The Economist reports this week that in 2005 more than 35 per cent of central government workers in the US were over the age of 50, up 8 percentage points from 1995. Recruiting qualified replacement number as these workers retire is going to be a serious challenge.

You can't have big government if you can't hire the numbers of people necessary to staff it. Looks like some shrinkage is on the cards. There may be areas where government will no longer have resources to interfere and simply has to get out of the way.

The British situation is slightly less dire with around 28 per cent over 50 in 2005, up from about 22 per cent a decade earlier. Australia is still less badly off, with respective percentages 21, up from 12 in 1995.

As government regulation squeezes out jobs in the private sector, more and more younger workers who would have worked in free enterprise jobs will be available to fill the increasing number of central Government jobs.

I saw an article recently that stated that for every private sector job created in the State of New Jersey in the last decade, there were 15 new State jobs.

"The George W. Bush years were very lucrative for federal workers. In 2000, the average compensation (wages and benefits) of federal workers was 66 percent higher than the average compensation in the U.S. private sector. The new data show that average federal compensation is now more than double the average in the private sector."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/ ... id-ascent/

Other reports show similar results. So, if anyone takes the hit on finding employees it should be the private sector. We might reach the point that some industries have more government regulators than they have employees in the industry.

Patrick,

I have to disagree with the slant of a portion of the article. The article would have you believe that the pay raises given to Federal employees were the result of some sort of largesse by their congressional representatives or the President. There is a formula that is used to calculate their pay raises based on inflation.

That's a moot point. The fact that there compensation is around 66% higher than the private sector has nothing to do with formulas for caluclating the cost of living increases. It has everything to do with the government not needing to run an organization efficiently. And some government employees get pensions that far exceed their top salary. There are also scams to avoid taxes on your pension.

In any case, if the original proposition is correct and demographics will dictate a reduction in the workforce, the public sector should have far less problem than the private sector.

Bout bloody time experience ruled out over theory, although the Chinese seem to think Mao was right and have commemorated him with a new 35-metre statue, but we'll see who wins in the end.

The system was built so long ago it should be in maintenance not development, so why is government employment increasing not decreasing? To my mind, either the system is failing or we're headed towards a more socialist/autocratic system.

As for replacing the work force fix the real problem with the birth rate, when common sense prevails, women will have children again.

(PS real women don't have secret screw men meetings and aren't easily conned, do you reckon they're the one's with careers, just an idea!..)

Other than that the only thing I can think of is robots will come along, although I'd rather see Africa come up than robots.

"You can't have big government if you can't hire the numbers of people necessary to staff it. Looks like some shrinkage is on the cards. There may be areas where government will no longer have resources to interfere and simply has to get out of the way."


This article sounds like wishful thinking from neoliberals methinks

Patrickt is correct - the public sector won't have as much of a problem with changing demographics as the private sector. The public sector has the double screwup of being both highly unionised and generally a monopoly. More than likely, if the government can't find enough workers, the unions will agitate for even higher pay (to "attract the talent") and thus create an even worse problem with efficiency and expenditure than already exists in the public sector.

Naturally, the burden will fall on everyone else (who largely reside in the private sector) through tax increases and government expenditure with little to nothing to show for it. Far from becoming a libertarian's dream, it would be a libertarian's nightmare.

Government is like the hull of a cruise liner, it's job is to maintain the basic workings and make sure the ship doesn't sink, the private sector's role in building the cruise liner is to build for public demand, but the government is trying to do both jobs.

Julia Gillard's recently hand picked 309 teachers and sent them to a US camp to help build their self-confidence.

Confidence is best built through competence and accomplishments. Those who can't built confidence this way go to camps. Where I worked we got an incompetent manager who had his entire staff go to one of these "camps". Everyone thought it was hilarious except the poor sucker who fell off a twenty-foot pole and passed blood from his kidneys for a week and the manager.

MikeM wrote:

The Economist reports this week that in 2005 more than 35 per cent of central government workers in the US were over the age of 50, up 8 percentage points from 1995. Recruiting qualified replacement number as these workers retire is going to be a serious challenge.

You can't have big government if you can't hire the numbers of people necessary to staff it. Looks like some shrinkage is on the cards. There may be areas where government will no longer have resources to interfere and simply has to get out of the way. ....

In my view, the size of Government is limited by finances, or taxes upon the society it represents. There have been many theoretical studies into the relationship between tax levels and Government - often stating that the people will be revolting if tax levels become too great.

Anyway, puns aside, we all operate in a competitive environment. Governments no longer have the power to control as much as they did in the past. For example, big companies insist of certain tax regimes/environmental permits from Government or they move their operations elsewhere. Governments once fixed the exchange rate, the price of gold, implemented conscription ... all of which would be laughed at if attempted today in Australia. Where are the public banks, the public transport systems? The private system has largely stepped in. Government now tend to influence rather than direct. Non-government forces have more influence than ever before. There is almost always an alternative to Government services.

So, I reckon the size of the Government will never get much larger as a proportion of our GDP/population etc and it will remain more or less at its current size, maybe get smaller. Government's power will continue to wane and non-Government organisations both here in Australia and overseas will have increasingly influence. I think the best Government is one that is almost invisible and just oils the wheels of society.

