Jobs Bill Unlikely to Actually Spur Hiring
Don’t look for a burst of hiring by small businesses in Wisconsin as a result of the federal jobs bill signed into law on Thursday.
A number of small-business owners in the state say they make hiring decisions based on the business they generate, not whether they can save nine months’ worth of Social Security payroll taxes per newly hired worker, which is the main feature of the law.
But in an economy that seems stumped about which way it is heading - signs of growth one day are replaced by signs of stagnation the next - every bit of aid that business can get helps, they say, and they plan to take advantage of the new law if they can.
New jobs, though, won’t come in large numbers until there is enough work to justify them.
A number of small-business owners in the state say they make hiring decisions based on the business they generate, not whether they can save nine months’ worth of Social Security payroll taxes per newly hired worker
I agree. I don’t get what this bill is actually doing to decrease unemployment.
Posted by scott on March 19, 2010 at 1801 hrs
Another example of government intervention when the best thing they can do would be to stay out of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2010 at 1904 hrs
No, the best thing government can do is to spend some money on projects that put Americans to work.
Posted by scott on March 19, 2010 at 1918 hrs
Companies like Wal-Mart, McDonalds and other evil large companies are going to benefit. They have a high turnover rate and so they hire a lot of people. They are going to benefit very nicely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2010 at 2118 hrs
“No, the best thing government can do is to spend some money on projects that put Americans to work.”
Um - yeah. Cause that worked so well when we dumped $1 Trillion dollars and got nothing to show for it.
No thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2010 at 2323 hrs
No, the best thing government can do is to spend some money on projects that put Americans to work.
No, the best thing government can do is to get out of the way and lower taxes so businesses and people can start affording the products and services and creating the demand that put Americans to work.
Posted by hsgbdmama on March 20, 2010 at 0707 hrs
Um - yeah. Cause that worked so well when we dumped $1 Trillion dollars and got nothing to show for it.
On your planet, maybe. Here on earth, however, it did work. It just wasn’t large enough, as many economists said at the time.
the best thing government can do is to get out of the way and lower taxes
40% of the stimulus package was tax cuts.
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 0845 hrs
This plan is useless. What buisness is going to hire a 30-40k
a year employee to save a couple of bucks on ss taxes. The only way this would work is if you fire an exsisting employee and then hire a new one to do the same job.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 0955 hrs
Those that are sitting on the fence waiting to hire new workers until the economy recovers may be moved to take advantage of the tax breaks. Many are finally noticing a little bit of an uptick and may want to be ahead of any growth opportunities that come along.
Um - yeah. Cause that worked so well when we dumped $1 Trillion dollars and got nothing to show for it.
Besides 40% being tax breaks, they haven’t spent the majority of the rest. It is going to get spent as soon as HCR is passed and then things will look rosy by November. I think this was planned that way and the Democrats realize the public forgets quickly and will be glad to see any good news.
The Republicans have peaked too early and if they continue to be “The Party of NO”, they could possibly see losses in the election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1047 hrs
People out there that believe we need to pump more non-GDP-stimulating money into the economy are welcome to do so. Go max out your credit cards and home’s equity to stimulate whatever you so choose to target, and see what rate of return that brings you…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1148 hrs
MoveForward,
Would you like to place a wager on who picks net gains seats in November? Assuming you’d take the Democrats, I’ll give you 100 to 1 odds…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1150 hrs
I would not take those odds, but the odds of Republicans gaining control are about the same. They have to pick up too many seats. History shows that the party in control will lose seats in the mid-terms so that should be a given.
I am just saying that the Republicans have to begin to bring more to the table if they want the public to back them. The tea party movement in some cases will be a detriment to the Republicans like it was in New York. I am very interested in their stance on the issues but don’t get involved because I cannot be a part of the hateful rhetoric.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1219 hrs
non-GDP-stimulating money
I think you need to check your facts.
And those of you who think that now is the perfect time for government spending to shrink, putting even more people out of jobs, draining even more unemployment insurance, Medicaid and other services, plus the loss of tax revenue… you’re welcome to find some other godforsaken country to do it in. Or at least convince enough of your neighbors into doing such a foolish thing as to elect some of your own.
