Interesting that, contrary to what I had assumed, social security is completely flat in its budget share from 1987 to 2011.
The baby boomers start hitting full retirement age in 2012. Will be interesting to see the same stat in 5-10 years.
50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
11–20 of 76 posts
Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
#12Interesting that, contrary to what I had assumed, social security is completely flat in its budget share from 1987 to 2011.
Yes, but it is just about to zoom up as the baby boomers start retiring over the next 20 years. It is a double wammy to the budget because they will switch from paying in to pulling out.
Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
#13Interesting that, contrary to what I had assumed, social security is completely flat in its budget share from 1987 to 2011.
Yes, but it is just about to zoom up as the baby boomers start retiring over the next 20 years. It is a double wammy to the budget because they will switch from paying in to pulling out.
True, though Reagan somewhat planned for that with the 1983 Social Security tax hike, which was designed to pull in ~20 years of higher baby-boomer Soc. Sec. tax revenue to pay for their retirements. Hence the huge surpluses Soc. Sec. has been running for some years, to accumulate a few trillion out of which to pay for their retirements (if it weren't for that, Soc. Sec. tax could've been a lot lower over the past 20 years purely to break even year-to-year).
Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
#14The other thing that would be good to see is the percentage of GDP that the spending represents. Here is one here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1903_2010...
The most amazing thing I take away from that chart, having lived in both Europe and the U.S., is how little the U.S. taxpayer gets for their money in comparison, I'm guessing because spending crept up slowly without any real planning. For example, the U.S., Canadian, and Norwegian governments each spend about 40% of GDP, but somehow Norwegians and Canadians get a much stronger set of social services (including state-provided healthcare and much cheaper education) within the same budgetary level.
It seems U.S. spending has gotten to similar levels without actually having any sort of solid planning, so taxpayers are left in the worst of both worlds: 40% of GDP spending, but somehow you still have to buy everything yourself (like health insurance or college), because the state hasn't figured out how to provide it for that price. There are some exceptions; e.g. healthcare for the elderly is covered, and the interstate highway system is good. But not as much as I would expect for that size budget.
Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
#15Does this account for the changes in how spending is reported?
Is all defense spending under defense? or is there a lot hidden under education and health?
I have played with too many budgets to accept things like this at face value.
Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
#16Interesting that, contrary to what I had assumed, social security is completely flat in its budget share from 1987 to 2011.
This is one of the reasons that I don't like graphs of governments spending shown as percentages. There is an inherent spin in the chart. If federal spending increases relative to GDP, but the constituent components of the chart remain relatively flat percentage-wise, then it misleads people to interpret the spending as flat, when it isn't.
Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
#17Interesting that, contrary to what I had assumed, social security is completely flat in its budget share from 1987 to 2011.
This is one of the reasons that I don't like graphs of governments spending shown as percentages. There is an inherent spin in the chart. If federal spending increases relative to GDP, but the constituent components of the chart remain relatively flat percentage-wise, then it misleads people to interpret the spending as flat, when it isn't.
Oh, I realize it's grown overall, just somehow I had thought it grew as a percentage of the budget as well, which seems not to (yet) be the case. Looks like healthcare spending (Medicare+Medicaid) is the main thing that's been gobbling up a bigger percentage.
Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
#18Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
#19And here's another graph of government spending effectiveness:
cato.org/images/testimony/coulson-2-9-11-2.jpg
Imagine if that were
- Price vs. Hard Drive space, OR
- Price vs. Computer Chip
We would be paying more for slower computers!
Yet when the government spends, and produces outcomes like these, the cry is always for "more funding."
To make this concrete, many people on HN are involved in startups.
If you showed prospective investors numbers like the kind in that graph -- for something you produced -- you would be walking away without a check.
Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
#20And here's another graph of government spending effectiveness: cato.org/images/testimony/coulson-2-9-11-2.jpg Imagine if that were - Price vs. Hard Drive space, OR - Price vs. Computer Chip We would be paying more for slower computers! Yet when the government spends, and produces outcomes like these, the cry is always for "more funding." To make this concrete, many people on HN are involved in startups. If you showed…
I'd feel better about that graph if it wasn't so horribly spun. The vertical scale is showing a delta from the original value, not the value. It looks like an exponential explosion in spending when it's actually about 3.5x since 1970.
Honestly, if I were an investor and a startup tried to sell me that chart, I'd walk out of the room.
The broader point is valid, though. Education policy in the US sucks. But the details matter a whole lot -- we're spending on the wrong things (tests, security) and not on the things that are known to make a difference (e.g. teacher salary -- make it competetive with other professions and you'll get better teachers). It's far more complicated than the libertarian "Gov'mnt spending bad, hur, hur, hur." line.