Such a Government requires wise people, Wise = intelligence + experience, this usually means people who are aged 50 or so.

Finding such people is going to be a serious challenge as such people rarely want the workload and stress of senior Government positions. How can we make such positions more attractive to such wise people?

Airzone,

"Where are . . . , the public transport systems?"

The State controls/runs Sydney's trains and busses (and not very well, if one believes the papers).

Where are the private passenger trains in Sydney and the rest of NSW?

Private busses in Sydney are strictly regulated by Government and are usually relegated to the outer suburbs.

The State of Victoria has privatized passenger rail services that don't seem to run any better than those of NSW.

Samuel wrote:

Airzone,

"Where are . . . , the public transport systems?"

The State controls/runs Sydney's trains and busses (and not very well, if one believes the papers).

Where are the private passenger trains in Sydney and the rest of NSW?

Private busses in Sydney are strictly regulated by Government and are usually relegated to the outer suburbs.

The State of Victoria has privatized passenger rail services that don't seem to run any better than those of NSW.

Yes, you are correct, and I actually travel by the public trains several days a week. It's Sunday and I was a little lax. Thankyou for correcting me, I do get carried away with rhetoric sometimes.

Anyway, definitely some parts of the rail, bus and road transport (people and freight) system generally have been privatised. And correct me if I am wrong please, but the majority of people use an alternative means if preference - the private car. A car is a competitor to public transport. In the old days, when we were young, the balance was on public transport I think, today the balance is more on private transport. That is the gist of my previous post.

The size of Government is self limiting by the proportion of a societies monies it can collect via direct and indirect taxes, and/or by it's efficiency or useful to that society.

Therefore if a Government gets too expensive and/or doesn't deliver value for money, it will lose office or people will select alternative to Government services. The size of a Government is self limiting as we all know the larger an organisation gets, public or private, the more inefficient it becomes generally.

I recall IBM once did a study concluding that the optimal size of an IT organisation at that time, was about 5,000 people. I wonder what the optimal size of Government in Australia is.

The optimal size for Local Government is one State appointed administrator

Samuel wrote:

The optimal size for Local Government is one State appointed administrator

That sounds good to me.

Youth is the time we idealise with theories about how to be and how we ought to be, and is a time we spend locating the best standard of living we can attain. All processes of life are the same whether it's trading product or raising a family. It's about learning to get from A to Z by the most direct route with the least loss and waste and the greatest security. Once we secure a satisfactory standard of living for ourselves, we then seek to simplify it. Age generally provides a more refined lifestyle than in youth.

Markets change based on demand, something theory tries to encompass, but experience knows never will. No matter how much control is put on people to acquire the facts for the provision of their needs, whether by social standards or law, there will always be a line where people will find government invasive and will accordingly seek to rebalance the levels of control to ensure that government only provides benefit to their lives.

Stability comes with age, and with stability comes continuity and through that, the highest standard of living can be attained for all those who choose to be a part of a wider community. We need new ideas but untested new ideas can create waves that can take years to settle, like a pebble in a pond.

Government therefore requires mature people who've attained a broad understanding of the diversity that exists in life and the dangers change can create, especially in a multi-cultural country such as Australia. Ensuring the greatest peace is the primary goal of government and this can only be achieved through the broadest protection of all views without encouraging extremes to rule and creation of a reciprocating extreme argument, thereby destroying the peace and limiting time to refinement and the standard of living.

I believe the peace within a community (nation) demonstrates the level of understanding which a government has of it's people.

Well said ... but on that basis think we may be in trouble, especially in NSW!

Some students recently at Sydney University developed a pro-rape page on Facebook.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/elite- ... -i3js.html

With Sydney Uni being such a prominent law school, the fear that's created by this type of development in such an institution would be crippling for most parents. Imagine the future of the law in hands like these?

However, imagine the future for monkeys?

Embarressing reading this off http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/

"Established in 1855, the Sydney Law School has made a significant contribution to the Australian judiciary, politics and public life. Many of its graduates have become leaders in their fields including Prime Ministers of Australia, a President of the World Bank and Chief Justices of the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of NSW. The Law School is notable for its strong links to the practising profession, barristers, judges and solicitors giving lectures in core legal subjects. The Law School attracts high calibre students to its undergraduate and postgraduate programs and has an internationally respected faculty of scholars.

The Law School seeks to educate lawyers for the 21st century in which legal services are globalised and lawyers need to move with comfort across national boundaries and different legal systems. This 150 year old Law Schoolhas entered a new phase in its development with its move to the main University Campus, ten minutes from the city, to a new building with state of the art research and learning facilities."

It all reads differently now..

I read the article, who/where said that they were law students?

Perhaps one answer may be to allow women to have some means of self defence.

The University is predominantly a law school, and makes significant contribution to the Law and the college is the oldest in Australia. That's the relevance of my post.

As for self-defence for women it's useful but can only go so far due to physical size. One comment I read re this matter was that it would be better to educate men.

Rape still appears to be a woman's responsiblity to not encourage as if to say that women should expect it within a man's nature. Whilst this action by the students may have been intended as a joke (proving the real affect is not widely understood), for women suffering from the affects of rape this would be terrorising.