US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[sealybobo]

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

President's are given cards to play that are left over from the President who came before...it's the nature of the job. Clinton left office with an economy headed towards recession. Bush left office with two wars going on and a recession in full force. Obama is about to leave office with a global battle going on with ISIS, racial divisions at home and a weak economy.

Just between you and me, Sealy? By the time Barack Obama leaves office he may very well have spent more money than every other President before him combined! It's hard to spin that in such a way that it makes him look good...know what I mean?

Every president spent more than every other president. Bush did that too.

Bush also created Isis. Invading Iraq. Imagine if Clinton or Obama did such a thing. Oh my

 

[Andylusion]

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s. After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.

 

[sealybobo]

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?

I'm curious once more, Sealy...do you know who did better under Barack Obama...the rich or the poor? Did you really want to have THAT discussion?

No because I'll have to explain everything that's happened the last 60 years that led us to where we are and it's been all GOP vs American middle class. Sure Clinton signed NAFTA but don't try blaming Democrats wheen it was you guys who pushed us to free trade.

It's like blaming hillary for Iraq when bush is the one who lied us to war

OK...if the GOP has been against the Middle Class then I would assume that the Middle Classes' lot improved dramatically under the almost eight years that Barack Obama has been President? Did you want to have THAT discussion?

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

 

[Andylusion]

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

President's are given cards to play that are left over from the President who came before...it's the nature of the job. Clinton left office with an economy headed towards recession. Bush left office with two wars going on and a recession in full force. Obama is about to leave office with a global battle going on with ISIS, racial divisions at home and a weak economy.

Just between you and me, Sealy? By the time Barack Obama leaves office he may very well have spent more money than every other President before him combined! It's hard to spin that in such a way that it makes him look good...know what I mean?

Every president spent more than every other president. Bush did that too.

Bush also created Isis. Invading Iraq. Imagine if Clinton or Obama did such a thing. Oh my

Actually, Bush did not create ISIS. It was well documented that all the top leadership of AQI, were all captured or killed off, by 2010. It was Obama, or the Iraqi government, or more likely both, that released all the ISIS leadership from detention camps, and allowed them to build back up AQI and change into what we now know is Islamic State.

 

[sealybobo]

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s. After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.

You can trash every president the same way you trash Obama. I can show you facts on how bush Tom delay Dennis hastert and their cohorts destroyed the middle class and widened the gap between rich and poor.

If Obama tried fixing it you cried class warfare

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?

I'm curious once more, Sealy...do you know who did better under Barack Obama...the rich or the poor? Did you really want to have THAT discussion?

No because I'll have to explain everything that's happened the last 60 years that led us to where we are and it's been all GOP vs American middle class. Sure Clinton signed NAFTA but don't try blaming Democrats wheen it was you guys who pushed us to free trade.

It's like blaming hillary for Iraq when bush is the one who lied us to war

OK...if the GOP has been against the Middle Class then I would assume that the Middle Classes' lot improved dramatically under the almost eight years that Barack Obama has been President? Did you want to have THAT discussion?

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

 

[Oldstyle]

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s. After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.

You can trash every president the same way you trash Obama. I can show you facts on how bush Tom delay Dennis hastert and their cohorts destroyed the middle class and widened the gap between rich and poor.

If Obama tried fixing it you cried class warfare

What did Obama do to try and "fix" the gap between rich and poor? Other than talk about it a lot! His agenda certainly didn't help the Middle Class. They're the ones who will end up paying for the ACA. That isn't the GOP screwing them over...that's you liberals!

 

[sealybobo]

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

President's are given cards to play that are left over from the President who came before...it's the nature of the job. Clinton left office with an economy headed towards recession. Bush left office with two wars going on and a recession in full force. Obama is about to leave office with a global battle going on with ISIS, racial divisions at home and a weak economy.

Just between you and me, Sealy? By the time Barack Obama leaves office he may very well have spent more money than every other President before him combined! It's hard to spin that in such a way that it makes him look good...know what I mean?

Every president spent more than every other president. Bush did that too.

