There has been some debate lately about the growth of government employment since the beginning of the recession. A recurring argument is that if there was in fact a growth in government hiring during that time, it was only because of temporary hiring for the census in 2010. This chart looks at that question by breaking down historical fluctuations in federal employment–civilians only–since 1990 (federal, because hiring for census workers happens at the federal level). Total federal employment is shown in blue; non-census federal employment is shown in red.
During census periods, federal employment fluctuates drastically, increasing during census administration and returning to previous levels at the conclusion of the census. These changes are represented above by blue peaks. Indeed, during the summer of 2010, seasonally adjusted federal employment reached 3.4 million employees, the highest level of federal employment since May 1990. However, at the conclusion of this census, federal employment returned to a higher level than before the census hiring. In fact, at the end of the 2010 census, federal employment was even higher than it had been at the beginning of the recession. Even controlling for the effects of census employment, federal employment has increased constantly throughout the recession and into today. Since January 2008, net of census hiring, the federal government has grown by 3.5 percent, gaining 98,000 jobs.
That means there is much more behind the growth in federal employment than census hiring.
What about employment in the rest of the economy? Since the beginning of the recession, state governments have added 42,000 employees to their payrolls. Local governments have cut 258,000 jobs (1.7 percent of their January 2008 workforce). Overall, total government employment has shrunk by 0.5 percent since January 2008. And the private sector has lost 7.2 million jobs, or 6 percent of its January 2008 workforce.
Are these civilian employees, excluding soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am shocked to see that total federal employment is considerably lower today than it was in the early nineties.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUhh… So Federal employment is actually down from the starting date of your graph to it's ending date. Down by approx. 10% it looks like. The starting date was under a Republican Administration.
And the number of Federal employees remained fairly steady between 1998 and 2009 vacillating between 2 million 800 thousand and 2 million 700 thousand. And now it's at approx. 2 million 900 and 50 thousand. Over a period of 10 years it increased by at most something less than 10%? That hardly seems like a crisis or even anything worth remarking about.
Thank God someone was hiring or those private sector employees would have had even less people to buy their goods and services.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a former State of California employee (Employment Development Department) I can quickly come up with two reasons state employment in that state increased during the recession: (1) hiring to help deal with the inundation of unemployment claims and (2) hiring using federal stimulus money.
As one can imagine, claims for unemployment insurance skyrocketed as the economy nosedived. Employees were offered overtime pay to come in on the weekends to help process the flood of new claims.
Stimulus money from the Obama administration was used to increase staff in my office. In spite of furloughing almost every state employee, we were hiring. Doesn't make any sense, until you realize the money didn't come from state coffers, but from the feds.
I would venture to guess the situation was similar in most other states. Unemployment is a problem nationwide, and as we all know, states were in line for billions in federal stimulus money. Most states took it. California was probably first in line.
Given those two factors, it's really kind of surprising state employment didn't increase even more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for the breakdown, VdR. Suspected the total govt shrinking talking point was masking an increase in Fed employment. I'm actually surprised that most of the expansion in the begining of the first Bush term was reversed by the end of his second term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe graph may look great but what is the cost of this employment.
About the same number of employees but how much is the actual cost including benefits and retirement per year?
Give us numbers of employed vs total dollar cost to employ them per year.
I think you will be amazed when you see these numbers, but maybe not.
Cookie jars are nice, when someone else buys the cookies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseeveryone is not looking at the full picture including the author. there was an increase in DOD Jobs, but when was that, and where is the location of the jobs. I currently hear the private sector complaining because the gov employees make more than they do. currently 10,000 dod is making a 150 thousand a year they say. thats true, but that is not the full story. they are making the 150 thousand because they are in iraq and afgan and other hazardous areas. this is the reason for the increase, but no one seems to pay attention to that. Lets look at the amount the gov. workers and employees make, vs. the contracts that KBR and other private companies have and compare the amount in the contract. Billions in the contracts that were proposed and approved by senators with friends in these companies. 20 civ trucks go on a convoy in iraq, 15 of them are full, 5 are empty. the company will charge the gov for every vehicle that is in the convoy. is that odd? now lets look at the private sector and ask a tough question. before the economy fell, the private sector was doing great. they were making more money than a gov employee. the market crashes and businesses go under. the only way most businesses can stay alive is to A) cut jobs, and B) cut salaries. now the private sector is making less than the gov employees. Now we hear the private sector saying its not fair, and I hear that all the time. Most private sector thinks they should make more than the gov employees. So here is the hard question, If the market didn't crash, and the private sector was still booming like it was before, would we be having this conversation?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseeveryone is not looking at the full picture including the author. there was an increase in DOD Jobs, but when was that, and where is the location of the jobs. I currently hear the private sector complaining because the gov employees make more than they do. currently 10,000 dod is making a 150 thousand a year they say. thats true, but that is not the full story. they are making the 150 thousand because they are in iraq and afgan and other hazardous areas. this is the reason for the increase, but no one seems to pay attention to that. Lets look at the amount the gov. workers and employees make, vs. the contracts that KBR and other private companies have and compare the amount in the contract. Billions in the contracts that were proposed and approved by senators with friends in these companies. 20 civ trucks go on a convoy in iraq, 15 of them are full, 5 are empty. the company will charge the gov for every vehicle that is in the convoy. is that odd? now lets look at the private sector and ask a tough question. before the economy fell, the private sector was doing great. they were making more money than a gov employee. the market crashes and businesses go under. the only way most businesses can stay alive is to A) cut jobs, and B) cut salaries. now the private sector is making less than the gov employees. Now we hear the private sector saying its not fair, and I hear that all the time. Most private sector thinks they should make more than the gov employees. So here is the hard question, If the market didn't crash, and the private sector was still booming like it was before, would we be having this conversation?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse