We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers
More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.
By STEPHEN MOORE
WSJ.com
If you want to understand better why so
many states—from New York to Wisconsin to
California—are teetering on the brink of
bankruptcy, consider this depressing
statistic: Today in America there are nearly
twice as many people working for the
government (22.5 million) than in all of
manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an
almost exact reversal of the situation in
1960, when there were 15 million workers in
manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a
paycheck from the government.
It gets worse. More Americans work for
the government than work in construction,
farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing,
mining and utilities combined. We have moved
decisively from a nation of makers to a
nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2
trillion cost of state and local governments
is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and
benefits of state and local employees. Is it
any wonder that so many states and cities
cannot pay their bills?
Every state in America today except for
two—Indiana and Wisconsin—has more
government workers on the payroll than
people manufacturing industrial goods.
Consider California, which has the highest
budget deficit in the history of the states.
The not-so Golden State now has an
incredible 2.4 million government
employees—twice as many as people at work in
manufacturing. New Jersey has just under
two-and-a-half as many government employees
as manufacturers. Florida's ratio is more
than 3 to 1. So is New York's.
Even Michigan, at one time the auto
capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once
the steel capital, have more government
bureaucrats than people making things. The
leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and
New Mexico, which have hired more than six
government workers for every manufacturing
worker.
Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world—at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That's less than half of the state's 1.48 million government employees.
Don't expect a reversal of this trend
anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates
are finding that more and more of our top
minds want to work for the government. Why?
Because in recent years only government
agencies have been hiring, and because the
offer of near lifetime security is highly
valued in these times of economic
turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren't willing
to take career risks, we have a real problem
on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a
generation of Americans who want to work at
the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The employment trends described here are
explained in part by hugely beneficial
productivity improvements in such
traditional industries as farming,
manufacturing, financial services and
telecommunications. These produce far more
output per worker than in the past. The
typical farmer, for example, is today at
least three times more productive than in
1950.
Where are the productivity gains in
government? Consider a core function of
state and local governments: schools. Over
the period 1970-2005, school spending per
pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled,
while standardized achievement test scores
were flat. Over roughly that same time
period, public-school employment doubled per
student, according to a study by researchers
at the University of Washington. That is
what economists call negative productivity.
But education is an industry where we
measure performance backwards: We gauge
school performance not by outputs, but by
inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't
pay teachers enough or we need smaller class
sizes or newer schools. If education had
undergone the same productivity revolution
that manufacturing has, we would have half
as many educators, smaller school budgets,
and higher graduation rates and test scores.
The same is true of almost all other
government services. Mass transit spends
more and more every year and yet a much
smaller share of Americans use trains and
buses today than in past decades. One way
that private companies spur productivity is
by firing underperforming employees and
rewarding excellence. In government
employment, tenure for teachers and near
lifetime employment for other civil servants
shields workers from this basic system of
reward and punishment. It is a system that
breeds mediocrity, which is what we've
gotten.
Most reasonable steps to restrain
public-sector employment costs are smothered
by the unions. Study after study has shown
that states and cities could shave 20% to
40% off the cost of many services—fire
fighting, public transportation, garbage
collection, administrative functions, even
prison operations—through competitive
contracting to private providers. But unions
have blocked many of those efforts. Public
employees maintain that they are underpaid
relative to equally qualified private-sector
workers, yet they are deathly afraid of
competitive bidding for government services.
President Obama says we have to retool our economy to "win the future." The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things.
Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.