Bush also created Isis. Invading Iraq. Imagine if Clinton or Obama did such a thing. Oh my

Actually, Bush did not create ISIS. It was well documented that all the top leadership of AQI, were all captured or killed off, by 2010. It was Obama, or the Iraqi government, or more likely both, that released all the ISIS leadership from detention camps, and allowed them to build back up AQI and change into what we now know is Islamic State.

Actually, wrong again. I hate to keep correcting you but actually it was Reagan and the cheap GOP. Did you see Charlie Wilson's war? True story

 

[sealybobo]

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s. After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.

You can trash every president the same way you trash Obama. I can show you facts on how bush Tom delay Dennis hastert and their cohorts destroyed the middle class and widened the gap between rich and poor.

If Obama tried fixing it you cried class warfare

What did Obama do to try and "fix" the gap between rich and poor? Other than talk about it a lot! His agenda certainly didn't help the Middle Class. They're the ones who will end up paying for the ACA. That isn't the GOP screwing them over...that's you liberals!

No one liked pre existing condition. We need nationalized healthcare. Some things shouldn't be privatized

 

[sealybobo]

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s. After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.

Great spin.

 

[AntonToo]

If you can show me the article that has a title stating the stimulus didn't make any jobs I'd be happy to!

stupid fuc...ahem, yes sure buddy:

The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment

I'll even chew this up and place it in your throat:

"hasn't reduced unemployment" means "hasn't created jobs"

And your "exercise" with the African Prince is about as stupid as your contention that jobs saved and jobs created are the same thing! $100,000 as "stimulus" might create zero jobs or it might create thousands...that would entirely depend on what was done with the money.

Stupid? Really? Because that's what these macroeconomic estimates do, they estimate how dollars in particular spending or tax-cuts convert to GDP, Jobs and etc.

Suppose you bought a Tesla and spent the rest on misc. expenses.

What I'm trying to get your little mind to appreciate just how complex it is and even if you come up with some sort of reasonable estimate there is no way to differentiate a job saved from job gained that this $100,000 will cause in economy.

 

[sealybobo]

You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?

I'm curious once more, Sealy...do you know who did better under Barack Obama...the rich or the poor? Did you really want to have THAT discussion?

No because I'll have to explain everything that's happened the last 60 years that led us to where we are and it's been all GOP vs American middle class. Sure Clinton signed NAFTA but don't try blaming Democrats wheen it was you guys who pushed us to free trade.

It's like blaming hillary for Iraq when bush is the one who lied us to war

OK...if the GOP has been against the Middle Class then I would assume that the Middle Classes' lot improved dramatically under the almost eight years that Barack Obama has been President? Did you want to have THAT discussion?

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

Those were the years I'm talking about when Mitch McConnell broke filabuster records. I know you aren't aware of this because the so called liberal media never pointed it out.

 

[Rshermr]

You think. Really, me boy. Is that it? You think? But you forget. You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1. The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2. Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3. Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4, Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5. Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6. Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7. letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9. The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11. The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?

You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want more? Nah, I'm good! I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!

You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?

I'm curious once more, Sealy...do you know who did better under Barack Obama...the rich or the poor? Did you really want to have THAT discussion?

No because I'll have to explain everything that's happened the last 60 years that led us to where we are and it's been all GOP vs American middle class. Sure Clinton signed NAFTA but don't try blaming Democrats wheen it was you guys who pushed us to free trade.

It's like blaming hillary for Iraq when bush is the one who lied us to war

OK...if the GOP has been against the Middle Class then I would assume that the Middle Classes' lot improved dramatically under the almost eight years that Barack Obama has been President? Did you want to have THAT discussion?[/QUOTE]

And that proves that you are a complete fool. Which is no surprise. A president has to have support from senators and house members. They all voted against anything obama wanted done. so, it worked well for them, but badly for the middle class. Simple.
Was that your best economic argument, dipshit? Remember when you said there was a bill meant to help with the great republican recession of 2008? And you found there was none. There you go, dipshit. Remember when republicans met on the eve of Obama taking office, and decided to block everything that obama attempted. And did you forget that the republican congress was named "the do noting congress"? They passed zero bills to help the middle class, and blocked everything that the democrats tried. And that, me boy, was it. Way too easy,, dipshit. Jesus.

