No Wonder it Failed: Stimulus-funded jobs were heavily tilted toward government

[Acebb]

It is estimated that at the one-year mark following the start of the stimulus, 166,000 of the 682,000 jobs directly created/ saved were in the private sector. Examples of private sector stimulus jobs include social workers hired by nonprofit groups to assist families, mechanics to repair buses for public transportation, and construction workers to repave highways.


Examples of government stimulus jobs include public school teachers, civil servants employed at state agencies, and police officers. While fewer than one of four stimulus jobs were in the private sector, more than seven of nine jobs in the U.S. economy overall reside in the private sector. Thus, stimulus-funded jobs were heavily tilted toward government.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2014/q2/dupor.pdf


====

Yes, fewer than 1/4th of these "jobs saved" were in the private sector. But of course Obama doesn't care for the private sector, so why would anyone be surprised?

What is most funny is that the Dummy Laureate still believes government spending is the path to a roaring economy.

face)(*^%

 

[akphidelt]

Yea, look at all those public sector jobs!!! Wait... why is Obama's line the only one in the negative? I thought he was hiring tons of public sector employees?

 

[SheriffJoe]

It is estimated that at the one-year mark following the start of the stimulus, 166,000 of the 682,000 jobs directly created/ saved were in the private sector. Examples of private sector stimulus jobs include social workers hired by nonprofit groups to assist families, mechanics to repair buses for public transportation, and construction workers to repave highways.


Examples of government stimulus jobs include public school teachers, civil servants employed at state agencies, and police officers. While fewer than one of four stimulus jobs were in the private sector, more than seven of nine jobs in the U.S. economy overall reside in the private sector. Thus, stimulus-funded jobs were heavily tilted toward government.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2014/q2/dupor.pdf


====

Yes, fewer than 1/4th of these "jobs saved" were in the private sector. But of course Obama doesn't care for the private sector, so why would anyone be surprised?

What is most funny is that the Dummy Laureate still believes government spending is the path to a roaring economy.

face)(*^%

So wasteful and embarrassing

Keynesians will never EVER learn.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Yea, look at all those public sector jobs!!! Wait... why is Obama's line the only one in the negative? I thought he was hiring tons of public sector employees?

This is misleading. This graph includes public sector jobs at the state and local levels, which are jobs that the Obama administration has no control over.

 

[scottcarter]

more failure by the incompetent community organizer

 

[Dave007inVegas]

President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness met today in Durham, NC at Cree Inc., a company that manufactures energy-efficient LED lighting. One of the Council’s recommendations to President Obama was to streamline the federal permit process for construction and infrastructure projects. It was explained to Obama that the permitting process can delay projects for “months to years … and in many cases even cause projects to be abandoned …

I’m sure that when you implemented the Recovery Act your staff briefed you on many of these challenges.” At this point, Obama smiled and interjected, “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” The Council, led by GE’s Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.

It was all a big joke. And it still is.

 

[akphidelt]

This is misleading. This graph includes public sector jobs at the state and local levels, which are jobs that the Obama administration has no control over.

It's not misleading at all. This is a conversation between public and private jobs. But if you did want to bring up just federal jobs... it's still a depressing story for America.

 

[MantisToboggan]

It's not misleading at all. This is a conversation between public and private jobs. But if you did want to bring up just federal jobs... it's still a depressing story for America.

Of course it's misleading. You have a graph that attributes the number of public sector jobs being added or slashed under 5 presidents administrations while including jobs that they have no influence over. If this conversation is only about public sector jobs (federal, state or local) then why include a graph with each president identified and why inject Obama's name into the discussion when posting the graph.

 

[akphidelt]

Of course it's misleading. You have a graph that attributes the number of public sector jobs being added or slashed under 5 presidents administrations while including jobs that they have no influence over. If this conversation is only about public sector jobs (federal, state or local) then why include a graph with each president identified and why inject Obama's name into the discussion when posting the graph.

It's not misleading at all. The conversation is about stimulus spending creating public sector jobs. I posted a graph showing that government jobs have actually decreased substantially which debunks this idea that the stimulus had this huge impact on public sector employment. And the government can have a major effect on non-federal government jobs. They could increase federal spending toward states in order for them to increase their budgets and prevent them from firing so many workers. They have a tremendous influence on state/local government jobs.

 

[Acebb]

This is misleading. This graph includes public sector jobs at the state and local levels, which are jobs that the Obama administration has no control over.

Of course it is misleading.

It is also from a blog.

The entire "response" by this goof is laughable and pathetic.

 

[akphidelt]

Of course it is misleading.

It is also from a blog.

The entire "response" by this goof is laughable and pathetic.

How is it misleading to talk about public sector jobs in a thread you created about public sector jobs? Haha. Always a hilarious time conversing with you Ace. You are really weird.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Of course it is misleading.

It is also from a blog.

The entire "response" by this goof is laughable and pathetic.

"I only read academic papers" - fratfraud

@)

 

[akphidelt]

"I only read academic papers" - fratfraud

@)

Making up quotes again I see. That's usually desperation time for Joe. Too bad Obama can't be a big Keynesian like all the other Presidents before him

 

[MantisToboggan]

It's not misleading at all. The conversation is about stimulus spending creating public sector jobs. I posted a graph showing that government jobs have actually decreased substantially which debunks this idea that the stimulus had this huge impact on public sector employment. And the government can have a major effect on non-federal government jobs. They could increase federal spending toward states in order for them to increase their budgets and prevent them from firing so many workers. They have a tremendous influence on state/local government jobs.

There is some truth in that but I still disagree with the premise that they have a "tremendous influence on state/local government jobs".

 

[akphidelt]

There is some truth in that but I still disagree with the premise that they have a "tremendous influence on state/local government jobs".

I probably didn't word it correctly. What I'm trying to get at is the Federal Government has the ability to influence how many state/local jobs they want. As in, if states have a major deficit from lack of state funding, they can increase federal funding to make sure those jobs are still there and or jobs are increasing in the state. So they have the ability to influence whether we are losing public sector jobs or creating them even at the state/local level.

If you look here, majority of states get 30-40% of their revenue from the federal government. A state like Mississippi gets 50%. So that is a decent influence.

http://townhall.com/columnists/tadd...e-government-depend-on-federal-funds-n1626882

 

[MantisToboggan]

I probably didn't word it correctly. What I'm trying to get at is the Federal Government has the ability to influence how many state/local jobs they want. As in, if states have a major deficit from lack of state funding, they can increase federal funding to make sure those jobs are still there and or jobs are increasing in the state. So they have the ability to influence whether we are losing public sector jobs or creating them even at the state/local level.

If you look here, majority of states get 30-40% of their revenue from the federal government. A state like Mississippi gets 50%. So that is a decent influence.

http://townhall.com/columnists/tadd...e-government-depend-on-federal-funds-n1626882

Yeah, I actually was looking at those numbers earlier today. Most states get about 1/3 of their funding from the federal government. That is a decent influence, but I think one important thing to remember is that the stimulus was sold as a job saver as much as a job creator. So while your graph shows us public sector jobs lost, it ignores how many public sector jobs were saved by the stimulus.

Just out of curiosity have you seen/do you know where to find data on what percentage of state funding came from the feds in previous years? Say 2000-2008 for example. I'm guessing some of those numbers were substantially lower back then with what I would assume were much higher sales tax and property tax revenues. Would just be interesting to see how drastic the changes were.

 

[akphidelt]

Yeah, I actually was looking at those numbers earlier today. Most states get about 1/3 of their funding from the federal government. That is a decent influence, but I think one important thing to remember is that the stimulus was sold as a job saver as much as a job creator. So while your graph shows us public sector jobs lost, it ignores how many public sector jobs were saved by the stimulus.

Just out of curiosity have you seen/do you know where to find data on what percentage of state funding came from the feds in previous years? Say 2000-2008 for example. I'm guessing some of those numbers were substantially lower back then with what I would assume were much higher sales tax and property tax revenues. Would just be interesting to see how drastic the changes were.

I do not know a good way to view that data. I know you can mess around with usgovernmentspending.com and probably find that data.

Yea, I think the stimulus was a third tax credits, a third state bailouts (job saver), and a third direct spending for job creation. There's no doubt the stimulus helped stop the bleeding, but it definitely was not enough to really do a dent in to our problem. I mean you look at the velocity of money plummeting, it was about a $2-$3 trillion loss in spending and we tried to fix it with a $800 billion bandaid. Even Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser said there was not enough direct spending and that we need much more.

 

[MantisToboggan]

I do not know a good way to view that data. I know you can mess around with usgovernmentspending.com and probably find that data.

Yea, I think the stimulus was a third tax credits, a third state bailouts (job saver), and a third direct spending for job creation. There's no doubt the stimulus helped stop the bleeding, but it definitely was not enough to really do a dent in to our problem. I mean you look at the velocity of money plummeting, it was about a $2-$3 trillion loss in spending and we tried to fix it with a $800 billion bandaid. Even Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser said there was not enough direct spending and that we need much more.

I'll take a look at usgovernmentspending.com. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Acebb]

More spending, less growth

Maybe it's because federal largesse doesn’t help the regular people back home as much as Washington tends to assume.
Having your senator become Appropriations Chairman appears to “significantly dampen corporate sector investment and employment activity,” a 2010 study by three Harvard Business School professors found.

The study, published in 2010 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, explored whether federal aid helped or hurt a district or state. One difficulty in exploring this question: Poorer areas might tend to attract more federal dollars, thus skewing the data.

So the scholars used an innovative way of measuring the impact of federal money: Since a state gets much more in federal funding when its lawmaker gets a committee chairmanship, how does that state’s economy perform during these gavel-induced floods of federal cash?

Not well, it turns out. The federal money crowds out private investment, and “In the year that follows a congressman’s ascendency, the average firm in his state cuts back capital expenditures by roughly 15 percent,” the authors wrote.

Further: “These changes in firm behavior persist throughout the chairmanship and begin to reverse after the congressman relinquishes the chairmanship. We also find some evidence that firms scale back their employment, and experience a decline in sales growth.”
...

Barbour and Cochran scored a big victory in 2008 when they brought $580 million in federal money for low-income housing, and then diverted it to an economic development project in the Port of Gulfport, promising 5,000 jobs.

Five years later, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development studied the project and found that the pork project has failed to deliver. "They're still spending money. Money is going out every month and nothing is being done,” Glenn Cobb of the Port's Pathways to the Port Jobs Program said on the local Fox affiliate. “It was told to us that they created something around 1,000 jobs," for port workers, but Cobb "found out it was only roughly 50 jobs.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/thad-...-mississippi/article/2550029?custom_click=rss

Government spending does not create jobs