SC

Government Growth Fuels SC Unemployment Decline

 PRIVATE SECTOR STILL SHEDDING JOBS South Carolina’s unemployment rate fell sharply in September – dropping from 9.6 percent to 9.1 percent – according to statistics from the S.C. Department of Employment and Workforce (SCDEW).  That’s the largest single-month drop since 1983, agency director Abraham Turner says. The Palmetto State also…

 PRIVATE SECTOR STILL SHEDDING JOBS

South Carolina’s unemployment rate fell sharply in September – dropping from 9.6 percent to 9.1 percent – according to statistics from the S.C. Department of Employment and Workforce (SCDEW).  That’s the largest single-month drop since 1983, agency director Abraham Turner says.

The Palmetto State also saw a modest uptick in the size of its labor force – adding 2,500 workers in September after shedding more than 12,000 the previous month.  In August, South Carolina’s labor participation rate dipped to an all-time low of 58.3 percent.

That’s the good news …

The bad news?  With the exception of a negligible increase in manufacturing jobs last month, these employment gains were exclusively the result of public sector expansion.  Government added a whopping 15,500 positions in September – a 4.7 percent increase from the previous month.  That explosion of taxpayer-funded hiring offset private sector job losses in leisure and hospitality (-5,800),  trade, transportation and utilities (-2,500), business  and professional services (-2,100) and construction (-1,900).

Accordingly, these numbers represent a mixed bag for S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley.  On the one hand politicians are always glad to see a drop in the widely watched unemployment rate – on the other hand, however, it’s clear that this decrease is being exclusively subsidized by taxpayers as opposed to being driving organically in the private sector.

South Carolina has seen its state budget soar by more than $1 billion in each of the last two years – even as the income levels of its citizens have shrunk.  Also the Palmetto State’s underemployment rate – a broader, more accurate measure of joblessness – is currently 17 percent.

Is growing government a recipe for long term economic success?  Of course not.  Just look at the data from the last decade.

What is? Broad based income tax relief.

Incidentally, the initial Associated Press report on the September unemployment numbers made no mention of the fact that the Palmetto State’s job growth was fueled exclusively by taxpayer-funded positions.  The AP later included this data, though, and the fact that the only “private sector” gains were in the “educational and health services” field – due to “increased demand in social assistance programs.”

The national unemployment rate fell from 8.1 to 7.8 percent last month – although critics have questioned those numbers.

There will be one additional federal unemployment report released prior to the November 6 elections, but this is the last state data to be released prior to voters casting their ballots.

SEPTEMBER 2012 UNEMPLOYMENT REPORT (.pdf)

***

Related posts

SC

SCDPH Tracking West Nile Virus Through Dead Birds

Erin Parrott
SC

The Post And Courier Got Hacked …

Will Folks
SC

Charleston VA Investigating Employee’s Trump Assassination Attempt Comments

Dylan Nolan

52 comments

Torch October 19, 2012 at 10:17 am

Nikki found one way to drive down unemployment. Wonder if she will take credit for adding the govenment jobs in order to bring down SC’s dismal unemployment rate?

Reply
TA October 19, 2012 at 10:24 am

This will piss Mitt off. He believes that the private sector can only create jobs. He wants to slash the government so the government workers will go on the public dole.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 10:32 am

The gov’t workers are already on the public dole. Gov’t makes no money, hence the jobs it “creates” are by taking money from other people & businesses.

Private industry creates jobs via voluntary transaction by providing truly needed products & services…so they are the job creaters-PERIOD.

If gov’t couldn’t take money from anyone(or print it up) it would immediately go out of business and the parasites would lose their jobs.

But, let us for a moment take your notion that gov’t can create jobs:

WHY NOT HAVE GOV’T EMPLOY EVERYONE? Wouldn’t that work in your fantasy land?

Reply
hhuuhh?? October 19, 2012 at 10:59 am

Gov’t jobs fuel demand for services just as well as private sector jobs do.
Meaning that a school teacher puts money in the pocket of the business gods just as well as the insurance agent does.

And, good grief don’t you find a one month up-tick that coincides with back to school just might be related to back to school and not any unnoticed calls of state agencies to re-hire workers?

?, why don’t you do some research on the Great Depression and learn something? Or, just go back to the Bush Administration at the beginning of this recession. Do you remember the check he sent you to “stimulate” the economy?