 

[Rshermr]

Felix Salmon
How the government fudges job statistics
By Felix Salmon
February 17, 2010
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and "costs a good $200,000 per job". Just as well I didn't use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic! " data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google,mail" data-share-count="false">
Tags:
employment
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and “costs a good $200,000 per job”. Just as well I didn’t use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic!

The host, Kai Ryssdal, had no time to read out the letter in full, but has allowed me to reprint it:

Dear Mr. Ryssdal:

I have always enjoyed your show and have enjoyed past opportunities to discuss issues as your guest. However, I was distressed last Friday to hear a purported expert guest, Reuters blogger Felix Salmon, state with great certainty that infrastructure investment is an inefficient jobs creator because those jobs are so expensive to create. To back up his argument he claimed that it costs $200,000 to create one infrastructure job. However, he provided no source for this claim and you failed to challenge his assertion.

The Council of Economic Advisors has estimated that $92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year, regardless of the sector of the economy. The U.S. Department of Transportation, arguably the most knowledgeable government agency when it comes to transportation spending and the resulting job creation, states that an investment of $35,941 creates one infrastructure-related job. Those two confirmable estimates are a far cry from the dubious $200,000-per-job claim from Mr. Salmon. Unfortunately Mr. Salmon’s assertion went unchallenged while the other guest, Heidi Moore of The Big Money, seemed to tacitly agree with him.

I am particularly sensitive about this issue since the AP ran an article last month on an “analysis” by AP reporters that used incomplete information to draw inaccurate and misleading conclusions about the success of the transportation infrastructure component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The article claimed that “a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment ” based on the reporters’ finding that “local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation.” However, instead of examining the impact of ARRA’s transportation investment on jobs in the transportation industry – an appropriate comparison – the reporters compared the transportation funding, which comprised only 6 percent of spending in the Recovery Act, to the overall unemployment rate. This led to a specious conclusion and ignores the fact that transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion.

I continue to support infrastructure investment as both a justified investment that future generations will benefit from as well as one of the most efficient creators of jobs, contrary to the beliefs of purported experts like Mr. Salmon and the so-called investigative reporters from the AP. I hope you will set the record straight. If you would like to discuss this further you can contact me directly at [redacted].

Sincerely,

Peter A. DeFazio, M.C.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

(In case you were wondering, the “M.C.” just means Member of Congress.)

I have no dog in DeFazio’s fight with the AP. But his attacks on me are just plain wrong. Infrastructure investments are simply not “one of the most efficient creators of jobs”, no matter how much DeFazio might want them to be, and the sources he cites to back up that claim don’t support it.

What’s at issue here is a ratio: I’m talking about dollars per job created. To get that number, you take the number of dollars spent, and divide it by the number of jobs created. DeFazio, by contrast, subtly tries to change the denominator when he says that “$92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year”: he’s taking dollars, dividing by jobs created, and then dividing again by the number of years that each job is expected to last.

In the real world, of course, if you spend $300,000 to create a job which lasts three years, then that’s one job created with your $300,000, not three jobs. Only in DC would people attempt to claim that their $300,000 had created three “job-years”.

What’s more, the $92,000 estimate covers government spending in general, not just infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending gets you low bang for the buck, in terms of job creation, compared to other kinds of spending — my example on the show was arts subsidies. A lot of government spending goes on creating new federal jobs: you get much more job creation per buck that way than you do building infrastructure.

And if you look at the CEA report, you’ll see that it carefully fudges the difference between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs saved, on the other; in fact, it seems to used “created” and “created or saved” as synonyms. So if you’ve had a job for years, and you’re still in that job, you can still be counted in these job-creation statistics if the government somehow determines that you might not be in that job had the stimulus bill not passed.

The fact is that if you move away from vague country-level statistics and start drilling down to the actual number of jobs created by actual infrastructure projects, you never get anywhere near $92,000 per job. For instance, have a look at the job-creation statistics on this page.

A 5-mile stretch of highway, costing $50 million, creates a total of 79 jobs. That’s over $600,000 per job. Even if you divide that by two on the grounds that it’s a two-year project, that’s still $300,000 per job-year. In railways, a $15 million investment creates 12 jobs — that’s $1.25 million per job, and it’s a one-year project.

I’ve seen similar numbers surrounding hospitals, and higher numbers surrounding nuclear power stations — basically, infrastructure investment is an incredibly inefficient way of creating jobs.

But what of DeFazio’s $35,941 figure? I finally tracked it down to here — a report which does not say that spending $35,941 “creates one infrastructure-related job”. Again, it’s talking job-years, not jobs, but more importantly, it says this:

The FHWA analysis refers to jobs supported by highway investments, this includes ‘new jobs’ to the extent unemployed labor is hired; ‘better jobs’ as currently employed workers move into jobs with better compensation and/or full time positions; and ‘sustained jobs’ as current employees are retained with the expenditure.

This is an even looser definition than “created or saved” — it also includes substantially everybody who just gets a promotion as well, along with that ill-defined definition of “sustained jobs”, comprising people who just stay in the same job they’ve had all along.

Finally, what is DeFazio talking about when he says that “transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion”? Simple division here would seem to imply that each worker is earning no more than $5,200 a year, which can’t be right. But again, look at the footnotes — specifically in this report, which is the source of DeFazio’s statistic:

Consistent with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s reporting requirements, the number of direct jobs is based on direct, on-project full-time-equivalent (FTE) job months. One person working full time or two people working one-half time for one month represents one FTE job month. FTE job months are calculated by dividing cumulative job hours created or sustained by 173 hours (40 hours per week times 52 weeks divided by 12 months = 173 hours).

Yes, for the purposes of this report, the government has calculated the number of jobs created by taking the number of hours worked and dividing by 173. If you pay a man to wield a shovel for one year, working 40 hours a week, then hey, you’ve created 12 jobs! If you pay him overtime, and he works 60 hours a week, then you’ve created 18 jobs! If he keeps on working at that pace for three years, then you’re up to 54 jobs! All from one man earning one paycheck.

So it’s not just DeFazio, then: everybody in the government seems to be happy fudging job-creation statistics, especially by using job-years or even job-months rather than actual jobs, and also by eliding the distinction between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs improved or saved, on the other. That’s worth remembering, next time you hear a politician kvelling about how the government is creating millions of new jobs.
How the government fudges job statistics

So at least oldstyle is consistent. Here he picks a source who is a pretty small time journalist. No economists for oldstyle. He chooses to pick sources with as little economic background as himself. That is, basically NONE.What a stupid source. Just like the poster.

The American Statistical Association presented Salmon with the 2010 Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award "for his body of work, which exemplifies the highest standards of scientific reporting. His insightful use of statistics as a tool to understanding the world of business and economics, areas that are critical in today's economy, sets a new standard in statistical investigative reporting."

Yeah, he doesn't know anything about economics, Georgie! He only worked for Nouriel Roubini! Does that name ring a bell? You know...the guy who was a senior economist on Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers? Duh?[

did you think that statistical reporting is economics, me boy. Look the two up, it may help you. As his bio says, he is a writer. Not an economist. No matter how badly you want him to be. And, me boy, if I work for a historian, does that make me a historian. As you say, DUH! Dipshit. So that is five economic organizations well respected by repubs and dems, against ZERO economists for you. That is, me boy, certain proof that you LOOSE.
So, seriously, can you tell me, does stupid hurt?

 

[Rshermr]

What's ludicrous, Anton is your contention that there is essentially no difference between jobs created and jobs saved!

Because from economic estimate perspective it DOESN'T.

You don't understand this point because you don't understand anything about how an estimate works.

So to get you thinking about that I'll give you an exercise:

Suppose I, an African prince, wire you $100,000 out of the kindness of my heart. Tell me, how many jobs would this cause? Would these jobs be created or saved?

What is an "economic estimate perspective", Anton? LOL Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks if you get "wordy" you can make stupid sound intelligent?

You know better, oldstyle. There is no way to make you look intelligent. And the fact that you do not know what Anton said is further proof.

 

[Rshermr]

"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."

It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.

Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.

God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"? Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!

Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits

Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy! No question about that. Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits? Do you really want to have that discussion?

If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.

President's are given cards to play 208.that are left over from the President who came before...it's the nature of the job. Clinton left office with an economy headed towards recession. Bush left office with two wars going on and a recession in full force. Obama is about to leave office with a global battle going on with ISIS, racial divisions at home and a weak economy.

