UH. OH. Federal Government Needs Massive Hiring Binge, Study Finds

[Boomhauer]

You hear about this a lot in healthcare, where there is a huge bolus of nurses reaching retirement age in the next ten years.  We worry a lot about the nursing shortage growing even worse, since the US does not produce enough nurses each year to equal retirements and expansion.  There are not enough open student slots in the nursing schools.

Hey, I'd love to go into that field (either nursing or as a paramedic) but...I'm squeamish as I can be.

[MillCreek]

Hey, I'd love to go into that field (either nursing or as a paramedic) but...I'm squeamish as I can be.

In that case, allow me to suggest a healthcare field that is expanding, well-paid and doesn't require working with icky bodily fluids: physical therapy. 

As the baby boomers get older, they are requiring more physical therapy.  Much like nursing, the demand exceeds the supply.  Some PT schools, in an attempt to "raise the standards of the profession" (i.e.: reduce the supply and increase the demand) are now only offering a doctorate in physical therapy.  But there are still schools out there that provide a bachelor's.  I suspect that sooner or later, PT will follow the lead of the pharmacists and only offer a 5 or 6 year doctorate degree as the only means of entry into the profession.  Pharmacy did that years ago, and it has been very, very successful in raising salaries due to the decreased supply.  A new pharmacist right out of school can make $ 90,000/year working at Walgreen's, Rite Aid or the like.

[Balog]

I've often thought pharmacy would be a great gig, but all the chemistry and calculus sounds daunting to the non-mathy.

[BryanP]

I'm in the same boat except they don't seem to be wanting to retire anytime soon.

Yeah.  There's one lady I know who's got a 40 year plaque on her desk.  She won't retire because staying home with her husband all day would drive her nuts. 

[Hawkmoon]

I'd back up a bit guys, if I'm reading this right, that massive hiring binge is simply to maintain the federal service at it's current level because the youth are underrepresented in government jobs, and a lot of people are getting up to retirement age.

I won't disagree that fewer government workers wouldn't be a good thing, but then again, I think restructuring might not be a bad thing - there's things like border patrol, immigration offices, that need more resources in order to do their jobs right.

You're reading what they want you to read. If you READ it, you'll perhaps notice this little zinger, right after the bit about "replacing mission-critical workers":

The numbers also reflect the Obama administration's intent to take
on several enormous challenges, including the repair of the financial
sector, fighting two wars, and addressing climate change.

You don't take on enormous challenges with existing work force, unless you are prepared to stop carrying out other tasks. Which, as we all know, good bureaucrats never even consider.