self interest has led to the greatness of our current society. Believing that a society where community interest completely replaces self interest is possible is the error the communists made.
2014-05-08 04:38:41 PM  
1 votes:
DrPainMD:Ummm... no, there is no "plus" somewhere else. Just a minus.

I'm not sure you'd cut it in the glamorous world of accounting.
2014-05-08 04:37:59 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: DrPainMD: impaler: DrPainMD: Preventing loss has value

And a lot of the jobs you said "produce nothing" do just that.

So which is it?

Your original assertion wasn't that the DO produce value, but because the law of diminishing returns, we have far too many employed, and we could get a much higher ROI by reducing their size (of course you're going to show your work, with citations for all the data you analyzed). Which is where you now seem to be moving the goalpost.

There's a reason for this:
DrPainMD
(favorite: economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743)

You keep posting that you've farkied me as "economic moron." And I keep saying, "thank you." Move on.

BTW, have you started reading those two books that I posted the links to?

Here are two more free epub books, written by Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek (who actually won his prize for monetary theory, unlike Krugman, who merely provided an explanation for why a country would import and export the same item... not really worth a Nobel Prize if you ask me).

Individualism and Economic Order

A Free-Market Monetary System and The Pretense of Knowledge


Hayek's prize was for something loftier that in retrospect he was wrong about. Do you recomment people read Fibiger for mental health issues? He won a Nobel Prize!
2014-05-08 04:36:57 PM  
1 votes:
The Sequester = The exact opposite of what you should be doing when the economy is not doing well.
2014-05-08 04:26:52 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: You should have learned by now that your argument is terrible and makes no sense in a real-world where the economy has both a SUPPLY and a DEMAND.

Say's Law also rules the real world. Learn about it. Those who consume without producing are a drag on the economy and add nothing to it. They are in the minus column of the spreadsheet. In red. With parentheses around them.


are you somehow neglecting the whole services concept? services aren't goods? or are you suggesting that only physical goods are real goods? ever paid for any legal advise?
2014-05-08 04:13:53 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: (altho both of those jobs could be done MUCH more efficiently)


The reason why the government does that is because people do not exercise self-responsibility at the individual and corporate level. If we trusted canning factories to regulate themselves, what incentive is there? People will still buy their product, and if the government has no hand in enforcing regulations then there is nothing they can do when the companies get too lazy to prevent massive shipments of botulism everywhere. The state of our internet infrastructure is proof that for-profit corporations have no interest in investing in infrastructure.
2014-05-08 04:06:13 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Isitoveryet: you seem like a supply side economist.

Supply side has nothing to do with it. This is basic econ taught in every college in the country. Parasites are parasites. How much would you pay to have someone come to your house and do nothing all day? Nothing, that's how much. Yet, the government takes money from you and gives it to someone who provides you nothing in return and you think it's great. There's no difference between the two scenarios.


Then do us all a favor.  Since you obviously have SO much time to waste posting to a message board all day, you quite obviously have a useless job and are one of those 'parasites' you speak of.  Quit now and find yourself a 'real' job, be the bootstrappy patriot you've always wanted to be!
2014-05-08 04:01:57 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Whether or not they spend their paychecks is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING!! They are parasites. They add less than nothing to the economy.


So there is no value in law enforcement? You honestly think there would be no costs associated with the disbanding of law enforcement agencies? I'm beginning to doubt you actually made it all the way through that econ 101 class.
2014-05-08 03:57:22 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


So the fact that the FDA doesn't create anything but rather attempts to ensure the safety of drugs being released on the market, mean that we should promptly abolish them?  You appear to be well infromed.
2014-05-08 03:57:19 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


That's about 10,000 quarter ounces of weed. If one figures a marijuana user will use 1/8 ounce of weed to get high and stay home from work, the DEA agents have added 20,000 man days of labor to the economy. At median income, that's about $3,070,000 at the small cost of $3,000 in agents.
2014-05-08 03:55:33 PM  
1 votes:

anfrind: beakerxf: nmrsnr: 19 reduced training - because we don't need our employees to know what they're doing.
19 reduced external hiring - that's thousands of contractors who don't have jobs, and may have had to lay off workers because of it.
14 reduced internal hiring - that's thousands of more jobs that people couldn't get.

