BO's $225,000 per job "jobs bill"

Patrick · Oct 2, 2011

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein points out that, with an expected impact of 2 million jobs "created", obama's $450 billion jobs bill would cost $225,000 per job!

Obama STILL doesn't get it. His dormitory bull session grasp of economics crashes and burns when tested in the real world. With the last porkulus, at a cost of a trillion dollars added to the national debt, state government workers and other liberal-connected groups were put back to work, and then let go when the money ran out. It didn't cause the economy to recover. Porkulus 2 is just more of the same. The leftwing never has and never will be able to "create" jobs, except temporarily by a dollar for dollar drain on the very economy they claim to be wanting to help - like paying off one credit card with another.

myp · Oct 2, 2011

Using the figure like that is very misleading because it neglects any other purchases made with the money. While the $450 billion might pay for 2 million people's salaries, it will likely also pay for resources, etc. for whatever projects the government is funding in the bill. If you are getting a house built and the cost is $200,000 and 10 people will work on it, you wouldn't say that the company is charging you $20,000 per worker would you? Of course not because you are also paying for all the materials, etc. that go into the house.

I do not generally support "stimulus" spending and this bill is no different (aside from maybe some infrastructure spending, but it depends what and on the cost-benefit), but these figures only serve to mislead people.

Patrick · Oct 2, 2011

myp said:
Using the figure like that is very misleading because it neglects any other purchases made with the money. While the $450 billion might pay for 2 million people's salaries, it will likely also pay for resources, etc. for whatever projects the government is funding in the bill. If you are getting a house built and the cost is $200,000 and 10 people will work on it, you wouldn't say that the company is charging you $20,000 per worker would you? Of course not because you are also paying for all the materials, etc. that go into the house.

I do not generally support "stimulus" spending and this bill is no different (aside from maybe some infrastructure spending, but it depends what and on the cost-benefit), but these figures only serve to mislead people.

What YOU are neglecting is that the self same money, if not (for example) taxed out of the economy, would have a multiplier effect. The difference is, the money not drained from the economy would go where the >>MARKET<< deemed it should go, whereas obama's porkulus inefficiently takes money out of the economy either literally of effectively, and it goes to where his fiat determines it should go - typically to democrat-connected groups, typically people who are unproductive or already overpaid. Your assertions are the fundamental claims of keynsian economics - sounds good, but it just doesn't work. Didn't work in 1932-39, didn't work in 2009-2010, won't work now.

myp · Oct 3, 2011

Patrick said:
What YOU are neglecting is that the self same money, if not (for example) taxed out of the economy, would have a multiplier effect. The difference is, the money not drained from the economy would go where the >>MARKET<< deemed it should go, whereas obama's porkulus inefficiently takes money out of the economy either literally of effectively, and it goes to where his fiat determines it should go - typically to democrat-connected groups, typically people who are unproductive or already overpaid. Your assertions are the fundamental claims of keynsian economics - sounds good, but it just doesn't work. Didn't work in 1932-39, didn't work in 2009-2010, won't work now.

I never denied that. You just assumed I did.

The point is that saying it costs "225k per job" is misleading. That doesn't mean it isn't still a bad idea though.

Patrick · Oct 3, 2011

myp said:
I never denied that. You just assumed I did.

The point is that saying it costs "225k per job" is misleading. That doesn't mean it isn't still a bad idea though.

No, it's not misleading - it DOES cost half a trillion dollars, it WILL produce 2 million jobs, the jobs WILL go away when the money is depleted, and at that time there will be a "de-multiplier" effect, unraveling any temporary good. Net result: another half trillion in national debt.

myp · Oct 3, 2011

Patrick said:
No, it's not misleading - it DOES cost half a trillion dollars, it WILL produce 2 million jobs, the jobs WILL go away when the money is depleted, and at that time there will be a "de-multiplier" effect, unraveling any temporary good. Net result: another half trillion in national debt.

