CBO: Stimulus bill created up to 2.1 million jobs

[Hot Mega]

Fair news when you consider the majority of stimulus money hasn't been spent and may not need to be when the economy transitions.

WASHINGTON – The economic stimulus law added between 1 million to 2.1 million workers to employment rolls by the end of last year, a new report released Tuesday by congressional economists said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study also said the $862 billion stimulus added between 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points to the growth of the economy in 2009. The controversial stimulus law combined tax breaks for individuals and businesses with lots of government spending.

The report reflects agreement among economists that the measure boosted the economy. But the wide range of estimates means it won't resolve the debate over how effective the stimulus has been.

The White House says the stimulus bill has created 2 million jobs and will add another 1.5 million this year as economic recovery continues to take hold.
CBO projects that the stimulus measure to have a greater impact this year, boosting gross domestic product by 1.4 to 4 percentage points and lowering the unemployment rate by 0.7 to 1.8 percentage points.

The report said the most efficient parts of the stimulus include infrastructure projects such as road- and bridge-building and more generous unemployment benefits. On the other hand, the popular first-time homebuyer tax credit isn't a very efficient use of stimulus dollars, the report said.

The economy has shed 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession in December of 2007, though job losses have slowed in the past couple of months.

Continued at link...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_go_co/us_stimulus_jobs

 

[prof_porn]

Wish I had one of them.

 

[nearlyinvisible]

So when the roads and bridges are built, and the program ends, these same people will once again be unemployed.

 

[Hot Mega]

So when the roads and bridges are built, and the program ends, these same people will once again be unemployed.

Theoretically what should happen is the spending created by these people with these jobs over time will have an exponential effect on creating jobs in other sectors...then theoretically as the economy blossoms with more demand for workers...these people will have more opportunity at other jobs as these projects come to a close.

For example, people with jobs buy things like cars, shoes, candy, go see movies etc. Those sectors hire according to the increased demand. Then the employees in the car, shoe, candy, movie sector, etc. buy junk and it just trickles down or up from there depending on your perspective.

It was the same principles at work when Reagan spent on defense in the '80s.

 

[Philbert]

Theoretically what should happen is the spending created by these people with these jobs over time will have an exponential effect on creating jobs in other sectors...then theoretically as the economy blossoms with more demand for workers...these people will have more opportunity at other jobs as these projects come to a close.

For example, people with jobs buy things like cars, shoes, candy, go see movies etc. Those sectors hire according to the increased demand. Then the employees in the car, shoe, candy, movie sector, etc. buy junk and it just trickles down or up from there depending on your perspective.

It was the same principles at work when Reagan spent on defense in the '80s.

The net loss of jobs is still in the many millions, as is the pork and incredible waste...I wonder what the actual cost of each of those jobs is to the taxpayer...so far the Obama Plan has been to spend a Million per Thousand brought in...more or less.
The Green Jobs Stimulus BS is a perfect example...given as to date, something like $522,000,000 has been spent to "Green" upgrade 9100 homes per energy efficiency and renewable energy, etc...so, we are saving hundreds of Dollars per home at a cost of roughly $57,300 each.
I wonder how many Federal employees got upgraded?

 

[Hot Mega]

The net loss of jobs is still in the many millions, as is the pork and incredible waste...I wonder what the actual cost of each of those jobs is to the taxpayer...so far the Obama Plan has been to spend a Million per Thousand brought in...more or less.
The Green Jobs Stimulus BS is a perfect example...given as to date, something like $522,000,000 has been spent to "Green" upgrade 9100 homes per energy efficiency and renewable energy, etc...so, we are saving hundreds of Dollars per home at a cost of roughly $57,300 each.
I wonder how many Federal employees got upgraded?

Uh yeah, the economy was and is still losing jobs as is typical of a recession's transition. That was the point of the stimulus.

Again, less than half of it has been apportioned so to peg it as a cost of whatever to whomever at this point is a bit ignorant and premature.

We may spend far less (for a "change") on something thought to cost far more.:2 cents:

 

[nearlyinvisible]

Theoretically what should happen is the spending created by these people with these jobs over time will have an exponential effect on creating jobs in other sectors...then theoretically as the economy blossoms with more demand for workers...these people will have more opportunity at other jobs as these projects come to a close.

For example, people with jobs buy things like cars, shoes, candy, go see movies etc. Those sectors hire according to the increased demand. Then the employees in the car, shoe, candy, movie sector, etc. buy junk and it just trickles down or up from there depending on your perspective.

It was the same principles at work when Reagan spent on defense in the '80s.

I agree with what you say could theoretically happen. Realistically, I don't see the "stimulus" jobs creating long term well-paying secure jobs.

The bottom line is that many of the unemployed either:
1. Don't have an education OR
2. Don't have valuable skills that employers want/require

Sure, there are exceptions, even engineers and accountants get canned.

Regardless, temporary construction jobs aren't going to improve the American workforce in the long run.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Fuzzy math.