History shows that the party in control will lose seats in the mid-terms
There is also a thing called regression to the mean. No majority in both houses and the presidency can be maintained for long.
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 1251 hrs
I think you need to check your facts.
yeah ... right .... (insert witty retort here)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1523 hrs
I have nothing to add. I already know that posting links citing the CBO and other financial prognosticating firms would do absolutely no good. I know because I have had this argument here before. You guys are not satisfied with your own opinions, but insist on having your very own “facts” as well.
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 1542 hrs
You guys are not satisfied with your own opinions, but insist on having your very own “facts” as well.
Now that is funny.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1549 hrs
The CBO does not determine facts, Scott, which you would know if you read a CBO report and compared it to reality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1551 hrs
It is a fact that they say the stimulus package has increased employment and GDP.
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 1554 hrs
It is, in the same way as if I go spend thirty bucks @ BW3s in twenty minutes, I have increased the GDP and employment.
But for my thirty bucks, I’ll get thirty bucks worth of wings and beer. I wish I could say the same for the stimulus bill…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1558 hrs
Whereas we get roads, bridges, classrooms with teachers in them… nothing of real value like chicken wings.
Let us cut to the chase if that’s possible. What evidence would count for you? What indicators, whose opinions, would shake your iron-clad view that the stimulus package did nothing for employment or GDP?
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 1600 hrs
It is a fact that they say the stimulus package has increased employment and GDP.
No. It is a fact that they say that their models show the package has increased employment and GDP. You seem to misunderstand that very important point EVERY TIME you bring up the CBO on this topic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1625 hrs
My statement is perfectly accurate. You’re nitpicking.
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 1626 hrs
Mathematics, scott. I count mathematics. I don’t pretend that the money for government spending comes from nowhere like the CBO does. Nor will I conduct an infantile analysis that chooses not to count negatives as if they don’t exist. I’ll take mathematics over the governments’ fantasy analyses any day. That’s an iron-clad view because mathematics is ironclad. No amount of wishing, fantasy or obfuscation can change mathematics. Mathematics says we must and will cut our spending. The solution for employment today is the same as it was 2 years ago and 200 years ago: get the government out of the way, allow the economy to become what it will become and take care of the unemployed in the meantime; preferably with currency that still has some value.
The CBO is the government. Do you understand that? When you reference the CBO you are parroting the government. When the CBO says more government spending is wonderful, that’s the government saying more government spending is wonderful.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1626 hrs
Let us cut to the chase if that’s possible. What evidence would count for you? What indicators, whose opinions, would shake your iron-clad view that the stimulus package did nothing for employment or GDP?
I’m glad you asked. Being that the stimulus bill cost $1,000,000,000,000 (roughly)... I’d like to see a positive rate of return, ie. GDP stimulation in the amount of $1,000,000,000,000…. and factor in the interest to this debt in there as well… just like in business, whereas any investment with huge risk of negative return typically doesn’t take place…
(I’d be willing to accept slightly less than a zero per cent rate of return, but I have seen nothing claiming anywhere near this….)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1626 hrs
BVBigBro, basically you’re saying that the congressional budget office is conducting “infantile analysis,” cannot be trusted as they are a government-funded outfit.
Forgive me if I find that criticism unconvincing.
Smeety, what rate of return would be acceptable to you? All I ask is a reduction in human misery and a better “return” than doing an alternative plan—or nothing at all.
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 1630 hrs
That is the reason I’d take less, human misery…
To rethink my statement a bit, being gov’t is the business, than gov’t increased gov’t revenue (taxes) as a result of the stimulus should be the measuring tool. So…. if in 5 years we have cut our national debt in half (without raising tax rates), ‘due in part to stimulus’, I’m fine with that…but we are definitely NOT on a path to get there, (and from here we could debate the speculative nature of CBO projections)...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1641 hrs
I’m not sure I follow that. The government increased its revenue? It raised taxes? When did that happen? But maybe i’m just not understanding you.
