PDA

View Full Version : Who Got Stimulated?



Odysseus
10-21-2010, 05:55 PM
From the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/09/06/news/photos_stories/edit_graphic203349.jpg

It speaks for itself.

On Edit: And this chart shows how much more those jobs pay.
http://global.nationalreview.com/dest/2010/10/20/ederal_civilian_vs_private_sector_compensation_200 9.jpg

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-21-2010, 07:28 PM
It's a good time to work for the government :p

Wei Wu Wei
10-21-2010, 07:31 PM
Business owners benefit from a high unemployment rate, it keeps labor costs down.

malloc
10-21-2010, 07:32 PM
Business owners benefit from a high unemployment rate, it keeps labor costs down.

You are still repeating this nonsense? After I've proved this wrong how many times now? Get a grip. Repeating the lie over and over again doesn't make it true. We aren't agreeing to disagree, science is science, and science says this is B.S.

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 07:51 PM
Business owners benefit from a high unemployment rate, it keeps labor costs down.

How do business owners benefit if the people who buy their products are out of work?

Tell me that you don't teach economics.

Wei Wu Wei
10-21-2010, 10:11 PM
Oh you're saying that for an economy to do well, the workers need to have money to spend on consumer goods?

hmm

Rockntractor
10-21-2010, 10:36 PM
Oh you're saying that for an economy to do well, the workers need to have money to spend on consumer goods?

hmm

They have to earn the money not take it from a different group of people and hand it out you brain dead moron!

KhrushchevsShoe
10-22-2010, 03:40 AM
Pretty sure the military is included under "Federal Government", which would explain why that number would almost never go down.

Arroyo_Doble
10-22-2010, 09:27 AM
Interesting graph. Looks like the bulk of the private sector decline occurred before the stimulus went into effect. Would have really sucked if it just kept falling.

Wei Wu Wei
10-22-2010, 10:44 AM
They have to earn the money not take it from a different group of people and hand it out you brain dead moron!

SO in order for the economy to be stimulated, workers need to spend their money to increase demand.

In order to have money, workers need to earn it.

In order to earn it, workers need jobs.

In order for jobs to be produced, there must be higher demand for products.

In order to create demand, workers need to spend their money....



http://i54.tinypic.com/2dvoema.jpg

Odysseus
10-22-2010, 11:15 AM
Oh you're saying that for an economy to do well, the workers need to have money to spend on consumer goods?

hmm
Yes, and they have to be workers, as opposed to shirkers. Taking money from the productive to give to the non-productive is a recipe for failure.

Pretty sure the military is included under "Federal Government", which would explain why that number would almost never go down.
Wanna bet? First, the salary and benefits numbers refer specifically to civilian employment. Second, Active Duty end strength for all components of the armed forces for FY 2010 was 1,421,414. Active Duty end strength for FY 2005 was 1,415,600. That's a total increase of 5,814, a drop in the proverbial bucket. But, at the same time, DOD civilian employment increased from 680,466 in 2005 to 752,000 in 2010, an increase of over 70,000. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but if I were in charge during wartime, I'd be hiring more green suiters than civilians, but then we all know that my priorities don't match our anointed elites' priorities.

Interesting graph. Looks like the bulk of the private sector decline occurred before the stimulus went into effect. Would have really sucked if it just kept falling.
How do you figure that? Here's the timeline, thanks to Hotair.com:



February 17, 2009: The nation’s first Recovery Act project is announced, a new bridge in Tuscumbia, MO. CNN later reports on “A New ‘Bridge to Nowhere’.”
April 13, 2009:The Administration announces the 2,000th Recovery Act project, but an ABC News fact check reveals that far fewer projects are actually underway, and may not come in under budget as claimed.
May 27, 2009: President Obama marks the 100 day anniversary of the Recovery Act by claiming that 150,000 jobs have been saved or created. Politifact calls this “not much better than a guess presented as a fact.”
July 27, 2009: Congressional Democrats claim highway and transit spending from the stimulus has created or sustained 48,000 jobs. ProPublica says “the estimate suffers from what’s become a common malaise in the stimulus world: fuzzy math.” ProPublica found “a reliance on raw head counts — which tend to inflate the numbers by giving full- and part-time jobs the same weight — and by counting the same workers two, three or four times.”
October 15, 2009: The administration announces that contracts awarded with Recovery Act funds have created or saved 30,383 jobs. The Associated Press found “some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.”
October 30, 2009: The administration announces that the Recovery Act has saved or created 640,329 total jobs. On November 19, the Administration admits that they cannot confirm their claim.
December 18, 2009: The Administration sends out a memo saying they will no longer count jobs “created or saved,” but instead count jobs funded in whole or in part by the Recovery Act. But they brought it back in the most recent report from Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.

What leaps out from the timeline is that the Democrats not only oversold the Recovery Act, but continued to oversell it — not just with these claims but also puffery from Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, etc. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6% to over 10 percent. In addition, the adminsitration was embarrassed by a stream of news stories about wasteful stimulus projects like the $3.4 million spent for an alligator crossing, the million-dollar guardrail, and so on. It is small wonder so few believe the Recovery Act was a success.

The holdouts tend to be in the establishment media, like the New York Times. David Leonhardt relies on models from economic search firms, perhaps those who have been continually surprised as unemployment rose “unexpectedly.” Others will tell you that the stimulus at best “saved” jobs, but did not “create” them. The Congressional Budget Office will tell you that “it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” And when you look at those competing views, you will find a general agreement that the jobs that got saved were primarily in government, and education (which is mostly government). In the private sector, the Recovery Act is killing some jobs, as it extracts money to prop up the government spending. In addition, Leonhardt leaves out arguments that that other policies may have been not only cheaper, but also more effective. He also omits warnings from the very sources he cites that any short-term gain from the stimulus should be balanced against the medium-term risk of a debt crisis. That road is worse than a Road to Nowhere.

