Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You think wrong. Census data was collected in 2010, not 2011. There was no spike in unemployment in 2011.I think that 2011 spike in Unemployment was blamed on temporary cencus workers let go?
Yup. Now that graph is exactly as the BLS numbers I have.
Unemployment Rates in 2011
January 2011 - 9.1%
February 2011 - 9%
March 2011 - 9%
April 2011 - 9.1%
May 2011 - 9%
June 2011 - 9.1%
July 2011 - 9%
August 2011 - 9%
September 2011 - 9%
October 2011 - 8.8%
November 2011 - 8.6%
December 2011 - 8.5%
Unemployment Rates in the United States Since 1948
As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you.One last time, I will explain it to you. Though you do not want to believe it. Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed. You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount. And, me lying con tool, you know that.There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic. That is not true. The fact is, neither you or I have the resources to do so. And I know, oldstyle, that the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse say no one can do so. But, you see, that is what they are in business to do. They have TEAMS of economists, and can indeed estimate jobs saved or created. And they do.
They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus. Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration. Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not. It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know. It is a term used by economists. It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession. For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs. Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers. If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum. I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle. Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand. Logic. If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do? Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly. They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs. Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929. Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs. Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle. No wonder you love con talking points so much.
How do you measure jobs saved?
And how exactly would they accomplish that? How would your team of economists measure "jobs saved"? Give me a formula for how that's going to work, Rshermr!
Have you EVER seen anyone try so hard to push con talking points??? Lie, cheat, steal, makes no difference to oldstyle. Just wants to post those con talking points. Which is why, of course, cons are incapable of conversation.LOLThat didn't even happen in 2011. Just how far out on that frail limb are you willing to climb for your fellow yahoo?A spike in 2010 means that moron is insane when he claimed, "unemployment peaked in 2011." Thanks for confirming.
A spike that very nearly reached the high levels of 2009...so what's your point?
The North Dakota oil boom refers to the period of rapidly expanding oil extraction from the Bakken formation in the state of North Dakota that lasted from the discovery of Parshall Oil Field in 2006, and peaked in 2012,[1][2] but with substantially less growth noted since 2015 due to a global decline in oil prices.[3] Despite the Great Recession, the oil boom resulted in enough jobs to provide North Dakota with the lowest unemployment rate in the United States.[4][5] The boom has given the state of North Dakota, a state with a 2013 population of about 725,000, a billion-dollar budget surplus. North Dakota, which ranked 38th in per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001, rose steadily with the Bakken boom, and now has per capita GDP 29% above the national average.[6]
I'm actually willing to go rather far out on that limb, Faun because it's looking rather sturdy!
You've already fallen off. Your post does nothing to prove unemployment peaked in 2011.
Have you EVER seen anyone try so hard to push con talking points??? Lie, cheat, steal, makes no difference to oldstyle. Just wants to post those con talking points. Which is why, of course, cons are incapable of conversation.LOLThat didn't even happen in 2011. Just how far out on that frail limb are you willing to climb for your fellow yahoo?A spike that very nearly reached the high levels of 2009...so what's your point?
The North Dakota oil boom refers to the period of rapidly expanding oil extraction from the Bakken formation in the state of North Dakota that lasted from the discovery of Parshall Oil Field in 2006, and peaked in 2012,[1][2] but with substantially less growth noted since 2015 due to a global decline in oil prices.[3] Despite the Great Recession, the oil boom resulted in enough jobs to provide North Dakota with the lowest unemployment rate in the United States.[4][5] The boom has given the state of North Dakota, a state with a 2013 population of about 725,000, a billion-dollar budget surplus. North Dakota, which ranked 38th in per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001, rose steadily with the Bakken boom, and now has per capita GDP 29% above the national average.[6]
I'm actually willing to go rather far out on that limb, Faun because it's looking rather sturdy!
You've already fallen off. Your post does nothing to prove unemployment peaked in 2011.
Now, if only you would apply the same level of intellectual honesty and attention to detail for when a child's life begins and for when their constitutional rights as a human being SHOULD begin.
I digress.
Its hilarious when leftards accuse others of playing fast and loose with the facts.
As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you.One last time, I will explain it to you. Though you do not want to believe it. Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed. You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount. And, me lying con tool, you know that.
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not. It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know. It is a term used by economists. It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession. For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs. Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers. If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum. I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle. Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand. Logic. If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do? Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly. They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs. Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929. Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs. Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle. No wonder you love con talking points so much.
How do you measure jobs saved?
And how exactly would they accomplish that? How would your team of economists measure "jobs saved"? Give me a formula for how that's going to work, Rshermr!
Don't have a clue what that formula would be...do you, Georgie? You know why? There isn't one! "Jobs saved" is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by the Obama Administration to hide how few new jobs were created by the Obama Stimulus!
As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you.How do you measure jobs saved?
And how exactly would they accomplish that? How would your team of economists measure "jobs saved"? Give me a formula for how that's going to work, Rshermr!
Don't have a clue what that formula would be...do you, Georgie? You know why? There isn't one! "Jobs saved" is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by the Obama Administration to hide how few new jobs were created by the Obama Stimulus!
The answer is out there, me poor ignorant clown. In numerous impartial sites. Very simple thing, actually. It is a problem for cons because they are stupid, and prefer to be told what to believe. Cons think they are really smart because they have a few untrue facts fed to them. Now, oldstyle likes to spend his time telling everyone how smart he is. Like all con tools do. But in reality, he can not find the really simple answer to the question He keeps asking and wants someone to tell him
Here is the thing, me boy. When your math expertise has reached the level of 1st grade math as yours has, you are not likely to understand any formula provided you. Instead, you will continue saying what you have been told. Must be a sad, sad existence.
But, me boy, as I have promised, As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008 I would be happy to provide you the formula. Though, me boy, you will prove too stupid to understand it. You should probably continue your plan to get con talking points fed to you. You can then pretend they are true. No need to try and understand anything. Con's do not have that capability.
Have you EVER seen anyone try so hard to push con talking points??? Lie, cheat, steal, makes no difference to oldstyle. Just wants to post those con talking points. Which is why, of course, cons are incapable of conversation.LOLThat didn't even happen in 2011. Just how far out on that frail limb are you willing to climb for your fellow yahoo?
The North Dakota oil boom refers to the period of rapidly expanding oil extraction from the Bakken formation in the state of North Dakota that lasted from the discovery of Parshall Oil Field in 2006, and peaked in 2012,[1][2] but with substantially less growth noted since 2015 due to a global decline in oil prices.[3] Despite the Great Recession, the oil boom resulted in enough jobs to provide North Dakota with the lowest unemployment rate in the United States.[4][5] The boom has given the state of North Dakota, a state with a 2013 population of about 725,000, a billion-dollar budget surplus. North Dakota, which ranked 38th in per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001, rose steadily with the Bakken boom, and now has per capita GDP 29% above the national average.[6]
I'm actually willing to go rather far out on that limb, Faun because it's looking rather sturdy!
You've already fallen off. Your post does nothing to prove unemployment peaked in 2011.
Now, if only you would apply the same level of intellectual honesty and attention to detail for when a child's life begins and for when their constitutional rights as a human being SHOULD begin.
I digress.
Its hilarious when leftards accuse others of playing fast and loose with the facts.
Wow. Another profound post from a con tool. At least he thinks so. Poor ignorant tool.
As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you.
And how exactly would they accomplish that? How would your team of economists measure "jobs saved"? Give me a formula for how that's going to work, Rshermr!
Don't have a clue what that formula would be...do you, Georgie? You know why? There isn't one! "Jobs saved" is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by the Obama Administration to hide how few new jobs were created by the Obama Stimulus!
