6 ms·
That's almost 1% of US population employed by a single employer !
by tsjq 6y ago
That's almost 1% of US population employed by a single employer !
- leetrout 6y ago> The federal government employs nearly 9.1 million workers, comprising nearly 6 percent of total employment in the United States. Both are shockingly large.
- wongarsu 6y agoFor a random comparison: The entire German government (federal+state+local) employs 3.7 million people, about 8.8% of total employment. Another 0.77 million (1.8% of total employment) are indirectly employed in public services. The German federal government alone are just 0.47 million, or 1.1% of total employment.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dalbasal 6y ago...different kinds of shocking. The federal government is a sector, comparable to "mining" or whatnot. Big is still big in the one-prick-many-ouchies sense, but sector size is not the same thing. The "resolution" of private markets is a major characteristic.
- BurningFrog 6y agoThat's a reasonable point, but also no other sector has one person (DJT) as CEO.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kube-system 6y agoEh, the federal government doesn't fall entirely under the President's power. The position doesn't even have authority over the entire executive branch. Also, as far as the "government sector" of the economy goes -- 87% of government employees work for state or local governments.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoI don't see why 1% of the workforce being employed by the same employer is supposed to be shocking? Suppose you have a village of 400 people. What are the odds that somebody there employs 4 other guys in some capacity? That's more than 1% of the workforce.
- bigbubba 6y ago...it's not one percent of a village. Many things won't make sense to you if you go around being deliberately obtuse like this.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoWhy would we expect the employment structure of an empire to be more fragmented than the employment structure of a village? The whole idea of an empire is large-scale cooperation.
- bigbubba 6y agoActing as though scale is irrelevant is being deliberately obtuse, and doubling down on that is inane.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoI'm not saying scale is irrelevant. I'm saying the influence of scale should push in the opposite direction to what you are implicitly arguing for. I notice you've never bothered to make any arguments other than "stop being stupid". Could you?
- SpaceRaccoon 6y agoSuppose you have a village of 4 people. What are the odds that one guy employs one other guy in some capacity? That's 50% of the workforce. Thus 50% is not a shockingly high number. Right?
- 6y ago