4 ms·

Hiring so many new people is a false assumption. US Federal employment numbers have grown at incredibly low rates relative to US economic growth or federal spen

Hiring so many new people is a false assumption. US Federal employment numbers have grown at incredibly low rates relative to US economic growth or federal spending. ~1% federal workforce growth since 2000: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-data-says-about-federal-workers/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-... Federal employment numbers since 1940: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work-for-the-federal-government/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work-for-the-f... (peaks are temporary census hires) spending over time as a % of GDP: https://www.cato.org/blog/century-federal-spending-1925-2025 https://www.cato.org/blog/century-federal-spending-1925-2025 Inflation adjusted federal spending (~4% growth): https://usafacts.org/articles/how-has-the-federal-budget-changed/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-has-the-federal-budget-cha... US real GDP over time: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1/

blindriver 2y ago
This is completely incorrect. The attrition rate of the federal government is 6-7% per year. This is about 150,000 new hires a year if you maintain the same size government. You can even see it from the DOGE website showing hundreds of thousands So yes, the vast majority are new employees. The idea that the government hasn't grown doesn't mean that new employees haven't been hire. I'm shocked at the number of people that are defending government hiring when government jobs have been the butt of jokes for decades. Government headcount needs to be cut drastically. It doesn't have to be demeaning the way it's currently being done, but the 8 month offer was pretty generous in my opinion.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  >I'm shocked at the number of people that are defending government hiring when government jobs have been the butt of jokes for decades. Government headcount needs to be cut drastically. Or maybe you are wildly off base about how many humans it takes to corral the federal government of the US? Maybe you are more filled with propaganda of government jobs? Maybe the people like you making government jobs the butt of jokes have been part of the problem? Maybe we should respect civil service and have high expectations of it but also understand how important it is. Being mildly in debt is no reason or excuse to destroy democracy.
  - blindriver 2y ago
    Maybe you are the one who is wildly off base as to how many people it takes to do the work in the government? Maybe you are filled with Trump Derangement Syndrome and everything he does is wrong no matter what? I actually worked in the government and saw how ridiculous things were and this was a couple of decades ago. It's only worse now. $36T is mildly in debt? 50% of our tax revenue will be used to pay our interest on the debt in the next 5 years. It sounds like you have no understanding about how much debt we are in, especially considering that most of our debt has been bought by the Federal Reserve, which is essentially printing money. Nothing about this destroys democracy. Managing our debt and spending allows us to enjoy more democracy not less.
- greggyb 2y ago
  Headcount is effectively cut if the rate of hiring is smaller than the growth of the country, which it is.

blindriver 2y ago

This is completely incorrect. The attrition rate of the federal government is 6-7% per year. This is about 150,000 new hires a year if you maintain the same size government. You can even see it from the DOGE website showing hundreds of thousands So yes, the vast majority are new employees. The idea that the government hasn't grown doesn't mean that new employees haven't been hire. I'm shocked at the number of people that are defending government hiring when government jobs have been the butt of jokes for decades. Government headcount needs to be cut drastically. It doesn't have to be demeaning the way it's currently being done, but the 8 month offer was pretty generous in my opinion.

mrguyorama 2y ago
>I'm shocked at the number of people that are defending government hiring when government jobs have been the butt of jokes for decades. Government headcount needs to be cut drastically. Or maybe you are wildly off base about how many humans it takes to corral the federal government of the US? Maybe you are more filled with propaganda of government jobs? Maybe the people like you making government jobs the butt of jokes have been part of the problem? Maybe we should respect civil service and have high expectations of it but also understand how important it is. Being mildly in debt is no reason or excuse to destroy democracy.
- blindriver 2y ago
  Maybe you are the one who is wildly off base as to how many people it takes to do the work in the government? Maybe you are filled with Trump Derangement Syndrome and everything he does is wrong no matter what? I actually worked in the government and saw how ridiculous things were and this was a couple of decades ago. It's only worse now. $36T is mildly in debt? 50% of our tax revenue will be used to pay our interest on the debt in the next 5 years. It sounds like you have no understanding about how much debt we are in, especially considering that most of our debt has been bought by the Federal Reserve, which is essentially printing money. Nothing about this destroys democracy. Managing our debt and spending allows us to enjoy more democracy not less.
greggyb 2y ago
Headcount is effectively cut if the rate of hiring is smaller than the growth of the country, which it is.