Funny Numbers

I call BS.

Nearly 650,000 jobs have been saved or created under President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan, the government said Friday, and the White House declared the nation on track to meet the president’s goal of 3.5 million by the end of next year.

Given what we already know about the fraudulent ways these numbers are generated, I have absolutely no confidence in the accuracy of their number.  Even if it’s true, consider this:

In Wisconsin, 10,073 full-time equivalent jobs were listed as saved or created based on the partial accounting so far. A majority are in the “saved” category because funds were used to fill budget holes by state and local governments.

By the numbers, that’s 1.6% of the jobs saved or created nationally based on the latest report. The state has been awarded $2.4 billion, 1.5% of the national figure, according to official figures posted at Recovery .gov, the U.S. government Web site.

Does anyone seriously believe that there would have been a wave of public employees being fired if not for the stimulus money?  Yeah, me either.  But if you run the numbers, that’s still $238,261 per job allegedly saved or created.  That’s hardly an example of the efficient use of resources. 

1. Guess they couldn’t save my job.  Such horseshit.  Chalk up another casualty to Obamanomics.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1154 hrs




2. Jobs “saved”? Typical lefty nonsense. They have no actual good news, so they make something up. And, true to form, the lap dog media blindly reports it as if it were fact. Why am I not suprised?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1230 hrs




3. $238,261 per job allegedly saved or created.

   You’re assuming that the funds were used only in relation to these jobs.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1248 hrs




4. But if you run the numbers, that’s still $238,261 per job allegedly saved or created.  That’s hardly an example of the efficient use of resources. 

   If you take a look at the per job dollars for some of the incentive packages that some states have put together to lure businesses, that number is somewhere in the midrange.

   How efficient is that?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1346 hrs




5. There is not, and never was, any possibility of obtaining any actual measurement of jobs created, jobs prevented form being created, jobs saved or jobs lost because of the stimulus.  That’s why the statements were made in the first place: they can be neither proved nor disproved.  If you never bought into this drivel in the first place why waste time fretting about it now?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1551 hrs




6. Oh, but pjr, you forget so soon.  To a modern conservative, collecting hundreds of millions of tax dollars to give to a handful of private companies in the guise of creating jobs is considered economic development.  But if government tries to take that money and create the jobs itself, that’s socialism.

   How many times must we go over this? 

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 31, 2009 at 1653 hrs




7. RS,

   Do you have any numbers or just rhetoric?

   

   Posted by Smeety on October 31, 2009 at 1839 hrs




8. I know RS, just trying to pull the chains around here of those who always bemoan the fact that we don’t provide enough corporate welfare.

   Apparently our host is out for a walk.

   Smeety, I see you have popcorn.

   Anything else?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1910 hrs




9. I do have something else.  A thought.

   I wonder if we could take this stimulus money analysis a step further.  (Stimulus money in dollars) / (resultant GDP in dollars) per capita.  GDP is where it’s at. 

   Do I need to get into why GDP is really the goal here?  I’m going to assume I don’t…

   Sometimes I am really brilliant.

   Posted by Smeety on October 31, 2009 at 1927 hrs




10. Do I need to get into why GDP is really the goal here?

    Please do.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 31, 2009 at 1935 hrs




11. I’d like to see an update of this…

    The economy measures growth using GDP.  Only jobs which contribute to the GDP can stimulate long term growth.  Please refer to Six Sigma for Governments by Smeety…

    In business, you need a return on your investment in order to justify spending the money.  In business, the goal is to make money, period. 

    I iterate this knowing the GDP experienced growth in Q3.  Can we assign a number to the $timulus?  It should be able to be created… it’d be right there in black and white…

    The reference to corporate welfare made by RS… if we can agree that GDP is where it’s at (which I’d guess even the biggest lefties would agree - it’s literally ECON 101 - well, maybe 201 or even 311), then we can apply a dollar figure to corporate welfare resultant GDP and compare to stimulus funds…

    Posted by Smeety on October 31, 2009 at 1958 hrs




12. The corporate welfare issue is a problem, but it doesn’t fit this discussion.  The corporate welfare is needed to allow Wisconsin to retain jobs.  If we don’t do that, the jobs go to other States. Are more net jobs in the US created with corporate welfare?  Probably not.  But again, that is a Wisconsin specific issue. 

    With the Stimulus bill, the question is whether net new jobs across the entire US are created.  I’d feel much better if our fearless leaders Obama and Pelosi actually put all that stimulus money towards projects that:

    a) Were serious industrial projects that would require lots of labor and materials so help create a multiplier effect.

    b) Were projects that wouldn’t get done without this type of investment.

    c) Were projects that were brick and mortar and would last a long-time, in order to match up with the long term government borrowing being put in place today to fund such projects. 

    Things that come to mind are a massive wind farm in the plains states, true high speed (200mph) rail in certain corridors, maybe a new major museum or two. 

    Instead we apparently spent $200,000 to buy a new demo truck for a truck driving school, $250,000 for a study of the sex lives of college freshman and many other stupid things.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 01, 2009 at 0128 hrs




13. Please refer to Six Sigma for Governments by Smeety…

    Can I get that on my Kindle?

    But again, that (corporate welfare) is a Wisconsin specific issue.

    How so? Who are we competing with in these bidding/giveaway wars?

    As we are learning, perhaps a bit to late, it is the rest of the world.

    As far as judging the employment numbers as being funny or not seems a bit premature.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 01, 2009 at 1311 hrs




14. jobs prevented form being created, jobs saved or jobs lost because of the stimulus..

    Posted by Sofia on November 01, 2009 at 1617 hrs




15. Sure, states may incentivize businesses through tax breaks, however, what’s the long term (not to mention GDP) pattern here.  Every year, those corporate jobs return money to the tax roles and grow the economy while the government leach jobs created by the stimulus continue to add bulk to an already overloaded government and suck us dry.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2009 at 0743 hrs




16. Let us talk about the DE Multiplier effect.  “Economic growth” gurus point to “imvestments” of tax dollars equalling economic growth.  What they do NOT address is that those dollars came from somewhere (hint:Taxpayers, now or in the future.)  And that those dollars were saved, invested, and spent in patterns that were altered by “redistribution.”  Now here is the kicker.  When government touches something, it is a pretty good bet that the bureuacracy + regulations+strings attached will double the cost.  So for every job “created or saved,” 2 were or will be destroyed.  AND there will be less REAL output, regardless of GDP numbers.

    So using generally accepted numbers of somewhere between $50K and $60 K to create a private sector job, and using the number above of about $240K per job created or saved, it is clear that somewhere around 4-5 jobs were destroyed to create or save the ones that were. 

    Hate to tell you this folks, but we are going backwards.  “Green shoots?”  Malarky.  All I see is pond scum and mold.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 02, 2009 at 1627 hrs




17. And what happens when the funding for those newly created 650K dries up? Many of those jobs will wither away…Yes, BS!

    Scott

    Posted by Scott Haber on November 02, 2009 at 2330 hrs




18. Scott:  RIGHT ON!!  But remember it is not only the FUNDED jobs that go away, but the ones destroyed by redistribution, at at least a 2-1 ratio. 

    One more point, directed esp at Smeety, re: GDP.  GDP does not measure all human activity.  For example, say a woman who formerly stayed at home goes to work.  If she pays for child care while working, that adds to GDP.  But the work she did caring for the children before going to work is NOT added, but at least as valuable in most cases.  And same if grandma takes care of the kids for free.  Note also that ecconomically, the woman may actually be WORSE off despite the GDP growth, if her take home pay is less than baby sitting, transportation, clothing, extra meals, tools or equipment or supplies needed to do the job are added in.  But GDP will be higher, despite the deteriorating position of the woman (or man in similar position.)  Or when you do a favor for a neighbor without charging for it, that “economic” activity is only counted in GDP when funds change hands.  So while GDP CAN be a useful measure, we must be cognizant of its imperfections.

    And from the above examples, it is not too far a leap to suggest that if one member of a couple has to work to pay the extra taxes required of Big GoverNMEnt, it is very likely that the old stay at home mom, working dad, low tax regime will generate MORE wealth for individuals and families than the current situation.  Not that I would mandate the above, just suggest that there are tradeoffs, not all of them favorable to the status quo.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2009 at 0815 hrs




19. Oh, but pjr, you forget so soon.  To a modern conservative, collecting hundreds of millions of tax dollars to give to a handful of private companies in the guise of creating jobs is considered economic development.  But if government tries to take that money and create the jobs itself, that’s socialism.

    How many times must we go over this? 

    As many times as it takes for you to understand that the stimulus was an EPIC FAILURE…. Both times it was tried in the last two years. In either case it is government using money that was attained parasitically from producers to try and create more production. In the case of government jobs there is no production, and in the case of using public money to pay private business to increase production it is futile. Without demand, production cannot increase, therefore the jobs pool cannot grow. As we raise taxes further reducing profit motives, we will force demand downward, and as consumer spending continues to be reduced (again by the parasitic nature of government) we will continue to shrink the private sector jobs pool.

    Taking money from one place and putting it somewhere else only leaves a hole somewhere else. It is a zero sum equation, and until the lefties among us begin to realize that every teacher, road worker, social worker, ditch digger, janitor, district attorney, and police officer hired results in decreased demand for labor in the private sector by the very nature of the system. Taxes do not generate additional money in the economy as Keynes would have you believe, in fact it is just the opposite…...

    Conservatives do [should?] not favor any welfare, whether for business or individuals, and anyone who does and claims to be a conservative is deluding themselves. The conservative mantra is that tax dollars are to be used sparingly, and only to achieve goals and complete tasks that are impossible or impractical to achieve by the private sector. Infrastructure, military, and border defense are just some examples of things that would be impractical for private enterprise to provide or build.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2009 at 1350 hrs