Don’t root for public-sector job losses

[ProSense]

Don’t root for public-sector job losses

By Steve Benen

Brenda Buttner, a senior business correspondent at Fox News, reflected yesterday on the latest jobs report, and made a curious comment when asked about which areas of the economy aren’t faring well.

“Well, government is a little bit losing jobs. That’s something we see as a positive because we want government to lose jobs to get more in line with the private sector.”

This is not an uncommon sentiment on the right. Two months ago, George Will argued it’s “good” that the “public sector happily shrank by 24,000 jobs” in October.

When conservatives, during a jobs crisis, are cheering public-sector layoffs, insisting that thousands of additional unemployed workers is “a positive,” there’s a problem with the state of the debate.

For the left, the economic goals are inherently pragmatic — creating jobs is the top priority. When more Americans are working, they’re not only helping themselves and their family, but they’re boosting the larger economy and helping lower the deficit. For the right, as Buttner reminds us, the economic goals are philosophical — creating jobs is nice, but the real priority is shrinking government. Maybe, conservatives argue, the economy will improve when more teachers, police officers, and firefighters are unemployed and unable to spend and invest.

- more -

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/dont_root_for_publicsector_job034628.php

I guess what I read about George Will has merit.

George Will is losing his mind
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/08/1052007/-George-Will-is-losing-his-mind

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

1. It's difficult to imagine anyone "rooting" for any sort of job losses.

But since the public-sector is funded by the private-sector, it stands to reason that job losses in the private-sector, will effect job losses in the public-sector.

[ProSense]

2. But

"But since the public-sector is funded by the private-sector, it stands to reason that job losses in the private-sector, will effect job losses in the public-sector."

The private sector is now growing at a pace greater than population growth, and has been for most of the year. The public sector layoff are mostly fueled by Republican Governors and flawed policy, i.e., tax cuts for the rich coupled with layoffs in the public sector.

Still, to the point of the article, you don't have to imagine that they were rooting, they were.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

6. "The private sector is now growing at a pace greater than population growth,..."

and has been for most of the year.

Well, the year has just begun, so I assume you were referring to 2011. However, the pace of job creation is not a strong as it needs to be to keep pace with the growth of the working age population, and to reabsorb those who have been laid off.

Economists estimate the US economy must generate at least 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep pace with the normal growth of the working-age population, and most post-World War II recoveries from recessions saw new jobs being created at a monthly rate of 200,000 to 300,000 or more.

Long-term unemployment remained at near-record levels in December. The number of workers unemployed for more than six months fell by 92,000. But the total, 5.6 million, remains a barometer of social distress without precedent since the 1930s. Prior to the December 2007 official start of the recession (which supposedly ended in June of 2009), the monthly average of long-term unemployed was 1.2 million people. The share of unemployed workers who have been jobless for more than six months decreased somewhat in December, but remained at the near-record rate of 42.5 percent. By comparison, this figure for 2007 averaged 17.5 percent.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/jobs-j07.shtml

[ProSense]

7. Actually

Well, the year has just begun, so I assume you were referring to 2011. However, the pace of job creation is not a strong as it needs to be to keep pace with the growth of the working age population, and to reabsorb those who have been laid off.

Economists estimate the US economy must generate at least 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep pace with the normal growth of the working-age population, and most post-World War II recoveries from recessions saw new jobs being created at a monthly rate of 200,000 to 300,000 or more.

...economists estimate that anywhere from 90,000 (Baker) to 100,000 (Krugman) jobs are needed to keep pace with population growth. The economy averaged about 137,000. It's by no means adequate to reverse the jobs deficit in a reasonable amount of time, but it certainly isn't the reason for public sector layoffs.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Well, yes--all those public employees are parasites and all, who contribute nothing to society.

Who needs teachers, cops, firefighters, VA physicians, public health docs and nurses, parole agents, judges, Job Service workers, air traffic controllers, university researchers, and all those other lowlife freeloaders?

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

9. Fortunately, I had just begun to bend over to re-tie one of my shoes when you swung...

The swoosh of the missed bash roused my senses and instinctively reached for the chill pills that I keep handy for such occasions.

Now, if you feel that you have sufficiently regained your composure, please explain what it is that has riled you to such a degree.

[Romulox]

3. If it's "efficient" to deindustrialize the Rust Belt, why isn't it just as "efficient" to lay off

public workers?

Let the market decide, right? Or does that change, when it is "my" job on the line?

[ProSense]

5. Are

If it's "efficient" to deindustrialize the Rust Belt, why isn't it just as "efficient" to lay off public workers?

Let the market decide, right? Or does that change, when it is "my" job on the line?

...you implying that Will and other have a valid point? Who is making the argument you're making, and who are you referring to when you say: "Or does that change, when it is 'my' job on the line?"

[WI_DEM]

4. people like George Will apparently don't think of those 24,000 people who lost their jobs

as people with familes to support and who were contributing to other businesses thru their paychecks. No to Will and other conservatives of his ilk (when was the last time George Will ever met real people rather than those on the Washington cocktail circuit) those 24,000 people are just a number.