A very illuminating story on “jobs saved.” I think the estimates and methodology reported here are not the same as the “one million jobs saved or created” discussed here. But the real importance of this story isn’t the inconsistency or the ludicrousness of claiming that exactly 12,374 jobs have been saved or created in Massachusetts. I quote this at length because it really shows the difference between stimulus in the textbooks and stimulus in the sausage factory. The former is a theoretical nicety that may or may not be true. The latter is about helping your friends under the cover of saving the economy.
The Boston Globe reports (HT: Drudge):
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.
The Globe’s finding is based on the federal government’s just-released accounts of stimulus spending at the end of October. It lists the nearly $4 billion in stimulus awards made to an array of Massachusetts government agencies, universities, hospitals, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations, and notes how many jobs each created or saved.
But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.
One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’ Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.
In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually – subsidies for affordable housing, for example – was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.
“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. “It’s hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this.’’
The federal stimulus report for Massachusetts has so many errors, missing data, or estimates instead of actual job counts that it may be impossible to accurately tally how many people have been employed by the massive infusion of federal money. Massachusetts is expected to receive an estimated $1 billion more in stimulus contracts, grants, and loans.
Share
{ 33 comments }
My favorite;
“”At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved.”
Wouldn’t that be 327 jobs lost?
The money went to existing employees rather than new ones.
Chris, you rock!
lets just assume that the 12,374 jobs is correct. $4,000,000,000 / 12,374 = $323,258 / job.
“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, ”
I think she just defined ‘stimulus’ for us all. It made me sick when Bush did it, but Obama is taking it to a new low.
All your comments on the jobs created/saved issue today got me to thinking….Didn’t the federal stimulus, at the very least, save the jobs of those government employees whose job it is to calculate the effect of a stimulus on jobs???
And they’re doing one hell of job, too!
I really think this blog hates on government too much. It’s really making muirdog mad.
Then let’s kick into high gear!
Check out the hook while my DJ revolves it!
Nah, I wouldn’t want muirdog to get even angrier. He might say we’re all a bunch of anarchists.
As long as people treat the “stimulus” package as if it were a sincere attempt, made in good faith, to help the economy, Obama has won. It was a run-of-the-mill spending bill filled with lollipops to special interests, cynically rammed through at a time when Obama’s political capital was at its peak and the nation was in the midst of a “crisis.” Arguments like, “The stimulus should have been constructed like this instead” or, “it should have been this size” are fun to have, but are all totally beside the point. The point of the stimulus was not to stimulate the economy and treating it like it was is an insult to our intelligence. This was a Smash & Grab, plain and simple, and everyone willing to be honest with themselves knows it. This is why politicians love Keynes so much. They don’t care one iota whether Keynes is right or wrong – that’s incidental. They find Keynes useful because he gives their power grabs an intellectual cover.Just my $0.02.
Good two cents!
It’s interesting how Keynes is so useful to them and Hayek is not. Hmmm…
Thanks. I work in Boston and live in the Burbs and even the leftie talkradio stations are laughing about the crooked numbers. Like I told my wife, “They aren’t even trying to hide their lies anymore.”
But please don’t forget to add that cronyism and lollipops to special interest is in line what Keynes argued in the first place. Keynes did not care who got what or how it was appropriated. So in that context, Obama is doing the theoretical “right” thing under Keynesianism. Yet, this only shows the flaws in the Keynesian approach. That’s when you head the lines “Well we don’t really mean bury the money.” or “Of course I don’t mean dropping it from a helicopter.” But that’s the point, under that theory, dropping it or burying is perfectly acceptable and should get the EXACT same results and doling it out to your specials friends. Like you said, they find Keynes used full because with it they can make the power grab they want so badly.
Some here (Dan) will argue that in theory it’s sound and so we shouldn’t talk bad of it. But let’s not forget that in theory, we could use genetic manipulation on the Human population to eradicate most genetic disease and deformities, but we don’t because it is wrong. It’s one reason why we don’t clone humans.
I thought Dan had cloned himself, and he and the clone split hairs together joyfully for hours on end.
Cronies think Keynesianism justifies their bad behavior. Hitler thought evolutionary biology justified his bad behavior. What are we supposed to do – go sheepish when somebody makes a bad decision? Sorry Justin, not so convincing. Like I said to mommsen1625 earlier, I think – Greenspan always claimed he was a libertarian. Should his misinterpretation and/or flagrant misuse of that political philosophy stain the rest of you? Of course not. Muirgeo may go for that sort of logic – you may go for that sort of logic. I don’t see how it makes sense.
Cronies think Keynesianism justifies their bad behavior.If that is all that it does – and that is really all that it does – then even if were “true” in theory, it would be right to avoid it. And since that it all that ever does, it is right to avoid it.
I think it would be useful if read Bastiat’s “The Law.”
Re: “If that is all that it does – and that is really all that it does – then even if were “true” in theory, it would be right to avoid it.”
Did you even get the point of my post? If you really, truly think this then should we just abandon evolutionary biology too because it made some people feel like they had the license to kill millions of people?
Your defense of Keynes warms the cockles of his dead heart.
You should take a look at Chicago. At least a few school districts reported creating or saving more jobs than they had (and now have) in the first place. I’d really love to see where that math came from. And to think, these are the people responsible for educating our children!
Even if jobs were saved it does not make us any wealthier. Saving unproductive jobs does no good.
The all knowing Washington collectivist (brain) trust makes minor miscalculations on the path to paternal benevolence! Have Pity. They are mentally, morally challenged and are paid prostitutes.
“…Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students.”
How can that even pass an initial laugh test. That’s $482.38 to produce a full-time job…
Yes, I get your post.
As for evolutionary biology, it didn’t “make” anyone do anything.
As a ruling ideology keynesianism has a poor understanding of human nature at best. Evolutionary biology is not a ruling ideology.
RE: “As for evolutionary biology, it didn’t “make” anyone do anything. ”
Exactly my point – no more than Keynesianism did.
Should we abandon libertarianism because Greenspan calls himself a libertarian?
Keynesianism encourages the worst in human nature. Compare it to what the “law” should be like as described by Hayek and Bastiat.
Keynesianism is about as useful as Marxism is. And nearly as disastrous.
No, because Greenspan described himself as a “lifelong libertarian Republican.” Which is an oxymoron IMHO.
But best to completely reject both libertarianism and Republicanism, just in case, right?
If you seriously believe this “they did something bad while believing this so this cannot be believed” logic, then there won’t be anything left to believe!
That clearly isn’t my argument.
As I have stated a few times already, Keynesianism fundamentally misunderstands human nature. That is its problem.
Clear to you perhaps. You haven’t elaborated on your human nature point at all, which essentially reduces your argument to a guilt by association point.
Actually, I’ve repeatedly mentioned Bastiat and Hayek, which ought to be enough for those familiar with their work.
One thing I have discovered arguing with Democrats and Republicans is that they like to talk about libertarianism without actually knowing much about it; this includes not having reading the seminal works which libertarians draw inspiration from.
Can you imagine a libertarian being unfamiliar with the seminal texts of Democrats (e.g., Rawls) and Republicans (e.g., Buckley)? Or an atheist not having read the Bible or the Qu’ran? The latter is far less common.