Just between you and me, Sealy? By the time Barack Obama leaves office he may very well have spent more money than every other President before him combined! It's hard to spin that in such a way that it makes him look good...know what I mean?

Nowhere nearly as bad as the economy he inherited. In fact, overall pretty good from the cespool that he inherited. No president since fdr inherited a mess form republicans in 1933 has any administration left the mess that bush left. The Isis mess is a direct result of the Bush adventure in iraq. Read some time.

Says a food services worker, with no source to back him up. And, he does not know the difference between spending and lack of revenues. But then, it was obvious to everyone who noticed the great republican recession of 2008, Hell, Reagan managed that when he spent more than all other presidents combined. And he was not handed a recession. He made his own. And Reagan tripled the national debt. Obama will come close to doubling it, but mostly as a result of The Great Republican Recession of

 

[AntonToo]

What is an "economic estimate perspective", Anton? LOL Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks if you get "wordy" you can make stupid sound intelligent?

You know better, oldstyle. There is no way to make you look intelligent. And the fact that you do not know what Anton said is further proof.

"from economic estimate perspective" are my words, he misquoted.

 

[Oldstyle]

If you can show me the article that has a title stating the stimulus didn't make any jobs I'd be happy to!

stupid fuc...ahem, yes sure buddy:

The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment

I'll even chew this up and place it in your throat:

"hasn't reduced unemployment" means "hasn't created jobs"

And your "exercise" with the African Prince is about as stupid as your contention that jobs saved and jobs created are the same thing! $100,000 as "stimulus" might create zero jobs or it might create thousands...that would entirely depend on what was done with the money.

Stupid? Really? Because that's what these macroeconomic estimates do, they estimate how dollars in particular spending or tax-cuts convert to GDP, Jobs and etc.

Suppose you bought a Tesla and spent the rest on misc. expenses.

What I'm trying to get your little mind to appreciate just how complex it is and even if you come up with some sort of reasonable estimate there is no way to differentiate a job saved from job gained that this $100,000 will cause in economy.

If you can show me the article that has a title stating the stimulus didn't make any jobs I'd be happy to!

stupid fuc...ahem, yes sure buddy:

The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment

I'll even chew this up and place it in your throat:

"hasn't reduced unemployment" means "hasn't created jobs"

And your "exercise" with the African Prince is about as stupid as your contention that jobs saved and jobs created are the same thing! $100,000 as "stimulus" might create zero jobs or it might create thousands...that would entirely depend on what was done with the money.

Stupid? Really? Because that's what these macroeconomic estimates do, they estimate how dollars in particular spending or tax-cuts convert to GDP, Jobs and etc.

Suppose you bought a Tesla and spent the rest on misc. expenses.

What I'm trying to get your little mind to appreciate just how complex it is and even if you come up with some sort of reasonable estimate there is no way to differentiate a job saved from job gained that this $100,000 will cause in economy.

Where exactly does it say no jobs were created in that title?
You do realize that unemployment and job creation are two very different things...right? Oh, you don't?

 

[Oldstyle]

What's ludicrous, Anton is your contention that there is essentially no difference between jobs created and jobs saved!

Because from economic estimate perspective it DOESN'T.

You don't understand this point because you don't understand anything about how an estimate works.

So to get you thinking about that I'll give you an exercise:

Suppose I, an African prince, wire you $100,000 out of the kindness of my heart. Tell me, how many jobs would this cause? Would these jobs be created or saved?

What is an "economic estimate perspective", Anton? LOL Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks if you get "wordy" you can make stupid sound intelligent?

You know better, oldstyle. There is no way to make you look intelligent. And the fact that you do not know what Anton said is further proof.

Ah, then you DO know what "economic estimate perspective" means, Georgie? I would love to hear from you on that!

 

[Oldstyle]

What is an "economic estimate perspective", Anton? LOL Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks if you get "wordy" you can make stupid sound intelligent?

You know better, oldstyle. There is no way to make you look intelligent. And the fact that you do not know what Anton said is further proof.

"from economic estimate perspective" are my words, he misquoted.

How did I misquote you? You don't know how quotes work either?

I notice you didn't try to explain your "economic estimate perspective" Anton. Why is that?