PDA

View Full Version : Economics L.A.: $111M in Stimulus Saved Just 55 Jobs


mlyonsd
09-17-2010, 08:52 AM
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://ads.revsci.net/adserver/ako?activate&dashOnly&csid=E05510" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://pix04.revsci.net/E05510/a4/0/0/pcx.js?csid=E05510" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://pix04.revsci.net/E05510/b3/0/3/0902050/416758890.js?D=DM_LOC%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.chiefsplanet.com%252FBB%252Fshowthread.php%253Fp%253D 7011646%26DM_EOM%3D1&C=E05510" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>L.A.: $111M in Stimulus Saved Just 55 Jobs

By William Lajeunesse
Published September 17, 2010 | FoxNews.com
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> fox.site.ads.writeInline("frame1-300x250_336x280", "dc"); </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://js.revsci.net/gateway/gw.js?csid=E05510" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>http://tags.bluekai.com/site/668<SCRIPT src="http://tags.bluekai.com/site/668?ret=js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/seg/p-ddEiIs2qFSY46.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://ads.foxnews.com/js/omtr_code.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://ads.foxnews.com/api/f8789cbc3b899e920c44ee63d66a2340-article-data_inline.js"></SCRIPT> More than a year after Congress approved $800 billion in stimulus funds, the Los Angeles city controller has released a 40-page report on how the city spent its share, and the results are not living up to expectations.

"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," said Wendy Greuel, the city's controller. "With our local unemployment rate over 12 percent we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work."

According to the audit, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works spent $70 million in stimulus funds -- in return, it created seven private sector jobs and saved seven workers from layoffs. Taxpayer cost per job: $1.5 million.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation created even fewer jobs per dollar, spending $40 million but netting just nine jobs. Taxpayer cost per job: $4.4 million.

Greuel blamed the dismal numbers on several factors:

1. Bureaucratic red tape: Four highway projects did not even go out to bid until seven months after they were authorized.
2. Projects that were supposed to be competitively bid in the private sector went instead went to city workers.
3. Stimulus money was not properly tracked within departments
4. Both departments could not report the jobs created and retained in a timely fashion..

"I would say maybe in a grade, a B- in creating the jobs," Greuel told Fox News. "They have started to spend those dollars but it took seven months to get some of those contracts out. We think in the city that we should move quickly and not in the same usual bureaucratic ways."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/los-angeles-official-disappointed-city-used-stimulus-funds/

blaise
09-17-2010, 08:53 AM
FAUX NEWS FAUX NEWS FAUX NEWS!

Saul Good
09-17-2010, 09:05 AM
Were those 55 jobs the roster of a new NFL team? If so, $2,000,000 per job sounds about right. That should get them just under the cap.

ROYC75
09-17-2010, 09:18 AM
That's getting a lot of bang for your bucks !

Nice work L.A.

And people wonder why we want the keys back ?

BigChiefFan
09-17-2010, 09:36 AM
They just reported the same story on CNBC. I'd say our country has the most corrupt politicians that exist and most just sit back and ask for more. The country is bankrupt.

ROYC75
09-17-2010, 10:13 AM
crickets * crickets * crickets *

What's this ? No Liberal spin ?

Jenson71
09-17-2010, 10:36 AM
crickets * crickets * crickets *

What's this ? No Liberal spin ?

Well, I was and still am a supporter of the Stimulus. But yeah, those are dismal numbers. On average, several reports from IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s, and also the CBO, showed about 2.5 million jobs were saved total. There are going to be some districts/states/cities that are using the money more productively in terms of job growth. I wouldn't condemn or praise the total project based on one place alone.

ROYC75
09-17-2010, 10:48 AM
Well, I was and still am a supporter of the Stimulus. But yeah, those are dismal numbers. On average, several reports from IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s, and also the CBO, showed about 2.5 million jobs were saved total. There are going to be some districts/states/cities that are using the money more productively in terms of job growth. I wouldn't condemn or praise the total project based on one place alone.

Buddy, I really like your spirit, but I'm wondering how much longer it will take for you to see the overall picture. I can clearly see that you are still hooked on the "HOPE & CHANGE" wagon.

It appears that you are only getting 2 years of it. It's going to be a "CHANGE" real quick and the "HOPE" is that we can turn this country around before we are faced with a bankrupt USA.

chiefsnorth
09-17-2010, 10:49 AM
The point is not that The Obama Stimulus Package didn't do anything to move the needle on the economy; we all knew that already.

What I find stunning is that even using the bullshit standard of "saved or created", they could only come up with 55 jobs. So in all probability, the money was spent without any legitimate job creation.

I say to you stimulus supporters, this $111 million could have paid 2220 people a $50,000 salary for one year. Instead we are getting around 50 jobs under the rosiest possible standard, but more likely, we got zero jobs for this money.

And we still try to say government should confiscate money and filter it through its sponges, and this is the best and most efficient way to do things?

Chief Henry
09-17-2010, 10:55 AM
This can't be right. I refuse to believe we have that kind of ineptness in this country.

blaise
09-17-2010, 10:59 AM
This can't be right. I refuse to believe we have that kind of ineptness in this country.

We should probably let them handle health care for us.

fan4ever
09-17-2010, 11:01 AM
I'd had rather read that they took that 111 million dollars and made 111 millionaires in a lottery drawing.

Looks like this money was blown with very little benefit...like the rest.

fan4ever
09-17-2010, 11:02 AM
We should probably let them handle health care for us.

This . . . I mean "Amen"

FD
09-17-2010, 11:40 AM
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of fiscal policy. The reason expansionary policy creates jobs is because in a time when aggregate demand is in shortfall the multiplier on ANY spending is high. The city of LA employed 55 more people, but the money that was spent by the programs went to employ more people who contract for the city, provide materials to those contractors, etc, who spent this additional money to employ more people, and so on. The idea is that because unemployment is so high and capacity utilization is so low that any additional spending will, by increasing aggregate demand, stimulate the economy.

Accountants and journalists look only at the direct effect, not the larger effects like economists do.

Donger
09-17-2010, 12:04 PM
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of fiscal policy. The reason expansionary policy creates jobs is because in a time when aggregate demand is in shortfall the multiplier on ANY spending is high. The city of LA employed 55 more people, but the money that was spent by the programs went to employ more people who contract for the city, provide materials to those contractors, etc, who spent this additional money to employ more people, and so on. The idea is that because unemployment is so high and capacity utilization is so low that any additional spending will, by increasing aggregate demand, stimulate the economy.

Accountants and journalists look only at the direct effect, not the larger effects like economists do.

So, the "real" figure is say, more like 100 jobs?

Saul Good
09-17-2010, 12:15 PM
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of fiscal policy. The reason expansionary policy creates jobs is because in a time when aggregate demand is in shortfall the multiplier on ANY spending is high. The city of LA employed 55 more people, but the money that was spent by the programs went to employ more people who contract for the city, provide materials to those contractors, etc, who spent this additional money to employ more people, and so on. The idea is that because unemployment is so high and capacity utilization is so low that any additional spending will, by increasing aggregate demand, stimulate the economy.

Accountants and journalists look only at the direct effect, not the larger effects like economists do.
So the city's ue numbers must have dropped, right?

chiefsnorth
09-17-2010, 12:26 PM
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of fiscal policy. The reason expansionary policy creates jobs is because in a time when aggregate demand is in shortfall the multiplier on ANY spending is high. The city of LA employed 55 more people, but the money that was spent by the programs went to employ more people who contract for the city, provide materials to those contractors, etc, who spent this additional money to employ more people, and so on. The idea is that because unemployment is so high and capacity utilization is so low that any additional spending will, by increasing aggregate demand, stimulate the economy.

Accountants and journalists look only at the direct effect, not the larger effects like economists do.

So your argument is that we should appeal to unemployment numbers in the wider economy for the results of the stimulus.

That does your argument no good.

Chief Faithful
09-17-2010, 12:35 PM
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of fiscal policy. The reason expansionary policy creates jobs is because in a time when aggregate demand is in shortfall the multiplier on ANY spending is high. The city of LA employed 55 more people, but the money that was spent by the programs went to employ more people who contract for the city, provide materials to those contractors, etc, who spent this additional money to employ more people, and so on. The idea is that because unemployment is so high and capacity utilization is so low that any additional spending will, by increasing aggregate demand, stimulate the economy.

Accountants and journalists look only at the direct effect, not the larger effects like economists do.


The money probably went into the general budget and was mis-appropriated. The city probably use the money to make up for shortfalls, which is why they have such an accounting problem.

MagicHef
09-17-2010, 12:43 PM
Wait a second.

55 jobs were saved or created with $111 million

Included in that:
14 jobs were saved or created with $70 million
9 jobs were saved or created with $40 million

That leaves:
32 jobs saved or created with $1 million dollars, an average of $31,250 per job created or saved.

That's actually pretty good. Any idea where that particular $1 million was spent?

Stewie
09-17-2010, 01:49 PM
Stimulus money isn't for creating jobs. It was created to help the stupid people (states, counties, municipalities) and their socialist agendas. The stimulus was sold as "creating jobs" to the sheeple, but its only intention was to try to fill a huge void with a drop of water and once again fool the sheeple.

FD
09-17-2010, 02:01 PM
So your argument is that we should appeal to unemployment numbers in the wider economy for the results of the stimulus.

That does your argument no good.

I disagree. When doing counterfactual analysis, almost all economists agree the unemployment rate would be significantly higher without ARRA.

donkhater
09-17-2010, 02:29 PM
Well, I was and still am a supporter of the Stimulus. But yeah, those are dismal numbers. On average, several reports from IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s, and also the CBO, showed about 2.5 million jobs were saved total. There are going to be some districts/states/cities that are using the money more productively in terms of job growth. I wouldn't condemn or praise the total project based on one place alone.

So $800 billion/2.5 million jobs = $320,000/job created or saved

Yeah, that's much better. Good job big brother!!!!:thumb:

Stewie
09-17-2010, 02:41 PM
I disagree. When doing counterfactual analysis, almost all economists agree the unemployment rate would be significantly higher without ARRA.

The high unemployment numbers are there in black and white. You just have to pay attention. Listening, or worse yet, using the headline numbers will only set you back. They are there for the "feel good" crowd.

donkhater
09-17-2010, 02:45 PM
I disagree. When doing counterfactual analysis, almost all economists agree the unemployment rate would be significantly higher without ARRA.

You mean those same economists that the president and congressmen and senators who got us into this mess listen to for opinions?

Great.

mikey23545
09-17-2010, 02:54 PM
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of fiscal policy. The reason expansionary policy creates jobs is because in a time when aggregate demand is in shortfall the multiplier on ANY spending is high. The city of LA employed 55 more people, but the money that was spent by the programs went to employ more people who contract for the city, provide materials to those contractors, etc, who spent this additional money to employ more people, and so on. The idea is that because unemployment is so high and capacity utilization is so low that any additional spending will, by increasing aggregate demand, stimulate the economy.

Accountants and journalists look only at the direct effect, not the larger effects like economists do.

ROFL

You and Orange need to move in together...LMAO

FD
09-17-2010, 03:09 PM
You mean those same economists that the president and congressmen and senators who got us into this mess listen to for opinions?

Great.

You think politicians listen to economists?!??