 

[Hot Mega]

I agree with what you say could theoretically happen. Realistically, I don't see the "stimulus" jobs creating long term well-paying secure jobs.

The bottom line is that many of the unemployed either:
1. Don't have an education OR
2. Don't have valuable skills that employers want/require

Sure, there are exceptions, even engineers and accountants get canned.

Regardless, temporary construction jobs aren't going to improve the American workforce in the long run.

That is totally untrue. When corporate revenue shrinks as has happened in all sectors...corporations have to cut (jobs). It doesn't matter what education, skills or qualifications you have, if the revenue isn't there to support your function..you won't have a job no matter what your background is. Simple as that.

 

[D-rock]

Instead of tax breaks or rebates or temporary work that won't last that you have some private entity do for you the government should just from now on become the employer of last resort, and create a job that pays a decent living wage to everybody that wants one. That way society gets the benefit from the work they do, people that need one get a job, and it eliminates the need for things like welfare for most people. It would pump money into the economy like anything else, but with actual benefit to most people. People wouldn't have to worry about anybody abusing the system because by the nature of it they would have to work. It would even go a long way to getting most people medical insurance. Plus instead of putting money somewhere and praying somebody invest it and then the money goes somewhere else, and then somewhere else, and then somewhere else....and somewhere else, and then somewhere else, and finally whatever's left to a person that needs it after the top has drained most of it for themselves, you very directly help the people that need it the most in a quick and positive way. You create a bottom limit to how far you are willing to let people fall in our society unless they are disabled or absolutely refuse to accept a reasonable condition you put them under, and the people that work can even get training on the job or experience so other employers want to hire them because of it. That will never happen though, it involves too much common sense and it's just too logical.

 

[nearlyinvisible]

That is totally untrue. When corporate revenue shrinks as has happened in all sectors...corporations have to cut (jobs). It doesn't matter what education, skills or qualifications you have, if the revenue isn't there to support your function..you won't have a job no matter what your background is. Simple as that.

You don't see people with a good education (doctors, lawyers) without a job because there is always a need for their services/knowledge. People with valuable skills (plumbers, electricians) can always find work. If they can't then they aren't good businessmen or aren't very good at their trade.

It's the people that have jobs in industry/factories or sales/retail that practically anyone can do that are screwed. Generally, they have no or limited valuable skills or education to bring something to an employer. I'm confident that the majority of the 10% of Americans that are unemployed had jobs of this type before they were let go. A guy that lost his job working in a factory for 20 years simply doesn't have anything to offer an employer in another field.

 

[Timeenough]

I don't mind putting money into infrastructure like roads and bridges, but it would be nice if these projects would help people commute to work more efficiently. Instead what I see is a lot of dumb traffic circles that were probably designed in France.

 

[Philbert]

Uh yeah, the economy was and is still losing jobs as is typical of a recession's transition. That was the point of the stimulus.

Again, less than half of it has been apportioned so to peg it as a cost of whatever to whomever at this point is a bit ignorant and premature.

We may spend far less (for a "change") on something thought to cost far more.:2 cents:

It is a lot ignorant to tout the "jobs" created in number alone...just keeping the light off of the pork projects, waste, and fraud put down by this admin trying to smoke and mirror their way through a mishandled recession.
Spending $522,000,000 isn't a foggy figure, they spent that much on 91,000 houses to date and that means the cost is $57,000+ per house which is bullshit extreme.
This admin has a business model like someone spending hundreds of thousands on a new business by constructing a large building, putting expensive signs and equipment in it, filling it with inventory and opening up without a clue as to if it is a viable business; doing any real market research, looking for a good traffic spot to build on, verifying both the need and market share available...a cart before the horse style of shooting in the dark business model...almost guaranteed failure. Like SNLs Scotch Tape Mall Shop...

Lots of the money isn't spent and what is, is not well put or useful, merely wasted or in the wrong place...losing millions of jobs due to a reluctance of businesses to expand, hire, or keep current workers on due to excessive uncertainty about future Health Care taxes, BS "slipped that in on ya" taxes, low spending and high cost of doing business, new regulations put frantically in place to see if that'll work...even a rumor that the Obama admin is thinking about dealing with a sector of the economy creates a semi-panic of no-confidence and a pulling back of investment and expansion.
Amateurs are in the White House, and those with a lot of money and experience don't trust the immediate future to be a safe or secure business climate...
We have so much unemployment that a gain of 3 million jobs would only make the situation a bit better...and jobs "created" by the govt are notoriously short lived.

We are doomed!!!
Thank God there are real business experts around keeping things together...Free Market will save the day (unless Mighty Mouse arrives first)!
3 more years ...arrrgh!

 

[Hot Mega]

You don't see people with a good education (doctors, lawyers) without a job because there is always a need for their services/knowledge. People with valuable skills (plumbers, electricians) can always find work. If they can't then they aren't good businessmen or aren't very good at their trade.