Keynes works. The IMF says that a big part of the mess in Europe is tied to the job killing austerity those countries started at the beginning of the crash. You don’t fix a recession by cutting spending. Lack of jobs only kills recovery like in Europe and like the GOP Congress has substantially done here. Debt and deficit is what you work on in the unswing when people are working and more revenue is coming in.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 11:03 am

“Keynes works.”

Your time is coming to an end. Once the general population figures it out gov’t is going to have to bare its fangs to keep control and the charade becomes more fully apparent.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 11:06 am

Just one of you economic genius’s answer the above question:

If gov’t jobs “help” the economy then why can’t we have gov’t employ everyone?

Come on, someone pony something up. I’m truly eager to see a well reasoned response to the natural conclusion of the notion of gov’t jobs “helping”.

Anyone?

Reply
CNSYD October 19, 2012 at 11:21 am

?,

Obviously your one size fits all statement, “the parasites would lose their jobs.”, includes all of our military in places like Afghanistan, right? They are government employees.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 11:28 am

Absolutely.

There are plenty of example of private industry waging war.

We have the Xe in the modern day, we hired French professionals during the Revelotion to combat the Hessians hired by the British, etc. et al…

Quite a lengthy history/precedent of the “professional”(private) solider actually.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Anyone working for gov’t gets their check currently from either the printing of money or taking it from someone else. Either eay it’s parasitic activity whether you like the connotation of the word or not.

So, are you here to answer my question on why we can have gov’t employ everyone and solve our problems or are you just making nice talk?

Reply
CNSYD October 19, 2012 at 11:40 am

In an all volunteer military, they are all private soldiers. Your examples are ludicrous. Where did the funds come from to pay the “foreigners” to fight for us during the Revolution?

Nice talk? The only thing “nice” about it is that I didn’t start off telling you that you are an idiot.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 11:55 am

What’s wrong fuck face? Can’t answer the question?

No matter, I’ll answer yours. If someone wants to pony up the dough to have the property protected they can do that a variety of ways, including privately funded soldiers, privately run. That was the example.

A truly “private” military means private funds.(not just voluntary enlistment) You are correct in that gov’ts in some cases were footing the bills, but not ALL the bills. It is a model for future development.

Now, are you ready to answer the question as to why we can’t have gov’t employ everyone? It’s a very important question, and I know that you know it is.

Reply
Smirks October 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm

If gov’t jobs “help” the economy then why can’t we have gov’t employ everyone?

That’s a bit of a silly question, akin to Rush Limbaugh’s “Why not make minimum wage $100 an hour?”

Government performs certain functions, functions which are decided upon by elected officials, functions that the private sector, for the most part, neglects (and sometimes is abusive).

Yes, government employees are paid for via us paying taxes or money being printed, which is precisely why functions should be limited to what society needs or what benefits society as a whole. However, stripping those functions and firing those people won’t necessarily result in a huge private sector boom. Stripping those functions won’t result in functions being taken over by the private sector either, unless you can tell me how a business can make a profit on studying environmental damage and give itself the regulatory power to stop it, for instance.

FITS is tying the loss of jobs directly to more government spending, and while I agree increased spending doesn’t necessarily help the private sector, I wouldn’t blame all the losses on it. Leisure and hospitality lost the most jobs, 5,800 jobs, but that’s likely because it is the end of summer and many jobs are no longer needed, for instance.

Cutting taxes can increase available funds to businesses and can definitely result in hiring, but sacking 1,000 public employees and handing the funds back to various businesses won’t result in 1,000+ private sector employees. That doesn’t mean government should go on a hiring binge, nor does it excuse hiring needless employees or having needless bureaucratic nonsense, but public employees aren’t an enemy to society or something.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm

“That’s a bit of a silly question, akin to Rush Limbaugh’s “Why not make minimum wage $100 an hour?””

No, it’s not a silly question. Further, whether I like the fat former drug addict or not doesn’t mean his question is silly either.

Despite your diatribe you didn’t answer the question.

If I’m going to clue any of you in on how to answer it at least you can make an argument about the Laffer curve or something.

As of yet, there is NO ANSWER from anyone. If that makes it a “silly question” in your book, so be it.

It’s a “silly unanswered question” then.

Anyone else have an answer? If so, would you mind trying to keep it to a paragraph?

Reply
CNSYD October 19, 2012 at 1:13 pm

?,

You are proof of the axiom. When you do not have a good argument, resort to profanity.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Hey Shit for Brains, calling someone an “idiot” is profane.

