47 of 50 states LOST jobs since stimulus

[AZhitman]

Stats are presented as follows:

State
Administration Claims of Change in Jobs Through June 2010
Actual Change in Jobs Through June 2010

Alabama
+42,000
-45,500

Alaska
+7,000
+2,200

Arizona
+64,000
-80,300

Arkansas
+26,000
-12,600

California
+357,000
-520,200

Colorado
+50,000
-84,600

Connecticut
+38,000
-34,000

Delaware
+9,000
-5,500

District of Columbia
+16,000
+7,800

Florida
+167,000
-152,200

Georgia
+91,000
-124,600

Hawaii
+13,000
-12,700

Idaho
+15,000
-14,600

Illinois
+140,000
-155,000

Indiana
+68,000
-29,800

Iowa
+34,000
-23,700

Kansas
+28,000
-34,200

Kentucky
+41,000
+2,400

Louisiana
+39,000
-17,300

Maine
+14,000
-11,400

Maryland
+53,000
-14,300

Massachusetts
+79,000
-36,700

Michigan
+102,000
-91,400

Minnesota
+60,000
-47,900

Mississippi
+26,000
-25,400

Missouri
+59,000
-48,300

Montana
+10,000
-3,100

Nebraska
+17,000
-10,300

Nevada
+29,000
-64,300

New Hampshire
+13,000
-100

New Jersey
+94,000
-68,300

New Mexico
+19,000
-30,900

New York
+206,000
-115,400

North Carolina
+90,000
-49,700

North Dakota
+8,000
+5,100

Ohio
+117,000
-131,500

Oklahoma
+35,000
-33,500

Oregon
+41,000
-49,000

Pennsylvania
+130,000
-71,600

Rhode Island
+11,000
-15,200

South Carolina
+41,000
-15,100

South Dakota
+8,000
-4,100

Tennessee
+60,000
-69,400

Texas
+225,000
-57,700

Utah
+27,000
-11,000

Vermont
+7,000
-7,300

Virginia
+73,000
-39,500

Washington
+67,000
-68,600

West Virginia
+16,000
-10,200

Wisconsin
+63,000
-82,000

Wyoming
+6,000
-9,900

Sources: July 14, 2010 White House

This doesn't take into account the improperly-counted "jobs created" through "churning" of census worker positions (many were hired one day, let go the next, then re-hired days later - some up the three times), which creates (statistically) the appearance of more "new jobs" than really existed.

[stebo0728]

Alaska
+7,000
+2,200

That +2,200 is mostly reporters hired to survey Sarah Palin.

[wingFeather]

The sad thing is that Obama voters still defend their man.

[stebo0728]

Where did you get your numbers BTW, Im from Georgia and their numbers look quite troubling, Id like to see where you got this, not doubting it just would like to see more info

[bigbadberry3]

So what would be the best way for Obama to get these numbers to turn around?

[AZhitman]

Where did you get your numbers BTW, Im from Georgia and their numbers look quite troubling, Id like to see where you got this, not doubting it just would like to see more info

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
FOURTH QUARTERLY REPORT
JULY 14, 2010

Department of Labor - http://www.bls.gov/data/

[IBCoupe]

Well, there's an absolutely meaningless statistic if I ever saw one.

You mean, in a recession, despite government subsidies to businesses, we're still losing jobs? Holy cow, Batman. Ya don't say?

Here's the question you won't be able to answer, but that your arguments implicitly attempt to: how many jobs would have been lost absent the stimulus?

[AZhitman]

Well, there's an absolutely meaningless statistic if I ever saw one.

You mean, in a recession, despite government subsidies to businesses, we're still losing jobs? Holy cow, Batman. Ya don't say?

If you'd quit being so quick to slam the message (and the messenger) you'd see that *I* didn't claim an increase in jobs, the Administration did. Their claim is bogus (regardless of the cause). That's all I'm pointing out.

While the Obama Administration continues their so-called “Recovery Summer” tour claiming the Democrats’ stimulus bill “saved or created” three millions jobs, the facts show 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since stimulus passed. The table below compares the number of jobs the Administration currently claims its stimulus has somehow created in each State (center column) with the actual change in jobs since stimulus became law (right hand column), as documented by the Department of Labor. It shows that only Alaska, Kentucky and North Dakota, along with the District of Columbia, have shown any real job growth since stimulus passed – and even in those States the official job creation has fallen far short of Administration claims.

[srellim234]

Suppose I work for a private company. I employ 100 people. I have to lay off half of my work force. Stimulus money comes in that allows me to rehire half of those people.

