Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

BearMtnHIB wrote:

I don't know that it is true either way. Is there data that shows we would be no better off without all the TARP bills? Or would we be much worse off if they had not been passed?

Kate- have you been hitting the bong this morning? This thread was started because Obama’s Economists say that ‘Stimulus’ has cost $278,000 per job.

This is the "data" you were wondering about. Do you still not know if this is true- or if we would be better off without it?

Sheesh!

In the private sector- a job does not cost anything to the taxpayer. A job by it's existance in the free market adds value to the economy- and adds to economic activity. This is proof that the government does not create jobs, and further proof that the money would have been better left in private hands where real jobs are created.

I don't smoke weed.

Pineinthewhatever posted that the 278,000 per job does not include the cost of materials or other goods, services, etc. that would be included. For example, the Shaffers Crossing project cost around $6 million or so? (I think I'm correct - that's from memory.) They've been working on it for about 20 or 22 months, and I bet there are about 15-20 people out there at any given time. Using the logic from the blog Viking posted, that would mean that each person working there got $300,000 for 22 months of work. (My figures - and memory - may be off, but you get the general idea.)

Never mind that they had to buy asphalt, road base, guard rails, diesel fuel, dump truck rental, etc. The money borrowed by the stimulus bill to pay for the Shaffers Crossing overpass actually pumped a lot of cash into the economy in the form of wages and goods purchased, so it's not really a good example that Vikings blog post gives, unless I'm missing something.

My question was whether there is any data on whether the economy would be worse off if the stimulus had not been passed or vice versa?

BearMtnHIB wrote: In the private sector- a job does not cost anything to the taxpayer. A job by it's existance in the free market adds value to the economy- and adds to economic activity. This is proof that the government does not create jobs, and further proof that the money would have been better left in private hands where real jobs are created.

(Forgot to comment on this part of your post.)

Are you talking about jobs that are just government jobs (like the DMV) or about government projects, like the Shaffers Crossing overpass? Because the government does farm out a lot of work to private contracts that they cannot self perform. That seems to me to be adding value to the economy. In this case, the government is creating jobs for the private sector.

Also, would you agree that the government does create jobs within, such as police, fire dept, librarians, DMV clerks, etc. Those sound like real jobs.

Listen, you can try and spin this any way that you like. It was Obama's economic team that came out with the numbers saying that is cost $278,000 per job created. And on top of that, they are counting jobs, supposedly saved, (which are unprovable at best) and have been shown dozens of times to be highly inflated. So it is probably much higher than that! Bottom, line is that this stimulus was a total bust and a waste of almost $1 trillion dollars which not they are saying that we need to raise taxes to pay for when it was unneccessary in the first place.

Unemployment has gone from 7.3% when this was signed up to 9.1% today. This did not work!!

But it's funny to obama! :bash :bash

[youtube:1bv7zfk2][/youtube:1bv7zfk2]

You can look at these stats.....

[youtube:1pqtreco][/youtube:1pqtreco]

To be fair Viking this is not much different fron Bush looking under the sofa for WMD's. The issue is how to push start our nations job engine. It's time for those of us on the right to start putting forward solutions. I'd like to hear from Presidential candidates their thoughts on curtailing these free trade agreements that benefit everyone but us.

The Viking wrote: Listen, you can try and spin this any way that you like. It was Obama's economic team that came out with the numbers saying that is cost $278,000 per job created. And on top of that, they are counting jobs, supposedly saved, (which are unprovable at best) and have been shown dozens of times to be highly inflated. So it is probably much higher than that! Bottom, line is that this stimulus was a total bust and a waste of almost $1 trillion dollars which not they are saying that we need to raise taxes to pay for when it was unneccessary in the first place.

Unemployment has gone from 7.3% when this was signed up to 9.1% today. This did not work!!

:bash :bash :bash

Bottom line - from the government report - they do not make the correlation between jobs saved and money spent. It's the blog that divided the money spent by jobs saved to equal $278,000. It wasn't President Obama's team that made that calculation. It was a blogger. Read the report - http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... report.pdf

Remember, the blogger did not factor in materials, goods sold or purchased, etc. He just took the total stimulus divided by jobs created to reach his unrealistic number. Not very honest, is it?

