$250,000 per JOB!!!!

Discussion in 'Economics' started by S2007S, Sep 13, 2011.

  1. S2007S


    Here the country is again spending money to create jobs, as I said many times over you CANNOT force jobs on a slowing economy, you cant spend money to create jobs that aren't needed. There has to be demands for services, demand for products. You cant just take hundreds of billions of dollars and say lets go out and create some jobs, its not going to work, of course most will believe it will but in a few years when unemployment rate is still above 9% you will then take notice that spending billions and billions or worthless dollars does absolutely nothing in a slowing economy.

    Obama's Spending Plan: $250,000 Per Job
    CNBC.com | September 13, 2011 | 10:51 AM EDT

    Barack Obama's jobs plan may be one of the worst policy proposals I've ever seen.

    As I pointed out last week, the plan to "pay for" the jobs proposal with tax hikes is just lunacy. It eliminates every bit of stimulus effect that could possibly come from additional government spending.

    Over at Zero Hedge, John Poehling has run the numbers on the American Jobs Act (AJA).

    Even if you take very optimistic figures, the jobs bill turns out to be unbelievably costly.

    For those eager to put some math to the rhetoric coming from the White House over the president's jobs creation plan, and that should be everyone, here is a quick and dirty estimate based on the numbers being thrown around of a 2 percent GDP increase in year 1 and 1.9 million jobs created or saved...most saved, as in those you can't really quantify. Said otherwise, roughly a $300 billion increase in GDP yields 1.9 million jobs. So far so good.

    Now since the president is proposing to pay for the program over 10 years, let's assume the $475 billion in direct expenses is financed for 10 years at 2.5 percent which adds roughly $120 billion to the total cost of the program. In other words, as the calculations detailed and show below elaborate, the overall AJA plan will cost $250,000 per job created (excluding the interest expense) and $312,500 per union job created (including interest). And that's how much it costs for Obama to purchase one vote...created or saved. Keynesian efficiency strikes like a Swiss watch yet again.

    So that's $250,000 per job, before interest expense.

    Wouldn't it be better just to have a free national lottery and mail $200,000 checks to a lucky 1.9 million people?
  2. yes, dear taxpayer. you've voted for this crap.

    you support obama and the fed. reserve.
    how does it feel to be robbed year after year, screwed for $trillions?

    blahhh.. who will the game, yankkees or giants?
  3. Nobody will have the balls to explain it in such start term.

    The Republicans may vote it down based upon the ridiculous economics of the deal. Then Democrats will cry, "Republicans are against jobs".

    More PCJ.
  4. Now since the president is proposing to pay for the program over 10 years, let's assume the $475 billion in direct expenses is financed for 10 years at 2.5 percent which adds roughly $120 billion to the total cost of the program. In other words, as the calculations detailed and show below elaborate, the overall AJA plan will cost $250,000 per job created

    I'd be willing to bet that if the Fed was going to create a new agency these projections would prove out and seem unremarkable for a fed agency. This is why Obama is fine with these numbers.

    I don't care to but if someone added up the start up cost of the TSA and operations for 10 years you might end up with the same figure per job. Just saying.
  5. This has nothing to do with economy or job creation. Election next year + 9% unemployment = fail. Dont know why you all turning into drama queens again, pretty obvious move.

  6. Mr_You


    newguy05 has it right...

    Guess what politicians won't tell you because its not what we want to hear???

    In the modern day... Politicians have VERY LITTLE INFLUENCE ON JOB CREATION in the greater sense.

    Too bad the gullible citizens don't understand this and eat this rhetoric up. So keep bickering back and forth and taking sides, conservative vs liberal. Thats exactly what they want, thats what keeps them in office.
  7. Peter Schiff was on CNBC today....and just told it like it is:
    Laws have killed the US labor markets. Period.
    Gotta remove the laws and the regulations for the labor market to "free up". Right now it's "frozen"....no one is moving out of their job, so there are no openings.
    Employers fearful of hiring one more person....as each new employee brings a new potential lawsuit.
    Tort reform, tort reform, tort reform is the anwer:
    eliminate the potential for costly litigation and suddenly we are back to the rockin 50's and 60's when America stood tall and proud.
    Not now.
  8. Oh Yeah 50's and 60's where top income tax was at 90%. I am down for that. Good old times when the corporations were paying taxes and the rich were too. Somehow the "job creators" then were able to pay the rates and create the jobs. And one more thing, a lot more Americans were unionized back then. Funny how facts are hard to swallow for some. LOL
  9. Isn't it obvious that the corps are getting away with murder ?
    After Tyco and then Enron ?
    Then the outrageous compensation packages with golden parachutes ?
    I still come back to the deal received by Bob Nardelli, previously of the Home Depot. That's a true "head shaker".
  10. 1. The US did not prosper in the 1950s-1960s because of high taxes, but rather because of the aftermath of WWII. At the end of WWII, the US had 5% of the world's population and almost 70% of the world's intact manufacturing and transportation infrastructure because most of Europe and Asia had been bombed to ashes during the war. For about 20 years, the US had the highest manufacturing price/wage structure in the world, from which the American middle class benefited greatly. By the mid-1960s, the rest of the world had rebuilt and the US had to actually compete against countries like Japan and Germany. Our market dominance began to erode in the 1970s, and the erosion increased in velocity during the 1980-90s as India and China entered the world markets. When hundreds of millions of people enter the global manufacturing workforce and are willing to work for fifty cents an hour, wages are going to fall, manufacturing is going migrate, and there's nothing anybody can do to stop it. It's inevitable that the economies of China and India will overtake the US because China's population is 4X the US and India is 3X. Simple math. The economic forces of gravity in action.

    2. Though once there were "published" tax rates of 70-91%, very few ever paid taxes at those rates. Back then, there was something called "leveraged non-recourse tax shelters" that wealthy people used to eliminate as much as two-thirds of their tax burden. In addition, most very wealthy individuals kept a large percentage of their wealth offshore (e.g. Switzerland) where it was hidden from the IRS. A study by the IRS in 2003 showed that the richest 1% of people in the country paid about 25% of their income in federal taxes during those high tax rate periods (1950s-1960s). In the 1960s, Kennedy lowered tax rates; then Reagan further lowered the rates and also eliminated most tax shelters.

    #10     Sep 14, 2011