I just decided to take it up a notch from your intial volley due to your inability to answer my original question yourself, or deal with the negative connotations with gov’t workers being parasitic.(probably because you are employed by gov’t)

Get over yourself, you’ve already proven you can handle the question or discussion.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 1:38 pm

edit: “can’t handle”

Reply
CNSYD October 19, 2012 at 2:03 pm

?,

Idiot is not profane. It is a term that describes a real mental condition. You only employ gutter language. The scenario postulated is utterly ridiculous, therefore no one wants to waste effort responding to it. Of course you realized that when you stated it.

Lets look at your vision of a “private” armed forces. A group of private citizens are going to decide that they will pool their private resources and fund their own protection. OK, who is in charge of this force? Who obtains and maintains the necessary personnel and equipment? Do they only “protect” the stock holders? Are the stock holders given varying levels of protection based on their equity? All this assumes the Constitution has been changed or is null and void.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 2:54 pm

I am not referring to the issue of whether privatized force is viable or not, it is obvious it is from my perspective, but that is not the nature of central issue of this discussion.

To use your level of profanity, you are either an idiot or deliberately ignoring the original question in an attempt at a red herring. If you have a problem with the names I call you maybe you should first consider how you refer to me.

Go back and re-read it if you can not stay on topic.

Reply
Smirks October 19, 2012 at 8:00 pm

If gov’t jobs “help” the economy then why can’t we have gov’t employ everyone?

It isn’t government’s job to “employ everyone.” Government employs the people necessary to carry out its functions (and then some, unfortunately). Unless government were to nationalize every industry and private business, it would rely on heavy taxation (crushing the entire economy) or horrendously bad monetary policy (eventually crushing the entire economy). None of these three scenarios are good ones.

Obviously money is lost in transition from private to public (taxes) and public to private (spending), but I would think that a lot of that wealth saved from cutting government would tend to go back to the wealthiest people and corporations and rarely translate into significant job creation. You also lose the function or amount of service provided by whatever you cut, which may hurt society overall even if it doesn’t hurt the economy.

Also, I honestly don’t think sacking public sector jobs will be replaced with an equivalent number or more of private sector jobs.

Reply
? October 20, 2012 at 5:43 am

(no quotes on this netbook)

*Also, I honestly don’t think sacking public sector jobs will be replaced with an equivalent number or more of private sector jobs.*

So is that a gut feeling or do you have something to back that up?

*Unless government were to nationalize every industry and private business,* then *None of these three scenarios are good ones.*

Why not? You still havent answered the question. If govt is the solution to our problems why not just have it own and run everything?

Reply
Smirks October 20, 2012 at 9:53 am

You’re trying to suggest that anyone who thinks government does help society and the economy would be open to an oppressive government controlling everything. Your question is still silly. I would never advocate complete control by the government just as I would never advocate leaving everything up to the private sector. Government has its role, and I think its role is to set and enforce necessary rules and let the private sector do its thing. Government is overall positive when it does what it is supposed to do and negative when it goes further.

I know, you’re going to say I still didn’t answer your question. I feel that it is a straw man argument to suggest that just because government may possibly positively influence the economy that the government should just take everything over.

As for the wealth saved by cutting taxes, money saved by the working class would definitely be spent, creating demand. Money going back to the rich and corporations tends to get hoarded or blown in ways that don’t help the economy. The bailout, for instance, was used for executives getting bonuses and buying out other banks, not stopping massive layoffs. Sure, some companies would absolutely put those funds into hiring, R&D, new ventures, etc., but a great amount of that wealth will go to the executives and shareholders.

Besides that, cutting federal employees and functions shouldn’t result in tax breaks as long as the national debt is growing instead of being paid off, anyways.

Reply
? October 20, 2012 at 10:41 am

* Your question is still silly. I would never advocate complete control by the government just as I would never advocate leaving everything up to the private sector.*

then

*I know, you’re going to say I still didn’t answer your question. I feel that it is a straw man argument to suggest that just because government may possibly positively influence the economy that the government should just take everything over.*

Fine, so we are back to it being a *silly* unanswered question, which by its defintion is not a *straw man argument*-it is simply a question either no one can, or more likely wants to answer.

*You’re trying to suggest that anyone who thinks government does help society and the economy would be open to an oppressive government controlling everything.*

Do me a favor and do not guess at what I am thinking. I am simply asking a sincere question to better understand how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of govt helping in some areas and hurting in others. No one wants to answer what seems to be a simple question and a natural conclusion to that line of thinking.