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 1647 hrs
You’re nitpicking
And you’re ignoring a gaping flaw in the CBO data. It’s all based on a MODEL! Not FACTS. So go ahead and say “it’s a fact that they say the stimulus package has increased employment and GDP”. The FACT is that they don’t really know that, they’re just GUESSING that is has. You can call it nitpicking, but that doesn’t mean that you’re not a tool for misunderstanding that huge hole in your logic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1826 hrs
They’re not the only ones who are “guessing” this. You want to express some skepticism? Fine. Got another source you’d like to introduce and claim that it’s more accurate or authoritative? Go for it. But stop with the “huge hole in your logic” bullshit already.
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 1840 hrs
CBO did not guess at their employment figures, they assumed them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1856 hrs
They’re not the only ones who are “guessing” this. You want to express some skepticism? Fine. Got another source you’d like to introduce and claim that it’s more accurate or authoritative? Go for it. But stop with the “huge hole in your logic” bullshit already.
Can’t understand it? Sorry, then I’m not going to be able to help you. Some 5th grade reading classes maybe. You have a penchant for this scott, it’s almost your meme. You have linked to studies by the CBO in the past on this “stimulus package” and in the fine print of said studies, it’s in plain english that the figures presented are based on MODELS. So, continue to defend them as fact and written in stone. You can’t handle my skepticism… because you’re a pussy. Your entire position is based on a solitary source of data which is based on a COMPUTER MODEL of our economy.
Can you source any FACTS that show that the stimulus bill has increased unemployment and GDP?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 1908 hrs
“MODELS”?? Oh dear!
What, pray tell, have you got that’s better? And it’s not just the GBO, either. There were at least two other well-known financial prognostication firms backing it up. (I’ll find links if you must have them, but let’s be honest—what’s the use?)
It gives you a hard on that they use “models”? Good for you, pal. You want me to show “facts”? That’s the best i got.
Do you have better? Do you have “FACTS” that show it didn’t help?
No, I didn’t think so.
This is what’s so hard about arguments here. Nothing I can ever marshal in defense of my position ever, ever counts as reliable enough. I’m a dumbshit for even thinking that the CB fucking O or an international group of scientists could ever, ever be a reliable source of information. It’s not even just that you disagree with it. It’s that I’m a complete asshole for even mentioning the fact that the most reputable and reliable and non-partisan sources side with me.
So carry on, ideologues. Decry those “models” and those “scientists” and whatever else you find disagreeable. Just don’t expect me to take any of it to heart.
Posted by scott on March 20, 2010 at 2047 hrs
This bill is unlikely to have any effects on the current employment situation. Hirings will happen, but they would’ve happened anyway. This is just another steamshovel full of cash being dumped onto the bonfire.
Scott, you can keep right on crying about your evidence not being reliable enough for the people here, and tossing expletives into acronyms all day long… You still sound like a petulant child, which, I would guess is the real problem that people have with your arguments.
I think that most people began disbelieving the CBO thanks to their findings on the healthcare legislation. When the CBO claims that a bill which begins revenue collection on year one, but doesn’t pay out any benefits until year four is deficit neutral people are naturally skeptical. The CBO can be manipulated to give any message desired. Is the healthcare bill deficit neutral over the first ten years? According to the CBO it is, but what happens on year 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 34, or 51? Since we have some historical evidence to examine in this regard (SS, medicare) I think we can pretty easily deduce PRECISELY what is going to happen with this “comprehensive” healthcare reform. Everyone knows that this bill is just the first step towards a single payer system… Something that has become even more evident over the past few weeks as the far left has begun to coalesce behind a bill they said they wouldn’t support unless it includes a government option. “Healthcare reform” is going to get more expensive, just like SS and medicare…... I don’t need a short-sighted CBO report to con me into supporting things that, in historical context, we can see are going to cost this country an arm and a leg.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 2159 hrs
Wow scott, in your hate, you really set your self up this time..
Do you have better? Do you have “FACTS” that show it didn’t help?
NOTE:it’s NOT whether the bill “helped” or not. It’s whether or not the bill has “increased employment” as defined in post #18.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/unemployment-rate-hits-10_n_348185.html (hahaha, that’s a good source, right?)
Hmmmm, seems pretty straight forward and factual to me that the stimulus bill did NOT increase employment. But go ahead and keep with the line that “It is a fact that the CBO said XYZ”. It’s really helping the cause brother!
This is what’s so hard about arguments here. Nothing I can ever marshal in defense of my position ever, ever counts as reliable enough. I’m a dumbshit for even thinking that the CB fucking O or an international group of scientists could ever, ever be a reliable source of information. It’s not even just that you disagree with it. It’s that I’m a complete asshole for even mentioning the fact that the most reputable and reliable and non-partisan sources side with me.
What’s hard is you think you’ve brought facts to a discussion, and you haven’t. To make it even worse, nothing that us adults can say or do will make you think other wise. Just keep telling us that we’re “nitpicking”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2010 at 2250 hrs
This bill is unlikely to have any effects on the current employment situation. Hirings will happen, but they would’ve happened anyway.
Just so everyone’s clear: I said this in comment #1. No argument there.
As far as the stimulus spending, I’m just banging my head against a brick wall here at boots n kittens. Let me just post this one link to summarize how I view the situation and leave it at that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 0734 hrs
scott,
You keep referencing that article as the summary of how you feel on the subject of the stimulus. First, I want to thank you for posting a source we can discuss. Second, let’s look at what exactly it says:
Let’s say this bill had started spending money within a matter of weeks and had rapidly helped the economy. Let’s also imagine it was large enough to have had a huge impact on jobs — employing something like two million people who would otherwise be unemployed right now.
I would agree with the author, such a plan would be successful. But how do you count a job created much less saved? DO those numbers really mean anything? How about we change things around a little bit, hmmm?
Let’s say the bill was passed under pressure by a Congress who did not have the time to read and understand it. That it also was not available for the public to inspect beforehand, as was a key part of the President’s election promises. In addition, in the weeks leading up to the passage of this behemoth, there was a widely circulated chart showing how many jobs were expected to be saved as a result of the legislation. It showed that the same people counting these jobs saved/created predicted that at this point in time, 2010Q1 that the unemployment rate would be topping out at 9% without the recovery package, and that with the package it would be around 7.75%.
Instead we have an unemployment rate of 9.7%; nearly 70% of the funds authorized for grants, contracts, projects, etc have not been awarded after more than a year, and the process of counting the jobs that have been created/saved has come under-fire for many examples of, at best error, or at worst plain old dis-ingenuousness. If these are the trademarks of a successful program, then yes, you are banging your head against a brick wall trying to convince us that it is a success, that the CBO can model anything with any sort of reliability, or that pressing to get something done ‘right now’ just because it is a priority for the current administration is a good idea.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 0841 hrs
This anemic and ineffective jobs bill, is mostly a red herring. The HIRE act offers 17.5 billion in pointless tax incentives, but adds twice that amount in transportation spending that was hidden (not very hidden either… thanks accomplice media) in the bill. It’s more of a transportation bill with a jobs rider than the other way around. Having a great grasp of the power of propaganda, the Obama-Reid-Pelosi axis simply slapped a jobs label on it because they knew that another lavish spending bill would be poorly received by the public. I think that as the election nears and the Democrat Party feels the anger of the voters at their lack of concern for the sinking economy and growing debt, they’ll be calling everything a jobs bill.
the unemployment rate would be topping out at 9% without the recovery package, and that with the package it would be around 7.75%.
Instead we have an unemployment rate of 9.7%
Well said. I’ve made that point to many of my liberal friends.
There are two possibilities here:1) The President and his advisers lacked sufficient experience and knowledge of a capitalist economy to make accurate predictions on where it was heading. In this case Stimulus was bound to fail, having been created by folks lacking adequate knowledge to begin with. The Utopian ideals they learned in college only work inside the walls of the ivory towers. The wrong program drafted for the wrong reasons equals failure.
2) The President had full knowledge of the economic future given to him by his advisers. He instituted Stimulus without really caring about it’s economic effect for reasons that fell more along the line of his wealth redistribution proposals. Again, failure.
I can’t really see any other possibility. In either case, the Obamateur has done a great deal of harm so far.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1210 hrs
I don’t this would help create more jobs in the long run.
Posted by acai berry side effects acai berry benefits on March 22, 2010 at 1741 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 116
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 06:48 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).