Not to mention the economic impact of furloughs, which reduced worker take-home pay by as much as 1/5.

Yeah, the sequester was totally awesome.

My friend works for the Department of the Interior.  In addition to working a crazy number of hours because they're leaving vacancies unfilled, they've slashed the travel budget.   So my friend can't even do on-site inspections.  They're being asked to essentially regulate water quality from a cubicle.

On the one hand the GOP is slowly suffocating the department and saving mining companies from regulation.   On the other hand, they're gambling with the water sources for ranchers and rural communities (part of the GOP voting base).   It's short sighted in so many ways.

And yet to some extent, it still seems to be working.  I drove through California's Central Valley this past weekend, and if the political billboards are any indication, a fair number of people think the state's water shortage (which should be a completely nonpartisan issue) is some kind of diabolical conspiracy involving state senators, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama.


Which is ironic because the Federal Government was the main reason they're able to farm in the Central Valley.

Such rugged individualists they are.
2014-05-08 03:55:22 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Lando Lincoln: DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand if you're an ignorant twat.

Give us some examples of these "parasitic" jobs.

Any job that doesn't produce a good or service that has a realized market value greater than the cost to produce it.

If ten DEA agents, at a cost of $300 each, spend all day burning a marijuana field containing $500,000 worth of weed, what is the effect on the economy? Show your work.


Do you think those ten DEA agents did that work for free? Or that they don't spend the money they earned doing that job?

Fark, do you even know how money works? It's clear that you think that all money earned by federal employees is rounded up and burned at the end of the day, never to be seen in the economy again.
2014-05-08 03:53:44 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


Where do you think the money goes? Down some sort of sinkhole? Do you think people with jobs never spend the money they earn?
2014-05-08 03:52:03 PM  
1 votes:
DrPainMD becomes Emperor.

Day 1:
DrPainMD: "There are no longer any government jobs."
Day 2:
DrPainMD: "Hey, were did all my money in my bank account go! You can't do that!
Banks: "We took it and bought a boat."
DrPainMD: "You can't do that!"
DrPainMD: *calls the authorities*
DrPainMD: "Why isn't anyone picking up?"
2014-05-08 03:47:08 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy.


Your argument is that all (or most) government jobs are useless make-work jobs?  Does that magically change when those jobs are done by contractors?
2014-05-08 03:46:11 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


Yup, the only non-parasites are farmers and factory workers. Let's start stringing up CEOs and priests from lampposts since they are just parasites.
2014-05-08 03:46:03 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: No... just put them out of work. Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


So put them out of work, hope they find a job, or else they'll just starve and die?

Seems like a good plan to me.

And you do know that highway projects pretty much fit what you defined in bold right?
2014-05-08 03:45:35 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Jobs that don't produce a good or service with a realized market value greater than the cost of production (and most government jobs produce $0 worth of goods or services) are parasitic and harm the economy. How is this so hard to understand?


That's easy to understand. It's just that it's made up bullshiat.
2014-05-08 03:42:41 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark:

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


those gov't employees should just sit around and wait for the Job Creator'sTM to trickle them jobs!

you seem like a supply side economist.
2014-05-08 03:37:21 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: Headso: DrPainMD: fenianfark: CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014

1.6 million jobs? That would be a good start.

a good start at what, having 1.6 million fewer middle class jobs?

Jobs that produce nothing don't add to the economy, they are parasites.


So it's better to put them out of work and on welfare?

Because the notion that they'll just magically find work in the private sector without any issue is laughably absurd.
2014-05-08 03:35:08 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: People will buy things that have value to them (creating jobs)


Raising the minimum wage would have the same effect.
2014-05-08 03:30:37 PM  
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Dr Dreidel: And wasn't the GOP pissed it didn't result in MORE job losses? I'm confused as to what Reason's arguing here - that the sequester didn't go too far enough?

