86 million private-sector workers support 148 million benefit takers

86 million private-sector workers support 148 million benefit takers

camel wikimediaU.S. Census numbers tell why America’s economy is sluggish and likely headed downward again: There are just 86 million full-time private-sector workers supporting 148 million benefit-takers.

So if you’re a full-time worker in the private sector, such as yours truly, you’re supporting 1.7 people getting some sort of government check, whether government workers, welfare recipients, private contractors to governments, etc.

No wonder taxes are so high.

As CNSNews noted:

“As more baby boomers retire, and as Obamacare comes fully online — with its expanded Medicaid rolls and federally subsidized health insurance for anyone earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level — the number of takers will inevitably expand. And the number of full-time private-sector workers might also contract.

“Eventually, there will be too few carrying too many, and America will break.”

And let’s throw in a number I’ve noted before: the $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government, mainly for Social Security and Medicare, as calculated by Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff.

Looks like we’re near the “tipping point,” to use a phrase popular today — or the point where the straw breaks the camel’s back, as people used to say.

Consider that number again: 1 private-sector worker supporting 1.7 people receiving a government check. It can’t possibly last.





Write a comment
  1. michael
    michael 18 April, 2014, 15:10

    Unfortunately there is no relief in sight for the private sector. The foxes are running the hen house. More pain ahead.

    Reply this comment
  2. californianative
    californianative 18 April, 2014, 16:26

    It’s not fair lumping all the retirees in that number who worked hard all their lives to raise families and contribute to Society. My 82 year old mother raised 4 children, worked as a registered nurse until she was 72 years old. She contributed to a 403 b account and has a small pension. No private insurance company would insure her for any amount that she could reasonably afford. Should we just set all of our old folks out on the curb for garbage pickup? We can’t blame all of the ” takers” for this problem.

    Reply this comment
    • S Moderation Douglas
      S Moderation Douglas 18 April, 2014, 19:08

      With the track record CWD has, californianative, I would take all those numbers with a grain of salt. “A journalistic venture” means one right wing blog quoting another with no verification.

      They echo back and forth. Lots of noise. No substance.

      Reply this comment
      • eck
        eck 18 April, 2014, 19:21

        Why don’t you actually look for yourself, dweeb. Nah, you’ll just take potshots. Please, go away.

        Reply this comment
        • S Moderation Douglas
          S Moderation Douglas 18 April, 2014, 20:23


          Three articles in the last month from CWD alone saying the average Californian pays over $9,000 a year in state and local taxes.

          From one misguided study that echoed around the rightwing nutosphere with no one checking the math. If it fits the agenda, print first and ask questions……never.

          I will look for myself. Meantime, please get your agita under control.

          Reply this comment
          • SeeSaw
            SeeSaw 18 April, 2014, 21:55

            If he is totaling all Californians to get that average, he is probably adding all of the multi-millionaires who would certainly make that average go up. I consider myself an average lower, middle-class Californian. My State income tax liability last week, when I filed my return, was $1770. I would be hard-pressed to think of any other tax category in CA where I would have paid over $7,000.

          • S Moderation Douglas
            S Moderation Douglas 18 April, 2014, 23:05

            I’m afraid not, SeeSaw, it’s even more of a dum bass error than that. WalletHub had its own unique method of comparing state taxes. They were NOT averages. I sincerely hope they don’t pull that crap again.

            Anyone whose agenda includes criticizing government took to it like a monkey to a shiny object. Common sense and fifth grade math would tell a normal person that if the average Californian paid $9,000 in state and local taxes, there would be NO money problems for years to come. That’s $152,000,000,000 MORE than the total state/local governments spend in one year.

            UGH! Big number, shiny. Government BAD!

            Wallethub also grossly UNDERestimated the taxes for Washington state, which led to the inane headlines on CWD.

      • Ted O'Steele, CEO
        Ted O'Steele, CEO 19 April, 2014, 21:05

        well said smd –plus 75% of retirees dough is paid for by the funds they created!

        Teabag jibberish

        Reply this comment
  3. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 18 April, 2014, 18:45

    The public sector probably employs more people than the private sector today. Which also might explain why the US is spending 43% more than it has in revenues.

    Reply this comment
  4. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 18 April, 2014, 23:44

    Quick, show of hands. Has anyone heard of CNSNews before?

    Now you have. Cybercast News Service, formerly Conservative News Service.

    Type into your favorite search engine ” 86 Million Makers Support 148 Million Takers”

    You will see dozens of examples how to get free publicity by making up big shiny numbers.

    Just remember, 63% of statistics are made up on the spot. There’s a sucker born every minute.

    Have to put this down as another Seilerism.

    Reply this comment
  5. Queeg
    Queeg 19 April, 2014, 08:55

    There are tons of dependent people out there…..

    They think a cow is a clean air enviro hazard!

    Reply this comment
  6. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 19 April, 2014, 14:30

    “Pretty numbers, aren’t they?”

    Spoiler alert. This is a copy/paste from a poster on the CNSNews blog:

    The 86 million This is the number of people who worked full time, the entire year of 2012, in the private sector. I’m not quite sure why the public sector is left out. They pay taxes too. I suppose because since they are paid by the government, they are part of the evil burden that the hallowed private sector has to bear. Of course, there are many in the private sector who also get paid by the government.

    Anyhoo, it’s otherwise a terribly misleading statistic. For instance, if you worked full time 51 weeks in 2012, you don’t count. If you count all the people that worked in the private sector regardless of if they were full time the entire year or not, that number comes to 120 million. Totalling all such workers, regardless of their pay status, comes to 250 million.

    The biggest of that 130 million difference is from the 92 million so called “unpaid workers”, typically family members. Yes, these people support the 86 million. They contribute to the GDP. They just don’t get paid.

    The 148 million This is the number of persons “residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program”. It does not include the 3 million receiving veteran’s benefits, because of the arbitrary reason that they “served their country in the most profound way possible” but does include the 50 million receiving Social Security and the 46 million receiving Medicare, benefits those folks likely earned working in the private sector. But it’s no mystery why one is included and the other is not. Pure pandering to conservative values.

    But here’s the big problem with that number. If you collect any of these benefits for even one week, you make the list. Even more misleading, if you just live in the same house as someone that collected that benefit for a week, you count.

    Thus, it’s apples and oranges. The 148 million is as bloated as the 86 million is stark. I could as easily say there are 250 million working to support the 5 million households that subsist solely on means-tested government benefits (not Social Security or Medicare). Pretty numbers, aren’t they?

    Reply this comment
    • Donkey
      Donkey 20 April, 2014, 08:06

      A RAGWUS feeder can not be taken seriously when they post that they “pay taxes.”
      Only a feeder believes taking money from a producer, giving it to a RAGWUS feeding troll, having the troll regurgitate a small amount of the producers cash as taxes becomes a magical path at which the RAGWUS feeder is actually paying taxes. Absurd only beings to define such idiocy. 🙂

      Reply this comment
  7. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 19 April, 2014, 14:34


    “Pure pandering to conservative *values*.”

    Reply this comment
  8. Queeg
    Queeg 19 April, 2014, 16:54

    Lots of troughies figured things out ……only low pay crummy service jobs run by slave master globalists being created.

    Reply this comment
    • Donkey
      Donkey 20 April, 2014, 08:08

      One of the truer things you have ever written my RAGWUS feeding troll. 🙂

      Reply this comment
  9. Ted O'Steele, CEO
    Ted O'Steele, CEO 22 April, 2014, 07:58

    What does ragis stand for???

    Reply this comment
  10. Bridgett
    Bridgett 20 June, 2014, 13:24

    You need to take part in a contest
    for one of the finest blogs on the net. I will highly recommend this website!

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Tags assigned to this article:
John SeilerSocial SecuritywelfareCNSNews

Related Articles

L.A. union leader wants exemption from new $15/hr wage

Just a week after the L.A. City Council voted in support of a $15 minimum wage, Rusty Hicks, the head

Auditor: CA courts not spending money judiciously

California’s state and local courts commonly complain they don’t get enough funds to do their jobs. And if there’s one

More media malpractice

Nov. 17, 2012 Katy Grimes: One of the worst editorials I’ve ever read was in today’s Sacramento Bee. Throughout the