forbes.com
Federal Workforce Shrinks Despite Deficit Concerns
Since 1975, the percentage of federal employees within the total U.S. workforce has consistently declined, reaching 14.8% by July 1975, contradicting the notion that reducing government workers is a significant solution to the national deficit; federal payroll accounts for roughly 5% of total federal spending.
- What is the actual trend of federal employment as a percentage of total employment since 1975, and how does this challenge the common narrative surrounding deficit reduction?
- The percentage of federal employees in the total workforce has consistently decreased since 1975, dropping from 19.4% to 14.8% by July 1975. This contradicts the common belief that reducing the number of government workers will significantly reduce the deficit. Federal payroll is also a relatively small portion of total federal spending, around 5%.
- How does the size of the federal payroll compare to total federal spending, and what implications does this have for the argument that reducing government workers will significantly reduce the deficit?
- Concerns about government deficit spending often focus on reducing the number of government workers. However, data reveals that the size of the federal workforce, as a percentage of the overall workforce, has steadily decreased since 1975, reaching 14.8% by July 1975. This trend challenges the assumption that reducing government workers is a primary solution for the deficit.
- Considering the long-term trend of decreasing federal employment as a percentage of total employment, what alternative strategies should be considered to address concerns about the national debt and deficit?
- The persistent narrative linking government worker reduction to deficit control is misleading. Data shows a consistent decrease in the federal workforce's percentage of total employment since 1975. Furthermore, the federal payroll constitutes a small portion of the total federal budget. Focusing solely on reducing government headcount as a solution for the deficit ignores more complex economic factors.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the debate around government workforce size as the primary driver of the deficit, selectively highlighting data that supports this narrative. The headline and introduction emphasize concerns about government workers, potentially influencing readers to perceive them as the main problem. The use of phrases like "Why People Worry About The Deficit" and "Why Many Think Government Workers Are The Problem" directs the reader's attention towards a specific perspective and sets a negative tone surrounding government employment. Counterarguments about the relative size of the federal workforce are presented later, mitigating but not entirely eliminating this bias.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language in some instances, such as "somewhat irrational," which implies criticism of those concerned about the debt. Describing the concern as "overblown" also carries a subjective connotation. More neutral alternatives could include phrases like "a differing perspective" or "alternative viewpoints" instead of "somewhat irrational." Suggesting that concerns about debt are driven by a mistaken impression uses charged language that could be improved by being less dismissive. The description of MMT devotees' arguments as simply 'printing money isn't a problem unless inflation rises' oversimplifies their position.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of state and local government employment, focusing solely on the federal level. This limits the analysis of overall government workforce size and its contribution to spending. Additionally, the article doesn't delve into the complexities of government worker compensation, including benefits and pensions, which constitute a significant portion of overall costs. While acknowledging the exclusion of certain agencies' employees, the impact of this omission on the overall analysis isn't fully addressed.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as either reducing government spending through workforce reductions or facing uncontrolled economic consequences. It neglects alternative approaches to deficit reduction, such as tax increases or spending cuts in other areas. The portrayal of MMT as a simple solution ignores the complexities and potential risks associated with its implementation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article challenges the common misconception that reducing the number of government workers is a significant way to reduce the national debt. It highlights that federal employment as a percentage of overall employment has been shrinking since 1975, suggesting that addressing the deficit through drastic workforce reductions is misguided and may disproportionately impact lower-income workers and services that benefit vulnerable populations. This contributes positively to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by advocating for evidence-based policymaking and challenging harmful narratives.