Statistic:

XYZ Company
Before economic downturn 100
Current payroll 75

Stimulus created or saved +25
Total workers in the company -25

I haven't seen anyone claiming that the stimulus would create or save more jobs than were in the marketplace before all of this doo-doo started happening. I agree that this administration plays fast and loose with numbers but the statistics as you present them are mutually exclusive.

[IBCoupe]

If you'd quit being so quick to slam the message (and the messenger) you'd see that *I* didn't claim an increase in jobs, the Administration did. Their claim is bogus (regardless of the cause). That's all I'm pointing out.

While the Obama Administration continues their so-called “Recovery Summer” tour claiming the Democrats’ stimulus bill “saved or created” three millions jobs, the facts show 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since stimulus passed. The table below compares the number of jobs the Administration currently claims its stimulus has somehow created in each State (center column) with the actual change in jobs since stimulus became law (right hand column), as documented by the Department of Labor. It shows that only Alaska, Kentucky and North Dakota, along with the District of Columbia, have shown any real job growth since stimulus passed – and even in those States the official job creation has fallen far short of Administration claims.

Wasn't meaning to attack the messenger, just having a bit of fun.

My point is that the two facts that have been presented (White House claims that they've saved or created three million jobs and reports that there are net job losses) are not mutually exclusive. There's nothing "bogus" about the claim.

This is a common problem when you're trying to say that you've prevented a harm - it's hard to prove that you actually have, and it's easy to say that there was no risk in the first place. The War on Drugs is often propped up as a failure, simply because we still have drugs, which doesn't actually demonstrate that it's been a failure, just that it hasn't been effective enough to eliminate drug use entirely.

[AZhitman]

I haven't seen anyone claiming that the stimulus would create or save more jobs than were in the marketplace before all of this doo-doo started happening.

Then you missed the campaign, as well as all the "pass it now" discussion surrounding the stimulus bill. That was the entire premise of the bill.

[IBCoupe]

I haven't seen anyone claiming that the stimulus would create or save more jobs than were in the marketplace before all of this doo-doo started happening.

Then you missed the campaign, as well as all the "pass it now" discussion surrounding the stimulus bill. That was the entire premise of the bill.

I think you misunderstood all of that. I was paying attention to the campaign and the "pass it now" discussion. Nobody said, "We need this stimulus because it will make life all rainbows and lemondrops again." They did say, "We need this stimulus because, without it, the world as we know it will end."

Yes, I know, those are both caricatures. I'm an equal-opportunity parody-artist.

[AZhitman]

Nobody said, "We need this stimulus because it will make life all rainbows and lemondrops again."

No, they said:

Obama: Stimulus will create 4.1 million jobs http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28590554/

A report released by President-Elect Obama’s top economic advisers outlines where the new economic stimulus package will create jobs. The expected number of jobs is 3,675,000. http://freefrombroke.com/wp-content/upl ... -chart.png

The plan will save or create 3.5 million new jobs http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Obama Again Raises Estimate of Jobs His Stimulus Plan Will Create or Save http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/us/po ... radio.html

Obama Says Stimulus Package Creates 4 Million Jobs http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 0qRQzmU3Tg

[wingFeather]

Well, there's an absolutely meaningless statistic if I ever saw one.

You mean, in a recession, despite government subsidies to businesses, we're still losing jobs? Holy cow, Batman. Ya don't say?

Here's the question you won't be able to answer, but that your arguments implicitly attempt to: how many jobs would have been lost absent the stimulus?

Do you actually believe the stuff you're saying here? Do you believe that we can buy our way out of a recession, by spending this country into a depression that will span generations?

All Obama is doing is making things worse! We are (for example) starting to see the second wave of mortgage crises resulting from the "first time buyer credit". All of that money wasted (not to mention the pork spending stuffed into his bills, to get his homies their paper). Disgusting that you stand up for a man like Obama. Disgusting!!!

[C-Kwik]

Then you missed the campaign, as well as all the "pass it now" discussion surrounding the stimulus bill. That was the entire premise of the bill.

Perhaps you misinterpreted them. Your own sources only talk about the creation or saving of jobs. The figures of overall change in employment is a net effect. Assuming the report is reasonably accurate, then the change in employment would be the actual number of jobs you posted less the claimed number of jobs created by the administration. Its likely not to be linear like that, but nowhere did the administration provide figures for the net effect on jobs. Making changes to the net numbers for employment have way too many variables to accurately predict and it would be unwise politically (because of the first reason) to even try and make such promises. None of the sources you provided suggest that was the case either.

