Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

There's a problem with the bipartisan jobs bill emerging in the Senate: It won't create many jobs.

The bill includes tax cuts to please Republicans and its passage would hand President Barack Obama a badly needed political victory. But even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers — would work only on the margins.

Tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.

"We're skeptical that it's going to be a big job creator," said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. "There's certainly nothing wrong with giving a tax break to a business that's hired a new worker, especially in these tough times. But in terms of being an incentive to hire a lot of workers, we're skeptical."...

...The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that reducing Social Security taxes for companies that add workers would be among the most efficient ways for the government to create jobs. However, in showing how difficult it is to create jobs through tax policy, CBO estimates that such a tax break would generate only eight to 18 full-time jobs per $1 million in tax breaks.

The Senate proposal, which is more narrow than the one analyzed by CBO, is estimated to cost about $10 billion. That would add 80,000 to 180,000 jobs over the course of a year. The U.S. economy, meanwhile, has lost 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession.

Democratic leaders had originally hoped to pass the bill this week, before record snowfalls effectively shut down Congress and much of the rest of the federal government in the nation's capital. Final action now may not come until March.

In addition to a tax break for hiring workers, the Senate package would extend unemployment payments for people without jobs for more than six months as well as subsidies to help the jobless continue paying premiums for health insurance they had been getting through their former employers...

...At a hearing last week, House Democrats peppered Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner with questions about whether a tax break for hiring workers will increase employment. Geithner defended the idea but acknowledged that businesses won't start hiring until demand for their products and services increases.

"I think this will provide a little bit more of a boost, a little more spark to make sure as we grow, we're creating more jobs than we otherwise would," he told the House Ways and Means Committee.

Rys, of the National Federation of Independent Business, said the credit could speed hiring once employers need more workers. But, he said, NFIB members aren't seeing many signs of improvement.

"Right now, business owners just don't have customers," Rys said. "Until you have work for the employee to do, there's really less of a reason to hire a new worker."

Appaholic wrote:& this surprises you how? Perhaps they should ease up in income taxes (& local fees for crissakes) on avg Americans so more money can be spent in the marketplace....thereby creating demand for more goods....thereby creating demand for more workers....which will create more goods for sale to people with more disposable income (since they are now working)...which creates sales tax revenue...which......

native wrote:

Appaholic wrote:& this surprises you how? Perhaps they should ease up in income taxes (& local fees for crissakes) on avg Americans so more money can be spent in the marketplace....thereby creating demand for more goods....thereby creating demand for more workers....which will create more goods for sale to people with more disposable income (since they are now working)...which creates sales tax revenue...which......

...creates global warming...

GannonFan wrote:Jobs will come back, just as they have after every economic downturn this country has experienced. Maybe not the same jobs and maybe not as many jobs in every area of the country, but eventually they will come back. And that's irregardless what government does. Granted, the government could speed up or slow down the process of the jobs coming back, but ultimately the jobs are created irregardless of government.

travelinman67 wrote:The Senate proposal, which is more narrow than the one analyzed by CBO, is estimated to cost about $10 billion. That would add 80,000 to 180,000 jobs over the course of a year. The U.S. economy, meanwhile, has lost 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Jobs will come back, just as they have after every economic downturn this country has experienced. Maybe not the same jobs and maybe not as many jobs in every area of the country, but eventually they will come back. And that's irregardless what government does. Granted, the government could speed up or slow down the process of the jobs coming back, but ultimately the jobs are created irregardless of government.

travelinman67 wrote:The Senate proposal, which is more narrow than the one analyzed by CBO, is estimated to cost about $10 billion. That would add 80,000 to 180,000 jobs over the course of a year. The U.S. economy, meanwhile, has lost 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession.

So if, as Gannon says, the jobs will come back regardless of what Washington does, why in the FUCK are we going to spend $55,555 PER JOB CREATED, according to the CBO figures? And that's using the generous figure of 180,000 jobs created. It becomes $125,000/job at the lower 80,000 job figure.

This is exhibit A for what's wrong with this country.

kalm wrote:

The bill includes tax cuts to please Republicans and its passage would hand President Barack Obama a badly needed political victory. But even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers — would work only on the margins.

Tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.[/quote]

Baldy and Cluck, please review carefully.

kalm wrote:

The bill includes tax cuts to please Republicans and its passage would hand President Barack Obama a badly needed political victory. But even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers — would work only on the margins.

Tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.[/quote]

Baldy and Cluck, please review carefully.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:

You forgot to read the small print.

People want things...pent up demand is there. Fools still want big screen TVs because they have to keep up with the Joneses (marketing). But, they can't pay for them...because the wealthy haven't decided it is time to put money back into the system.

A long time ago, if someone wanted something, he could go into a field and gather some wealth from his labor. Not so anymore. It takes wealth to turn on the labor faucet...

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Jobs will come back, just as they have after every economic downturn this country has experienced. Maybe not the same jobs and maybe not as many jobs in every area of the country, but eventually they will come back. And that's irregardless what government does. Granted, the government could speed up or slow down the process of the jobs coming back, but ultimately the jobs are created irregardless of government.

travelinman67 wrote:The Senate proposal, which is more narrow than the one analyzed by CBO, is estimated to cost about $10 billion. That would add 80,000 to 180,000 jobs over the course of a year. The U.S. economy, meanwhile, has lost 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession.

So if, as Gannon says, the jobs will come back regardless of what Washington does, why in the FUCK are we going to spend $55,555 PER JOB CREATED, according to the CBO figures? And that's using the generous figure of 180,000 jobs created. It becomes $125,000/job at the lower 80,000 job figure.

This is exhibit A for what's wrong with this country.

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:


You forgot to read the small print.

People want things...pent up demand is there. Fools still want big screen TVs because they have to keep up with the Joneses (marketing). But, they can't pay for them...because the wealthy haven't decided it is time to put money back into the system.

A long time ago, if someone wanted something, he could go into a field and gather some wealth from his labor. Not so anymore. It takes wealth to turn on the labor faucet...

Again, you're close. You're almost there. I'm rootin' for ya, I really am.

So you're now agreeing with Galbraith, and I sense you're really close to agreeing with the article that demand will turn on the labor market.

If you can admit that I'm right in that regard too (albeit with the typical insult to mask your insecurity) we will then be done with our three-thread economic discussion.

You will have agreed with pretty much everything I have posted.

Don't let me down...we're almost home.

GannonFan wrote:Jobs will come back, just as they have after every economic downturn this country has experienced. Maybe not the same jobs and maybe not as many jobs in every area of the country, but eventually they will come back. And that's irregardless what government does. Granted, the government could speed up or slow down the process of the jobs coming back, but ultimately the jobs are created irregardless of government. Of course, that doesn't mean we won't blame politicians for jobs not being here right now nor does it mean we won't congratulate politicians who happen to be lucky enough to be in office when the jobs come back, but it is what it is.

On the bright side, the recovery is definitely coming. Working for a sizeable US manufacturer, we're about 150% versus target for sales recently, and hiring plenty of temps for the time being. We'll eventually pull out of this, regardless of what government is or isn't doing.

Nope...you said weath didn't create jobs...that demand created jobs. You are wrong. There will be no jobs without money. PERIOD. There will always be demand. There is no less demand now than there was two years ago...BUT THERE ISN'T AS MUCH MONEY.

Demand hasn't created jobs for quite some time...see Haiti and every third world country. You keep ignoring that huge gap in your theory and dismiss it as easily as those with money dismiss that part of the world's demands. They have oodles and oodles of demand...but no way to pay for their pent up demand. People still want new cars, and would even go into hock to get one...but the MONEY is not there

Let's repeat...people still want to buy cars, TVs, homes, etc...but the MONEY is not there. Until the wealthy decide to put money back into the system, the jobs won't be there.