No one is denying it is estimated to cost half a trillion or that it is estimated to lead to 2 million jobs. What is misleading is the cost per job because once it is spent, you will still have anything that was produced with the money left over. Things like roads or buildings or whatever the money is used for. The money is not just used in salaries.

As for "multipliers", in some instances, infrastructure spending could potentially stimulate further growth, but that is another discussion.

Patrick · Oct 3, 2011

myp said:
No one is denying it is estimated to cost half a trillion or that it is estimated to lead to 2 million jobs. What is misleading is the cost per job because once it is spent, you will still have anything that was produced with the money left over. Things like roads or buildings or whatever the money is used for. The money is not just used in salaries.

As for "multipliers", in some instances, infrastructure spending could potentially stimulate further growth, but that is another discussion.

Lessee - so he fixes some potholes, and employers say "Better roads! Garsh doggit, I'm gonna hire ten workers!". The same arguments were made for his first porkukus and it FAILED. The porkulus is doomed to failure, because it doesn't address the REAL problem: employers keep their cash and their skeleton crews for the principal reason that obama is a loose cannon, a leftwinger UTTERLY ignorant of economics, who has come out with one anti-business measure after another, and they never know what his latest brainfart will be, so they keep their powder dry. Nothing will improve until he's out of office.

myp · Oct 3, 2011

Patrick said:
Lessee - so he fixes some potholes, and employers say "Better roads! Garsh doggit, I'm gonna hire ten workers!". The same arguments were made for his first porkukus and it FAILED. The porkulus is doomed to failure, because it doesn't address the REAL problem: employers keep their cash and their skeleton crews for the principal reason that obama is a loose cannon, a leftwinger UTTERLY ignorant of economics, who has come out with one anti-business measure after another, and they never know what his latest brainfart will be, so they keep their powder dry. Nothing will improve until he's out of office.

Infrastructure can multiply economic production. Anyone of any school will tell you that. Take the extreme example where there are no roads and then you build some to connect both ends of the country. Even with the inefficiency of government, there might be a net benefit. Now the best way to bring about such infrastructure is arguable, but the fact that infrastructure is a worthy dollar-for-dollar investment in some instances most definitely stands. In fact, it is much better dollar-for-dollar than spending on things like walls to "guard" the United States borders or things like that.

I am not saying we should or should not be doing it right now (or at all), but that fact stands. If we were to spend money though, infrastructure is a good investment compared to most other things.

That is all besides my original point that saying this bill costs $225k per job is misleading though.

Patrick · Oct 3, 2011

myp said:
Infrastructure can multiply economic production. Anyone of any school will tell you that. Take the extreme example where there are no roads and then you build some to connect both ends of the country. Even with the inefficiency of government, there might be a net benefit. Now the best way to bring about such infrastructure is arguable, but the fact that infrastructure is a worthy dollar-for-dollar investment in some instances most definitely stands. In fact, it is much better dollar-for-dollar than spending on things like walls to "guard" the United States borders or things like that.

I am not saying we should or should not be doing it right now (or at all), but that fact stands. If we were to spend money though, infrastructure is a good investment compared to most other things.

That is all besides my original point that saying this bill costs $225k per job is misleading though.

Nobody thinks it's not good to have a good road. But it won't cause the economy to recover. FDR spent money on all kinds of HUGE infrastructure projects, eg Hoover Dam and the Tennesse Valley Authority dams, projects reasonably relatable to economic activity, since they produced electricity, probably cheaper electricity. MANY other projects - but it didn't cause a recovery. Once again, the fundamental reason is that such spending robs Peter to pay Paul. The funds can only come from (1) taxation (2) printing money or (3) increasing the national debt, all of which HARM the economy.

David · Oct 3, 2011

The Hoover Dam was Hoover's project.

Patrick · Oct 3, 2011

David said:
The Hoover Dam was Hoover's project.

No actually, it was calvin coolidge's project.

The vast majority of the funding nd construction took place under the democrats, who controlled both houses of congress and the presidency from 1933 to 1947.

Abbott Presley · Feb 7, 2021

BO's $225,000 per job "jobs bill"

Similar threads