It's funny how the left used to refer to Supply Side economics as "trickle-down" economics, when it's boondoggles like the stimulus that are the real trickle down. They pour tax money into the maw of government, and what comes out at the other end is supposed to stimulate the economy. This is a case of trickling down stimulus on my head and telling me that it's raining jobs.

AmPat
10-22-2010, 03:05 PM
You are still repeating this nonsense? After I've proved this wrong how many times now? Get a grip. Repeating the lie over and over again doesn't make it true. We aren't agreeing to disagree, science is science, and science says this is B.S.
He's being Polly Parrot again. Repeat mindlessly things he doesn't understand. Mr Polly want a cracker simply knows what his handlers have taught him. He wouldn't be able to run a lemonade stand.

Molon Labe
10-22-2010, 04:05 PM
Sign makers got stimulated...that's for sure.

http://chrislee.house.gov/images/user_images/sign1.jpg

http://blog.masslive.com/breakingnews/2009/07/large_Sign.jpg


Hey it's done such a dern good job, that they have to tell us to make sure we knows it wurked gud!

malloc
10-22-2010, 07:04 PM
Seriously Wei, you've been a member of this board for a long time, and I'd think that by now you would have learned some basic economic thought by osmosis or something. How can you hang out here so much and still be so clueless?


SO in order for the economy to be stimulated, workers need to spend their money to increase demand.

Tell me, do you want a product because you spend money, or do you spend money because you want a product? Sure you need the money in order to spend it, but you also have to be willing to part with the money to obtain the product. This is called opportunity cost. Even consumers who have a little bit of cash stashed away aren't spending above and beyond their maintenance costs. Why do you think that is?




In order to have money, workers need to earn it.

In order to earn it, workers need jobs.


The alternative is what? To take money from the rich and give it to the poor there Robin Hood? We have a word for that. That word is theft.



In order for jobs to be produced, there must be higher demand for products.


Yes Wei, that's it! You cracked the complete formula for solving unemployment! Oh, wait, nevermind, it's just another idiotic statement borne out of your complete confusion of the subject. If consumers aren't spending above maintenance costs, what does that mean for demand? Could there be pent up demand for consumer goods, but too much uncertainty for consumers to part with their liquid assets? Furthermore, does the consumer create jobs by spending, or is it the business that create jobs by spending? Here's a hint, it's both, but why aren't either spending? Businesses have the cash according to NBER, so why aren't businesses expanding in expectation of pent-up demand?

It couldn't be that the Obama/Pelosi agenda has made business in America a mine field could it? It couldn't be that Target doesn't really know if a new regional director will cost $100,000/yr or $250,000/yr. could it? It couldn't be because Arco doesn't know if opening up the 10 new planned gas stations will stick them with a loss if Cap & Tax is passed in the lame duck session could it? Yeah, these reasons just couldn't possibly make employers sit on their cash instead of investing it. :rolleyes:




In order to create demand, workers need to spend their money....


Do you want a product because you spend money, or do you spend money because you want a product.

Wow! I can write in circles too!

malloc
10-22-2010, 07:26 PM
Interesting graph. Looks like the bulk of the private sector decline occurred before the stimulus went into effect.

That's a pretty bold act of dishonesty. Do you think all of us here don't know that Troubled Asset Bailout of Buddies Program was passed in October of '08, and the American Fleece The Future Act was passed in Feb of '09. Private sector jobs plummeted until Feb of '10 according to this graph. Which graph are you looking at?



Would have really sucked if it just kept falling.


It did keep falling, as I stated before, but what if we had done nothing, and let the banks and failed corporations liquidate. It is possible that the summer of '10 could have been an actual summer of recovery.

The very act of saying "If we hadn't passed the bailouts, we'd be in a depression worse than the Great Depression" is a classic example of petitio principii or Begging the Question. It's a fallacy of logic wherein the conclusion is assumed to be true based on it's premise alone. That means the statement, "If we had not perused the bailouts, America would be worse off", assumes that the bailouts improved our economy as if that assumption were as self-evident as the statement "I exist". However, it's not self-evident, but a case that must be proven with supporting consequents.

In other words, it's entirely likely that the bailouts made things worse, or didn't change a thing, in which case we would be worse off by default due to the debt incurred.

malloc
10-22-2010, 07:34 PM
Pretty sure the military is included under "Federal Government", which would explain why that number would almost never go down.

I'm guessing the military isn't included in this graph for several reasons. The $123,000/yr figure for the average compensation of a Federal employee would likely be a whole lot lower if the military were figured into the average. The vast bulk of military personnel are E-4 or lower, and trust me, they would have brought down that average. When I was an E-1 back in '99 I made a whopping $17000/yr. with medical figured in, it may have been $25,000/yr. I know we've gotten raises since then, but not up to $100,000+. Furthermore, at least according to Wikipedia, it looks like Active Duty troop levels plummeted between 1990 and 2000, and have remained relatively steady since then, so new enlistees aren't making up the bulk of the new government employees.

Edit: Meh, Ody already covered all this, NVM.

Big Guy
10-22-2010, 07:45 PM
Sign makers got stimulated...that's for sure.

http://chrislee.house.gov/images/user_images/sign1.jpg

http://blog.masslive.com/breakingnews/2009/07/large_Sign.jpg


Hey it's done such a dern good job, that they have to tell us to make sure we knows it wurked gud!

I see the signs, where are the workers? :confused:

Zathras
10-22-2010, 08:39 PM
I see the signs, where are the workers? :confused:

Back in the sign factory, making more signs.