What is a saved job?

I wonder if the lefties would have called foul on Obama if he "estaimated" to have "saved or created" five million jobs.
 
What is a saved job? How does one tell if a job is saved?

At the end of the academic year at my institution, multiple people were told that thanks to a lack of support from the state jobs would be terminated. In particular, their jobs. Our institution applied for, and received, stimulus money. Not every job put on the line was saved, but many all over campus were.

Those are saved jobs. If you want to track saved jobs, follow the money and look at the payrolls. How short was the company or institution prior to stimulus money, and how many jobs would have had to be terminated in order to cover that shortage.

Yes, the stimulus saved jobs.

That sounds like your state could not afford it. That means your school was bailed out. In the real world when you can't afford it you don't get it. In my opinion those jobs are not saved, the layoff were simply postponed. The Obama money is going to dry up at some point and if your school still can't afford it the jobs are going to go away.
 
Question: What is a saved job?

A job that was shipped overseas. How do you like our labor market, Japan?
 
A saved job?

Easy.

Had the States not gotten additional help from the FEDS they'd be firing even more people then they are right now.

So those people they did not have to fire (like teachers, cops and so forth) still have jobs thanks to the bailout.

The bailout isn't a success, but it's not entirely a failure either.

And proof that easy is often not correct.

As David Gregory demanded of the White House representative on the Sunday morning show, show me the concept of saved jobs, or the ability to calculate same in any Economics text.

The term doesn't have an economic meaning, but it does have a plain language meaning. If a job still exists due to stimulus which otherwise would have been eliminated, it's a "saved job". Admittedly, there is no way to really compute that, but conceptually it makes sense.
 
Since no metric exist by which one can prove that the stimulus saved any jobs, And since it passed another few million people lost their jobs the notion that it created any jobs is also spurious if one looks at total numbers.

If a business was anticipating layoffs because of less future business and in the meantime got a federally funded contract that required retaining those employees, those would be saved jobs. So yes there are metrics to measure and prove that the stimulus saved certain jobs.

I disagree with this approach. For example:
"If you want this government contract, I want you to certify that it saves ____ jobs. yes or no, do you want the job?"

The standard metrics of unemployment rate, tax revenue, new unemployment claims, and non-farm payroll are all the statistics that matter. "jobs saved" means NOTHING.

It means something to the guy who would have been otherwise unemployed.
 
If a business was anticipating layoffs because of less future business and in the meantime got a federally funded contract that required retaining those employees, those would be saved jobs. So yes there are metrics to measure and prove that the stimulus saved certain jobs.

I disagree with this approach. For example:
"If you want this government contract, I want you to certify that it saves ____ jobs. yes or no, do you want the job?"

The standard metrics of unemployment rate, tax revenue, new unemployment claims, and non-farm payroll are all the statistics that matter. "jobs saved" means NOTHING.

It means something to the guy who would have been otherwise unemployed.

Must be several hundred thousand of those....:eusa_liar:
 
A saved job?

Easy.

Had the States not gotten additional help from the FEDS they'd be firing even more people then they are right now.

So those people they did not have to fire (like teachers, cops and so forth) still have jobs thanks to the bailout.

The bailout isn't a success, but it's not entirely a failure either.

And proof that easy is often not correct.

As David Gregory demanded of the White House representative on the Sunday morning show, show me the concept of saved jobs, or the ability to calculate same in any Economics text.

The term doesn't have an economic meaning, but it does have a plain language meaning. If a job still exists due to stimulus which otherwise would have been eliminated, it's a "saved job". Admittedly, there is no way to really compute that, but conceptually it makes sense.

So where is this administration getting their "jobs saved" numbers from, their ass?
 
If a business was anticipating layoffs because of less future business and in the meantime got a federally funded contract that required retaining those employees, those would be saved jobs. So yes there are metrics to measure and prove that the stimulus saved certain jobs.

I disagree with this approach. For example:
"If you want this government contract, I want you to certify that it saves ____ jobs. yes or no, do you want the job?"

The standard metrics of unemployment rate, tax revenue, new unemployment claims, and non-farm payroll are all the statistics that matter. "jobs saved" means NOTHING.

It means something to the guy who would have been otherwise unemployed.

Yeah, the guy you mention represents over 10 percent of the population, thanks to Obama.
 
A saved job?

Easy.

Had the States not gotten additional help from the FEDS they'd be firing even more people then they are right now.

So those people they did not have to fire (like teachers, cops and so forth) still have jobs thanks to the bailout.

The bailout isn't a success, but it's not entirely a failure either.

And proof that easy is often not correct.

As David Gregory demanded of the White House representative on the Sunday morning show, show me the concept of saved jobs, or the ability to calculate same in any Economics text.

The term doesn't have an economic meaning, but it does have a plain language meaning. If a job still exists due to stimulus which otherwise would have been eliminated, it's a "saved job". Admittedly, there is no way to really compute that, but conceptually it makes sense.

In reality it probably does. If you can't compute it, it's not real! As I've tried to explain to others, if those jobs were saved due to bail out cash, what happens when that runs out. They still loose their jobs in the end so the jobs are not really saved, the pain is being put on hold.
 
And proof that easy is often not correct.

As David Gregory demanded of the White House representative on the Sunday morning show, show me the concept of saved jobs, or the ability to calculate same in any Economics text.

The term doesn't have an economic meaning, but it does have a plain language meaning. If a job still exists due to stimulus which otherwise would have been eliminated, it's a "saved job". Admittedly, there is no way to really compute that, but conceptually it makes sense.

In reality it probably does. If you can't compute it, it's not real! As I've tried to explain to others, if those jobs were saved due to bail out cash, what happens when that runs out. They still loose their jobs in the end so the jobs are not really saved, the pain is being put on hold.

If you can't compute it with 100% accuracy, it's not real? That's your argument. I guess the sand on the beach isn't real either, since you calculate the exact number of grains.
 
The term doesn't have an economic meaning, but it does have a plain language meaning. If a job still exists due to stimulus which otherwise would have been eliminated, it's a "saved job". Admittedly, there is no way to really compute that, but conceptually it makes sense.

In reality it probably does. If you can't compute it, it's not real! As I've tried to explain to others, if those jobs were saved due to bail out cash, what happens when that runs out. They still loose their jobs in the end so the jobs are not really saved, the pain is being put on hold.

If you can't compute it with 100% accuracy, it's not real? That's your argument. I guess the sand on the beach isn't real either, since you calculate the exact number of grains.

Just pretend it was Bush saying that he "saved" jobs using fuzzy math instead of Obama.
 
I have never heard the term jobs created or saved before until the current Presidential Administration of Barak "ManChild" Obama. (I love Rush) What is a saved job? How does one tell if a job is saved? We are told all the time how many jobs are lost and how many jobs are created and that makes sense to some degree if you believe that the data source is legitimate. I however am always a little skeptical when I hear brand new statistics being reported.

Let's look at baseball. When I was a kid I never, never even considered how many pitches a guys threw. I had a vague idea that a pitcher would throw a hundred and some odd pitches if he threw the whole game but no one cared. Then came pitch count and every manager some how now knows that 100 pitches seems to be the cap. We can look back into history and find many examples of pitchers who threw allot more than 100 pitches and lot more often than today's guys. But someone decided to count pitches and now we have a whole new philosophy based on pitch count. At least in baseball you have a count, a clear concise number easily found and confirmed by anyone who cares to look. No disputes, no scandal just another number to go into the history books.

Now politics unlike baseball is much more complicated so many times there is no clear concise number to go to for proof. This makes it all the more difficult when someone comes up with a whole new statistic. Even more maddening is that no one is asking the question. What is a saved job? How is it calculated? How do you know it's SAVED? Is it safe forever, another year, another few weeks? But no, President Obama's administration is telling us the jobs are created or saved and we are to applaud them for it, were it not for their quick action 640,000 more people might be unemployed.

What do the numbers mean? The numbers change from month to month so I'm going to round down to the nearest million. But there are about 12 million people unemployed right now. The unemployment rate is just below 10%. The government reports about 5 to 6 million people are collecting Unemployment payments. This means roughly 7 million are not, but for the sake of argument let's look at just the folks who are collecting benefits. 640K is 10% of 6 Million so for all the hard work and tax dollars spent, Obama has managed to make a 10% dent in overall unemployment or a 1% dent in the unemployment rate. If you look at the whole picture it's more like 4% The Stimulus was $787 Billion so to bring unemployment back to a 4% margin we would need to eliminate another 6%. That would only cost $4.7 Trillion to help ALL the unemployed or a meager $1.5 Trillion is we only care about the folks who are collecting benefits.

Let's come back to reality for a minute and only look at what has actually been done. The 640,000 jobs saved or created is a White House number, they gave it and are happy about it. They want us all to be excited about 640,000 jobs.

Yay Obama your our man if you can't do it no one can, GOOOOOO Obama!!!

Now many crazy right wing extremists don't believe the 640K is real but again for arguments sake I'm going to front them a modest 640,000 jobs. The White House claims only $340 Billion of the 787 has been committed so far and half of that went for small business loans. (My right wing extremist friends and I don't believe that either but oh well) That means by using their numbers $170 Billion created or saved the 640,000 jobs.

Do you see where I'm going with this???

Yes, you and I and all of our fellow U.S. Citizens. Tax payers and welfare leeches alike have allowed the Government to spend $265,625.00 per job saved or created. Yup! Kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't it? Just think how big of an impact it would have on the country if instead of creating or saving those jobs Obama would have said, "if you lose your job we will pay your living expenses for 2 to 4 years and pay your tuition for a trade school or local college so you can learn new skills for a better job. With an allowance of $30,000 per year for rent/mortgage and food and $12,000 per year for tuition. 640,000 people would only have cost us $168,000 each.

If we did that for ALL of the unemployed people in the U.S. right now, it would cost a smidge over $1 Trillion dollars. I'm not saying I support this idea but just consider for a little more than the Stimulus bill each person who lost their job could have instead of collecting a few hundred dollars a week for a few months could have received an education or training for 4 years.

"Jobs saved" is imaginary and unvarifiable.

But notice how they lump in "created" with it. That allows them to say they accomplished something.

So what it really is the number of imaginary jobs the Obama Administration thinks would sound impressive.
 
In reality it probably does. If you can't compute it, it's not real! As I've tried to explain to others, if those jobs were saved due to bail out cash, what happens when that runs out. They still loose their jobs in the end so the jobs are not really saved, the pain is being put on hold.

If you can't compute it with 100% accuracy, it's not real? That's your argument. I guess the sand on the beach isn't real either, since you calculate the exact number of grains.

Just pretend it was Bush saying that he "saved" jobs using fuzzy math instead of Obama.

I'd say the same thing I say now: it's true to an extent, but impossible to accurately count.
 
The stimulus has saved millions of jobs.

No question.

From the housing industry to the automotive industry to the contruction industy, the stimulus has done a good job of saving the economy.

I saved more jobs than the stimulus, prove me wrong........
 
If you can't compute it with 100% accuracy, it's not real? That's your argument. I guess the sand on the beach isn't real either, since you calculate the exact number of grains.

Just pretend it was Bush saying that he "saved" jobs using fuzzy math instead of Obama.

I'd say the same thing I say now: it's true to an extent, but impossible to accurately count.

No, it is not true to any extent that matters. It is complete bullshit and anyone with a functioning brain knows it. Obama is claiming that he can count the uncountable, we all know he can't. It is an indefensible LIE.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top