|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint 650,000 and not impressed|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Experienced Member |
-http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/10/should_the_stimulus_saving_or_creating_650000_jobs_impress_us.php |
||
|
Experienced Member |
I seem to remember that both the AP and the Recovery.org site both state that only 30,000 or so jobs have been created within the private sector as a result of the stimulus. So, that would mean that most of the jobs "saved or created" were done so within the public realm. If that is true, then we are seriously in trouble. And, if my last statement seems out of place for you (in the web), then it is incumbent upon you to study more economics and history.
|
|||
|
That's a joke, son. |
John Boehner was not impressed either which is why he said:
"I'm pleased that the GDP numbers this morning were up. But the question is, where are the jobs?" Well the fact is that jobs are a lagging indicator, which means they may not show for a while. As for the nature of the jobs created and saved, one could reasonably argue that it really does not matter what sector they are in because the income they earn enters the economy which creates demand for products and services which creates more jobs particularly in this phase of a recovery. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
How come the unemployment rates have not gone down? 95% of all reports coming out of the White House are either false or have hidden parts to them. This has been going on now for just about nine years.
|
|||
|
Previous Posts as Jade_Gate |
|
|||
|
|
That's a joke, son. |
The unemployment rate is a misleading indicator and should be used accordingly. It measures only those that: do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the past four weeks, and are currently available for work.
Still for as bad as this recession was with 9.7% unemployment, it is not nearly as bad as the 10 months of over 10% unemployment experienced in 1982. |
|||
|
|
That's a joke, son. |
Ever worked with government grants? I am guessing no. Try getting job info from grantees.  |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
I really cannot see how spending $230,769 to employ one person is going to put money back into the economy. I am sure they are not paying that person that much and there is no way they can spend more than they make. You cannot spend your way to recovery, you cannot spend you way out of debt. Trust me on this one, my ex wife tried that, she tried really hard. Forget the dog, Beware of Owner |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Yes but unemployment is increasing, and is getting faster, do you really think we will not see 10% or higher? Forget the dog, Beware of Owner |
|||
|
|
That's a joke, son. |
The money went to other things beside just creating jobs that could be counted. |
|||
|
|
That's a joke, son. |
It could go higher, but if the recession is in fact over, employers will eventually start hiring again as business picks up. |
|||
|
|
Previous Posts as Jade_Gate |
Yepper ... and among them ... such economic stimuli as bonuses, incentive payments, and pay raises. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
it always does. "we will take money from you (or in this case, borrow it from your children) to give to others and this will help" You cannot spend your way to prosperity. The government taking more money to spend more money will not lead to recovery. Cut taxes, or just make permanent the temporary cuts that are in place and CUT SPENDING. The cut spending part is one that most politicians do not seem to understand. I am not claiming republicans are guilt free, but tax and spend is pretty much something dems are famous for. Forget the dog, Beware of Owner |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
The odd thing about your plan is that it's been tried and failed. Didn't President Bush cut taxes? Didn't the economy fall apart on President Bush's watch? Cutting taxes is desirable as long as your willing to give up the services those taxes paid for. Did Reagan ever raise taxes?? Did the first Bush raise taxes?? Do a little analysis and compare the deficit at the end of the last 4 Presidents and let's see what you come up with. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Yes but President Bush failed the second part of cut spending. The main reason for the dump in the economy was the easy credit that had been available. In the late 90s it was the tech bubble, this created a sense of false wealth. When that burst, investors started sticking their money in real estate which started a new bubble. Beyond that as I said, Republicans are not guild free, jump off your partisan horse. Cutting taxes does not solve anything unless you change spending in line. Cutting taxes does help the economy, but does not help the federal coffers if they still spend what they don't have, and does not really belong to them anyway. In a boom, the govt thinks 'look at all this money we have to spend', then in the bust they say we cant cut what have been spending. Many American did the same thing. When they were making a lot of money, they spent it all, when their income went south, they kept spending, just putting it on credit cards. Again, it is easy, if you don't have the money, don't spend it. After I was divorced, I cut my spending way back and was able to pay off all my debts and then get money in the bank after about 6 years. I am debt free and do not spend more than i bring in and I have a healthy reserve. My exwife kept spending and declared bankruptcy after 3 years Forget the dog, Beware of Owner |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
 In my mind, this should never go into the red  Any surplus should have been put towards the debt. When we had surpluses, the debt did not increase, but it did not decrease as it should have. Instead that money was spent on more wasteful programs. Forget the dog, Beware of Owner |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I like the word IF in your statement. We all know the recession is over. We had 3% GDP growth in the 3rd quarter. So the question is do you think negative GDP is gone for good, or at least for the next couple of quarters? I hear the gov is about to renew the housing credit. But cash for clunkers is over. Can we keep this rosy picture going or is back into the red? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Wouldn't a better comparison be the percentage of the GDP? As our country grows economically, the infrastructure should keep up and grow as well, thus more dollars.