:bash :bash :bash

BTW - Do you know for a fact that unemployment would not have been higher if the stimulus had not been passed? You seem to be making that assertion. Are you saying that since unemployment is higher now, the stimulus bill had no effect? Maybe unemployment would be 15% if it had not passed. I don't know, so I'm asking the question.

Would we be worse off or better off without the stimulus?

:bash :bash :bash

I was, and still am, a big opponent of the stimulus, BUT, the figures you're using here are misleading. You're saying that the number of jobs would have been better for the last 6 months without the stimulus based on that report. Read the report - it does not say that or indicate this hidden within the numbers. What it does say is that the effects of the stimulus will begin to wear off as the money is no longer spent which explains the fewer jobs created. There are plenty of real problems with the stimulus and other programs without making it up.

The Viking wrote: You can look at these stats.....

[youtube:2pm1pyer]

[/youtube:2pm1pyer]

Sorry, I don't do youtube to get my facts.

Are you talking about jobs that are just government jobs (like the DMV) or about government projects, like the Shaffers Crossing overpass? Because the government does farm out a lot of work to private contracts that they cannot self perform. That seems to me to be adding value to the economy. In this case, the government is creating jobs for the private sector.

Also, would you agree that the government does create jobs within, such as police, fire dept, librarians, DMV clerks, etc. Those sound like real jobs.

It is debatable whether or not infrastructure improvements add value to an economy or not. As you may know- the Schaffers crossing project was originally planned as a state project, and was included in the state budget originally. It was hijacked and shifted to the stimulis bill when the state discovered that it could get federal money - freeing up 6 million of state money for other wasteful government. There was a discussion thread about this at the time- probably over on PC because I think this website was not online yet.

Any money used for infrastructure must come out of the private sector- or be borrowed - as is the case for the schaffers project. Since the money has been borrowed it may wind up costing much more than 6 million, because we now have to pay interest on that money.

I would say that up to a point, police, fire and DMV clerks add a minimal value to our economy. A few law enforcement officers are needed to be sure, but as soon as you add one more position than is actually needed- it's all waste. It costs the taxpayers money which would otherwise be spent in the private market, building businesses, adding jobs, or otherwise spent on goods and services - or invested.

Will the Schaffers project be worth the money? I can not say if it will add any value to Conifer's economy, the intersection worked OK before the construction. I would agree that it was not the safest intersection, but it may be the case that this specific improvement could have been put off until the economy improves before spending the money. Maybe we could have used the road for another 5-10 years before it really needed to be done.

I think the real reason for the project stems from the new state park access that the state wants, backed up by safety concerns.

Yes we need police, we need a fire department and we need a DMV, but the minute we spend one more dollar than what is actually needed we are wasting money, somthing we can not afford to do anymore.

Kate wrote: BTW - Do you know for a fact that unemployment would not have been higher if the stimulus had not been passed? You seem to be making that assertion. Are you saying that since unemployment is higher now, the stimulus bill had no effect? Maybe unemployment would be 15% if it had not passed. I don't know, so I'm asking the question.

Would we be worse off or better off without the stimulus?

:bash :bash :bash

And most likely we would have been better. Maybe unemployment would be at 8%? How do you know. the one thing you CAN prove is that we would be almost $1 trillion LESS in debt! You are like Obama throwing out random numbers as to 'what might have been'. You are asking to prove a negative. You can't. But it makes for great numbers for someone who screwed up, saying that 'we think' it would have been much worse. We can throw those out all day. If Bush hadn't lowered taxes, unemployment would have been 15%. If we hadn't attacked Iraq, then we would have had another 9/11. Those are all made up facts. obama should only use the numbers of jobs created, not the supposed saved ones, which, as I stated, there are dozens if not hundreds of stories wehre Obama said jobs were saved adn the companies said they were never in jeopardy anyway. So those 'saved' jobs are a total crock!