:mad::dubious:
you mean fluffers?
I’m assuming you’re referencing The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Apologies if you’re referring to something else.
Stimulus information is tracked on http://www.recovery.gov/ . Job estimates specifically are tracked here. Be sure to take note of the methodology used to estimate jobs funding.
Hanging out with the unicorns and rainbows, of course.
It’s not like people are making new companies that will hire new people. Companies that didn’t fail and had employees they would have had to layoff are doing the jobs.
[quote=“Caldazar, post:3, topic:529496”]
Stimulus information is tracked on http://www.recovery.gov/ . Job estimates specifically are tracked here. How about a site that doesn’t obfuscate the issue, solely calculating those created rather than melding them with the ambiously counted saved jobs?
[quote=“elfkin477, post:6, topic:529496”]
Well, in fairness, a job saved is better than one that is lost, but the problem is that it provides no meaningful way to evaluate the stimulus.
A year from now if we have 85% unemployment, Obama could simply say that we would have had 95% were it not for his stimulus package. And who could dispute it except a time traveler from a parallel dimension?
Could you imagine having the same luxury at your job?
“Bill, since you became manager, sales are down 40%.”
lan
“Well, sir, were it not for my managerial skill, they would have been down 50%”
The administration tracks relatively well with the CBO estimates, which in turn tracks fairly well with estimates of various financial firms (granted they all have pretty sizable error bars), so its obviously not totally arbitrary. Presumably everyone has there own economic models they use to figure out how many jobs would be created by X amount of dollars spent on various types of stimulus.
Granted everyone’s models could just be wrong in the same way (presumably the people that created them were reading more or less the same economics textbooks). But in anycase, its not like the WH is the sole source of numbers and no one else can produce their own.
I’m not sure I understand your objection. The site is tracking the level of employment being supported by the stimulus money using FTE metrics. There are certainly issues with using FTE as a measure (I would have preferred a statistic of “hours of work supported” myself), but FTE as a concept is fairly well-defined. For clarity, the site probably should have just stuck with “FTE” rather “Jobs” as a label, I suppose, but the text makes it very clear how they are defining the term “job”.
What’s the value in trying to establish arbitrary definitions for a “created job”, and a “saved job” and then trying to separate out which dollars went into which job bucket? Is there an alternate definition of “job” you believe should have been used that would have provided more clarity?
One of the stated purposes of the Act is “To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery”. It can be debated whether the Act is in fact promoting economic recovery, but what difference does it make whether someone is working at a “preserved job” or a “created job” (however you choose to define those terms)?
I’d seen this graph floating around, but I was surprised when Roger Ebert posted it on Twitter. For teabaggers who might think it’s all made up, you’ll notice that the source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, dated February 12, 2010.
Teabaggers are mostly going with the “it’s a natural cycle” defense. Wonder where they got that idea from…
Are you sure about that? Saying it’s a natural levelling off makes sense, but there’s nothing cyclical about it (or anything about it indicating that things have started to recover, for that matter).
All this graph shows is that job numbers have levelled off at a new, lower number. It does not say whether in future months the number of jobs will increase, or if job numbers will remain close to current levels in a temporary equilibrium.
That chart is bullshit.
I don’t understand how the chart works when unemployment is higher than it has been in over a decade.
Well, the chart data is fine; the conclusion is just erroneous. As Grumman points out, a moderation in job losses does not necessarily imply recovery in the job market.
That whole editorial is a mess. Sure,
is just political rhetoric. But similarly
is a bunch of baloney. The proper way to judge policy would be to compare the change in the number of people unemployed and out of the labor force to estimates of those changes had the policies not been implemented at all. There are real practical challenges with making such estimates, though. That’s why I don’t mind the Reported Data section of recovery.gov since it simply accounts for where the money is being spent.
So what? Is there any particular reason to believe that the U.S unemployment rate should correlate strongly with unemployment rates in the rest of the world during this particular recession?
Look, there are certainly legitimate criticisms of the stimulus plan that should be considered. But spending $787 Billion (or several Trillion, if you want to include all the other newly created government support programs) over a couple of years and having the expectation that this will magically fix the economic problems in the U.S. … such an expectation seems wildly unrealistic to me, even in the best of possible scenarios, given that the build-up to this economic downturn has arguably been taking place over the past decade (asset price bubble data, for example) or two (various debt levels). And that’s reflected, to some degree, in the unsatisfying economic performance of job markets.
At the Hanford Reservation, WA.
Actually that’s just a prediction. I think the actual count is ~4,000 “stimulus babies” as they’re known at the area.