Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Gemini846 (34.46)

Do you make $230769.23 per year?



October 30, 2009 – Comments (22)

The Obama administration bragged that they had saved/created 650,000 jobs with the first $150 Billion of the stimulus package. That puts the cost of each job at over $230,000. I would be very surprised if any of the jobs saved by this package have income anywhere near this amount. I'd estimate the average job saved by this package at about $30,000 (which may be generous since temp jobs count). So where did the other $200,000 per job go? Do Americans really want these inefficiencies in our healthcare?

22 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM, OneLegged (< 20) wrote:

This is an invalid form of reasoning.  -1 rec.

Report this comment
#2) On October 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Gemini846 (34.46) wrote:

Don't have to be a genious to realize our government can't create jobs as smoothly as the private sector.

Report this comment
#3) On October 30, 2009 at 5:28 PM, angusthermopylae (37.91) wrote:

Had the same thought this morning.  Glad you found some numbers.

As for "invalid reasoning", I would love to hear an explanation of why it is invalid.  Is it invalid because supposed inefficiencies don't transfer between job creation and health care?  Fair enough, but please explain.

If it's invalid because the original calculation is wrong, then I really want to hear the explanation. At supposedly 10 million unemployed or jobs lost, that means it would take over $1 trillion to cut that in half...

...and how/when do you cut off that financing?  Quickly?  Slowly, as in $1 billion/year for the next 1000 years?

Agree with the reasoning or not, it's a valid question.

+1 from me.

Report this comment
#4) On October 30, 2009 at 5:34 PM, AvianFlu (< 20) wrote:

point well taken....

rec +1

Report this comment
#5) On October 30, 2009 at 5:40 PM, mikecart1 (78.04) wrote:

Invalid form of reasoning?  How so?  Math is math.  Efficiency is a fact and can't be made up.  Looks like the entire program is a failure to me.  In most accredited institutions, Obama would get an F.  But hey who am I?  Just a VT engineering grad and future MBA grad of 2010.

Report this comment
#6) On October 30, 2009 at 8:47 PM, rexlove (99.73) wrote:

The stimulus program provides funds towards capital improvemnet projects. I dont suppose I have to tell you that when building a bridge (for example) - perhaps only 20% of the total project money goes towards labor. There's other things such as material that eat up the other 80%. That's why your reasoning is so flawed.

Report this comment
#7) On October 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Varchild2008 (84.56) wrote:

+1 Rec from me
-1  Rec for the "Invalid Comment" from OneLegged.

Report this comment
#8) On October 30, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Varchild2008 (84.56) wrote:

"perhaps only 20% of the total project money goes towards labor. There's other things such as material that eat up the other 80%. "

But, aren't Toll Roads used to fund Bridge Projects normally.....with or without Gas Taxes to boot?

Why exactly are we being DOUBLE BILLED for the purchase of materials?  Once from the Fed. Stimulus Package and Twice from the respective State's TOLLs + State Gas Taxes?

So your argument that this comment is invalid is ALSO invalid.
Thus nullifying your argument and making the original comment Valid.  The double negative thing...

You use FLAWED logic to try and paint a comment as FLAWED logic. 

Report this comment
#9) On October 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM, rexlove (99.73) wrote:

Varchild2008 - Not sure what you mean by double-billed. Most big capital projects are not funded by tolls or gas taxes. Typically a state issues bonds to fund big projects. Toll money and gas taxes are more likely to get applied to road maintenance.

In case you haven't noticed states are not having an easy time raising the funds for big capital projects. That's where the government stimulus comes in.  

Report this comment
#10) On October 30, 2009 at 10:00 PM, ChrisGraley (28.65) wrote:

It's sad.

If the president would have given somebody $250,000 to wash his car, he'd be farther ahead than this.

But when you chose a welfare economy, you have to expect the same 10 cents of every dollar that the welfare recipients get;.

Report this comment
#11) On October 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM, dibble905 (< 20) wrote:

This post is an epic fail in so many regards.
You cannot simply take the stimulus bill and divide it by the number of possible jobs saved to arrive at some one-time annual salary -- and then tout it like its a salary that will be paid indefinitely (aka from the subject heading).

The stimulus bill may have directly saved 650,000 jobs, but what about the indirect effect of calming fears for 1) the tens of millions who have jobs in the USA? 2) the entire world?

