Page 46 of 63 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 628

Thread: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

  1. #451
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by gopman View Post
    Not only that, but there's a massive incentive to "exaggerate". Like I said, would you ask for government money and tell them you're only going to "save" 1 or 2 jobs?
    Gosh, you mean there are incentives to exaggerate in the world? You could say that about anything, from job skills to penis size. Doesn't mean you don't hire people or have sex.

  2. #452
    Advisor gopman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    09-04-16 @ 09:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    556

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Gosh, you mean there are incentives to exaggerate in the world? You could say that about anything, from job skills to penis size. Doesn't mean you don't hire people or have sex.
    I didn't say it was surprising, I said it was true, and the president's job numbers are BS.
    If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.
    - Milton Friedman

  3. #453
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No it doesn't. It just means instead of hiring new people, you sign a contract with a firm before they lay off people. "Created or saved" simply means that some jobs will be new ones and some will be existing ones that would dissolve if it weren't for the stimulus.
    I know what it means, I was just asking you how you were going to figure out such a number.

    Ideally, the government looks at economic data showing which projects employ the most people, including indirect jobs. But there's no denying that politics is involved too.
    You know what project would employ the most people? Digging a canal with shovels. Would it be worth it? Well according to your measure, it would create a lot of wealth, employ a ton of people, and it would lead to indirect jobs via that multiplier that you love. So what's the problem?

    Why ignore it? Why does it matter that the job was created with tax money or not? It's still a job that was created, at least until the private sector can get back to employing the occupant again.

    If the stimulus were permanent, you might have a point. But it's not. It is designed to get the private sector running at full speed again, not permanently replace it with the government. It's a temporary, emergency measure.
    You have ignored where the money has come from. It's not coming from savings because there is no savings!

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  4. #454
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by gopman View Post
    I didn't say it was surprising, I said it was true, and the president's job numbers are BS.
    You said there were incentives to exaggerate. You didn't say there was actual exaggeration. That would require, like, some evidence. Knowing how many jobs were "really" created instead of how many were reported - now there's some rocket science.

  5. #455
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    I know what it means, I was just asking you how you were going to figure out such a number.
    I don't know. Are you saying it's not possible to figure out? Private businesses do it every day.

    You know what project would employ the most people? Digging a canal with shovels. Would it be worth it? Well according to your measure, it would create a lot of wealth, employ a ton of people, and it would lead to indirect jobs via that multiplier that you love. So what's the problem?
    No problem. If people want to dig canals, fine. Building roads isn't that far up from digging canals. But better-paying jobs also have an even greater multiplier effect per job, for obvious reasons.

    You have ignored where the money has come from. It's not coming from savings because there is no savings!
    Why does it matter where the money comes from, in the short-term? This is about the short-term, unfortunately.

    I am not saying this is the best way to run an economy. But the mistakes have been made (I'll leave it to you to figure out by whom) and now we're in a jam. A stimulus is our best option right now.

  6. #456
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    This colossal waste of taxpayer money is a classic example of the inefficiency of the federal government, and the number 1 reason why we need to keep the government out of the health care industry.
    Yes, because how our private financing and banking system has kept up the economy is the number 1 reason why we need only a private sector health care industry.

    ...

    Um, wait a minute...

  7. #457
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by gopman View Post
    And don't forget that jobs "created or saved" is an absolutely bogus measurement subject to manipulation. If you're asking for government money, are you going to say that your project will "create or save" 0 jobs or 100? How could they ever know?

    And what about the current and future jobs that are being destroyed by taxes?

    The government does not create jobs!
    It creates Government jobs, but that's a tiny percentage...not to mention some of them are ****ty, like the DMV receptionist, while some of them are awesome like 140k+- to be a Senator/Representative and not even have to show up to work all the time.

  8. #458
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Yes, because how our private financing and banking system has kept up the economy is the number 1 reason why we need only a private sector health care industry.

    ...

    Um, wait a minute...
    Yes, wait a minute, who was it that told the Financing industry to start giving out loans to higher risk people? Oh right, twas the Gub'ment.

  9. #459
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Yes, wait a minute, who was it that told the Financing industry to start giving out loans to higher risk people? Oh right, twas the Gub'ment.
    Sorta. But most of the subprime was done by private banks not under the CRA. This is a great case of when finance goes optimistically delirious. The ratings industries didn't help and essentially commuted fraud. When everyone things nothing can go wrong is when you should be thinking everything will go wrong.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #460
    Advisor gopman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    09-04-16 @ 09:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    556

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    It creates Government jobs, but that's a tiny percentage...not to mention some of them are ****ty, like the DMV receptionist, while some of them are awesome like 140k+- to be a Senator/Representative and not even have to show up to work all the time.
    Sure, but in order to create those jobs, it has to get that money from somewhere else, and that means destroying jobs. And as the subject line points out, the government is not as efficient at creating jobs as it is at destroying them. So net-net, it is not a job creator, it is a job destroyer.
    If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.
    - Milton Friedman

Page 46 of 63 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •