Here are some good ones. I suspect that the socialists will have a response to this one, though:
President-elect Obama claims that spending approximately $800 billion will create 3.675 million new jobs. That comes to $217,000 per job. This doesn’t sound like a very good value, especially with the national average salary around $40,000. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just mail each of these workers a $40,000 check?
The response will be that the jobs will last more than a year. But of course, they’d have to last at least five years to be equivalent.
Maybe they’re really, really good jobs.
I want one where I fill the holes in that the guy before me dug.
@Jay,
I’m reminded of a coworker several years ago who volunteered to let a peer become his boss long enough to raise his salary, whereupon they’d trade jobs, and he would reciprocate.
The difference is, my coworkers were joking…
If your only goal is to create jobs, all you have to do is outlaw machines like backhoes. One operator on a backhoe can do the work of 50 people digging a ditch by hand. Outlaw backhoes and you can create a lot of jobs. Absurd, isn’t it?
In an earlier statement, Obama claimed that 80% of the jobs would be in the private sector. That means 20% would be new government employees. That’s what, 735,000 new government burearcrats. Whoppee!
Larry when I was visiting my sister in Germany they were replacing a water main. The workers were using pick, shovel, and wheel barrow. My first thought was the job could be finished in few days with a backhoe, but then the workers would be unemployed. Doing it by hand you could retire when the job was done.
It wouldn’t even be $40,000 per worker. Since it’s coming from the taxpayers, the income should be non-taxable. So, you could make the payout more like $30,000 per worker. Even after state taxes etc., that’s $500/week free and clear.
Of course, the rest of us go bankrupt paying the taxes for this boondoggle. Then we ALL need a bailout.
That’s when the Chinese come in and take over, without firing a shot. I, for one, welcome our new ChiCom overlords. They can’t be any worse than the ones we’re getting.
It wouldn’t even be $40,000 per worker. Since it’s coming from the taxpayers, the income should be non-taxable.
Funny, when I was in the military, my income was taxed. A lot.
My first thought was the job could be finished in few days with a backhoe, but then the workers would be unemployed. Doing it by hand you could retire when the job was done.
I saw something similar when I visited Encinada, Mexico a couple months ago. We walked past a 3 story building that was being built. A worker straddling a beam on the second floor was pulling up bricks one at a time with a rope. At most construction sites I’ve seen here, you’d use machinery to move up construction materials. One conveyor belt could carry as many bricks in a day as many men with ropes but you’d have fewer jobs as a result.
That’s it – eliminate automation to create jobs! No more computers for accounting, let’s bring back book-keepers. No more industrial robots (who are unlikely to join unions and support Democrats) either.
The Highway bill of 2004 was sold as a job
creation measure by Hastert.
280 Billion
Politicians have been selling spending programs as “job creators” since t least the First New Deal.
Now folks, get it right, this is government math…
That’s $40k per worker and…
$167k per worker for the next few election cycles to swindle us all and make sure those lying, filthy, bastiges… the Republican’s that aren’t secretly democrats in reality, never get back into power.
Of course, that assumes that there is no nett economic value generated other than the salaries of the workers. But let’s not facts get in the way of a good rant eh?
For example, $X billion spent in Seattle replacing the waterfront viaduct with something that isn’t about to fall down and putting in a replacement for the almost sinking 520 bridge will have a large net effect on the local economy than the cost of putting them in.
I know this may seem like a crazy idea, but instead of taxing all businesses and individuals and giving the tax money to just a few businesses. How about cutting business taxes across the board, so that all companies benefit?
> For example, $X billion spent in Seattle replacing the waterfront viaduct with something that isn’t about to fall down and putting in a replacement for the almost sinking 520 bridge will have a large net effect on the local economy than the cost of putting them in.
We don’t know whether the net effect will be positive or negative. However, we do know that the locals, the folks who will receive the benefits, didn’t think that it was worth what it cost. How do we know that? They didn’t pay for it.
We don’t know whether the net effect will be positive or negation. However, we do know that the locals, the folks who will receive the benefits, didn’t think that it was worth what it cost. How do we know that? They didn’t pay for it.
Actually, that’s pretty meaningless thing to say. Not least of which because actually most of these were finally approved in the November elections (I didn’t get a vote, it’s a felony in Washington even for Green Card holders in local elections.)
People might not want to pay the cost of replacing the viaduct, but the cost of replacing it when it falls down during the next tremor or just in traffic (I have a Civil Engineer friend who hasn’t used it since she worked on it about 3 years ago) will be significantly more than dealing with the problem in a sensible and structured way.
Just because people don’t see the direct value to them of something, it doesn’t mean the value doesn’t exist. It just says a lot about how bad people actually are at working out what the value of things is.
“Just because people don’t see the direct value to them of something, it doesn’t mean the value doesn’t exist. It just says a lot about how bad people actually are at working out what the value of things is.”
That and the political decision makers respond
to this only when it’s finally a crisis.
The I-35W bridge in Minneapolis is a fine example,
the legislature kept cutting funds until it was being
redone at the point where it collapsed
during overhaul.
The USAF is flying F-15’s that are breaking up
in flight too.
> Actually, that’s pretty meaningless thing to say.
How is it meaningless? We don’t know that the benefits will exceed the costs. The folks receiving the benefits didn’t pay the costs and weren’t willing to do so.
All of that is both true and relevant.
> Just because people don’t see the direct value to them of something, it doesn’t mean the value doesn’t exist.
I didn’t say otherwise.
However, that doesn’t tell us which projects are actually valuable.
Moreover, much of that “don’t see the value” is due to acclimation, which has the side effect of allowing a lot of unprofitable spending.
When people are impacted by their failure to plan, they plan much better.