The answer is out there, me poor ignorant clown. In numerous impartial sites. Very simple thing, actually. It is a problem for cons because they are stupid, and prefer to be told what to believe. Cons think they are really smart because they have a few untrue facts fed to them. Now, oldstyle likes to spend his time telling everyone how smart he is. Like all con tools do. But in reality, he can not find the really simple answer to the question He keeps asking and wants someone to tell him
Here is the thing, me boy. When your math expertise has reached the level of 1st grade math as yours has, you are not likely to understand any formula provided you. Instead, you will continue saying what you have been told. Must be a sad, sad existence.
But, me boy, as I have promised, As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008 I would be happy to provide you the formula. Though, me boy, you will prove too stupid to understand it. You should probably continue your plan to get con talking points fed to you. You can then pretend they are true. No need to try and understand anything. Con's do not have that capability.
If it's such a "simple thing", Georgie...then you should be able to tell me the formula. You can't however so you're doing your usual song and dance whenever you're asked for something that any REAL economics major should be able to do easily!
It's the reason you have the rating you do...you're basically nothing but bullshit, lies and "me boys"!
If someone in the Private Sector tried to float a report like the Council of Economic Advisors did with THAT one? They'd get laughed out of the boardroom...right after they were given pink slips!
The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study
You must have a source, eh???Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering". You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown! Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions. You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.
Me boy, you are too stupid. You are not making an economic argument, but an argument of history. A fuller description of the tarp issue would include why it was needed. By October of 2008 the Great Republican Recession of 2008 was in full swing. That something needed to be done was obvious, to republicans and democrats in congress. The vote on TARP in October of 2008 was heavily supported by democrats and oppose by republicans. Republican congressmen voted against it 108 to 91. It was then supported heavily enough by democrats to pass. And the banks were saved. However, where you get the idea that saving the banks helped the economy in any real way is typical of you. The best part of tarp, from the aspect of slowing the recession, was the impact of the money provided GM and Chrysler. They would have been gone without those loans, but were saved with well beyond a million jobs, as a result of it.
You need to understand what a demand based recession is, and what to do about it. Since you are such a stellar student of economics should make that simple, me boy. Or you could go back to the history of R. Reagan to find out what worked for him after his spending cuts required by tax reductions cratered the economy.
You tool Chrysler got bought out by fiat and GM was never going anywhere had it gone through bankruptcy like American Airlines, the only thing that was "saved" was Union pensions..
Of course you do not. None that you want anyone to see that you use. Just bat shit crazy con web sites. So, you say GM was going nowhere. But the impartial sources said gm was indeed going somewhere, often called OUT OF BUSINESS. No rational impartial source said they were going to survive.
Chrysler? That ANYONE bought them was a win. Why a win, me boy. Because there were jobs, me boy. Here is what is known to all rational people as a link:
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study
Dec 9 The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections, according to a study released on Monday.
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study
The benefits have not flowed simply to GM and Chrysler. In a speech this June,Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally said the bailouts were the right medicine for his company as well.
"If GM and Chrysler would've gone into free-fall," Mulally said, "they could've taken the entire supply base into free-fall also, and taken the U.S. from a recession into a depression."
Did President Obama save the auto industry?
The government lost money, but far less than initially expected when the program was launched in 2009. What's more, the program prevented GM and Chrysler from going out of business — an event most economists and automotive analysts said would have caused the entire industry to collapse and thrown the Midwest into a deep depression.
At the time, some critics argued GM and Chrysler should be allowed to fail and that government should not be interfering with the natural course of the market.
"This program was a crucial part of the Obama administration's effort to stop the financial crisis and protect the economy from slipping into a second Great Depression," U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said on Dec. 19.
The automotive industry recovered faster than most industries after the Great Recession. Sales of new cars and trucks in the U.S. have increased every year for five years and are on track to top 16.5 million this year — the most since 2006.
the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research estimated that the U.S. would have had 2.6 million fewer jobs in 2009 and 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2010 if the two auto companies had disappeared. The study also estimated the government "saved or avoided the loss of" $105 billion in lost taxes and social service expenses, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and medical care.
Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B
Now, I know that all the con web sites, over 100 of them, and all the con talking point writers, and Fox, and conservative think tanks, all have the same talking points. Which you, as a con tool are spouting. But the impartial sources ALL say something quite different.
I realize you much prefer posting word salads meaning nothing.
As you know, GM DID, after all, declared bankruptcy.
Had they and Chrysler declared bankruptcy in a manner available to normal companies NOT too big to fail, how many fewer new cars would have been sold in America?
Easy question, a general answer will suffice. Would fewer new cars have been sold in America had GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy?
Wow. That was a profound post. The fact that you see no meaning in my posts just proves the obvious. You are stupid, me boy.
They did declared bankruptcy????
Probably not. Did you have a point, me poor ignorant con tool. The point is, dipshit, if you studied the subject, something like 1.5Million people would have been unemployed, and profits would have gone throughout the world, instead of the US. And it was long ago proven that Bankruptcy was not a viable option for GM or Chrysler. Sorry you missed it. I suspect, however, you miss a lot with your head up your ass.
Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study
You must have a source, eh???Me boy, you are too stupid. You are not making an economic argument, but an argument of history. A fuller description of the tarp issue would include why it was needed. By October of 2008 the Great Republican Recession of 2008 was in full swing. That something needed to be done was obvious, to republicans and democrats in congress. The vote on TARP in October of 2008 was heavily supported by democrats and oppose by republicans. Republican congressmen voted against it 108 to 91. It was then supported heavily enough by democrats to pass. And the banks were saved. However, where you get the idea that saving the banks helped the economy in any real way is typical of you. The best part of tarp, from the aspect of slowing the recession, was the impact of the money provided GM and Chrysler. They would have been gone without those loans, but were saved with well beyond a million jobs, as a result of it.
You need to understand what a demand based recession is, and what to do about it. Since you are such a stellar student of economics should make that simple, me boy. Or you could go back to the history of R. Reagan to find out what worked for him after his spending cuts required by tax reductions cratered the economy.
You tool Chrysler got bought out by fiat and GM was never going anywhere had it gone through bankruptcy like American Airlines, the only thing that was "saved" was Union pensions..
Of course you do not. None that you want anyone to see that you use. Just bat shit crazy con web sites. So, you say GM was going nowhere. But the impartial sources said gm was indeed going somewhere, often called OUT OF BUSINESS. No rational impartial source said they were going to survive.
Chrysler? That ANYONE bought them was a win. Why a win, me boy. Because there were jobs, me boy. Here is what is known to all rational people as a link:
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study
Dec 9 The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections, according to a study released on Monday.
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study
The benefits have not flowed simply to GM and Chrysler. In a speech this June,Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally said the bailouts were the right medicine for his company as well.
"If GM and Chrysler would've gone into free-fall," Mulally said, "they could've taken the entire supply base into free-fall also, and taken the U.S. from a recession into a depression."
Did President Obama save the auto industry?
The government lost money, but far less than initially expected when the program was launched in 2009. What's more, the program prevented GM and Chrysler from going out of business — an event most economists and automotive analysts said would have caused the entire industry to collapse and thrown the Midwest into a deep depression.
At the time, some critics argued GM and Chrysler should be allowed to fail and that government should not be interfering with the natural course of the market.
"This program was a crucial part of the Obama administration's effort to stop the financial crisis and protect the economy from slipping into a second Great Depression," U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said on Dec. 19.
The automotive industry recovered faster than most industries after the Great Recession. Sales of new cars and trucks in the U.S. have increased every year for five years and are on track to top 16.5 million this year — the most since 2006.
the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research estimated that the U.S. would have had 2.6 million fewer jobs in 2009 and 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2010 if the two auto companies had disappeared. The study also estimated the government "saved or avoided the loss of" $105 billion in lost taxes and social service expenses, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and medical care.
Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B
Now, I know that all the con web sites, over 100 of them, and all the con talking point writers, and Fox, and conservative think tanks, all have the same talking points. Which you, as a con tool are spouting. But the impartial sources ALL say something quite different.
I realize you much prefer posting word salads meaning nothing.
As you know, GM DID, after all, declared bankruptcy.
Had they and Chrysler declared bankruptcy in a manner available to normal companies NOT too big to fail, how many fewer new cars would have been sold in America?
Easy question, a general answer will suffice. Would fewer new cars have been sold in America had GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy?
Wow. That was a profound post. The fact that you see no meaning in my posts just proves the obvious. You are stupid, me boy.
They did declared bankruptcy????
Probably not. Did you have a point, me poor ignorant con tool. The point is, dipshit, if you studied the subject, something like 1.5Million people would have been unemployed, and profits would have gone throughout the world, instead of the US. And it was long ago proven that Bankruptcy was not a viable option for GM or Chrysler. Sorry you missed it. I suspect, however, you miss a lot with your head up your ass.
Quoting my good friend Rshermr:
'They did declared bankruptcy????
Probably not. Did you have a point, me poor ignorant con tool. The point is, dipshit, if you studied the subject, something like 1.5Million people would have been unemployed, and profits would have gone throughout the world, instead of the US. And it was long ago proven that Bankruptcy was not a viable option for GM or Chrysler. Sorry you missed it."
You, no surprise, failed to answer my simple question and resorted to your childish name calling. You must be so proud.
GM bankruptcy: End of an era
After years of losses, the troubled automaker is forced into bankruptcy. GM is set to close a dozen facilities and cut more than 20,000 jobs.
SHARE | RSS
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: June 2, 2009: 4:03 AM ET
General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009
Chrysler Declares Bankruptcy; Agreement Puts Fiat in Control
Posted: May 01, 2009 10:37 a.m.
Chrysler Declares Bankruptcy; Agreement Puts Fiat in Control | U.S. News Best Cars
You're just too easy. I thought this was this big hotsy totsy forum with a lot of sharp posters. Obviously, that is a major exaggeration.
You childish desperation is duly noted.
Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf
Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct. The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.
Well, from oldstyle's link, what the CBO did was assume a certain amount of increase in employment based on measured increase in GDP, and accounting for the expected lag in employment growth. It's not horrible, but it's not necessarily a good representation of what really happened. But there is no good representation.Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf
Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct. The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.
Trying to prove that jobs saved is invalid seems to be oldstyles thing. Assuming that no jobs are saved by stimulus efforts seems a bit dangerous. Seems that is always a major wanted result of stimulus.
The formulas I have seen for jobs saved get into ue rates over time periods along with populations of workers. Simple enough, really. But to me, it is more useful to look at a simple metric, that being the ue rate, over time. And a good dose of economic history. Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
What I also am convinced of is that it is really important to look at the multipliers for the different stimulus components. The multiplier is quite different, for instance, for tax reductions, particularly to the relatively wealthy, than it is for infrastructure spending.
thanks, by the way, for your input.
the housing stimulus, for example, resulted in massive unemployment when the stimulus was withdrawn so at best a libsoviet stimulus creates temporary, make-work, mal investment jobs that misallocate a nation's resources and further reduce recess our economy.Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf
Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct. The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.
Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf
Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct. The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.
Trying to prove that jobs saved is invalid seems to be oldstyles thing. Assuming that no jobs are saved by stimulus efforts seems a bit dangerous. Seems that is always a major wanted result of stimulus.
The formulas I have seen for jobs saved get into ue rates over time periods along with populations of workers. Simple enough, really. But to me, it is more useful to look at a simple metric, that being the ue rate, over time. And a good dose of economic history. Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
What I also am convinced of is that it is really important to look at the multipliers for the different stimulus components. The multiplier is quite different, for instance, for tax reductions, particularly to the relatively wealthy, than it is for infrastructure spending.
thanks, by the way, for your input.
