Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just did the math ... and assuming a direct cost to job ratio ... it's somewhere around 250k per job. You are right. That is not that impressive. However, isn't there something else that would lower the number even more? Wasn't much of the initial stimulus spent as tax cuts (remember the whole "$10 more per paycheck" fun?) How much of that is in the 300 billion spent so far? And how much money went towards other tax cuts and other items not directly related to job creation?
If we know that, we could then get an even more accurate #. I say if we can get down to under 100k per job created/saved ... then we can say the stimulus almost works as needed (I'd prefer a 50-60k per job, but hey ... it's the government).
Just did the math ... and assuming a direct cost to job ratio ... it's somewhere around 250k per job. You are right. That is not that impressive. However, isn't there something else that would lower the number even more? Wasn't much of the initial stimulus spent as tax cuts (remember the whole "$10 more per paycheck" fun?) How much of that is in the 300 billion spent so far? And how much money went towards other tax cuts and other items not directly related to job creation?
If we know that, we could then get an even more accurate #. I say if we can get down to under 100k per job created/saved ... then we can say the stimulus almost works as needed (I'd prefer a 50-60k per job, but hey ... it's the government).
Assuming you're correct however, the sole justification of the tax cuts as part of the stimulus bill were for job creation/retention. As such, you can't just arbitrarily take that out of the equation.
At the most optimistic number of 1.6 million and figuring "only" $300 billion, that still makes this bill one huge failure in terms of cost per job ($187,500). Add to that, most of these jobs are short term, nothing (or very little) has been done to ensure sustained job growth in the private sector. If the goal was job creation, we could have "created" a bunch of positions digging ditches, sweeping sidewalks, building trails in the national forests, working in National Parks, for what, $30k per year. So for that same $300 billion spent we could have "created" 10 million jobs.
I'm making a bit of an assumption here, that most jobs saved didn't actually draw a salary of $187,500 per year...so where did the rest of our tax money go that was spent under this bill?
Just did the math ... and assuming a direct cost to job ratio ... it's somewhere around 250k per job. You are right. That is not that impressive. However, isn't there something else that would lower the number even more? Wasn't much of the initial stimulus spent as tax cuts (remember the whole "$10 more per paycheck" fun?) How much of that is in the 300 billion spent so far? And how much money went towards other tax cuts and other items not directly related to job creation?
If we know that, we could then get an even more accurate #. I say if we can get down to under 100k per job created/saved ... then we can say the stimulus almost works as needed (I'd prefer a 50-60k per job, but hey ... it's the government).
The totals are being generous also, because it does not the tax cuts and welfare stimulus..
What would have been better, providing a $2500 tax incentive for ever NEW employee hired. They could have provided me with $250K and I could have, would have hired 10 additional employees, if nothing else other than to stand in my driveway and tell me when the mailman arrived.
Hell, for that kinda money we could have put millions more to work invaiding another country..
The number is flawed though because it did involve rebuilding some roads, bridges that needed repaired (and includes the cost of material etc for such repairs), but if we were going to repair them anyways, is that really a job saved/created, or just one that moved from later to now?
Assuming you're correct however, the sole justification of the tax cuts as part of the stimulus bill were for job creation/retention. As such, you can't just arbitrarily take that out of the equation.
At the most optimistic number of 1.6 million and figuring "only" $300 billion, that still makes this bill one huge failure in terms of cost per job ($187,500). Add to that, most of these jobs are short term, nothing (or very little) has been done to ensure sustained job growth in the private sector. If the goal was job creation, we could have "created" a bunch of positions digging ditches, sweeping sidewalks, building trails in the national forests, working in National Parks, for what, $30k per year. So for that same $300 billion spent we could have "created" 10 million jobs.
I'm making a bit of an assumption here, that most jobs saved didn't actually draw a salary of $187,500 per year...so where did the rest of our tax money go that was spent under this bill?
I'd have to argue that the initial tax cuts to individuals had absolutely nothing to do with saving jobs. What does $10 extra per paycheck have to do with saving a job? To me, that was meant to boost discretionary spending (we can argue about whether that goal was acheived or not).
So I say to get a more accurate cost/job ratio, inital tax cut costs must be taken out of the total expendature so far.
But in theory, you are correct. If we are going to spend this money anyways (from teh public sector), then we should have created stable public sector jobs, although one can argue that saving education jobs saves stable public sector jobs. I know personally of many educational jobs saved, as I used to be a teacher and still have many friends in the system.
You are also correct in that things can be (and should be) more efficient. I just disagree that the stimulus is a "huge failure". I think it helped, but would have done things a little differently (and less costly) myself.
Okay, even if I was to assume these numbers are indeed accurate, it still doesn't help that unemployment is rising and that Obama has done nothing to curb outsourcing like he promised during his campaign. He promised to offer significant tax breaks to motivate U.S. companies to hire U.S. citizens.
But to be fair, this is not an Obama problem or Democratic problem. Bush did the same thing and ignored the issue of outsourcing. Obama is doing the same thing. It's just sad because we expected change with Obama. When he campaigned in Ohio and the rust belt promising jobs and that theirs wouldn't be lost to outsourcing, he has done nothing.
I'm making a bit of an assumption here, that most jobs saved didn't actually draw a salary of $187,500 per year...so where did the rest of our tax money go that was spent under this bill?
Cost of material, cement, steel, shipping etc, the raw resources to do the repairs that these individuals were hired to do..
What would have been better, providing a $2500 tax incentive for ever NEW employee hired. They could have provided me with $250K and I could have, would have hired 10 additional employees, if nothing else other than to stand in my driveway and tell me when the mailman arrived.
Hey, I agree.
I would have loved for 1/4 private sector tax incentives, 1/4 public projects, 1/4 education system, and 1/4 across the board individual tax cuts myself (assuming we actually spend all of the money).
I am all for not spending all of the allocated money now that we are not falling off a cliff anymore (or so that is the perception).
Was "cash for clunkers" and the "home-buyer credit" part of the stimulis?
If so, also have to factor those in to get a more correct cost/job ratio.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