I do find it interesting that you used the phrase *oppressive government* though, which I never once mentioned or suggested in this discussion.

Reply
Smirks October 21, 2012 at 11:28 am

That is how I honestly perceive your question as being. To me the question is akin to saying “If chocolate can be good for your health, why not eat only chocolate for every meal?”

I already posted an answer, but it was one you seem to be unsatisfied with. The only way government could hire everyone is through extremely high taxes (Laffer curve goes here I’m guessing?), bad monetary policy, or by controlling the means of production. The third usually results in an oppressive government that does far more harm than good. The first two breaks the economy eventually. To me, this is not proof that government employees are bad for the economy, only that there is a limit to how large government should be. Therefore government should not be focused on trying to hire everyone, but only those necessary to perform its functions.

I don’t know what other answer to give, and I think we are just annoying each other at this point anyways.

Reply
? October 21, 2012 at 12:52 pm

For the record, you are not annoying me.

*The only way government could hire everyone is through extremely high taxes (Laffer curve goes here I’m guessing?), bad monetary policy, or by controlling the means of production*

Actually, #1 is impossible. You cant hire everyone and then tax everyone you hired to pay everyones salary^s, it is economically impossible.

#2 is possible for short durations(of course, short, is a subjective term),
but only under a fiat type of currency.

#3 Possible, but you have to ask what govt has lasted more then 100 years(actually, more than 70 years when I think about it) by controlling all the means of production. Further, if we continue in a Socratic method you have to ask why all govts that control a substantial amount of the means of production end up failing.

The point with the Laffer curve reference is to merely point out that even from an axiomatic standpoint there should be a fairly uncontroversial acceptance that govt is depedent upon private industry for its own survival and the natural debate if one would like to take the viewpoint that some parasites can be *beneficial* would be how much of the parasite called govt should be allowed so as to not kill off the host.

Personally, I am for maximum liberty, hate theft, and respect property rights so in a perfect world there would be no gov*t from my persepctive. That being said I know that probably will not ever happen but the least that can be done is acknoledge the reality of what govt is and try to figure out how to keep it as small as possible(which our founders/us have obviously failed at doing)

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 10:36 am

Could it not include teachers, fire fighters, police personnel…

These are the Blackmail Jobs you liberals always defend government hiring with when Republicans try to curb the budget…

FITS you cannot have it both ways…You cannot BASH government for hating the children…then whine like a Dumb@$$ when we hire teachers…

Reply
Smirks October 19, 2012 at 10:51 am

So we hired 15,500 teachers, policemen, and firefighters? No other positions?

You are a dumbass. You rail against gubmint workers UNLESS Nikki’s responsible for hiring them. You cheer for people like Rick Perry to become president when Perry cut funding to firefighters severely and then proceeded to pray for rain when wildfires came. You lap up crap from people like Michelle Malkin who praise low taxes that weaken firefighters and then blame federal government Democrats for not saving their asses when fires are burning down their homes.

But now, NOW, 15,500 more gubmint workers is just peachy, and they all have to be teachers, policemen, and firefighters? Is the $23 billion budget also only spent on those people? All that spending Haley refused to veto despite being a supposed conservative is fully justified?

You’re funny.

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 11:36 am

How many teachers does SC employ, Smirks???….

Reply
johnb October 19, 2012 at 10:50 am

15,000 additional/more government jobs ?

What is the breakdown ?

Reply
parasite October 19, 2012 at 10:52 am

so govt employees are parasites. remember that next time you drive thru an intersection and rely on that parasite to make sure the traffic light works. Those same, as you call them, parasites are losing there lives fighting terrorism, those same parasites are putting child molesters away and keeping them away.

those government employees are people you rely on every day and you thank them by calling them parasites. i bet you can’t pick out one minute of you pitiful life when you are not relying on government employees for your BASIC needs.

Reply
? October 19, 2012 at 10:57 am

blah blah blah

I’d love for all of you to take a break for a couple of weeks so everyone can see just how unnecessary you are.

Reply
Mary October 19, 2012 at 10:59 am

Will rise on 11/30 when dew lays off 166. Guess those checks won’t be coming for them since there’s no one to do the work.

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 11:05 am

South Carolina has about 45,000 teachers.

Reply
Smirks October 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Irrelevant. How many of those 15,500 jobs are new teachers? Policemen? Firefighters?

