Obama Tells States to Report Job Numbers

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama announced that the stimulus money had already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs and could potentially "save or create" 600,000 more this summer. An earlier promise by the president assured us that 3 to 4 million jobs will be "created or saved" over the next two years.

But how will we know about all these "created or saved" jobs? We'll count, of course. Beginning in October, governors, mayors, and contractors must report job numbers to the federal government in order to gauge the effectiveness of Obama's stimulus magic. Rob Nabors, deputy director of the White House budget office, clarified the process:

Just count the people being paid out of Recovery Act dollars….This whole thing is tricky. I'm not going to pretend it's not. This whole effort is virtually unprecedented.

This complicated head-count method does depend on honesty on the part of the states. But the White House has that taken care of too. According to Nabors, the numbers will be analyzed for signs of inflation:

If governors or mayors or contractors make up numbers, it's not going to take long for that to come to light.

That's right. No way a small town mayor can fool the federal government.

Comments

[Young \'Un]

Even if we take his figure at face value, $787 billion divided by 150k jobs = $5,246,666 per job.

[Tomcat1066]

It doesn't matter to anyone that just because someone is paid out of Recovery Act money, it doesn't mean that their job was "saved". It would have to be calculated how many of those jobs would have disappeared without that money, and they either can't or won't do that.

Just because someone is paid out of a fund, it doesn't mean that fund is the reason that person has a job. A lot of these projects were going to be done anyways. Local governments just took the government money to pay for it rather than take out the bonds they'd have had to do otherwise.

[P Brooks]

If governors or mayors or contractors make up numbers, it's not going to take long for that to come to light.

But, if the Presidential Suit does it, it's perfectly legit.

[Zeb]

I think he is underestimating how many jobs can be saved.

Do you still have a job? Then your job has been saved. See how easy that is. Obama just saved the job of every employed person in the country. That is the power of unprovable bullshit.

[Tulpa]

Young 'Un, to be fair, the vast majority of the $787B hasn't been spent yet.

[Shannon Love]

What does it matter? All economic numbers are made up. Take a look through the thick binder that holds the Federal definition of unemployment. For example, is a housewife unemployed when she works at home only when she can't find a really good job? Better yet look at the stack of such binders that pile up as the definition changes from year to year.

Numbers based on such arbitrary and shifting measurements are gibberish. Numbers based on measurements that can't possibly be calibrated are gibberish.

They don't call economics the "dismal science" for nothing. It's so bad its not even wrong, it's just random.

The only valid economic statements are those based on assertions of ignorance about the economy. Somebody who says, no one can predict the next earthquake is smarter than someone who cobbles together untestable information to try to predict the next earthquake.

Obama can just make stuff up. He can always make the despotic argument. If he economy improves he can take credit. If it doesn't improve he can just claim that he didn't have enough political power to make the economic decisions needed. Heads or tails, he will never lose.

[Warren]

OK I'm seriously thinking about moving to Mexico. I hear they just decriminalized drugs there.

[domoarrigato]

that's a bit pessimistic, Shannon Love. While i'd agree that economic numbers are far from perfect - maybe even far from good - I don't think they are random. That said, Obama's assertions are completely baseless from an econometric standpoint.

[not the real jb]

I've seen this before in Title VI of the Higher Education Act. Some universities turned down government money when they realized it required them to report so much data that they would spend all of the grant money collecting data on what they were doing with the money.

Arne Duncan's proposal for what states must do to qualify for the second installment of education stimulus funds included even more complicated number crunching. For example, the states are supposed to track students for the first year *after* graduation.

Good luck with that.

[The Angry Optimist]

I'm with Tomcat: just because you use the money to pay people does not mean that you would have fired those people otherwise.

So, if I get 50K from the Recovery Act, I just pay my employees with that and pocket the 50K I had allocated for their salaries.

[Naga Sadow, Economics Major]

Shannon,

Yes and no. It's surprisingly accurate to make narrow predictions. For example: the poll figures pre-election were more or less correct. My class even ran the math figures to arrive at the Gallup numbers. Statistics is a great tool. Now predicting what one group of people would vote . . . that would be beyond the scope. I already wrote a paper describing the inflationary effects of the stimulus. The numbers I ran are made from arbitrary, shifting measurements. Unless you can see into the future, all projections are made with assumptions. Not that I'm defending Obama over his hedging his bets with the qualifier "saved" bit.

[Kevin]

Shannon,
Just like any statistic, economic data can often be used to prove either side of a point. I always cringe when I see a number in a news article. Especially surveys. It's up to us to ask how they got the number, what was left out, and alternate interpretations. Unfortunately Joe and Jane 6-Pack just assume someone else has already done that.

[MNG]

"So, if I get 50K from the Recovery Act, I just pay my employees with that and pocket the 50K I had allocated for their salaries."

Or you buy something you otherwise would not have...

[Tomcat1066]

TAO: Not just that possible scenario, but some contractors actually have other work waiting, so even without the stimulus money at work, they'd still have plenty of projects to keep people working.

[Naga Sadow]

I think that falls under the "pocket the 50k I had allocated for their salaries", MNG.

[Tomcat1066]

Or you buy something you otherwise would not have...

So? That still doesn't accurately calculate any jobs being saved.

[MNG]

Yes, but it would be "stimulus", no?

[prolefeed]

I don't see any order from the Obama admnistration to calculate the number of jobs "prevented or lost" in each state as a result of the economic drag caused by the money being sucked out of the private sector by the stimulus money. You know, the number of jobs that exceed the ones being "created or saved".

So this is all bullshit, since Obama's assertion is based on the assumption that this is free money, and taking it away from the private sector has no negative consequences.

[Shannon Love]

Naga Sadow, Economics Major,

Yes and no. It's surprisingly accurate to make narrow predictions. For example: the poll figures pre-election were more or less correct

Political polls and unemployment numbers are entirely different types of measurements. Political polls need only ask a representative sample who they plan to vote for. The problem with unemployment statistics is the very definition of "employed" and "underemployed". It as if we tried make a ruler but had no clear definitions of "width" or "length."

[MNG]

Iirc correctly unemployment numbers come from the number of people who apply for or get unemployment benefits...

[Shannon Love]

Kevin,

Just like any statistic, economic data can often be used to prove either side of a point.

That's just because you usually only see statistics from the soft sciences. Statistics are only as accurate the measurements that create them. If a field has very good measurements, such as in physics, then the statistics are solid and tell only one story. If the measurements are sloppy and indistinct, as in economics, the statistics are gibberish.

[MNG]

Shannon
If you were hired (by a private firm of course!) to come up with a figure for the number of jobs created, or lost for that matter, by something like a government program, how would you do so?

[B. Obama]

You ingrates! I took office in January, right? You all still jobs now, don't you? See! I saved them! QED!

I dare you to prove otherwise!

[Naga Sadow]

Well, your argument is sort of the crux of mine. You have to decide what "width" and "length" are to make a ruler. What is a "representative" sample? How many people would be considered a "representative" sample? Plus, bad data is inherent. People will fuck up polls and such for no reason other than they can. Some will even maliciously give false data and such. If you're gonna come up with a definition of "employed" or "underemployed" the benchmark is inevitably gonna leave out some segment of the population. I'm not disagreeing with you about the fact that Obama has set himself up to NOT be wrong as you can't measure "jobs saved". Just the fact that you believe because something is made up that it is useless.

[Naga Sadow]

I just remembered a very clever argument from a professor about employment. "It can be catagorized a number of ways. Bums for instance are fully employed. They generate/produce sympathy from others and they seem to work very hard at it. Their productivity is to low, however, to ever create a viable return on their investment of time and energy."

[Fascitis Necrotizante]

Yes, but it would be "stimulus", no?

No. That money was taken from the private sector or borrowed from the future private sector. Seizing it and returning a fraction of it (minus sizable collection, transaction and management costs) is an odd kind of stimulus.

[MNG]

I think its silly to focus on "saving jobs." Obama is getting caught in trying to make some spiffy rhetoric into policy and policy goals. What people who support Obama want to happen is for the economy to turn around, or at least if it does not for the fall to be lessened. If the economic indicators, whatever they are, either get better or at least do not fall as much as they would have but for certain measures, then he's succeeded.

[MNG]

FN

It depends on whether it gets ultimately spent more productively than it would have by the private sector sources it was taken from.

[The Angry Optimist]

"productively" is not defined as "projects you like to see", MNG.

[HeadTater]

The government mislead the American People? Never!

How can they accurately measure saved jobs? Remember how when you were a kid, you would walk up to a friend and say "saved your life." They would then ask you what you were talking about and you would reply with something you didn't do (like push them off the jungle gym). How may of these "saved jobs" were ever really in peril? How many of these created jobs are useful jobs? How many people that have received stimulus jobs are really working or just sitting there doing busy work simply to pad the numbers.

[Warty]

It depends on whether it gets ultimately spent more productively than it would have by the private sector sources it was taken from.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Do we have any figures on how]

Can't we hire some people to kill the unemployed?

[Naga Sadow]

Oh man. TAO fires the first salvo at MNG. This thread is gonna get mighty interesting soon.

[prolefeed]

Iirc correctly unemployment numbers come from the number of people who apply for or get unemployment benefits...

Which, of course, results in bullshit statistics. For example, I've worked 5 month sessions at the legislature. At the end of each session, I was "fired" (only to be "hired" again the next session), but I was not officially "unemployed" during the 7 months between sessions because you have to work 6 months during the year to qualify for unemployment benefits.

And employment numbers are bullshit for other reasons. For example, if during those 5 months at the legislature I were to hire someone to do the housework and yardwork I usually did, that would count as employment for the government figures because the people hired were getting paid, but when I did the work myself, that wasn't counted as employment, even though in both cases the same work is getting done.

And if marijuana was legalized, all sorts of jobs would magically "appear" as people came out of the underground economy and declared income, since they would no longer be risking incarceration as felons if they tried to comply with income tax reporting requirements.

So, the employment numbers and unemployment numbers can go up or down even though the same actual work is getting done.

So, yes, as Shannon pointed out, it's like trying to measure something with a ruler where you can't define what "length" or "width" is.

[MNG]

I have x amount of dollars. I plan to spend it on something that creates y amount of wealth. Before I can, you take it and spend it on something that creates z amount of wealth. If z>y then that was a more productive way to spend that money.

You guys think all spending is equally economically productive?

[Bronwyn]

It depends on whether it gets ultimately spent more productively than it would have by the private sector sources it was taken from.

And here we have the pivot on which every MNG argument turns. The Right People can spend my money more wisely than I can. I can't be trusted to use my money to care for my family - only The Right People can be trusted to do that.

*vomit*

[MNG]

prole
That hardly makes them "bullshit." It's useful to know when the amount of people who are applying for and getting unemployment benefits doubles. These things are called "indicators" because they "indicate" things. What that would "indicate" is that things are not going so well!

No indicator is fully valid and reliable, duh. IQ tests are some magically perfect capturing of intelligence. But they do indicate something...

[Dave]

It seems like a lot of people are whining and belly aching because it makes them feel smart of superior or "in the know." But simply put, this country was almost driven to ruin by Obama's idiotic predecessor. O is cleaning up W's horrid mess. Fortunately, Obama represents the citizens instead of the businesses. That is a GREAT improvement in my opinion. So O is trying to quantify how/where money is spend? Another big improvement over the last guy!

[The Angry Optimist]

MNG, can you possibly think of a program that does that? Because in order for it to do so, there would have to be *zero* administrative and transaction costs.

[MNG]

Brownyn
I don't know if the "right people" can spend your (and my) money better than we can. Empirically, I would think not more often than not. I'm just saying its conceptually possible how this is all supposed to work...

[prolefeed]

I think its silly to focus on "saving jobs." Obama is getting caught in trying to make some spiffy rhetoric into policy and policy goals. What people who support Obama want to happen is for the economy to turn around, or at least if it does not for the fall to be lessened.

A significant number of people -- probably the overwhelming majority -- who voted for Obama want him to get reelected even if the economy is still tanking due to the braindead stimulus programs and whatnot -- unless it is THEIR job that vanishes despite being "created or saved".

And that talk about the "fall to be lessened" is the same "heads I win, tail I win" happytalk Obama is peddling where no matter what happens, he can try to claim success.

[The Angry Optimist]

Actually, let me say that I do take your point: it is theoretically possible that, in one instance of government spending, that it actually turns out that it created more wealth than the aggregate private spending would have.

However, the reality is, is that this rarely to *never* happens, and the market has shown that it is way better at picking "winners" than the government, if for no other reason than the market has the profit-motive as a simultaneous stick-and-carrot mechanism.

[Bronwyn]

Obama represents the citizens instead of the businesses

Jesus H. Christ, Dave. Who the do you think EMPLOYS the citizens? I'll give you a hint: Businesses.

It's so difficult and so costly to own a business, and it's getting worse. Since Obama moved into the White House, my own husband has had to fire 16 people.

That's just one business. There's 16 of your precious citizens out of work and in the unemployment line because of your precious Hopey McChange.

I'm sorry, but any time I hear some asshole cry about how businesses are evil, I just want to spit.

[Bronwyn]

"who the (blank) do"

Insert expletive.

I'm so angry, I can't even cuss properly. Shit.

[J sub D]

Money is fungible. All of this flailing about attempting to affirm The Chosen One's© pulled out of the ass campaign bullshit numbers is just a waste of time, resouces and money.

Does Obama anyone with a 3 digit IQ actually believe that lottery proceeds really go to education?

[MNG]

Well prole, of course one should admit that even were Obama's programs to have a positive effect that they may be offset by other factors and so there may not be an absolute rise in economic indicators but rather a fall or stagnation that would be "less bad" than had they not been in place. To think otherwise would be to fall into the same problem many of his supporters do, that he can magically unilaterally save the economy by doing (or in you guys case not doing) certain things...

[prolefeed]

I have x amount of dollars. I plan to spend it on something that creates y amount of wealth. Before I can, you take it and spend it on something that creates z amount of wealth. If z>y then that was a more productive way to spend that money.

You guys think all spending is equally economically productive?

Except it's virtually always y>z, MNG. But Obama's "math" assumes y=0, which if you accept that demonstrably false premise, means it appears that z>=y.

And it's generally politicians who assume all spending is economically productive, or at least try to foist that lie onto voters.

[MNG]

"However, the reality is, is that this rarely to *never* happens, and the market has shown that it is way better at picking "winners" than the government, if for no other reason than the market has the profit-motive as a simultaneous stick-and-carrot mechanism."

I guess Naga is going to be disappointed because I actually agree with that.

[MNG]

I wanted Obama to go with big fat tax breaks myself...The stimulus seems like a pretty indirect way to prime the pump imo...

[MNG]

I for one don't think businesses are evil. Quite the contrary. Pretty much most of the things and services I enjoy are supplied to me by, yes, businesses.

[prolefeed]

Well prole, of course one should admit that even were Obama's programs to have a positive effect

I'll make no such assumption. Politicians confiscating money by taxes, and spending it buying votes by appeasing special interests, is highly unlikely to benefit society more than individuals making decisions based on their own calculations of their rational best interests.

[MNG]

I think leftists that hate "businesses" are as goofy as libertarians who hate "government." It makes sense to hate businesses that do certain things or act in certain ways, ditto with governments, but hating either "in general" strikes me as strange.

[The Angry Optimist]

I want him to go with spending cuts. Tax breaks without corresponding spending cuts = increase in spending.

[Bronwyn]

Glad to hear it, MNG. I've never heard you go so far around the bend as to suggest that businesses are evil or less-deserving.

I aimed my spittle at Dave 🙂

[Warty]

O is cleaning up W's horrid mess. Fortunately, Obama represents the citizens instead of the businesses. That is a GREAT improvement in my opinion. So O is trying to quantify how/where money is spend? Another big improvement over the last guy!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This thread is fucking awesome. Keep it coming, guys.

[MNG]

I should add that I would have been for some infrastructure spending in with the tax breaks. I think that is an area where government "confiscating money by taxes, and spending it is likely to benefit society more than individuals making decisions based on their own calculations of their rational best interests."

[Naga Sadow]

MNG,

Quit projecting. I usually give you a pass. You seem to generally try to see both sides of an issue. My only real problem is when you acknowledge a point you don't like and try to disqualify it using shifty language. I'm tempted to believe you are a lawyer sometimes.

[MNG]

TAO
I would have taxed the shit out of the rich to make up the difference (hey, rapprochment can't last forever ;))

[MNG]

I wish I made lawyer money!

I'm not trying to disqualify it, really, I'm trying to be fair and nuanced. Course, trying and succeeding are two different things!

[Naga Sadow]

MNG,

Ah but tax increases on the rich lead inevitably to more poor people suffering. My casino caters mostly to well off or rich people. It would be a ripple effect if even 10% of our clientele didn't show up because they had a lot less money to throw around.

[Bronwyn]

Besides, who decides who's rich?

I'm constantly running into people who think that, since my husband is a business owner, we're rolling in money. Quite the opposite is true. When you own a small business, more often than not, you have NO money to spare.

We're lucky when he can afford to pay himself, never mind get paid back the money the company "owes" us.

All the taxes on business owners reveals that legislators have the same mistaken belief - that taxation at 40+% is easily absorbed by small business. News flash: it isn't!

So when we watch big companies being thrown life preservers, it's extremely demoralizing and makes it very clear who our government is working for.

[MNG]

Naga
I wouldn't tax them too much, don't worry 😉

Brownyn

I agree a person has to draw a kind of arbitrary line...I would draw it fairly high. I think a person who nets 250k might be there, but to be honest I think of "the rich" as people with incomes over a mil a year...

[Tulpa]

According to Nabors, the numbers will be analyzed for signs of inflation:

I have a feeling the administration is going to be more upset by deflation of the "saved or created" numbers. For instance, if Mark Sanford reported 0 jobs created or saved in SC, what do you think the admin is going to do?

[Bronwyn]

But by drawing a line in the income sand, you're also deciding on an arbitrary limit on a person's ability to live how they want to.

Limiting their ability to support their families, to buy what they want to buy, to invest in what they believe in, to pay for their sunset years, to bequeath to their descendents the fruits of their labor...

Who are you (or The Right People) to decide what level of the good life is undeserved? Who are you (or The Right People) to decide what level of the good life should be handed out gratis to anyone, regardless of their efforts to earn it?

[R C Dean]

I agree a person has to draw a kind of arbitrary line...I would draw it fairly high. I think a person who nets 250k might be there, but to be honest I think of "the rich" as people with incomes over a mil a year...

Of course, those are the people who are most able to avoid taxation by structuring their income and assets.

Not to mention, there aren't enough of them, even at the $250K and up level, to support the gargantuan spending spree that we are engaged in, no matter how high you set the marginal rate or limit their deductions.

[Rich]

Maybe "saved jobs" are like "saved money" -- under a bunch of mattresses or something?

[R C Dean]

Maybe "saved jobs" are like "saved money"

That's it! These are jobs that are being saved for later. Until, you know, after the recession.

[Tbone]

Who are you (or The Right People) to decide what level of the good life is undeserved? Who are you (or The Right People) to decide what level of the good life should be handed out gratis to anyone, regardless of their efforts to earn it?

Progressive taxation is fundamentally unjust, however, the claim for justice on the part of the earner is not absolute. There are no self-made men in America. Everyone who earns money here earns it in part by virtue of conditions he never made - conditions of the society, including the laws that enable him to earn and keep it.

Considering just this question with respect to government action to alleviate poverty, Milton Friedman in "Capitalism and Freedom" said: "I see no way of deciding 'how much' except in terms of the amount of taxes we - by which I mean the great bulk of us - are willing to impose on ourselves for the purpose." We have a process for deciding such questions, which is the democratic process.

Not my words - Paraphrased from a WSJ article titled "The People vs. the People" by Herbert Stein

[Art-P.O.G.]

My casino caters mostly to well off or rich people.

I had no idea you were American Indian, Naga. But I suppose that partially explains the gift for prophecy.

[????? ??????]

Thanks