Greg, you tried to make a very similar argument before and I stated this exact point before:

this-was-the-bill-that-had-to-be-passed ... 58960.html

And as I stated before, the employment numbers that would exist without the stimulus is not going to be known with absolute certainty. The report you pulled these numbers from is limited in scope to what is believed to be the impact on the number of jobs that can be directly attributed to the stimulus. They are not trying to provide the net change in employment. Thus, you cannot make a direct comparison and you argument or comparison is fundamentally flawed.

I was unable to find the report through the link you provided as well so I'm gonna link to a copy of the report I found in case anyone else wants to read it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documen ... report.pdf

[AZhitman]

Dandy. Lots of effort to continuously defend what is still, in essence, a failed policy and a poor return on a lofty promise.

Where's the 3.5M - 4.1M jobs that were supposed to be created?

[heliochrome85]

im pretty sure most of the replies have tried to show you where the jobs are. they are exactly where they used to be. like srellim said, the stimulus allowed to blunt the job loss. unfortunately, unless they put 100k in each and everyones pocket, the market isnt there to justify 100% employment retention. we saved as many jobs as the economy would allow. without it, you would see 15-20% unemployment.

yet again, i fail to see the logic of your criticism of the president. at least give him credit the massive hole the country was in when he took office. save for FDR, no one has had to deal with this level of economic tumultuousness upon entering office. he has done legislatively in his first 18 months as president than most presidents in the modern era over the course of their entire term.

[C-Kwik]

First of all, when have I defended the stimulus package in this thread or the previous thread? As I stated very clearly in the previous thread, I don't know if the stimulus was the best course of action or not. But I'm not going to make such an assessment on information that is fundamentally flawed. The big questions to be answered are what would the change in employment number have been without the stimulus and how does it compare to the money invested in the stimulus? Your thread is attempting to try and answer the first question, but the numbers you provide do not provide the correct metric.

As for the number of jobs created, going off the numbers provided in the report, they are at 3.051 million jobs. Not quite 3.5 million but still significant and about 87% of the lowest figure they claimed they would provide. The numbers look a whole lot different when viewed in the proper context, no?

[AZhitman]

As for the number of jobs created, going off the numbers provided in the report, they are at 3.051 million jobs. Not quite 3.5 million but still significant and about 87% of the lowest figure they claimed they would provide. The numbers look a whole lot different when viewed in the proper context, no?

I must be interpreting something differently. There's two sets of numbers: Both are "change in jobs" from inception to a certain date.

The only difference is one number is the amount of change claimed by the Administration, the other is the actual amount of change.

If someone says, "We're going to increase jobs in Alabama by 42,000 through this package", and then the state LOSES 45,500 jobs, there's no gain. No matter HOW you slice it, fudge it, spin it or massage it.

Admittedly, math is NOT my strong suit by a long shot.

If I read this, it makes a little more sense: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... jobs-save/

I guess its all in how you present the statistics.

[C-Kwik]

I must be interpreting something differently. There's two sets of numbers: Both are "change in jobs" from inception to a certain date.

The only difference is one number is the amount of change claimed by the Administration, the other is the actual amount of change.

If someone says, "We're going to increase jobs in Alabama by 42,000 through this package", and then the state LOSES 45,500 jobs, there's no gain. No matter HOW you slice it, fudge it, spin it or massage it.

Here's where the problem lies. The number you provided to contrast the numbers in the report are a total change in employment. The numbers from the report are the number of jobs created or saved by the bill. The reason the number you provided is low or negative is because the total number of jobs lost is greater than the number of jobs created by the bill. Try and thing of it like balancing a checkbook where lost jobs are negatives and gained jobs are positive. The number from the report is just one of the credits. The number you provided is the balance after all credits and debits are accounted for.

Another way to look at it is lets say your company was ailing and you are going to lay 5 people off. Someone invests in your company and you are able to save their jobs and fill 5 additional positions. The influx of capital basically saved or created 10 jobs. However, at the business next door, they do not receive any kind of investment money and is forced to shut down for financial reasons and had 15 employees. Between the two businesses there was a net job loss of 5. This is like the number you provided. But the number of jobs created or saved by the investment is still 10. The intent of the report is to try and measure what impact the bill actually had. Since no money was invested into the company next door, the losses are not counted in the report. And it shouldn't be. In order to get an accurate account of the effectiveness of the bill with repect to how much money was invested, one must try and isolate its effects. Using a net change for the entire employment market introduces a lot of variables that are going to be impossibly difficult to figure out. The actual calculation of how many jobs are created by the bill is likely hard enough already as they do seem to be accounting for positive feedbacks (which is what I believe they are referring to in the article you linked to when they speak about multipliers).

Hopefully that makes it more clear but feel free to let me know if its not.

[IBCoupe]

C-Kwik is stating everything that I was trying to say in my few posts on this subject (only he's being a lot more elaborative). It's like I don't need to post anymore.

But since I am, I'll just provide the Cliffsnotes version:
The Administration claimed that it would have a positive effect on jobs, not that it would have a net positive effect on jobs, which is what you're attempting to rebut. Since it's a car forum, let's try it this way:

Pres. Obama: This car is speeding! If we don't hit the brakes now, we're going to crash really hard! Hitting the brakes now would slow us down drastically!
Everybody: Yeah, okay, so we'll hit the brakes.
[Brakes applied]
Greg: We're still moving forward! We're still going to crash!
Me: Yeah, but maybe we're not crashing as hard as we would have without hitting the brakes. Maybe now we're headed towards a fender-bender, where before we were going to total the car and die in a horrible, flaming wreck.

So maybe all you care about is the net effect. Maybe it doesn't matter to you how hard we crash, you're just pissed off that we're going to crash at all. But that's something entirely different than what you're trying to argue: that hitting the brakes did nothing. You can say that it didn't do enough, but you can't say that it didn't do what it set out to do.

[NightRiderQ45]

Well, there's an absolutely meaningless statistic if I ever saw one.

You mean, in a recession, despite government subsidies to businesses, we're still losing jobs? Holy cow, Batman. Ya don't say?

Here's the question you won't be able to answer, but that your arguments implicitly attempt to: how many jobs would have been lost absent the stimulus?

Do you actually believe the stuff you're saying here? Do you believe that we can buy our way out of a recession, by spending this country into a depression that will span generations?

All Obama is doing is making things worse! We are (for example) starting to see the second wave of mortgage crises resulting from the "first time buyer credit". All of that money wasted (not to mention the pork spending stuffed into his bills, to get his homies their paper). Disgusting that you stand up for a man like Obama. Disgusting!!!

"to get his homies their paper"...haha too funny!! Well that's exactly what Bush, Cheney, and everyone else who had their hands tied in oil did for 8 freaking years off of gas! Weapons of Mass destruction my a**! Lost lives over greed of oil. Oh and who has the contracts overseas...Halliburton! The same company that Cheney is heavily invested in. Yeah Bush really got his homies their paper! I don't blame him though. If I could get idiots on the right to buy into my gas "demand" claim and get all of my thug homies wealthy while having the worst approval rating EVER, I'll do it. I bet you were one of the many blind people blaming people who drove SUV's for gas going up? Those thugs left office and gas hasn't been anywhere near what it was for the past 8 years. Hell even milk used to be $5 during the previous administration of destruction! This administration is doing the best with what they are working with. The right had 8 yrs to make things right, but never did, but they are so quick to cast bricks at the glass house. Disgusting!!!!

What makes me laugh is all of the "arm chair" experts who always claim to know the answers, but really don't know sh*t (including yourself). Ok, why don't YOU go to the White House and present your master plan on helping out the country huh? Oh, you don't know anything, just cheerleading on the sideline on the right with the rest of the nuts making complaints but giving no answers!!

Or better yet, why don't you post what Obama should do on NICO. I think we all would like to your brillant plan...

[stebo0728]

"to get his homies their paper"...haha too funny!! Well that's exactly what Bush, Cheney, and everyone else who had their hands tied in oil did for 8 freaking years off of gas! Weapons of Mass destruction my a**! Lost lives over greed of oil. Oh and who has the contracts overseas...Halliburton! The same company that Cheney is heavily invested in. Yeah Bush really got his homies their paper! I don't blame him though. If I could get idiots on the right to buy into my gas "demand" claim and get all of my thug homies wealthy while having the worst approval rating EVER, I'll do it. I bet you were one of the many blind people blaming people who drove SUV's for gas going up? Those thugs left office and gas hasn't been anywhere near what it was for the past 8 years. Hell even milk used to be $5 during the previous administration of destruction! This administration is doing the best with what they are working with. The right had 8 yrs to make things right, but never did, but they are so quick to cast bricks at the glass house. Disgusting!!!!

What makes me laugh is all of the "arm chair" experts who always claim to know the answers, but really don't know sh*t (including yourself). Ok, why don't YOU go to the White House and present your master plan on helping out the country huh? Oh, you don't know anything, just cheerleading on the sideline on the right with the rest of the nuts making complaints but giving no answers!!

Or better yet, why don't you post what Obama should do on NICO. I think we all would like to your brillant plan...

Wow ... do you vote?

[AZhitman]

That post is so full of factual inaccuracies, I lost count.

The credibility ends when you admit you'd do the same thing (which, to me, implies approval). Talk about throwing bricks.

BTW, I've been buying milk for 20 years and have never seen it over $2.59 a gallon.

[stebo0728]

Aldi has it for 1.88 around here most of the time.

[AZhitman]

I couldn't tell you what it costs for the past 16 months - I got married.

[NightRiderQ45]

That post is so full of factual inaccuracies, I lost count.

The credibility ends when you admit you'd do the same thing (which, to me, implies approval). Talk about throwing bricks.

BTW, I've been buying milk for 20 years and have never seen it over $2.59 a gallon.

"full of factual inaccuracies" well point them out then buddy. Thought people would've noticed I was being sarcastic about "me" doing the same thing.

1. There was NO WOMD found.
2. Gas was it's highest ever as soon as Bush got in for 8yrs and IMMEDIATELY drop after he and Cheney left office!
3. Halliburton DOES have the oil contract overseas!
4. Cheney IS HEAVILY invested in Halliburton!
5. Bush had the lowest approval ratings EVER!
6. The last admin left the economy dirt broke which leaves Obama with a huge clean up effort
7. The rightwing nuts ALWAYS complain but never give any solutions. If they did, then we wouldn't have been in the situation we are after 2008.
8. I live in Alabama and milk was almost $5 a gallon ($4.66) to be exact before taxes because of high gas prices caused by the previous administration. I don't know what planet you live on but I've never seen milk for $1.88 for a full gallon. http://www.wfsb.com/money/16762182/detail.html Look at the link since some of you think I made up the $5 milk thing.

Once again, tell me what I said above that isn't a fact! Oh and while you are at it, please list what Obama should do to turn the economy around. I personally feel that if people bash without logical insite to fix the matter...they are losers.

Think I'm going to start coming to this side to play more. The Q section is hella boring now.

[heliochrome85]

That post is so full of factual inaccuracies, I lost count.

The credibility ends when you admit you'd do the same thing (which, to me, implies approval). Talk about throwing bricks.

BTW, I've been buying milk for 20 years and have never seen it over $2.59 a gallon.

its 3.29 here which is admittedly cheaper than the 8.99 i used to pay when i lived in paradise.

[heliochrome85]

Think I'm going to start coming to this side to play more. The Q section is hella boring now.

[/quote]

please dont. direct your attentions to the 240 forum.

[stebo0728]

1. There was NO WOMD found.

False. Perhaps you were hoping to find weapons of SUPER MASS DESTRUCTION, or something to that effect, but 1 man with a bomb in his vest is a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons of greater calibur were found as well.

2. Gas was it's highest ever as soon as Bush got in for 8yrs and IMMEDIATELY drop after he and Cheney left office!

Study up on supply and demand. Disallowance of drilling in certain areas, overly stringent EPA standards, and the like were much more to blame for gas pricing than any of your conspiracy theories.

3. Halliburton DOES have the oil contract overseas!
4. Cheney IS HEAVILY invested in Halliburton!

So what. See above rebuttal.

5. Bush had the lowest approval ratings EVER!

Sure he had the lowest rating he ever had. Watch your saviors rating here in the next few months. And dont even bother checking out Congress' rating, it might make you cry.

6. The last admin left the economy dirt broke which leaves Obama with a huge clean up effort

Congress holds the purse strings, I believe your friends held congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration.

7. The rightwing nuts ALWAYS complain but never give any solutions. If they did, then we wouldn't have been in the situation we are after 2008.

Simply absurd, republicans opposed the Freddy/Fanny overhaul, which led to the housing bust. There are a plethora of private sector solutions either introduced or being introduced that would rock your boat. Might make you get up off the couch and get a job though.

I don't know what planet you live on but I've never seen milk for $1.88 for a full gallon.

http://www.sarahsdeals.net/2008/09/aldi ... -week.html

Ok this is from 2008, but you did say NEVER, plus I gave 1.88 last week, would scan my receipt if I could find it.

I think you would get a bit futher here if you set the hyperbole aside. A little here in there in good fun is great, but lets deal in the logical world a bit more if you please.