What is a saved job?

Perhaps we should ask the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate "saved jobs"?

The BLS has many, many statistics, but "saved jobs" is not one of them.
 
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.

How many were saved by the stimulus? Oh, you mean you have no way of knowing that?

At my particular institution, we can give a pretty accurate assessment.

Company by company, school by school, police department by police department you can give a fairly accurate number. The problem is that many of these institutions are not making those numbers public. Those numbers do not seem to be forming the basis of Obama's calculation either.
 
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.

It saves those jobs for at least two years. If economic conditions change at the end of two years, those jobs are likely to remain.

The jobs saved by the stimulus aren't permanently saved, but they have a greater shot at surviving, similar to how a doctor saves patients in the short term.

EDIT: I'd add, that unless you intend to fully fund in perpetuity a job, there is no way to permanently save it.
 
Last edited:
within a margin of error it would

The same could be said for an estimate of saved jobs.

i have yet to see anyone even quantify a "saved job"
let alone have an effective means to calculate the number

Quantify isn't the word you're looking for (because it would make your statement redundant). Calculation is difficult, I freely admit, but it's not impossible. One could take a look at where stimulus money went, look at how many people are working there, and then compare that the number that would have been working their without stimulus. In a sense, it's not really different from the method of determining "jobs created".
 
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.

How many were saved by the stimulus? Oh, you mean you have no way of knowing that?

At my particular institution, we can give a pretty accurate assessment.

Company by company, school by school, police department by police department you can give a fairly accurate number. The problem is that many of these institutions are not making those numbers public. Those numbers do not seem to be forming the basis of Obama's calculation either.

So you're saying these statistics your institution came up show that those jobs are now safe, with no future improvement or expansion required? they will be safe for years and years to come no question?
 
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.

It saves those jobs for at least two years. If economic conditions change at the end of two years, those jobs are likely to remain.

The jobs saved by the stimulus aren't permanently saved, but they have a greater shot at surviving, similar to how a doctor saves patients in the short term.

EDIT: I'd add, that unless you intend to fully fund in perpetuity a job, there is no way to permanently save it.

And things will be ok if, if, and if....
 
last reported unemployment rate was 10.2%

immto
GDP is growing???!!! Are you kidding me? Let me clue you in on something.....
WHEN THE DOLLARS FALLS IN VALUE LIKE A ROCK GDP MONETARY VALUE RISES BASED ON CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES AROUND THE WORLD.

Let me ask you a question.....How can GDP rise when unemployment continues to rise? No one's making shit, no one's buying shit...how the hell does GDP rise???!!!

Look America...you all need to quit falling for this BARRYBULLSHIT!!!!!!! What the f*ck is wrong with you people!!!!!

Look it was 12:30AM when I wrote that so I'm not sure I know I meant to say GDP. I think I might have meant the DJ was rising, which would have been an idication that this recovery, if you want to call it that (being a jobless recovery) is BS.

On a side note GDP has risen and overall continues to rise which is a whole other issue. 2009 3rd quarter was higher than 2nd quarter. 4th quarter might be higher yet (although it may drop) which alongside this level of unemployment is casuing havoc on our overall economy. The GDP quartly has been flat and in a slight dip since it's overall high in 2nd quarter 2008 but year to year it has been rising.

That said, you are right about us the U.S. not making shit, you're wrong however about us not buying shit. Us the U.S. buying shit is what's keeping our GDP and our economy rising. This is why we are in such a perdiciment. Our economy is based on our ability to keep buying shit. If we STOP buying shit we are in real trouble. If we don't have jobs, we will not be able to keep buying shit.

That is the symptom of our country NOT making shit and our businesses will continue to NOT make shit if there is no incentive to do so. U.S. companies will continue to move jobs outside of the U.S. as long as taxes and fee's stay high and or continue to rise.

what are your reffering to, BARRYBULLSHIT???!!! Not knowing what you mean I can't say what our problem is, but I think our problem is that we're tired of having our country torn apart and our Liberty erased but this new socialist mentality that seems to be taking over.

Look. What you have failed to address is the slide of the dollar into a third world currency status. All the while this GDP you are refering to rising each quarter coincides with the decline in the dollars value on the world's currency exchanges.

If you don't have a job how do you buy stuff? You can't be that naive. What is funding GDP growth is the bubble in the stock market funded by TARP and the Stimulus. American production has remained the same but right now inventories are being replaced. No one is buying a damn thing and consumer confidence continues to go DOWN. Check your facts.

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had declined in September, deteriorated further in October. The Index now stands at 47.7 (1985=100), down from 53.4 in September. The Present Situation Index decreased to 20.7 from 23.0 last month. The Expectations Index declined to 65.7 from 73.7 in September.

Consumer Confidence Index - The Conference Board
 
I don't know what a "saved" job is--other than probably a government job.

In fact, most of us are still trying to count the saved or created "votes" from last Tuesday's elections in Virginia & New Jersey--LOL.
 
I believe it got as high as 7%

7.6% when he left office. It was 4.2% when he took office.

So that means Bush had an increase of 3.4% in eight years and Obama has had an increase of 2.6% in the last 18 months. Do you believe this some how proves your point?

First, I'm not a Bush Fan so I'm not sure why you even brought that to my attention, I never held Bush on some pedestal of how a great conservative runs things. I know allot of what we have right now is his fault but no where near the bulk of it. I think he did make mistakes but let's not forget he was directed into much of it and the bail out process that he started was heavily pushed by Obama himself. President elect Obama met with Bush to push the idea. So Bush had 2 choices, Now or Later.

Just curious what was the unemployment rates before TARP? Do you think maybe that massive government spending helped dry up capital in the private sector?
 
7.6% when he left office. It was 4.2% when he took office.

So that means Bush had an increase of 3.4% in eight years and Obama has had an increase of 2.6% in the last 18 months. Do you believe this some how proves your point?

First, I'm not a Bush Fan so I'm not sure why you even brought that to my attention, I never held Bush on some pedestal of how a great conservative runs things. I know allot of what we have right now is his fault but no where near the bulk of it. I think he did make mistakes but let's not forget he was directed into much of it and the bail out process that he started was heavily pushed by Obama himself. President elect Obama met with Bush to push the idea. So Bush had 2 choices, Now or Later.

Just curious what was the unemployment rates before TARP? Do you think maybe that massive government spending helped dry up capital in the private sector?

Of course it did...why should the private sector risk their money when TARP was being handed out?

The unemployment rate was 6% before TARP.

Also one has to remember that TARP was designed for only one purpose. To buy or back up the most toxic of the derivatives that were in the financial sector.
 
Hmm...a project to figure the grains of sand for 12 year olds....


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/media/lrk_sand.pdf


Now show everyone a link to an economic textbook that refers to "jobs saved"?

And you really think that number of the grains of sand would be accurate?
There is actually a math processes behind figuring the number of grains, what processes does the figuring of saved jobs use?

Its really fairly simple.

Determine how may jobs would have been lost had the Stimulus money not been delievered to the States.

How do you determie that?

Rather simple...ask the state goverments since they all had plans to cut services to balance their budgets.
 
And you really think that number of the grains of sand would be accurate?
There is actually a math processes behind figuring the number of grains, what processes does the figuring of saved jobs use?

Its really fairly simple.

Determine how may jobs would have been lost had the Stimulus money not been delievered to the States.

How do you determie that?

Rather simple...ask the state goverments since they all had plans to cut services to balance their budgets.

And then use fake numbers, greater than the actual number of jobs you even have, make Obama look like a god, and he will ensure that tax dollars are sent your way in some underhanded payback....

You had to finish the whole leftist plan, there edit
 
Ed Randell claimed this weekend that hiring private contractors counts as creating or saving jobs.

So is each contract a new job saved or created or does it only count once a year?

I can see hiring the same guys several times and making it count numerous times....kind of like the way Democrats vote.
 
And things will be ok if, if, and if....

Seems we've fallen into a classic blunder. If you want to have a reasoned debate about "saved jobs", then we'll need to define our terms before we start, or failing that identify the undefined terms and establish axioms that identify the properties of such terms. Following that, there should be some axioms outlining assumptions we can both agree on.

I entered this debate with the following assumptions:

Definition: A job is saved by the stimulus if and only if the job satisfies the following two conditions:
a. The job existed prior to passing the stimulus.
b. The job would have otherwise been eliminated without stimulus funding.

Aside: I do not consider private contractors hired post stimulus as saved jobs. Also, I do not require that the job is "saved" in some sort of permanent capacity, as that is impossible without a long term endowment.

Axioms (or assumptions used without proof):

1. There exists at least one method to determine if a job is saved by the stimulus.


That's it. For the record I do not think that Obama's method is leading to the correct number. I think that if you wanted an exact number, it would require an enormous amount of effort. Some institutions that received stimulus funds can probably provided an exact figure (Ours can), but some likely can not. Most that do have an exact figure are not making that figure public for varied reasons.

If you want to start again at the top, we can use those terms or debate the validity of those terms and axioms.
 
Course there's the GM and Chrysler takeover.

Thousands of saved jobs........except for the dealerships Obama closed down. Those don't count.