Yep, the GOP mindset seems to be:

"Unemployment is bad...unless those people who are getting laid off are government workers, then in that case, fark them!"


They seem to believe that the money that government workers make is somehow either a. not real (that is, it can't be used to pay for things like 'real' money that's made by a worker in the private sector) or b. isn't deserved by that worker, since they have the audacity to work for the government, of all things (conveniently forgetting that they themselves also work for the government...which makes them, government workers).
2014-05-08 03:29:13 PM  
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Well in that case it looks like we can cut military funding again without any issues.


"But if we don't have a budget that's larger than China and Russia's combined, then the terrorists win"
2014-05-08 03:24:39 PM  
1 votes:

abb3w: James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:

DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 2013.

So, one person outright fired, but a whole bunch more jobs lying vacant.


And a lot of people weren't hired for projects that were scheduled to start.

But none of those jobs count. So in the conservative (unskewed) reality, the sequester had very little economic ramifications.
2014-05-08 03:19:00 PM  
1 votes:
Yes, but it caused UNCERTAINTY.
2014-05-08 02:54:23 PM  
1 votes:
research.stlouisfed.org
2014-05-08 02:48:34 PM  
1 votes:
Reason's figure is only off by 5 orders of magnitude. I must admit, they're getting more honest.

The funny thing is, one could argue the following numbers are small. But that raises the point, "why do Republicans always have to lie?"

From the Report:
SBA completed an early retirement offering, through which nearly 200 employees retired.
SBA also achieved $9.5 million in savings by implementing a partial hiring
freeze


DOE officials also estimated that
contractors reduced or left vacant approximately 1,000 positions in fiscal
year 2013, including laying off or voluntarily separating more than 300 of
their employees.
These figures do not include subcontractor employees,
university researchers, and others who do not have a direct contractual
relationship with DOE.

however, as of March 2013, the hiring freeze no
longer allowed for the automatic backfilling of such personnel. DOJ
reported that it lost over 3,500 employees between January 2011, when
the hiring freeze was implemented, and September 21, 2013,
the last pay
period in fiscal year 2013. This loss equals almost 3 percent of DOJ's
workforce, including almost 400 agents, almost 200 intelligence analysts,
and over 400 attorneys. DOJ stated that the largest losses-of over 2,000
employees-were among support staff, such as paralegals, chemists,
accountants, and contract specialists.

Implemented a hiring freeze, with only minimal hiring in critical frontline
areas. SSA reported that this action resulted in the loss of about
11,000 employees since 2011,
including about 1,875 federal and state
employees from March 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013.83
2014-05-08 01:39:11 PM  
1 votes:
A whole farking energy plant had to be closed down due to the sequest. I'm sure there was more than one person working there. Of course they all said it was revenge for not voting for Obama and had nothing to do with getting their funds cut.
2014-05-08 01:23:59 PM  
1 votes:

Clent: So how many federal employees got shiatcanned because of reduced funds in 2013? A hundred thousand? A million? More? According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, a grand total of one (1), in the Department of Justice's Parole Commission.

[cloudfront-media.reason.com image 550x470]

One agency. The graph is 'number of agencies that reported taking this action...'. No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


but, not so fast:

James!: No, wait.  It looks like it's true.  Under that chart is a footnote that states:


DOJ officials reported that one DOJ component-the U.S. Parole Commission-implemented a 
reduction in force of one employee to achieve partial savings required by sequestration in fiscal year 
2013.


yep.  still just one federal employee.

good work there, farkers.
2014-05-08 12:45:05 PM  
1 votes:

dr_blasto: Why doesn't Reason employ people who aren't either liars or completely stupid or some combination of the two.


There must be a good Reason.
2014-05-08 12:03:08 PM  
1 votes:

Clent: No point in giving the rest of their analysis any credit when they can't even read a simple chart.


Also, the headline implies that jobs = employees, but the chart shows that job positions were left unfilled through retirement and leaving positions vacant.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report