Posted on 09/15/2011 10:11:04 AM PDT by bronxville
Did Obama’s “Stimulus” Create or Save Jobs?
The official line is that President Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” package (tax cuts and spending increases) “created or saved” more than 3.5 million jobs. Is that so?
It depends on what you mean by created, saved, and jobs.
It is certainly true that the federal government gave money to the states and localities, and some of that money was used to pay teachers, police officers, and firefighters. However, to say that this “saved” those jobs implies that they really would have vanished without federal money. In some cases, state and local politicians might have been engaging in fear-mongering. It’s been done before. But even if they weren’t, we would have to assume that if the federal money hadn’t materialized, those politicians wouldn’t have found other things to cut in order to keep paying the teachers, officers, and firefighters — the perhaps bloated administrative bureaucracy, for instance. We’ll never know because they were relieved of the necessity –mother of invention — of making “the tough choices” they always say they were elected to make.
What about other kinds of jobs? Two studies demonstrate that many jobs “created” were filled by hiring people away from jobs they already held. Some will claim that this is fine because the vacated jobs were available to the unemployed. But that implies that highly skilled people were sitting around waiting for jobs, and this is not the case. Companies losing employees had to incur high search and training costs to refill those jobs. See this previous post, “Labor Is Not Fungible,” for more discussion. Also see “No Such Thing as Shovel Ready”: ”[H]iring people from unemployment was more the exception than the rule in our interviews”; and “Did Stimulus Dollars Hire the Unemployed?” Both papers are by Garett Jones and Daniel Rothschild of the Mercatus Center. (Summary here.)
Finally, in economics a job is employment that creates value by helping to transform resources from a less- to a more-useful condition. In the market, prices, consumer behavior, and profit-and-loss sheets tell us if that criterion is met. A job is not merely exertion for which someone is paid. In the case of government and government-financed jobs, where resources are acquired by force and there is not market pricing at every stage, we can’t be sure that people who “work” actually create value rather than destroy it. They may sweat, but they that doesn’t mean they have jobs.
Finally, let’s remember that government can’t actually stimulate the economy; that is, it cannot inject something from outside the economy, like a defibrillator transfers electricity to a body to jump start a heart. Any money the government appears to inject was already in the economy and is just moved around. So, as Russ Roberts says, government’s stimulating an economy is like taking water from the deep end of a pool and pouring it into the shallow end.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/anything-peaceful/did-obamas-stimulus-create-or-save-jobs/
And what if the Fed prints money? Same thing. Just moving things around. Every new dollar created doesn’t create a new dollar of value. It just steals 1/n+1 value from every other dollar, wherein is the number of all other dollars.
ROTFLOL It created another pot of money to steal from the taxpayers.
However, every job above 8% unemployment was more than he promised. That said he has lossed more or saved less on everything above 8%
Could someone quantify “Saved Jobs” for me? How do you put a number on this? It’s all BS to me.
I got a 36,000 dollar a year job from the stimulus at a major university (of course I already had a job, it was a little more pay ol la).
That job cost the tax payer $235,000-I found out after the fact! Here I sit unemployed b/c the money ended 8/31!
“Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit.”
Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank
“Every circulating federal reserve note represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve system.” — Money Facts, House Banking and Currency Committee
Two issues:
First, proving a counterfactual is impossible.
Second, even if you buy into this BS, each job cost the American taxpayer $214,000+. Seems to me we’d be much better off cutting taxes by $750 billion and let the consumer determine how resources are allocated to meet the increased demand.
so far it’s created two.. one in nevada and one in new york.
According to the US BLS:
In July 2011 140,384,000 Americans were employed with 14,428,000 unemployed, a 9.1% UE rate.
Back in 2008 145,362,000 Americans were employed and 8,924,000 unemployed, a 5.8% UE rate.
What jobs? Numbers don’t lie.
I’m a little confused and assume responders are challenging the stupidity of the overall concept and not the author’s (Freeman) statement as he seems to be right on. Otherwise, am I missing something?
Consider that "QE1"..."QEx" are creating around $1T out of thin air (Federal Reserve just writes "+$1,000,000,000,000" in the ledger and starts handing out checks) each round. Since M2 was around $10T, QE1 devalued each dollar by around 10%.
It's just another way of "redistribution".
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
