Good morning.. anyone know how to debunk the "stimulus costs per job" bogus claim

[secondwind]

that has surfaced again?

I would appreciate it.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Let me try:

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

OK, over ten years that's only $27,800 per job per year, for work that needs to be done.

Even over two years at $139,000 per job per year, for high skilled labor with benefits, that's about right for a steelworker.

These jobs all add infrastructure or value to our country and our economy and, interestingly enough, make it possible for asshole rich businessmen to make more money at no cost to themselves unless they pay a fair share of taxes (but they often don't).

How's that?

Put differently, the claim that "they could have just cut a check for $100,000 to each person" just doesn't make sense because we are getting value from the jobs, we aren't just paying people to do nothing.

Stupid and specious argument, is what it is.

[ArizonaLib]

2. I just joined the DU this week, but I have a suggestion

Next time someone gives you this $100,000 per job BS, ask them the following:

"Did the for-profit, privately owned company that received the $100,000 per new employee pay that employee $100,000?"

"So what did that for-profit, privately owned company do with the rest of that money? Profit? New equipment/infrastructure?"

New equipment/infrastructure creates new manufacturing/construction jobs and profit for other for-profit, private companies. The new employee, being hired during a recessed economy is most likely behind in bills, transportation (needs new car/bike, repairs, etc.), other living costs, needs work clothes for new job, including possibly tools, etc.

No conservative will have an intelligent response to this, otherwise they would not be conservatives, or idiots, or both.

Yesterday Neil Bortz or Rush Limbaugh was going nuts that liberals are now referring to 'spending' as 'investing'. He didn't even have a counter argument or anything - he was just bitching, while explaining how people generally, when they have money in pocket, like to 'invest' but don't like to 'spend'.

So I recommend driving the conservatives crazy by using words like 'investing', except when referring to tax cuts for the rich, which is always 'spending'.

[westerebus]

4. Hi. Welcome to DU.

[Mojorabbit]

3. politifact has this on it

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/20/david-dewhurst/david-dewhurst-says-presidents-economists-say-stim/