Are you suggesting we had 30,000 teachers before September? Hell, we must have opened 100 schools, at least!

Reply
BC October 19, 2012 at 11:08 am

While everyone would love for the private sector to jump in and do hiring, the reality is our nation is a mixed economy! We need both sectors doing their part with hiring, depending on several factors. One, workforce readiness and availablility! The United States, as a whole, has a strong workforce that is consistently changing. Yet on the other hand, SC has a weak workforce that is not fully ready and employers realize it. Second, perception of the environment. SC has a marginal or weak environment overall because the state has a difficult infrastructure layout. Employers want to be able to move materials, employees, and goods! Third, education…education…education! SC has a weak educational system from secondary schools to post secondary schools! If these areas do not experience some type of reboost improvement, employers will continue to overlook SC! Hands down! It’s also true why other states are experiencing growth in the private sector and public sector growth is slow or stopped.

Until SC finally addresses these areas in a realistic way, the only driver for employment will be public sector employment. Artificial? Maybe, but it is still a form of growth and employment!

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 11:31 am

Leftwingers, as Obama proves, are expert at BASHING the earners and producers of this country…

But what these American-Hating radicals have had to PAINFULLY figure out…when you Strangle Business, those businesses have to fire workers, and there are not TAX dollars for Govertments to Gobble…

If nothing else, Obama’s Failed presidency should make you STFU and stop attacking American businesses…

But I bet too many of you are too Stupid, and Too mired in HATE to understand that your Ignornace is choking off the handouts you Steal….

Reply
Quiet Voice of Reason October 19, 2012 at 11:33 am

Dear God, it kills me to admit that Big T has a point, but I know he does.

Fall hiring is a big deal at colleges and universities, and I assume they count as government employees. I hired 5 part-time faculty members who started getting paid in September. That’s just my department! We have 33 public institutions across the state and it’s very easy to extrapolate out to a rather large number of people.

You don’t say from your stats if these are only full-time. I doubt they are. Nor do you say what these people are making. If I hire one part-time person and pay her $4000 for the semester, that’s not the same as DEW hiring one full-time permanent person for $40,000.

As the saying goes — there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm

QVR…Earsing ignorance is a slow process…..as you grow, it will get easier…

Reply
Common Sense October 19, 2012 at 2:16 pm

spelling apparently is a learning process ass well..”earsing” wtf is earsing?

Reply
Booyah October 19, 2012 at 9:16 pm

“If I hire one part-time person and pay her $4000 for the semester, that’s not the same as DEW hiring one full-time permanent person for $40,000.”

No, but it’s a net win because it supports education (even figuring in the slugs who just fill seats).

Much schooling is useful job training with a net payoff, and is funded by the Education Lottery which is a huge win for SCs ability to attract workers. Businesses demand trained workers, end of story.

Our (successful!) foreign economic competitors invest heavily in education. To expect job growth without a trained workforce is to expect crops without sowing the field.

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 11:49 am

In 17 of 18 states that elected Republican governors after Obama was elected, their economies are better….

Fighting Obama is helping…but we won’t totally recover and prosper (like American can at its best) until Obama is defeated…

Reply
Donald October 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Really, well how about this

In every state where Democrats control at least one house or the Governorship, the economy is better than states where Republicans are in control of both the legislature and the Governorship.

The people who live in states where Republicans control the Governorship and Legislature are on average the poorest people in the country, and the people who live in states where Democrats are in control are on average the richest people in the country.

Reply
BigT October 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm

Donald…give it a rest…

Obama has ruined the economy..and the voters will tell you who they blame…

Trying to Twist some sort of Credit away from the DISASTER you caused is laughable…

We KNOW whose fault it is…

Reply
Smirks October 19, 2012 at 8:02 pm

In 17 of 18 states that elected Republican governors after Obama was elected, their economies are better….

Is SC the exception? lol…

Reply
Slightly Miffed October 19, 2012 at 11:49 am

It would be an interesting excercise to see how much The State of South Carolina is actually in competition with small businesses. I know of instances where ETV and local production houses have competed for jobs. USC’s J-School and Moore School sometimes do “project” work for free in the name of education for businesses that marketing companies would love to have a crack at.

Reply
SenseLikeChaps October 19, 2012 at 3:05 pm

That is a catch-22.

