What is a saved job?

[Polk]

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.

This.

 

[Polk]

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.

1. Dealerships would have been closed down as part of any bankruptcy process.
2. The reason Ford is making huge profits is the same reason they didn't need to borrow money from the government in the first place: they make products more in line with consumer desires.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

1. Dealerships would have been closed down as part of any bankruptcy process.
2. The reason Ford is making huge profits is the same reason they didn't need to borrow money from the government in the first place: they make products more in line with consumer desires.

Dealerships are/were not owned by GM or Chrysler. A bankruptcy should have had no effect on dealerships. Dealerships pay for everything they get from the manufacturer. Reducing your points of sale means fewer opportunities for most products.

Ford is making SALES (profits are a different animal all together) because they didn't shut down plants for two months. They have the supply. They also weren't forced to cut out makes.

 

[Polk]

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.

1. Dealerships would have been closed down as part of any bankruptcy process.
2. The reason Ford is making huge profits is the same reason they didn't need to borrow money from the government in the first place: they make products more in line with consumer desires.

Dealerships are/were not owned by GM or Chrysler. A bankruptcy should have had no effect on dealerships. Dealerships pay for everything they get from the manufacturer. Reducing your points of sale means fewer opportunities for most products.

Ford is making SALES (profits are a different animal all together) because they didn't shut down plants for two months. They have the supply. They also weren't forced to cut out makes.

The dealerships aren't owned by the company, but they depend on them for their supply. That's what happened here. Their contracts were not renewed.

Ford also makes cars people want to buy. They realized much earlier than the other makers that big trucks and SUVs were not going to remain the growth market forever.

 

[saveliberty]

1. Dealerships would have been closed down as part of any bankruptcy process.
2. The reason Ford is making huge profits is the same reason they didn't need to borrow money from the government in the first place: they make products more in line with consumer desires.

Dealerships are/were not owned by GM or Chrysler. A bankruptcy should have had no effect on dealerships. Dealerships pay for everything they get from the manufacturer. Reducing your points of sale means fewer opportunities for most products.

Ford is making SALES (profits are a different animal all together) because they didn't shut down plants for two months. They have the supply. They also weren't forced to cut out makes.

The dealerships aren't owned by the company, but they depend on them for their supply. That's what happened here. Their contracts were not renewed.

Ford also makes cars people want to buy. They realized much earlier than the other makers that big trucks and SUVs were not going to remain the growth market forever.

Big trucks and SUVs have not been a growth market for some time now. They have remained the profit center however. Small cars equal low to no profit. Volume means nothing and that was my point earlier. Cutting dealers did not save money for the manufacturers. It was necessary to show shared pain which the government wanted.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

That seems to be where we're differing. I do not think it is possible to permanently save a job, any more than its possible to permanently save a life. A doctor can save you from a heart attack only for swine flu to kill you later.

Some jobs will probably be "permanently" saved by the stimulus at my institution, but the math on that is fuzzier.

For example: Lets say a random University was facing a budget short fall of 20 million dollars, of which 16 million was eventually covered by the stimulus. If the University is organized and responsible, they know now to start planning for that 16 million to dry up in 2 years. They now have time to lower operation costs, raise tuition, increase enrollment, and pursue donations from their alumni as well as other sources of funding.

That 2 years of time may not allow the University to cover the whole 16 million in stimulus funds they'll lose, but it might allow them to cover a very large chunk of it and save jobs that otherwise would have been lost if the original stimulus money was not there.

In that scenario, saying exactly how many jobs are saved by the stimulus may not be possible at all as we're talking about an event still 18 to 24 months out. I'd maintain that under your definition, the stimulus will probably save jobs but we'll have to reject the first axiom in that I have no idea how to measure those jobs right now.

 

[immto]

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.

That seems to be where we're differing. I do not think it is possible to permanently save a job, any more than its possible to permanently save a life. A doctor can save you from a heart attack only for swine flu to kill you later.

Some jobs will probably be "permanently" saved by the stimulus at my institution, but the math on that is fuzzier.

For example: Lets say a random University was facing a budget short fall of 20 million dollars, of which 16 million was eventually covered by the stimulus. If the University is organized and responsible, they know now to start planning for that 16 million to dry up in 2 years. They now have time to lower operation costs, raise tuition, increase enrollment, and pursue donations from their alumni as well as other sources of funding.

That 2 years of time may not allow the University to cover the whole 16 million in stimulus funds they'll lose, but it might allow them to cover a very large chunk of it and save jobs that otherwise would have been lost if the original stimulus money was not there.

In that scenario, saying exactly how many jobs are saved by the stimulus may not be possible at all as we're talking about an event still 18 to 24 months out. I'd maintain that under your definition, the stimulus will probably save jobs but we'll have to reject the first axiom in that I have no idea how to measure those jobs right now.

