DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Mopar or No Car
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The military is closing bases and re-aligning positions in order to save money. Apparently combing the different branches of the Armed Forces into fewer bases will save a few billion dollars a year. But a couple of interesting things come to light when looking at the winners and losers. In this Grand Scheme the military will cut back 10,782 military positions and 18,223 civilian positions for a total cut of 29,005 positions. Of that total 13,503 positions are from over-seas (mostly in Korea and West Germany) leaving 15,502 positions in the States and Puerto Rico being cut.

While I applaud this move by the military I find it interesting that even though many states and regions are losing a large number of jobs others are gaining a great many, also. For example, Florida is gaining 3,798 military positions while losing 1,002 civilians positions for a total gain of 2,796 jobs. Texas is gaining 9,838 military positions while losing 3,175 civilian ones for a total gain of 6,663 jobs. This is second only to Georgia with a total gain of 6,706 jobs. The West Coast will loose 2,301 jobs and New England really gets the ax with a net loss of 13,635 jobs.

To recap, the Bush States (Florida and Texas) gain over 9,000 jobs while the Blue States loose almost 16,000 jobs, which accounts for all the job losses in the States and then some. Hmmmm ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
I hope that its only a coincidence. That would be a low-ball move if that was intentional.
Republican or democrat they are still Americans who deserve equal treatment from the government no matter who's running the show.
 

·
Mopar or No Car
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I could believe a 1-2% imbalance - maybe even as much as 4-5% as pure "coincidence". However, the West Coast and New England account for over 8% of the losses but are only getting back 1.01% of the gains. That sounds like a lot more than coincidence to me ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
I reckon numbers can be twisted, ground up and spit out, extrapolated and mis-used in order to make any argument one wishes to make. Even another evil conservative conspiracy accusation. A military job is not the same as a civillian job however. The employed military person doesn't gain or lose a job because of realignment. They just transfer. Civillians actually lose their jobs. Therefore, you can't reasonably expect to be able to subtract civilian jobs lost from military positions gained, with any meaningful result. In reality, "the Bush States of Texas and Florida " lost jobs, real jobs. I suspect Bush did this to punish Florida for using to much disaster relief money this past year, and to punish Texas for annexing Arkansas!
 

·
Mopar or No Car
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Treppenwolf said:
I reckon numbers can be twisted, ground up and spit out, extrapolated and mis-used in order to make any argument one wishes to make. Even another evil conservative conspiracy accusation. A military job is not the same as a civillian job however. The employed military person doesn't gain or lose a job because of realignment. They just transfer. Civillians actually lose their jobs. Therefore, you can't reasonably expect to be able to subtract civilian jobs lost from military positions gained, with any meaningful result. In reality, "the Bush States of Texas and Florida " lost jobs, real jobs. I suspect Bush did this to punish Florida for using to much disaster relief money this past year, and to punish Texas for annexing Arkansas!
I'll admit that I was looking at the bigger economic picture - not just unemployment figures. A military position - as far as how much it contributes to the local economy - is slightly less than the contribution of local civilians but cannot be discounted completely (you'll notice I quoted both numbers). Military personnel still spend money and it's not all on base - they make a big contribution to the local economy, too. The way you talk it doesn't matter if a military base is nearby or not. Tell that to the people in San Diego or Norfolk - they'll laugh in your face. Congressmen go out of their way to make deals to keep bases in their states. They know it brings in military money to the local economy and not just military paid civilian jobs.

But we'll see how the numbers play out your way. As you pointed out the Bush States don't gain in the civilian sector - though I'm sure their military sector gains will more than balance that out. Do you also think that the military will be using military personal to expand those bases - or will they hire local contractors to do all the contruction?!?

Looking at only civilian jobs and discounting military salaries & construction gains from military base expansion the West Coast comes out at 4.2% of the total loss and I would say that's probably their "fair share" considering their population. However, New England is getting hit for a whopping 27% of the civilian losses. I believe that's mostly in the form of 2 major naval installations in Maine and Connecticut. To say the least - losing 4900 civilian jobs is going to be very hard on the New England economy (especially since they are losing a lot of military salaries to boot) ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,083 Posts
I wonder if my dream of New England not being part of Jesus land will ever come true? One good thing about Bush he's sure is helping my cause
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
D76G12 said:
I'll admit that I was looking at the bigger economic picture - not just unemployment figures. A military position - as far as how much it contributes to the local economy - is slightly less than the contribution of local civilians but cannot be discounted completely (you'll notice I quoted both numbers). Military personnel still spend money and it's not all on base - they make a big contribution to the local economy, too. The way you talk it doesn't matter if a military base is nearby or not. Tell that to the people in San Diego or Norfolk - they'll laugh in your face. Congressmen go out of their way to make deals to keep bases in their states. They know it brings in military money to the local economy and not just military paid civilian jobs.

But we'll see how the numbers play out your way. As you pointed out the Bush States don't gain in the civilian sector - though I'm sure their military sector gains will more than balance that out. Do you also think that the military will be using military personal to expand those bases - or will they hire local contractors to do all the contruction?!?

Looking at only civilian jobs and discounting military salaries & construction gains from military base expansion the West Coast comes out at 4.2% of the total loss and I would say that's probably their "fair share" considering their population. However, New England is getting hit for a whopping 27% of the civilian losses. I believe that's mostly in the form of 2 major naval installations in Maine and Connecticut. To say the least - losing 4900 civilian jobs is going to be very hard on the New England economy (especially since they are losing a lot of military salaries to boot) ...
I was merely pointing out that you can't subtract civilian jobs lost from military jobs gained to arrive at any logical number. And I was using your original numbers. If you want to change the numbers now to make a different but still irrational point, I'm game. If 9838 new jobs are created in Texas, and each and every one of those jobs is filled by a military person, you have created very few jobs for the citizens of Texas. Not nearly enough to balance out the jobs lost. Your claim of 6,663 jobs gained in Texas is a manipulation of numbers in order to create an invalid perception of impropriety. It appears that with this post, you are trying to say that a pizza delivery job gained cancels out a chemical engineer job lost. Sorry, but that just doesn't compute, and your Bush blaming just doesn't wash in this case.
While I sometimes disagree with you, I really respect the way that you express your beliefs with thought-out verbage. Now if you want to start a thread about United Airlines and judges that annul retirement contracts, I'll probably be there with you.

And BTW, not likely anyone is gonna laugh in my face.
 

·
Mopar or No Car
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I wasn't changing any numbers - just doing as you suggested and separating out the civilian and military positions. Any way you slice it New England is gonna' get it in the butt because those 2 naval bases up there are being closed. It wouldn't have been nearly as bad if only one of them had been closed but to lose both at once is going to be a blow to their economy. And, yes, Texas and Georgia are gonna' make out like bandits even though they are losing civilian jobs. For every chemical engineer's office there are office personnel and assistants that get paid much, much less. And for every platoon there's a lot more businesses getting money than just Pizza Hut and Domino's ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
I think part of the reasion is they don't have enough troops to fill these bases. There are no long lines of idiots looking to enlist.

Well maybe in Texas and Florida. Doesn't that make you feel good that those red necks have control of all those weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
adaptabl said:
Doesn't that make you feel good that those red necks have control of all those weapons.
Better than in the hands of someone who'd end up dead before having the guts to use them...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
RapidTransit said:
Better than in the hands of someone who'd end up dead before having the guts to use them...
Amen brother! :gun6: :gun3: :brutal_36 :brutal_42
 
  • Like
Reactions: RapidTransit
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top