On Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 18:02:55 (-0400) Rudy Fichtenbaum writes: >...
Good sleuthing, just what I thought. >I was also taken a back by Mulligan's claim that the stimulus was just >too expensive. He claimed that it was about $250,000 per job. So I did a >little digging here as well. I found the estimates of the job creation >in the report at the CEA. The stimulus was to be spent over two years >and was estimated to raise real GDP from $11.77 trillion to $12.203 >trillion an increase $443 billion or an increase of 3.7%. Half the >stimulus money is $387.5 billion which created 443 billion. This >increase in GDP would suggest a multiplier of about 1.11 and according >to the CEA would lead to the creation of 3.674 million "new jobs." Maybe >I am thinking about this the wrong way but it seems to me that the cost >per job is the $387.5 billion (which is assumed to be a permanent >increase in spending) divided by the 3.674 million jobs which is about >$105,470 per job. Am I thinking about this correctly? Also: Does he suppose these jobs just disappear after one year? We get no local, state, federal income tax from them year after year? These jobs don't create goods and services year after year, adding to GDP? Bill _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