Correct, you have no idea how to measure those jobs right now, neither does Obama or anyone for that matter. That's the point.

As for the permanently saved job, I never suggested that there needs to concrete proof of that, just evidenace to show that the job will survive after the stimulus runs out. As you pointed out in your example, the university needs to make cuts in order to be in line with their budget once the stimulus runs out. Whether or not those changes or cuts are made should be a huge consideration in whether or not the jobs are counted as saved.

That said it was much to early for Obama or anyone to be claiming saved jobs.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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?

I guess it does. Unfortunately most of the people out there who are big government proponents think it's OK for the Government to take over private industry and prop up the Wall Street bankers and corporations with my tax dollars. I happen to think that this is the WRONG way to go.

 

[jreeves]

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.

The Obama administration is sure to write a few more economic terms, such as explosive inflation. So your telling me in the history of the US, a job has never been saved or could it be that economists know it is impossible to calculate a saved job. For example, for one saved job, you may have deleted 4 other jobs in the process.

 

[Charles Stucker]

What is a saved job? How does one tell if a job is saved?

A seat in congress or the senate is a saved job.
One can tell if the job was saved by whether they get re-elected.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I have never heard the term jobs created or saved before until the current Presidential Administration

Which must mean that you're like what? 16 years old?

Very common term - for decades at least. I remember it used in the 70s

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I have never heard the term jobs created or saved before until the current Presidential Administration

Which must mean that you're like what? 16 years old?

Very common term - for decades at least. I remember it used in the 70s

I know I've heard the term "Jobs Created" for at least 10 years. Clinton and Bush tossed that sucker around.

"Jobs Saved" isn't a new term either. State governors routinely toss that around when they negotiate to keep a factory or army base in state or when they're able to replace a lost factory with a new industry.

If you've never heard that term, you just haven't been paying attention.

 

[immto]

I have never heard the term jobs created or saved before until the current Presidential Administration

Which must mean that you're like what? 16 years old?

Very common term - for decades at least. I remember it used in the 70s

I'm not 16, I'm 32 and you're the first person who has challenged me on it's use dating back BO (Before Obama). If It had been used as a regular economic indicator I think others would have pointed that out by now. I know I'm not mature enough to call myself wise but I'm not a wipper snapper either....

The fact that so many people here and everywhere are having a had time explaining it and defining it, justifying it or excusing it is an idication in itself that it's a fairly new idea. If it was used before it surely did not catch on, for obvious reasons. You said the 70's,,, hhmmm I wonder who was president in the 70's that might have tried to pull such a ridiculous trick as fabricating an indicator such as saved jobs? Hmm you got me on that one

Of wait Jimmy Carter, yeah I could see him doing that...

If he did it still didn't stick, and if he did and Obama is pulling that one out of Jimmy's Hat, Then it's all the more sad.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I can remember the term being used during the Nixon administration ...
and I don't think they were talking about a job that has been introduced to Jesus Christ.

 

[immto]

I have never heard the term jobs created or saved before until the current Presidential Administration

Which must mean that you're like what? 16 years old?

Very common term - for decades at least. I remember it used in the 70s

I know I've heard the term "Jobs Created" for at least 10 years. Clinton and Bush tossed that sucker around.

"Jobs Saved" isn't a new term either. State governors routinely toss that around when they negotiate to keep a factory or army base in state or when they're able to replace a lost factory with a new industry.

If you've never heard that term, you just haven't been paying attention.

Sure politicians talk about saved jobs but it's never been used in the way Obama is using it, like it's some kind of indicator that the stimulus is working. A number that cannot be calculated in any way shape or form, or at least a number that there is no pre-defined way aggreed upon to do so. That is not the same thing as a Governor or even a President talking about saving jobs at a factory or an army base, where there is localized set number of folks who's jobs need to be saved.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Sure politicians talk about saved jobs but it's never been used in the way Obama is using it,

That's exactly how Nixon and subsequent presidents/politicians used it.

 

[saveliberty]

Sure politicians talk about saved jobs but it's never been used in the way Obama is using it,

That's exactly how Nixon and subsequent presidents/politicians used it.

No it is not. There is no government economic definition for a "saved" job. It is a fabrication of Obama.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Sure politicians talk about saved jobs but it's never been used in the way Obama is using it,

That's exactly how Nixon and subsequent presidents/politicians used it.

No it is not. There is no government economic definition for a "saved" job. It is a fabrication of Obama.

Yes, that is exactly how Nixon and subsequent presidents have used the term.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's a Hopey Changey Farce. Just another Hopey Changey Scam in the end.

 

[DiveCon]

That's exactly how Nixon and subsequent presidents/politicians used it.

No it is not. There is no government economic definition for a "saved" job. It is a fabrication of Obama.

Yes, that is exactly how Nixon and subsequent presidents have used the term.

you have a link that shows Nixon using the term "saved jobs"?