4 ms·

The "job losses" graph is basically trash, since there are far more private sector workers than public sector workers. Better would be to rate it by percentage

by furyg3 16y ago

The "job losses" graph is basically trash, since there are far more private sector workers than public sector workers. Better would be to rate it by percentage. I'm slightly shocked that the WSJ would print it (the graph, not the article).

aresant 16y ago
Here's the real data which is still striking, eg private is 2x the rate of public: Job losses June 2008 to June 2010 State government Statewide: -8,800 / -3.3% County government Statewide: -18,500 / -5.1% City government Statewide: -14,100 / -4.9% Private sector Statewide: -1,200,000 / -9.3% Via http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/23/government-jobs-disappear-posing-threat-upturn/ http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/23/government-jo...
- nostromo 16y ago
  I dismissed the chart entirely as overtly biased -- but I wish he had just used these numbers because they make his point much better, and honestly.
- furyg3 16y ago
  Indeed it's still a big difference, but it's not "off the charts!" as the graph would have you believe. Plus, it's fairly reasonable that there would be such a difference between private / public job loss rates. Employment rates in the operations department of most companies I've worked for are relatively flat during both boom and bust times, when the rates of the rest of the organisation fluctuate wildly. In boom times you need IT/HR/Facilities/Finance... and in bust times you do, too. Sales? R&D? Maybe not so much. I can imagine that most public services are more on the Ops side and less on the Sales side.
  - nkassis 16y ago
    I worked for a University in florida and the largest department was by far the Facilities one. Maintaining buildings, keeping them clean etc.. is very expensive. You can't cut those jobs and for each new building, you to add more of these people. The University tried to freeze hiring but a few new buildings were entering operation, they had to keep getting more janitors/grounds keepers etc.

by furyg3 16y ago

aresant 16y ago

Here's the real data which is still striking, eg private is 2x the rate of public: Job losses June 2008 to June 2010 State government Statewide: -8,800 / -3.3% County government Statewide: -18,500 / -5.1% City government Statewide: -14,100 / -4.9% Private sector Statewide: -1,200,000 / -9.3% Via http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/23/government-jobs-disappear-posing-threat-upturn/ http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/23/government-jo...

nostromo 16y ago
I dismissed the chart entirely as overtly biased -- but I wish he had just used these numbers because they make his point much better, and honestly.
furyg3 16y ago
Indeed it's still a big difference, but it's not "off the charts!" as the graph would have you believe. Plus, it's fairly reasonable that there would be such a difference between private / public job loss rates. Employment rates in the operations department of most companies I've worked for are relatively flat during both boom and bust times, when the rates of the rest of the organisation fluctuate wildly. In boom times you need IT/HR/Facilities/Finance... and in bust times you do, too. Sales? R&D? Maybe not so much. I can imagine that most public services are more on the Ops side and less on the Sales side.
- nkassis 16y ago
  I worked for a University in florida and the largest department was by far the Facilities one. Maintaining buildings, keeping them clean etc.. is very expensive. You can't cut those jobs and for each new building, you to add more of these people. The University tried to freeze hiring but a few new buildings were entering operation, they had to keep getting more janitors/grounds keepers etc.