| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: Obama says we need more Private Sector Jobs |
 |
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajeRicqotYiw&pos=9
| Quote: |
| President Barack Obama said the private sector must take the lead in creating jobs as the U.S. economy recovers and that persistently high unemployment �cuts deep� for the millions out of work. |
No kidding captain obvious. If I remember correctly, wasn't the Stimulus suppose to be the job creator? Now he puts the onus on the Private Sector, essentially washing his hands of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SME says:
| Quote: |
| Yeah, alright... Why hadn't I thought of that before? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IIRC, when you compare the amount of money they spent stimulating the economy to the number of jobs they created, it comes out to like $300,000 per job. I think that number is probably way off, but it gives you the idea.
Last edited by Koveras on Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| IIRC correctly, when you compare the amount of money they spent stimulating the economy to the number of jobs they created, it comes out to like $300,000 per job. I think that number is probably way off, but it gives you the idea. |
Remember, though, that such figures only consider jobs created so far. To truly create a correct figure regarding the stimulus and the number of jobs it supposedly created, we must wait until it has run its course. I'm not saying this to defend the stimulus, but rather to simply point out that any figures like that currently being bandied about seem more like propaganda than actual sincere analysis.
For what it's worth, I don't support the stimulus. I just think we don't need to use questionable figures like this to attack it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the story.
http://tinyurl.com/stimulusnumbers
$230,000 per job.
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| IIRC correctly, when you compare the amount of money they spent stimulating the economy to the number of jobs they created, it comes out to like $300,000 per job. I think that number is probably way off, but it gives you the idea. |
Remember, though, that such figures only consider jobs created so far. To truly create a correct figure regarding the stimulus and the number of jobs it supposedly created, we must wait until it has run its course. I'm not saying this to defend the stimulus, but rather to simply point out that any figures like that currently being bandied about seem more like propaganda than actual sincere analysis.
For what it's worth, I don't support the stimulus. I just think we don't need to use questionable figures like this to attack it. |
I am only using the White House's official numbers. The stimulus directly created or saved those jobs for that amount, and overall unemployment continued to rise. It's a simple bit of math that demonstrates how absurdly counteractive the stimulus is.
Last edited by Koveras on Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have never, ever seen a way to calculate "jobs saved". I do not believe such a metric existed before Obama needed one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can count all the jobs that would've been cut on the state level (particularly education jobs) if not for the Stimulus. Obviously cut out those Head Start jobs that were falsified.
Other than that, who knows? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kikomom
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: them thar hills--Penna, USA--Zippy is my kid, the teacher in ROK. You can call me Kiko
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We interupt the slamObamaparade here on the thread for this announcement: Only 11,000 jobs were lost last month so unemployment improved slightly--down to 10%; meaning the mass lay-offs of last winter seem to have stopped.
Now back to our previously scheduled slamfest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
We interupt the slamObamaparade here on the thread for this announcement: Only 11,000 jobs were lost last month so unemployment improved slightly--down to 10%; meaning the mass lay-offs of last winter seem to have stopped.
Now back to our previously scheduled slamfest. |
Actually, jobs were lost, so the real unemployment rate grew. I admit it grew way less than I expected, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh Ya-ta. The data is constructed to support Benny's confirmation. It's an estimate that has a wide spread from private estimates. Yet, the estimates use the same data and are usually never more than 5-10% apart. To the extent that there is hiring, it is temp service jobs for the non-Xmas rush.
Here's what will happen:
1) This will be upwardly revised in a month.
2) The number will be unexpectedly (negative variance from private numbers) in Feb. This because the pressure on the Fed to raise rates is now strong, but highers rates crashes the stock market and banks. So they'll kill that once Benny is in by releasing poor figures.
Also:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/presto-unemployed-people-vanish-your-very-eyes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
We interupt the slamObamaparade here on the thread for this announcement: Only 11,000 jobs were lost last month so unemployment improved slightly--down to 10%; meaning the mass lay-offs of last winter seem to have stopped.
Now back to our previously scheduled slamfest. |
Do you really believe everything that comes out of this government? this administration? Can you really not bring yourself to critically analyze the information the government provides? If you consider yourself a liberal, that's fine. The question I would have though is this: Are you a liberal first or are you a democrat first?
Some (cynical) perspective on the unemployment rate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA&feature=player_embedded |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
We interupt the slamObamaparade here on the thread for this announcement: Only 11,000 jobs were lost last month so unemployment improved slightly--down to 10%; meaning the mass lay-offs of last winter seem to have stopped.
Now back to our previously scheduled slamfest. |
Do you really believe everything that comes out of this government? this administration? Can you really not bring yourself to critically analyze the information the government provides? If you consider yourself a liberal, that's fine. The question I would have though is this: Are you a liberal first or are you a democrat first?
Some (cynical) perspective on the unemployment rate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA&feature=player_embedded |
Don't you know by now that everyone who does not believe everything that comes straight from the government is a "conspiracy theorist," has a negative "effect on democracy," and thus is not to be believed?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
We interupt the slamObamaparade here on the thread for this announcement: Only 11,000 jobs were lost last month so unemployment improved slightly--down to 10%; meaning the mass lay-offs of last winter seem to have stopped.
Now back to our previously scheduled slamfest. |
You're very popular around here, Ya-Ta.
Anyway, I don't blame Obama for this mess, and I don't blame him for being unable to stem unemployment. And frankly, all my other economic-right fellows are being way to harsh on Obama. Unemployment is not only difficult for the gov't to handle, but its also death at the polls.
Some of us have become so wrapped up in trying to prove the Stimulus is a fiscal disaster with no employment recompense (and here Fox is right, its too early to fairly evaluate the Stimulus) that we've forgotten that our point is that Obama should do less. And yet how can he do less and not be punished during mid-terms?
Actually, I don't think Obama should do less. I think he should just raise unemployment benefits, food stamps, bail out the state gov'ts, which Congress has done, and otherwise ignore the economic crisis. Instead of focusing on that, he should push his main agendas: health care reform, cap and trade (a deficit positive version), and financial regulation. He can focus aggressively on these, suffer mid-term defeats, blame GOP obstructionism for unemployment beyond 2010 as he runs for re-election, and win.
But what's happening instead? This economic crisis is sapping his advantage, and those of us who supported him for his reform are aghast to see him prop up the old system. But what can he do? The people believe the President can prop up the private sector. The President doesn't (perhaps lately I should say: shouldn't!) control the Fed Reserve Board, which does have a direct influence on the economy. He just takes the fall for Bernanke's failures.
I actually have a lot of sympathy for Obama in this matter. He can't handle this economic crisis, so he's been listening to the experts and putting a brave face on things politically. What else should he be expected to do? The bail-outs started out under Bush, and the Stimulus would've happened even if McCain won (someone who knows even less about economics than Obama).
Excoriate Obama for when he inexplicably tacks against public opinion on matters the President has great influence over: foreign policy (surging in Afghanistan), military policy (gays in the military), detention policy (torture at Bagram). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
jobs.