But the only American car company that didn't take TARP funds is recording huge profits.

They're currently beating the pants off of Government Motors and Chysisler.
 
immto
GDP is growing???!!! Are you kidding me? Let me clue you in on something.....
WHEN THE DOLLARS FALLS IN VALUE LIKE A ROCK GDP MONETARY VALUE RISES BASED ON CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES AROUND THE WORLD.

Let me ask you a question.....How can GDP rise when unemployment continues to rise? No one's making shit, no one's buying shit...how the hell does GDP rise???!!!

Look America...you all need to quit falling for this BARRYBULLSHIT!!!!!!! What the f*ck is wrong with you people!!!!!

Look it was 12:30AM when I wrote that so I'm not sure I know I meant to say GDP. I think I might have meant the DJ was rising, which would have been an idication that this recovery, if you want to call it that (being a jobless recovery) is BS.

On a side note GDP has risen and overall continues to rise which is a whole other issue. 2009 3rd quarter was higher than 2nd quarter. 4th quarter might be higher yet (although it may drop) which alongside this level of unemployment is casuing havoc on our overall economy. The GDP quartly has been flat and in a slight dip since it's overall high in 2nd quarter 2008 but year to year it has been rising.

That said, you are right about us the U.S. not making shit, you're wrong however about us not buying shit. Us the U.S. buying shit is what's keeping our GDP and our economy rising. This is why we are in such a perdiciment. Our economy is based on our ability to keep buying shit. If we STOP buying shit we are in real trouble. If we don't have jobs, we will not be able to keep buying shit.

That is the symptom of our country NOT making shit and our businesses will continue to NOT make shit if there is no incentive to do so. U.S. companies will continue to move jobs outside of the U.S. as long as taxes and fee's stay high and or continue to rise.

what are your reffering to, BARRYBULLSHIT???!!! Not knowing what you mean I can't say what our problem is, but I think our problem is that we're tired of having our country torn apart and our Liberty erased but this new socialist mentality that seems to be taking over.

Look. What you have failed to address is the slide of the dollar into a third world currency status. All the while this GDP you are refering to rising each quarter coincides with the decline in the dollars value on the world's currency exchanges.

If you don't have a job how do you buy stuff? You can't be that naive. What is funding GDP growth is the bubble in the stock market funded by TARP and the Stimulus. American production has remained the same but right now inventories are being replaced. No one is buying a damn thing and consumer confidence continues to go DOWN. Check your facts.

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had declined in September, deteriorated further in October. The Index now stands at 47.7 (1985=100), down from 53.4 in September. The Present Situation Index decreased to 20.7 from 23.0 last month. The Expectations Index declined to 65.7 from 73.7 in September.

Consumer Confidence Index - The Conference Board

I see your point but the GDP so it sounds like your saying the stimulus is doing nothing more than artificial puffing up the economy. Does that not mean we aggree?
 
And things will be ok if, if, and if....

Seems we've fallen into a classic blunder. If you want to have a reasoned debate about "saved jobs", then we'll need to define our terms before we start, or failing that identify the undefined terms and establish axioms that identify the properties of such terms. Following that, there should be some axioms outlining assumptions we can both agree on.

I entered this debate with the following assumptions:

Definition: A job is saved by the stimulus if and only if the job satisfies the following two conditions:
a. The job existed prior to passing the stimulus.
b. The job would have otherwise been eliminated without stimulus funding.

Aside: I do not consider private contractors hired post stimulus as saved jobs. Also, I do not require that the job is "saved" in some sort of permanent capacity, as that is impossible without a long term endowment.

Axioms (or assumptions used without proof):

1. There exists at least one method to determine if a job is saved by the stimulus.


That's it. For the record I do not think that Obama's method is leading to the correct number. I think that if you wanted an exact number, it would require an enormous amount of effort. Some institutions that received stimulus funds can probably provided an exact figure (Ours can), but some likely can not. Most that do have an exact figure are not making that figure public for varied reasons.

If you want to start again at the top, we can use those terms or debate the validity of those terms and axioms.

Your point is sound but I would add to your parameters evidance that the job can succedd on it's own when the stimulus runs out. Without that the job is not truely SAVED.
 
within a margin of error it would

The same could be said for an estimate of saved jobs.

Except there is no process that can be shown from an economic textbook (or do you care to show one)....
There is a process to show the number of the grains of sand.

I wasn't aware textbooks were the end-all, be-all of existence. Looking at any economic textbook published before the 1970s and you won't see any references to stagflation. The 1970s show that was surely possible even though it wasn't by the book.
 

Forum List

Back
Top