CBO: stimulus has created 3.7 million jobs

[CitadelGrad]

I think you need to look at item 1 of your quick rundown of facts. The article said that the CBO estimates that 3.7 million jobs might be created before the end of September. The estimate of jobs created to this point is considerably lower.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I've said this a million times on here..... But, the stimulus wasn't to create permanent jobs. It was to create temporary jobs to keep people employed until the private sector begins hiring again. Sounds like it's working.

Alright a quick rundown of the facts:

• 3.7 million jobs have been created due to the stimulus
• This does not include the entire stimulus package of approximately $792 billion
• However approximately $257 billion has been spent (http://projects.propublica.org/tables/s ... g-progress" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
• These are not permanent jobs (source above)
• Simple division shows that 69.5k was spent for each job gained
• The average US salary is around 40k (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/p ... 03_001.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Conclusion: You are left with one of the following choices

A) In the worst economic conditions since the great depression unemployed US workers would not work for any less than 50% more than the average US worker
B) The government wasted approximately 10k on each and every job they have “created” to date.*

*10k of waste would be a rather conservative estimate assuming that most companies pay benefits on top of the average 40k salary. It was also assumed that these companies had no financial incentive to hire any of these individuals except for the above mentioned government stimulus.

Alright, anybody that was saying that the new Liberty posters were not contributing to the board owes me an apology.

Nice work.

[OL FU]

How many of these jobs are permanent once the stimulus money runs out?

I've said this a million times on here..... But, the stimulus wasn't to create permanent jobs. It was to create temporary jobs to keep people employed until the private sector begins hiring again. Sounds like it's working.

The theory is that the spending from the temporary jobs will stimulate the creation of permanant jobs. So I suppose the question is when can we expect this stimulation to occur?

[kalm]

I've said this a million times on here..... But, the stimulus wasn't to create permanent jobs. It was to create temporary jobs to keep people employed until the private sector begins hiring again. Sounds like it's working.

The theory is that the spending from the temporary jobs will stimulate the creation of permanant jobs. So I suppose the question is when can we expect this stimulation to occur?

Yes, and if the jobs are infrastructure oriented, it might take some time for the stimulus to take effect, but it can provide stimulus for quite a long while which increases the return on the initial investment.

Ive used the example of Grand Coulee Dam before but it's a good one. Built in the 30's by the Bureau of Reclamation, it was a New Deal project that turned a desert into an agriculutural mecca and Grant County Washington into the #1 potato producing county in the nation. It also produces cheap hydro power which lowered manufacturing costs for 1000's of private businesses in the region including Boeing.

It's a good example of how stimulus spending can not only create temporary jobs to help those in need but the economic impact on the private sector can contribute for decades. But if you calculated the cost per job and initial cost of the project in 1933 without extending the long term impact it wouldn't have sounded wise at the time.

That's part of the argument for why the stimulus needed to be bigger and less focused on tax cuts.

[blueballs]

The first paragraph contradicts the thread's headline.

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows the Recovery Act has increased the number of workers by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million. The CBO also projects that 3.7 million jobs could be attributed to the stimulus by the end of September.

[From the class of 09]

I think you need to look at item 1 of your quick rundown of facts. The article said that the CBO estimates that 3.7 million jobs might be created before the end of September. The estimate of jobs created to this point is considerably lower.

I know the dates didn’t line up perfect but they did a good job showing how wasteful this stimulus was using their own numbers provided by the CBO. You could probably push the real cost closer to 75k or so a job. I know one recent grad who would sign up for a job at 75k.

[CitadelGrad]

The theory is that the spending from the temporary jobs will stimulate the creation of permanant jobs. So I suppose the question is when can we expect this stimulation to occur?

Yes, and if the jobs are infrastructure oriented, it might take some time for the stimulus to take effect, but it can provide stimulus for quite a long while which increases the return on the initial investment.

Ive used the example of Grand Coulee Dam before but it's a good one. Built in the 30's by the Bureau of Reclamation, it was a New Deal project that turned a desert into an agriculutural mecca and Grant County Washington into the #1 potato producing county in the nation. It also produces cheap hydro power which lowered manufacturing costs for 1000's of private businesses in the region including Boeing.

It's a good example of how stimulus spending can not only create temporary jobs to help those in need but the economic impact on the private sector can contribute for decades. But if you calculated the cost per job and initial cost of the project in 1933 without extending the long term impact it wouldn't have sounded wise at the time.

That's part of the argument for why the stimulus needed to be bigger and less focused on tax cuts.

You've skirted the real issue of the stimulus bill. Only 8-10% of it is infrastructure related and all of those projects funded by it will in no way have significant lasting effects. Resurfacing roads, repairing bridges, replacing water pipes, etc. will have no discernible economic impact after the projects are completed. Also, the multiplier of the dollars spent on those jobs is certainly <1.0.

[Skjellyfetti]

If you have better numbers from a better source... feel free to post them.

CBO's numbers are the best and least biased that I'm aware of.

Bump.

No better numbers?

Ok. I guess my options are to form my opinion based on no hard data or projections (like most on this forum seem happy to do)... or to assume that these are the best numbers available and form an opinion based off of the best information available to me (like a rational person would do).

[AZGrizFan]

This has been a very entertaining thread. Watching KY Jelly get owned by a high schooler has been funny as hell.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

If you have better numbers from a better source... feel free to post them.

CBO's numbers are the best and least biased that I'm aware of.

Bump.

No better numbers?

Ok. I guess my options are to form my opinion based on no hard data or projections (like most on this forum seem happy to do)... or to assume that these are the best numbers available and form an opinion based off of the best information available to me (like a rational person would do).

Good deal. Most of us have been using the #'s you provided and we still have trouble coming up with the greatness of it all that you seem to have handy.

Some have given you valid reasons that the #'s may have a lot of flaws but still using your #'s so I'm not sure what you want as a response?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

This has been a very entertaining thread. Watching KY Jelly get owned by a high schooler has been funny as hell.

Good phone work btw.

[AZGrizFan]

This has been a very entertaining thread. Watching KY Jelly get owned by a high schooler has been funny as hell.

Good phone work btw.

Hey. I JUST got your message about an hour ago. I'm actually on my computer at my dad's house in Corvallis right now....phone was dead when you called.

[Cap'n Cat]

How many of these jobs are permanent once the stimulus money runs out?

I've said this a million times on here..... But, the stimulus wasn't to create permanent jobs. It was to create temporary jobs to keep people employed until the private sector begins hiring again. Sounds like it's working.

Damn right it is and the spin on the Right is monumental entertainment!

[Cap'n Cat]

If you have better numbers from a better source... feel free to post them.

CBO's numbers are the best and least biased that I'm aware of.

Bump.

No better numbers?

Ok. I guess my options are to form my opinion based on no hard data or projections (like most on this forum seem happy to do)... or to assume that these are the best numbers available and form an opinion based off of the best information available to me (like a rational person would do).

Keep grinding those Conk balls, Jelly!

[From the class of 09]

If you have better numbers from a better source... feel free to post them.

CBO's numbers are the best and least biased that I'm aware of.

Bump.

No better numbers?

Ok. I guess my options are to form my opinion based on no hard data or projections (like most on this forum seem happy to do)... or to assume that these are the best numbers available and form an opinion based off of the best information available to me (like a rational person would do).

I have no problem taking your numbers at face value my problem is that in doing so it shows that the stimulus has been an epic fail providing approximately 1 temporary job to every 69-75k spent.

I would very much like to hear your attempt to put a positive spin on these numbers?

[Gil Dobie]

I've said this a million times on here..... But, the stimulus wasn't to create permanent jobs. It was to create temporary jobs to keep people employed until the private sector begins hiring again. Sounds like it's working.

Damn right it is and the spin on the Right is monumental entertainment!

Hillarious to see the Donks supporting George W Bush's stimulus plan that John McCain broke stride in his campaign to support, and BH Obama forged ahead with.

[kalm]

Bump.

No better numbers?

Ok. I guess my options are to form my opinion based on no hard data or projections (like most on this forum seem happy to do)... or to assume that these are the best numbers available and form an opinion based off of the best information available to me (like a rational person would do).

I have no problem taking your numbers at face value my problem is that in doing so it shows that the stimulus has been an epic fail providing approximately 1 temporary job to every 69-75k spent.

I would very much like to hear your attempt to put a positive spin on these numbers?

Again, what percentage of that money goes back into the economy?

[Gil Dobie]

I have no problem taking your numbers at face value my problem is that in doing so it shows that the stimulus has been an epic fail providing approximately 1 temporary job to every 69-75k spent.

I would very much like to hear your attempt to put a positive spin on these numbers?

Again, what percentage of that money goes back into the economy?

What percentage gives more power to the ruling class.

[From the class of 09]

I have no problem taking your numbers at face value my problem is that in doing so it shows that the stimulus has been an epic fail providing approximately 1 temporary job to every 69-75k spent.

I would very much like to hear your attempt to put a positive spin on these numbers?

Again, what percentage of that money goes back into the economy?

Every dollar spent in the US is part of the economy. So most likely every dollar of stimulus was part of the US economy (at least I pray that not too much of the stimulus bill was spent on jobs over seas). The overriding point and question is how can those dollars be used most efficiently? Spending 69k for each temporary job is not an efficient use of my money (especially when the stated goal is job creation). The idea (as has been stated previously on this board) is to stimulate the private sector to create jobs. But if this was taking place the money spent per job should be less than the average US salary not thousands more. I hope this clears up any confusion.

[CitadelGrad]

I have no problem taking your numbers at face value my problem is that in doing so it shows that the stimulus has been an epic fail providing approximately 1 temporary job to every 69-75k spent.

I would very much like to hear your attempt to put a positive spin on these numbers?

Again, what percentage of that money goes back into the economy?

What exactly do you mean by "goes back into the economy?" The real question is, what is the economic multiplier of each dollar spent? It can come out to >1.0 (increases GDP) or <1.0 (does not increase GDP). The answer to that question can't be fully answered yet, but if you are spending $100k to create a $50k temporary job, you can pretty make and educated guess that it will be <1.0. That lesson was learned in the 30s, but seems to have been forgotten by this administration.

[AZGrizFan]

Damn right it is and the spin on the Right is monumental entertainment!

Hillarious to see the Donks supporting George W Bush's stimulus plan that John McCain broke stride in his campaign to support, and BH Obama forged ahead with.

This conk didn't support them then, or now.

[OL FU]

If you have better numbers from a better source... feel free to post them.

CBO's numbers are the best and least biased that I'm aware of.

Bump.

No better numbers?

Ok. I guess my options are to form my opinion based on no hard data or projections (like most on this forum seem happy to do)... or to assume that these are the best numbers available and form an opinion based off of the best information available to me (like a rational person would do).

there aren't any better numbers simply because no one knows. If you choose to believe these then that is your option. But please don't tell me you accept numbers from anyone without some critical review. The old saying about figures is one of the truest cliches ever devised.

But the main point is as I said no one knows. More importantly, most jobs saved or created had to be government jobs. One can make the argument that is a good thing, but that was not the argument made when the blll was marketed. I recall a statement that 90% of the jobs would be in the private sector

[travelinman67]

Skelly, you are like a kid with a calculator who multiplies 10 x 10 but comes up with 10,000 and doesn't have either the common sense or sufficient understanding of the big picture to know that the calculator answer is wrong.

Interesting way to respond native...
I have no idea if the information is correct - and neither do you

Yet you act like "you know" everything about everything - and say the guy quoting the data lacks common sense and "sufficient" understanding

Why not just say that you disagree with the findings Skelly is obviously not dumb and you know that but because you have no way of providing counter data you simply belittle him

I must disagree, Hippie.

Throwing money at municipalities to build/repair infrastructures with no corresponding reform of regulatory/tax law WHICH CREATED THE ORIGINAL ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, will not restore the 8 million (actually 12) jobs lost over the past three years.

Jellydonut is a liberal cheerleader, who not only refuses to man-up and admit to a failed ideology, but attempts to dance and spin mistruths to bolster his cheer: I must therefore, disagree with your assertion that he is "not dumb".

Furthermore...

...being someone with no excuse to support an occlusive rational thought...

...I am beginning to question your ability to make sound judgement...

[Skjellyfetti]

Just wanted to add for the people that like to do the predictable "total cost of stimulus bill divided by the number of jobs created" so make it seem like the stimulus bill was designed largely to pay a ridiculous amount to create a few jobs.

~30% of the stimulus bill were TAX CUTS ($246,869,000,000 dollars worth). Conservatives always seem to forget about this. Are y'all opposed to the massive tax cuts?

[From the class of 09]

Just wanted to add for the people that like to do the predictable "total cost of stimulus bill divided by the number of jobs created" so make it seem like the stimulus bill was designed largely to pay a ridiculous amount to create a few jobs.

~30% of the stimulus bill were TAX CUTS ($246,869,000,000 dollars worth). Conservatives always seem to forget about this. Are y'all opposed to the massive tax cuts?

What was the purpose of the stimulus bill if not to create jobs? I will argue that tax cuts are much better at promoting job creation then extending jobless benefits. If you want to go there Also so when does the $246b count as spent?


Tax cuts
Tax refunds (exceeding the amount paid in taxes) I don't feel the government should give you a bonus for failing at life financially.