No one does on the job training these days. Private firms want you coming in on day one knowing exactly how everything operates, with a piece of paper and experience in hand. When was the last time you saw an intern who just came in off the street?

So private industry has to take a few knocks on that one, if not they’ll really howl when it comes to fielding candidates.

Reply
Cid October 19, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Fits obsession? Reducing corporate tax rates is the magic elixir for

EVERYTHING!

Reply
fitsnews Author October 19, 2012 at 3:49 pm

Actually reducing the individual income tax rate is the magic elixer … b/c that empowers consumer activity and the growth of small businesses. The corporate tax should be lowered, but it is not as big of a deal as the income tax when it comes to creating jobs/ raising income levels.

Educate yourself …

https://www.fitsnews.com/2010/12/01/corporate-tax-facts/

Reply
tomstickler October 19, 2012 at 4:43 pm

fitsnews can educate itself(themselves?) on the issue whether tax cuts boost the economy.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/do-tax-cuts-stimulate-the-economy.html

Corporate cuts just go straight into the pockets of the CEOs and stockholders — in other words, the top 5% — and little is spent to increase consumer demand.

Cuts to the 95% are more likely to stimulate demand and boost the economy.

Reply
tomstickler October 19, 2012 at 4:37 pm

Did anyone get their panties in a wad when a decline in public workers caused unemployment to go up?

The major reason for unemployment staying so high is because of cuts in the local, state and federal employee level. Private employment has steadily increased.

Reply
Cid October 19, 2012 at 7:41 pm

Hey don’t confuse these boys with the facts

All we ever hear is

taxcuttaxcuttaxcuttaxcuttaxcuttaxcuttaxcuttaxcut,,,,,,

Reply
Booyah October 19, 2012 at 4:54 pm

“By CNSYD October 19, 2012 at 11:40 am

In an all volunteer military, they are all private soldiers. Your examples are ludicrous. Where did the funds come from to pay the “foreigners” to fight for us during the Revolution?”

The AVF (which works very well and which we IMO should keep because it’s every way superior to training an unwilling rotating pool of conscripts) are no more “private” than draftees. They are just another category of Federal employees.

Americans have a huge warboner so we have to have a large military. Didn’t bother me during my USAF career and no reason it should. Both Parties love war, and the Christian God requires we commit suicide to save Tel Aviv, so who am I to argue? Contractors like KBR and Xe are nothing new.

Some foreigners who fought for the US were French soldiers, some were ordinary mercenaries (nothing wrong with being a mercenary either, killing is killing), and some were volunteers.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=597

“Contractors were also important at sea. Indeed, some of the most illustrious names in naval history—Walter Raleigh, Francis Drake and John Hawkins—were privateers who fought in large part for economic gain. Many of the ships that defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588 were hired from these independent captains, who in turn were given commissions in Queen Elizabeth’s service. The United States, for its part, relied heavily on privateers to fight the Royal Navy during the War of Independence and the War of 1812. Well into the 19th century, soldiers and sailors could supplement their meager wages with “prize money” from seized enemy vessels or looted enemy cities. ”

“Nor should we forget the important contribution of foreign mercenaries such as Baron von Steuben and the Marquis de Lafayette toward the winning of American independence. Granted, many of these men were concerned with promoting a good cause, not getting rich. But the two need not be in conflict.
Thousands of British mercenaries, mainly unemployed veterans of the Napoleonic Wars, fought on behalf of the nascent Latin American republics during their wars of liberation from Spain for a combination of idealistic and avaricious motives. From 1818 to 1822, Chile’s navy was led by Thomas Cochrane, a celebrated Scottish captain who is said to have been the model for Jack Aubrey in Patrick O’Brian’s novels. Cochrane later fought with many other foreigners on behalf of Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire. The “Philhellenes” of the 1820s were mainly motivated by their devotion to classical Greek civilization, but they also were paid for their efforts. Cochrane, for one, made a mint from his adventures. “

Reply
Booyah October 19, 2012 at 9:17 pm

“That is a catch-22.

No one does on the job training these days. Private firms want you coming in on day one knowing exactly how everything operates, with a piece of paper and experience in hand. When was the last time you saw an intern who just came in off the street?

So private industry has to take a few knocks on that one, if not they’ll really howl when it comes to fielding candidates.”

Ditto, ditto, a thousand dittos!

Reply
Ppye October 21, 2012 at 7:34 am

Hey SIC? The kids went back to school
And so did the teachers, you jackass !

Reply

Leave a Comment