I would be really curious about a graph showing the growth of government, Federal and states each, with a graph of the employment rate in the private sector, if there are such things around... |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I saw a couple of places on the news that at one place it was stated that
129 jobs were created. In fact no jobs were created but the money went to the already employed 129 as salary increases and such. But no new jobs created. The news also listed several other places with the same results, money going to a company for the already employed workers but no new jobs. These were all listed as as New jobs. So the Gov is going to have to go back and figure out Fact from Fiction. |
|||
|
|
That's a joke, son. |
It will not be official until NBER declares it over....
See: [http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html |
|||
|
* |
Losing about 500,000 jobs a month resulting in a very high number of home foreclosures. America's industrial might is vanishing, and probably will not return - every time we build a building or bridge or car with more oriental steel, we drive another nail in our own coffin - -
Wandering and Wondering |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Sadly you are correct, we need to start looking to ourselves again. Our ancestors built this nation, with their example if we wake up we can do it too. Frisco |
|||
|
|
That's a joke, son. |
We still produce tons of stuff. Believe it or not the sky is not falling. |
|||
|
----------------  Proud Member ----------------  |
Tired-azz question...'Where are the jobs?'
Dig this here: Personal spending is down, personal savings up. Good---unless you work for Kohl's, or JC Penney's, or Circuit City, of Crate & Barrel, or Sony, or Dell, or GM, or KB Homes, or.... The jobs that were spurred by the bubble aren't coming back. New home construction will pick up some, but not to the bubble levels, so the carpenters and payroll clerks won't be going back to those jobs. More savings and less credit card debt means retail will take another blow to the head this Christmas season. Folks will be keeping their cars an extra year or two or ten for a while to come. Same with televisions, iPods, and bath towels. Same old schit--longing for the good old days (of the smoke and mirrors of the real estate bubble). They're just not that far back. Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
That's a joke, son. |
Taunt them anyway. They deserve it. Oh and taunt Bon ner too, I mean Boehner. He is such a putze (in every sense of the word). |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
That's not the question. The question is where are the jobs we spent hundreds of billions to produce?
And the jobs created or saved by this stimulus wont stay long. And the jobs going over seas each year aren't coming back either. This message has been edited. Last edited by: floersh, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Cash for clunkers contributed 1.3% of that, so we cannot count on that portion any longer Forget the dog, Beware of Owner |
|||
|
|
---------------- Proud Member ---------------- |
Roads aren't built for the cost of labor. The aggregate, asphalt, and concrete; the rebars and topsoil and grass seed; guardrail, striping and signs; material is about 70 percent of the cost in my trade. Throw in engineering and oversight, barricades and other safety setups and you'll figure out that the cost of a job is more than just a wage.
So what's to be done? Open a few more gourmet chocolatiers and coffee houses? More Mc-E-Dee's and Wal-Marts to steal business from BK and Meijers? How about we wait for the next Drexel Burnham Lambert or AIG to design a new generation of bull **** complex derivative financial products to 'create wealth'?? Education and infrastucture don't appeal to short term thinkers--no instant financial gratification. Tax cuts targeted at the ponzi-schemers and short-sellers 'create' piles for the few, skew GDP numbers, and feed the K-Street bull **** artists who steer Congress. Batteries, windmills, solar panels...or something that China's not already cranking out with cheap labor from substandard materials is the only hope I see to turn this thing around--and we better have some educated children to design and build them, and some decent intermodal transportation systems to get them to market. Now go a-way or I shall taunt you a second time! |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Outstanding!!! |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Yes but the steel and asphalt and concrete come from companies which presumably have employees. So while concrete costs X per cubic yard when you take out the labor costs it is considerable less than X. Well the stimulus spread out across all the labor equals 230,769. If we assume that none of these employees are getting paid $100k then we know that there is at least $130,769 overhead per employee. Are you going to sit there and lead us to believe that is the cost of the raw materials? Labor is almost ALWAYS the leading cost of any construction project yet it doesn't even account for half the stimulus money?
Again, do you honestly think that one or two years of investment in our education system is going to have any lasting effects? What a joke. No one would argue investing in our education system. But doing so with a short lived stimulus ain't going to change the pathetic results they produce today. It will require continued investment over the next several decades. Ohh and by the way. Were you aware that many of the government grants for higher education are becoming scarce? Seems to me we are losing what worked and throwing more money at what has failed. As for infrastructure. I will go back to a number of other posts on this board. Throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily put you in a better place. You must make wise investments. After the droughts of the last several years it would seem the better investment would have been our water infrastructure considering as how gasoline powered cars are probably mostly a thing of the past at this point. They sure don't help global warming nor energy independence. Investing in roads today is like fighting the last war. Heck our power grid could use more of that money. Anything that positions us for the future. And roads sure as heck don't do that. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint 650,000 and not impressed
