In her Sept. 1 op-ed “The value of public-sector jobs,” Renée Loth writes, “If public employment had held steady during the recovery, [it’s estimated that] today’s unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent instead of the current 8.3.” I could not resist the desire to respond.
When are Democrats and liberals going to learn that public-sector jobs do not add to the economy? They are created by taking money away from working taxpayers in the income-producing private sector. As such, they are a net negative.
Comments
Please, teachers and firefighters and police, public works people who work for the health and safety of the public, and other public sector workers are essential to the economy. Without their contributions, who could run a business? If the same activities were performed by the private sector for profit, might you see them as a net positive?
You clearly didn't listen to your history teacher. Ever heard of the Great Depression? Ever heard of the WPA? Google it!
Huh? People who work in public sector jobs are wage earners just like any one else. They pay taxes, they are consumers, they buy homes, they take out insurance of several kinds, they pay to educate their children. They do not hoard their wealth, or try to hide it in off-shore accounts. Just because they work for a government agency does not mean that they are isolated from participating in every way as citizens. Where in the world do you get such ideas? When the voices on the radio become the voices in your head, maybe it's time to seek help.
The idea that public sector workers take money away from the economy is absurd.
Say you're a teacher. When you get your paycheck, you do one of two things. You either spend the money (most likely at a private business) or you deposit it in your bank.
If a group of newly-hired teachers starts spending money at local businesses, the owners, sensing growing demand, can use this new income to hire more workers. This helps generate economic activity in the private sector.
When those same teachers deposit their checks at the bank, the bank then turns around and lends the money to other start-up businesses, who now have the capital to meet growing demand.
Notice how, in both cases, the money spent on public sector workers returns to the private sector almost immediately. And, by the way, this extra economic activity generates additional tax revenue that can offset the cost of the workers' paychecks.
The reason Democrats and liberals aren't ever going to learn that "public sector jobs do not add to the economy" is because it is not true. Basic economics tells us otherwise.
How idiotic! Public sector jobs-police,fire fighters,military,social service workers etc.-are part of the cost of living in a civilized society. We try to keep these costs as low as possible,but bearing them is one of the responsibilities of citizenship.
... they don't add to the economy? So teachers, firefighters, police officers or direct care workers don't add anything? The money they make doesn't enable them to make purchases which benefit the private sector? And there are intangible contributions, as well--a better educated, better trained, better protected society enhances the economy, as well. My wife worked as a case manager for the Commonwealth for a few years and she assisted her clients in finding employment, often in the private sector, so they could start paying taxes, buy stuff, etc.
What an absurd notion.
“Public-sector jobs drag the economy down “ LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, September 08, 2012 Diane Richardson: You and others claim that the public sector is “cost to the economy” and a “tax burden”. I can understand if you feel that some or all public sector activities should be done by the private sector (I might even agree with you at times) or not even take place. OK, that’s your opinion. But how you possible think that public sector spending impacts the overall economy "negatively"? Tell me: how can the overall economic activity that I generate be any different if I’m pushing paper for the private insurance company I work for or if instead I pushed paper at some Massachusetts state agency? How can the economic activity contribution of a DPW worker filling street potholes be any different than if he worked building condos for a private construction company? What difference can it make if my wife trained new employees at my insurance company rather than teaching in a public school? It can’t. The money spent by these employed persons is the same green dollars regardless of their source. If you still disagree, please explain it to me. Alan