Expectations is the biggest driver of economic progress and economic collapse. Once it starts to go down, expectations become self-fulfilling and creates a spiraling effect. It was imperative that the government inact a stimulus package to stabilize and turn this around. The magnitude of the package is a reflection of the urgency and the amount of resources required to do this.

If you can place a price in saving the world from economic collapse, I'd take it any day. Imagine the ramifications of not doing what they did. I certainly would not want to. The double-dip recession we are all worrying about today would have been christmas comparatively speaking.

Whether the private sector could have done a better job than the government is a separate story, however.

This is a -1 rec from me. +1 rec for OneLegged.

Report this comment
#12) On October 31, 2009 at 1:22 AM, angusthermopylae (37.91) wrote:

Imagine the ramifications of not doing what they did.

You mean like banks going under?  The markets falling?  Executive bonuses in the millions?  Unemployment rising?  Gas prices going up? Food prices going upWarStarvationCats and dogs living together?

I certainly don't blame the Obama administration for the state of the economy--this was a carefully crafted, years-long effort in insanity, neglect, and abuse.  Monsters aren't born; they are made.

With that said, though, the same rule applies to the current situation:  It will take years for the economy to turn around with any real meaning...the problem is too deep for something as simple as "throw lotsa money at it" to work.

Ergo, the stimulus bill may or may not be a good idea in the end...only time will tell.

The stimulus bill may have directly saved 650,000 jobs, but what about the indirect effect of calming fears for 1) the tens of millions who have jobs in the USA? 2) the entire world?

In that case, did we need a stimulus bill at all?  Isn't this the same argument by ol' "It's all in their heads" Gramm?  Are you saying he was absolutely correct?

Report this comment
#13) On October 31, 2009 at 2:30 AM, ease1 (97.08) wrote:

You cannot simply take the stimulus bill and divide it by the number of possible jobs saved to arrive at some one-time annual salary -- and then tout it like its a salary that will be paid indefinitely (aka from the subject heading).

Probably right, but consider the other side of that coin.  The government talking heads can stand up and say, "hey, we've created or saved 650k jobs".  We don't know if they are sustainable and we don't even really know how many more we can save/create.  But don't worry, change is on the way and we're going to spend this money to create more jobs"!!

The stimulus bill may have directly saved 650,000 jobs, but what about the indirect effect of calming fears for 1) the tens of millions who have jobs in the USA? 2) the entire world?

I think the tens of millins in the US that have jobs are thankful they do.  I know I am!.  But I wonder what the fear level is of those who don't have a job currently or who are very close to being without one? 

People that dont' have a job now might respond to this news a couple different ways I would guess; 1) Yea, Obama is working for us, he is creating jobs and things are getting better.  I will find a job because our govt. is creating them  or 2) they look around where they live and say what jobs?  where?  Unemployment is going up, prices are going up.  I don't see openings in my field?  Where are these jobs?

Ultimately this really boils down to the govt. saying to the people, we've spent a lot of money and you need to know that wer are doing something besides sitting on our rears.

I don't blame them for coming out with this news.  They have to becuase in a small way, your right that THEY need people to feel better.  They need/want the public to know they they've done something.  They NEED the people to NEED the govt.  But feel better does not put money in the bank, at least not for the average joe.  We the people need to see real results that actually have momentum and can sustain.

perhaps only 20% of the total project money goes towards labor. There's other things such as material that eat up the other 80%

If that's the case then, the full stimulus package won't even put a dent in unemployment.

Report this comment
#14) On October 31, 2009 at 10:14 AM, rofgile (99.54) wrote:

So, if you divide a corporation's revenue like MSFT by the number of employees, what number do you get?  Do they get paid that?  

Nope.  Its not about efficiency, you are buying more than man hours with the money.  You are paying for materials, you are paying private sector suppliers (who also have employees), etc all directly and indirectly receiving money.

There is a reason why economists didn't immediately yell out "230769/worker is a waste!"... it just isn't really good logic.


Report this comment
#15) On November 02, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Gemini846 (34.46) wrote:

No you don't do that at MSFT because MSFT makes a profit rather than steal productive money from future generations. That desire for profit creates jobs. I wish that this money had been used where it was supposed to "shovel ready projects". Of course we know there weren't that many of those so many states got the money and have yet to spend it on anything. That's waste, and thats what I'm complaining about.

In the long term government throwing money away destroys jobs. Oh you might create a few temp jobs in the office of an engineering firm or pay a few surveyers to find out about the sex lives of undergrad females, but there is no real productivity. No businesses are being created. No sustainable growth is being created.

This is like trying to force exhaust up a car's tail pipe in mass and claiming that you are creating more gasoline by the amount of exhaust comming out when you're done.

Doesn't it bother you that the government has to crank up its propaganda machine to make the country feel better? Jobs are a waste of money anyway. If you absolutly must throw money at someone throw it at people who want to start small businesses so they don't have to take out backbreaking loans. That would ease fears don't you think? It would free them up to increase productivity by providing some useful good or service. That increased productivity would require them to either hire employees or contract other small businesses.

Unfortunately the desire for new innovation has been stripped from this country by years of public schooling that is good at creating wage slaves and criminalizing those who don't fit the mold. Get a good job and put money in your 401k. Save for retirement. Isn't that what everyone is told? Since when is the stock market a place to "save". The stock market is a place to invest in growing companies. Sadly there aren't that many growing companies out there and since people aren't educated how to create new ones the huge amount of retirement dollars chases a few good companies and pushes them into overvalued levels.  The real sad part is how many people chasing a quick buck got in late and will be riding this thing back down.

Do you know what happens when millions of people who would have retired in the next 5 years loose thier life savings? They're too passive to revolt, so they just keep working stealing jobs and opportunity from the next generation.

Report this comment
#16) On November 02, 2009 at 9:41 AM, foolishlymeek (67.76) wrote:

We seem to be thinking along the same lines, Gemini!  And I'm definitely learning more about blogging - catcher title, shorter blog = more readers and more comments!  ;)

Report this comment
#17) On November 02, 2009 at 1:57 PM, kaskoosek (30.18) wrote:

Actually the argument is valid, and the reasoning is pretty accurate. If the multiplier effect is less than one, it means that this is a crappy stimulus.


One dollar of stimulus can actually create two dollars of GDP,if one business improves other businesses indirectly.



Report this comment
#18) On November 02, 2009 at 2:34 PM, themanwon (< 20) wrote:

Again you fools forget to bring your brains along when you write your blogs.  I agree this is an invalid reasoning.  a smart individual would not divide the stimulus by the number of job created.  You have to also factor in new jobs external factors from the stimulus.  Here is an actual example of an external factor.  My uncle owns a building construction company for the past 25 plus years.  Since last year he has laid off about 50% of his staff and last August he got a contract that was a direct result of the stimulus package.  So far he has increase his staff by 15% (INTERNAL) and he has a big order in building materials set for deliver between this Oct to July 2010(External)  Stay with me here, I hope I am not going over your head?  Now the companies that he ordered his building materials informed him that they had to hire some employees back because they are getting more orders in , not sure if those order might be from others who are benefiting from the stimulus package.  Don't forget the truckers (EXTERNAL) delivering who might have been sitting sideline because of slow ordering. next, the gas to fill those truck (EXTERNAL).  Fool is the domain name not for individual character who put there spin on things

Report this comment
#19) On November 02, 2009 at 4:30 PM, ReadEmAnWeep (91.56) wrote:

Sry this is to the first couple of comments. The reason it is invalid is because you assume that spending money to create jobs only costs money on the labor side of things. No matter what, when you create jobs you will have capital costs as well.

If you need an example:

Lets assume you want to create manufacturing jobs, you will have to buy/rent the factory and all the equipment, pay for materials, pay for training,  and then last you will pay the wages of your workers.


That is why that reasoning is incorrect.



That being said you can still look at the big chunk of change what was probably spent inefficiently because it was allocated by the government. 

Report this comment
#20) On November 03, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Gemini846 (34.46) wrote:

themanwon what's your uncles plan for when the easy money disapears? I understand completely that there are more expenses involved than just labor.

My question is why do taxpayers have to provide all of it and then pay some buerocrat to allocate it, and then once its allocated distribute it in such a manner that the states are still sitting on well over half of it.

Maybe just maybe if all that money had gone out as it was supposed to then we could double that jobs number. If our government was fiscally responsible then they wouldn't have to borrow money at all to fund infustructure. Obama admitted yesterday that the jobs that were created weren't as high paying as he would have liked and unemployment was still growing (albiet the rate has slowed).

I don't know if this is the best the Government can do. I just know that the private sector can do it better. That does not mean that I am in favor of handing a bunch of money to big business Regan style. Trickle-down works, but not much better than direct socialist injections. I am in favor of the government protecting and stablizing fair and accurate markets, taking only what is needed in taxes to benefit all the people.

Report this comment
#21) On November 03, 2009 at 11:40 AM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

Let me understand this tale:

The industrious people of the US need money for food, shelter, cars, healthcare, iPods....  Rather than saving for these things they borrow.

So the people collectively say to themselves let us borrow and give the money to ourselves.  Let us stimulate!  But the people they are borrowing from are not themselves, they are "foreigners." 

But after a while the foreigners say "we think you are borrowing too much money and we don't believe you can pay us back plus your rates stink!"

But the people say  we need money and we don't want to save. We are starving and we don't have enough money for food, shelter, cars, healthcare and iPods. 

So the people say to themselves why don't we ask the Federal Reserve for the money they have tons of it. 

The Federal Reserve says "we can't just give you all the money you ask for..that is not right."  So what about this idea?  What if we could give money to "foreigners" so they can buy your debt?  Wouldn't that look better?"

What a great idea.  Oh thank you our problems are solved. 

The end.

Report this comment
#22) On November 23, 2009 at 3:00 AM, KamranatUCLA (29.46) wrote:

Interesting views.

And I think most of the above cap members know..they just know that something UNJUST is going on in this country right now.

Why are there more white quarterbacks, coaches than there should be? Why does the white people still cling to leadership position and when they can't do that they want to serve as "consaltants."

Chinese, Persians, Russians, Africans lived in civilized societies thousands of years before the "white in America." So you think we needwhite people to consult us?

White people have killed native Americans like Animal, your whole existence in this country is based on crimes. Crimes against humanity and I bet you all know that!!! And I bet you all feel shame. Which is actually sign of hope that coexistence could be possible. But white people have to chill now and let the real people in charge lead this country. I want a Chinese American President, I want a Latin American President. I want an Iranian American President...not only that...I want an all minority congress and Senate.

It's time to see that immigrants made this country and they have to be represented.

Sometimes I talk about force because it seems it's the only language White people understand. The same language that they used against native Americans, African Americans, even Irish Americans.

Many are ignorant and didn't even read my whole blog. I did admit it was based on a true story yet 5 of the bloggers above said that back to me as if I didn't know.

There are many true stories more inspiring than this one and yet I see more movies about white Americans who "help" African Americans.

Guess what we don't need your help. Just stay out of our business. Stop encouraging our youth that sports is all they can do. I want all new African Americans to be engineers, scientists, political personalities.

And meanwhile an Idiot called Sarah Palin gets to be on TV all the time and have a best seller book. Are you that much of an Idiot that you would even read a book of a idiot goose hunter.

I am sick and tired of the ignorance of teh "white America" and I am sorry if I am geralizing too much...but my nager is towards people like Bush, Palin...war monglors, idiots, igonrant people. People who don't admit their mistake even after they made a mistake. Palin still STILL defends her comment about her foreign policy comment (neighbor to Alaska crap).

And it looks to me that many of you are like her. Instead of apologizing honestly for slavery, instead of asking for forgiveness, you say that AFrican Americans are on are many white people. Each time I go shopping I see white people with food stamps (in Santa Monica). I see more white homless and beggers than other races.

So instead of putting down others so that you feel better about yourself, how about being an adult, and ask for forgiveness about slavry or native American killings.

If you put other down you might feel better in short term, but you can never have peace with yourself knowing you grandparents maybe killed native Americans in cold blood, or lynched black persons as if they were dogs.

Maybe we should lynch people like Sarah Palin and have African Americans watch that??!!!Myabe white people would like that...that we get to their level. I don't know...All I know is that im sick of movies of white people playing babysitters to African Americans.

Get over yourself, we don't need Heros, we don't need "Angels" like Sandra Bullock who is a no we just need an honest appology! Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners