10 States Where An Absurd Pct Of The Popul. Works For Govt

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-states-where-an-insane-percentage-of-people-work-for-uncle-sam-2010-6

and the winner is: Wyoming, at 22 pct!

don't worry sh76 no1m et al, NY is in there at 16.3 pct or so, ranked #9.

Surprisingly -- as Economix points out -- the biggest public sectors aren't in liberal states like California. They're in states like Kansas, where people often rail against big government.

😉

EDIT - Now think about the fact that a good chunk of our California workforce is not represented in those numbers and are most certainly not employed by government.

😲

hmm. unemployment is at 6.8 pct in Wyoming, and the 22 pct is probably a percentage of raw population, not workers. so figure something like 3 or 4 non-govt workers per govt worker in WY, rather than 5 per.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Surprisingly -- as Economix points out -- the biggest public sectors aren't in liberal states like California. They're in states like Kansas, where people often rail against big government.

😉

i noticed that. public employees in CA are smart enough to jack salaries and benefits up and keep the number of pigs at the trough smaller.

just see Bell, CA in Google News! bet you're slapping your head over that one! you could've been working in Bell!

Originally posted by zeeblebot
and the winner is: Wyoming, at 22 pct!

don't worry sh76 no1m et al, NY is in there at 16.3 pct or so, ranked #9.

Say it aint so, Joe!! -- Alaska is #2. (20.8% )

Such a figure is meaningless, because it differentiates between indirect jobs and direct jobs. For example, if schools delegate providing the afternoon lunch to private companies, the number of public employees is reduced, but the sum of indirect and direct jobs does not necessarily change.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://www.businessinsider.com/10-states-where-an-insane-percentage-of-people-work-for-uncle-sam-2010-6

So the winner has 22%. Then how can it be possible that 'some states have nearly 25%'?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Surprisingly -- as Economix points out -- the biggest public sectors aren't in liberal states like California. They're in states like Kansas, where people often rail against big government.

😉

😲

so if the Tea Party movement successfully gets the government to greatly reduce the number of people it employs, it will be fun to see what happens when red state voters realize that their economies will be getting hit the worst.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
and the winner is: Wyoming, at 22 pct!

don't worry sh76 no1m et al, NY is in there at 16.3 pct or so, ranked #9.

Doesn't seem especially high to me, at least not compared to Britain...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4938794.ece

"Regional variations show that Northern Ireland employs the highest percentage of public sector staff, with 29 per cent working for the State. In Wales 23.6 per cent of employees work in the public sector, while in Scotland this is marginally less at 22.5 per cent.

In the North East the figures are also comparatively high with 23 per cent working for town halls, hospitals and schools.

But the proportion drops considerably farther south. Only 17 per cent of the workforce are public sector staff in the South East, the East and the East Midlands, and 18.9 per cent in London."

Originally posted by Thomaster
So the winner has 22%. Then how can it be possible that 'some states have nearly 25%'?

they probably rounded up.

hmm, WY has the "85 Year Rule" for retirement. it appears that it means that if you hired on at age 25 and worked for 30 years til you were 55, you could retire with full benefits at 55.

---

http://personnel.state.wy.us/stjobs/info/BENEFIT.htm

# Wyoming has the "85 Year Rule" in place for full retirement qualification ‐‐ your age plus your years of service must equal 85 to qualify for full benefits upon early retirement.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
hmm. unemployment is at 6.8 pct in Wyoming, and the 22 pct is probably a percentage of raw population, not workers. so figure something like 3 or 4 non-govt workers per govt worker in WY, rather than 5 per.

scratch that, it says the 22 pct is a percentage of total workers, not total population. but it's state and local employees so the federal component is still missing in the 22 pct.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
they probably rounded up.

They rounded up from 22% to 25%? From 20,8% to 25%?
Only two states have more than 20%.

How misleading.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
they probably rounded up.

hmm, WY has the "85 Year Rule" for retirement. it appears that it means that if you hired on at age 25 and worked for 30 years til you were 55, you could retire with full benefits at 55.

---

http://personnel.state.wy.us/stjobs/info/BENEFIT.htm

# Wyoming has the "85 Year Rule" in place for full retirement qualification ...[text shortened]... plus your years of service must equal 85 to qualify for full benefits upon early retirement.

they probably rounded up

if the number is 22%, you don't round UP to 25%.

so none of the states was "near 25%" -- Wyoming was 22%, Alaska just under 21% - and 46 states were under 17%.

I would also add that except for New York, none of the states in the top 10 have much in the way of population. But each of them still gets two senators to bring home an outsized amount of bacon.

I've been working for the State of Arizona since 1991. I have inside information...just sayin'.