Skip to main content

Should Trump cut two thirds of the federal workforce?

February 27, 2025

Should Trump cut two thirds of the federal workforce?

By some estimates, about 2/3 of federal workers are either non-essential or occupy positions that could be replaced with automation, machines, and AI. Should Trump and Musk fire all of them? Probably, but not all at once.

Laying off two-thirds of the federal workforce would have profound implications for both unemployment rates and the broader U.S. economy. The federal government employs approximately 3 million civilian workers, constituting about 2% of all U.S. payrolls. A reduction of two-thirds equates to 2 million job losses.

Impact on Unemployment:

  • Immediate Increase: The sudden displacement of 2 million workers would directly elevate the unemployment rate. While the private sector might eventually absorb some of these individuals, the immediate surge in job seekers would outpace the availability of positions, leading to a significant short-term spike in unemployment.

  • Historical Context: Between 2011 and 2014, approximately 146,000 federal jobs were eliminated due to budget cuts. During this period, the private sector added 7 million jobs, effectively absorbing the displaced workers. However, the scale of the proposed layoffs—2 million employees—is unprecedented and would present a far greater challenge to the labor market. 

Economic Consequences:

  • Reduced Consumer Spending: Federal employees contribute significantly to consumer spending. Mass layoffs would lead to decreased household incomes, resulting in reduced spending on goods and services. This contraction in consumer demand could adversely affect businesses, potentially leading to further job cuts in the private sector.

  • Regional Impacts: Certain regions, especially those with a high concentration of federal jobs, would experience more severe economic downturns. For instance, areas surrounding Washington, D.C., where federal employment is a major economic driver, could face substantial economic challenges. 

  • Service Disruptions: The federal workforce encompasses roles critical to public services, including healthcare, national security, and infrastructure maintenance. A significant reduction in personnel could disrupt these services, leading to broader societal and economic repercussions.

Private Sector Absorption:

  • Capacity Limitations: While the private sector has the potential to absorb displaced workers over time, the sheer volume of 2 million job seekers entering the market simultaneously would likely overwhelm current capacities. This imbalance could result in prolonged periods of unemployment for many individuals.

  • Skill Mismatches: Many federal employees possess specialized skills tailored to public sector roles. Transitioning to private sector positions may require retraining, and not all skills may be directly transferable, posing additional challenges to reemployment efforts.

Conclusion:

Eliminating two-thirds of the federal workforce would lead to a significant increase in unemployment and could trigger a notable economic decline. The private sector, while resilient, would face challenges in rapidly absorbing such a large influx of job seekers. Moreover, the loss of income and subsequent reduction in consumer spending, coupled with potential disruptions to essential public services, would likely exacerbate economic instability. Policymakers would need to consider these factors carefully, implementing strategies to mitigate adverse outcomes and support both displaced workers and the broader economy.

Now you know it.

www.creatix.one

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When will the Tesla bubble burst?

December 11, 2024 When will the Tesla bubble burst?  We don't know Fools rush in. It's impossible to know exactly when the Tesla bubble will finally burst. Unfortunately for us at Creatix, we began shorting Tesla too soon. We are down almost 40% on our position as of today. We are not fooling ourselves thinking that we were ever make money on the short position. We truly doubt that Tesla can go down 40% any time soon.  We would love to add to the short position, but it would exceed our $3,000 limit on the stupid bets that we do for fun. We're not Mr. Beast. We have a very limited budget for ridiculousness. We would love to short Tesla tomorrow morning at the ridiculous share price of $424. Tesla is trading at an incredible 116 times earnings, which gives Tesla a market capitalization of $1.32 Trillion. Elon Musk added today $13.4 billion to his fortune. Yes, $13 billion in one day. Yesterday, he had added $11 billion. Yes, that's $24 billion in 2 days.  Six months ago, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Are we closer to World War III after Assad's' fall in Syria?

December 8, 2024 Are we closer to World War III after Assad's fall in Syria?    Well, yes because World War III will be in the future and we are always closer to the future. Now, that future has not been created yet so it's impossible to predict it with full accuracy. Whether the world moves into WWIII after Assad's fall will greatly depend on what Putin decides to do. After all, Assad is hiding in Russia from where he could try to organize a come back. We should all prepare for WWIII. Sooner or later WWIII will be real. Perhaps we are already at the initial stages and have not realized it. a WWIII will most likely bring significant human suffering and significant technological advances. Who will win, how will WWIII play out? No one knows yet. The future has not been created yet.  In this post we take a quick look into Syria's history including who is Bashar al-Assad, and what may happen in Syria and the region now that Assad's regime collapsed and the dictator is i...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is the best deal for Panama?

February 1, 2025 What is the best deal for Panama? Trump wants the American Canal in Panama back. What should Panama do?  Panama should lease the canal to the United States. Panama can then hope that a future president can end the lease or renegotiate it in the future. Panama earns about $5 billion a year operating the canal. Panama should negotiate a lease with the United States that allows Panama to either earn or save about that amount per year. The lease may call for improvements to the canal paid by the United States. The lease may call for other economic concessions to Panama such as a special trade agreement, tariff exemptions, direct U.S. investments in Panama, fintech and cryptocurrency deals, etc.  Panama should see Trump's interest in the canal as a blessing in disguise and as an opportunity to enter into a strategic money-making deal. Panama should not see itself as a victim. The truth is that the United States built the canal and that the United States freed Panam...
Post a Comment
Read more