It's the people that have jobs in industry/factories or sales/retail that practically anyone can do that are screwed. Generally, they have no or limited valuable skills or education to bring something to an employer. I'm confident that the majority of the 10% of Americans that are unemployed had jobs of this type before they were let go. A guy that lost his job working in a factory for 20 years simply doesn't have anything to offer an employer in another field.

There are jobs that are recession proof simply because they are in constant demand irrespective of circumstance. There are many who are without job today who in some cases have multiple degrees.

The correlation you seem to be missing is the shrinking revenues of many business sectors being the cause of many being out of work. Not because their skills were somehow made obsolete. The shrinking in revenues were a direct result of huge $$ being sucked out of the larger economy and diverted to the oil industry over a period of years during the last administration through higher gas prices. Consistently so, all other business sectors were strangled while virtually one, the oil industry made billions upon billions.

What does our economy have to show for the oil industries boom? Nothing because it didn't cost them more infrastructure, personnel, etc. to achieve their record profits.

Incidents of people losing a 20 year factory, manufacturing, etc. job happens all the time. That's not some new phenomena seeded in this particular recession.

 

[Hot Mega]

It is a lot ignorant to tout the "jobs" created in number alone...just keeping the light off of the pork projects, waste, and fraud put down by this admin trying to smoke and mirror their way through a mishandled recession.
Spending $522,000,000 isn't a foggy figure, they spent that much on 91,000 houses to date and that means the cost is $57,000+ per house which is bullshit extreme.
This admin has a business model like someone spending hundreds of thousands on a new business by constructing a large building, putting expensive signs and equipment in it, filling it with inventory and opening up without a clue as to if it is a viable business; doing any real market research, looking for a good traffic spot to build on, verifying both the need and market share available...a cart before the horse style of shooting in the dark business model...almost guaranteed failure. Like SNLs Scotch Tape Mall Shop...

Lots of the money isn't spent and what is, is not well put or useful, merely wasted or in the wrong place...losing millions of jobs due to a reluctance of businesses to expand, hire, or keep current workers on due to excessive uncertainty about future Health Care taxes, BS "slipped that in on ya" taxes, low spending and high cost of doing business, new regulations put frantically in place to see if that'll work...even a rumor that the Obama admin is thinking about dealing with a sector of the economy creates a semi-panic of no-confidence and a pulling back of investment and expansion.
Amateurs are in the White House, and those with a lot of money and experience don't trust the immediate future to be a safe or secure business climate...
We have so much unemployment that a gain of 3 million jobs would only make the situation a bit better...and jobs "created" by the govt are notoriously short lived.

We are doomed!!!
Thank God there are real business experts around keeping things together...Free Market will save the day (unless Mighty Mouse arrives first)!
3 more years ...arrrgh!

Job numbers is all anyone cares about practically because in terms of the countries productivity it's all that matters.

Employers hire when there is increased demand for their goods or services circumstances be damed. Demand is added when more people have money (usually by way of a job) to spend. It is a logarithmic circumstance, not linear.

In a related thread, GM is hiring back workers and reopening plants. Not because they've created new job descriptions with different skill sets but because demand for their product has increase. Pretty simple logic.

BTW, the total package was $700+ billion. What pct of that is $600 million?

 

[Facetious]

A guy that lost his job working in a factory for 20 years simply doesn't have anything to offer an employer in another field.

and when he or she finally finds a replacement job, it's going to be at a 1980 salary.

In a related thread, GM is hiring back workers and reopening plants. Not because they've created new job descriptions with different skill sets but because demand for their product has increase. Pretty simple logic.

Just by virtue of the hostile government takeover of GM, demand for the product has increased, correct ?

 

[Facetious]

edit

 

[Hot Mega]

Just by virtue of the hostile government takeover of GM, demand for the product has increased, correct ?

Trouble with the facts again? GM went to the g'ment for help. They were survived by g'ment action and thanks to it...they are around to see the economy turn and people have money to spend on cars again. There have been aggressive campaigns to jump start their sales and it appears to be paying off.:thumbsup:

 

[CunningStunts]

and when he or she finally finds a replacement job, it's going to be at a 1980 salary.



Just by virtue of the hostile government takeover of GM, demand for the product has increased, correct ?

It has since the US government has gone after their chief competitor, Toyota, Corleone style... bad, bad precedent to set IMHO. Government takes over Company A, who is in the shitter because they are getting their asses kicked on the open market. Company B gets investigated, helping Company A increase sales.

 

[Hot Mega]

It has since the US government has gone after their chief competitor, Toyota, Corleone style... bad, bad precedent to set IMHO. Government takes over Company A, who is in the shitter because they are getting their asses kicked on the open market. Company B gets investigated, helping Company A increase sales.

Toyota went after themselves by putting a product in the marketplace that caused the customer a loss.

I was initially skeptical about the g'ment's nagging of Toyota over this but as the onion layers continue to peel back there seems to be some there..there.

As long as the g'ment doesn't take punitive action against Toyota and only investigates from a discovery perspective, there is absolutely no conflict whatsoever. They would be investigating GM, Ford or Chrysler just the same..and have.

Ford is GM's chief competitor btw.:2 cents: