How to Crush Unemployment Like a Boss

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do I also have to define the word "is"?

 

[Valjean]

Even if those jobs are "make work" what does it matter? You have people able to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and their families, what's so bad about that?

Plus they actually are able to spend money which then goes into the economy. So again, why is that so bad?

I agree. Isn't the goal is to get money circulating through the economy, rather than sitting in offshore accounts or invested in luxury properties?
Frankly, with our ageing, infrastructure and vitiated public service agencies there should be plenty of useful work for everybody.

 

[dismal]

Even if those jobs are "make work" what does it matter? You have people able to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and their families, what's so bad about that?

Plus they actually are able to spend money which then goes into the economy. So again, why is that so bad?

I agree. Isn't the goal is to get money circulating through the economy, rather than sitting in offshore accounts or invested in luxury properties?
Frankly, with our ageing, infrastructure and vitiated public service agencies there should be plenty of useful work for everybody.

I think there is some question as to whether the goal is to get more money circulating about the economy.

But if that were the goal it would be relatively easy to meet said goal by printing money and dropping it from helicopters over shopping malls.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I agree. Isn't the goal is to get money circulating through the economy, rather than sitting in offshore accounts or invested in luxury properties?
Frankly, with our ageing, infrastructure and vitiated public service agencies there should be plenty of useful work for everybody.

I think there is some question as to whether the goal is to get more money circulating about the economy.

But if that were the goal it would be relatively easy to meet said goal by printing money and dropping it from helicopters over shopping malls.

You mean like Bush did when he sent us all a check for $300?

 

[ksen]

Government can have the same financial outlays either way and by one method reduce the official unemployment rate and by the other method not do so. One way is to put people on relief, the other way is to hire them for the same amount. Which is better for the economy?

I'd say paying them to do productive work is better for the economy than simple relief payments.

One of those ways makes the official numbers look lower. Make-work jobs that reduce apparent unemployment make great statistics that enable people to say their theory is validated. Is any new good or service produced by doing so?

Why are you assuming government jobs would be simple "make work" jobs. I see no necessity to think so. We have billions of dollars of infrastructure repairs to do so putting people to work to help repair infrastructure would not be "make work" jobs.

But let's say there are some make work jobs handed out. The important thing there is that cash is still getting into the hands of those that will spend it on goods and services that will help keep the private economy from dropping as much if those people didn't have the cash to spend.

- - - Updated - - -

Whereas I am pointing out potential flaws in the OP's argument, it is on the OP to demonstrate that these jobs are not make-work but are instead value-added.

It's not my job to have to prove a negative.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'd say paying them to do productive work is better for the economy than simple relief payments.

One of those ways makes the official numbers look lower. Make-work jobs that reduce apparent unemployment make great statistics that enable people to say their theory is validated. Is any new good or service produced by doing so?

Why are you assuming government jobs would be simple "make work" jobs. I see no necessity to think so. We have billions of dollars of infrastructure repairs to do so putting people to work to help repair infrastructure would not be "make work" jobs.

But let's say there are some make work jobs handed out. The important thing there is that cash is still getting into the hands of those that will spend it on goods and services that will help keep the private economy from dropping as much if those people didn't have the cash to spend.

And if that was the case the recession of 2007 should never have happened because we certainly were working on infrastructure back then, people had more money and were spending it and construction jobs were aplenty. The issue that applies now as then is that you need to keep feeding that hand and it's very hard to cut it off. Also many states are facing horrible problems with their pension plans so the they are looking long term about how they are going to pay for that in the future.

 

[dismal]

I think there is some question as to whether the goal is to get more money circulating about the economy.

But if that were the goal it would be relatively easy to meet said goal by printing money and dropping it from helicopters over shopping malls.

You mean like Bush did when he sent us all a check for $300?

I know you love Bush and want to give him mucho credit for getting cash circulating in the economy, but sending someone a check is obviously not as effective as dropping cash over a shopping mall.

Of course if we were really serious about getting the cash circulating we could drop $100,000 debit cards that expire in two hours.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You mean like Bush did when he sent us all a check for $300?

I know you love Bush and want to give him mucho credit for getting cash circulating in the economy, but sending someone a check is obviously not as effective as dropping cash over a shopping mall.

Of course if we were really serious about getting the cash circulating we could drop $100,000 debit cards that expire in two hours.

Why are you not governor of Texas?

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say paying them to do productive work is better for the economy than simple relief payments.



Why are you assuming government jobs would be simple "make work" jobs. I see no necessity to think so. We have billions of dollars of infrastructure repairs to do so putting people to work to help repair infrastructure would not be "make work" jobs.

But let's say there are some make work jobs handed out. The important thing there is that cash is still getting into the hands of those that will spend it on goods and services that will help keep the private economy from dropping as much if those people didn't have the cash to spend.

And if that was the case the recession of 2007 should never have happened because we certainly were working on infrastructure back then, people had more money and were spending it and construction jobs were aplenty. The issue that applies now as then is that you need to keep feeding that hand and it's very hard to cut it off. Also many states are facing horrible problems with their pension plans so the they are looking long term about how they are going to pay for that in the future.

Actually very few are. The GOP and their backers want to steal that money to fill the budget holes they created.

 

[dismal]

I know you love Bush and want to give him mucho credit for getting cash circulating in the economy, but sending someone a check is obviously not as effective as dropping cash over a shopping mall.

Of course if we were really serious about getting the cash circulating we could drop $100,000 debit cards that expire in two hours.

Why are you not governor of Texas?

No pink tennis shoes.

 

[ksen]

I'd say paying them to do productive work is better for the economy than simple relief payments.



Why are you assuming government jobs would be simple "make work" jobs. I see no necessity to think so. We have billions of dollars of infrastructure repairs to do so putting people to work to help repair infrastructure would not be "make work" jobs.

But let's say there are some make work jobs handed out. The important thing there is that cash is still getting into the hands of those that will spend it on goods and services that will help keep the private economy from dropping as much if those people didn't have the cash to spend.

And if that was the case the recession of 2007 should never have happened because we certainly were working on infrastructure back then, people had more money and were spending it and construction jobs were aplenty. The issue that applies now as then is that you need to keep feeding that hand and it's very hard to cut it off. Also many states are facing horrible problems with their pension plans so the they are looking long term about how they are going to pay for that in the future.

The stimulus program should have been much larger. But even at the level it was at it still helped keep unemployment from being worse than it eventually got.

Government spending doesn't have to be on adding workers onto the government payroll. A lot of stimulus went to projects done by private firms. Here's a breakdown of ARRA spending. Government can do a lot of things before resorting to just hiring people and taking on added pension liabilities.

BTW, if trickle down actually worked and if tax cuts actually brought in more revenue local governments shouldn't be having these issues dealing with too little revenue, i.e. pension funding.

 

[dismal]

Ignoring the previous poster, this is what Minnesota did and was able to rebound quickly, and cut spending after recovery. We now have a surplus of jobs.

Just for grins I decided to look up Minnesota state spending to see how closely your opinion adheres to reality.

Minnesota has a 2 year cycle and spending has been as follows:

2006-7: $31.5 billion
2008-9: $33.9 billion
2010-11: $30.0 billion
2012-13: $34.1 billion

http://www.mn.gov/mmb/images/3%20minute%20guide%20July%202012.pdf

These numbers are not adjusted for inflation. There is a chart that shows spending outstripped inflation in 2008 by a couple percent but was actually down in 2009 and 2010.

Is your position that the 2008 spending growth that was 2 or 2.5% more than inflation (about $400 million in an economy of $300+ billion) was what caused the awesomeness that is the Minnesota economy?

And it caused so much keynesy-awesomeness that the subsequent far more severe cuts in spending in 2009 and 2010 couldn't undo it?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Ignoring the previous poster, this is what Minnesota did and was able to rebound quickly, and cut spending after recovery. We now have a surplus of jobs.

Just for grins I decided to look up Minnesota state spending to see how closely your opinion adheres to reality.

Minnesota has a 2 year cycle and spending has been as follows:

2006-7: $31.5 billion
2008-9: $33.9 billion
2010-11: $30.0 billion
2012-13: $34.1 billion

http://www.mn.gov/mmb/images/3%20minute%20guide%20July%202012.pdf

These numbers are not adjusted for inflation. There is a chart that shows spending outstripped inflation in 2008 by a couple percent but was actually down in 2009 and 2010.

Is your position that the 2008 spending growth that was 2 or 2.5% more than inflation (about $400 million in an economy of $300+ billion) was what caused the awesomeness that is the Minnesota economy?

No. My position is that not cutting government jobs or slashing budgets kept things working. We also had massive infusions of Federal funds which we leveraged to keep things moving along. We have a balanced budget Amendment so we cannot spend more than we take in and the decrease in 2010 was caused by a fall in tax revenue. We chose to raise taxes on the wealthy and it overshot our budget projections so we cut them for everybody and are still running surpluses. This is called good fiscal management.

Our economy is diversified, our factories and mills are humming along, our mines are robust and we have more jobs than we can fill. (We have an opening at my workplace and have had 15 applicants in one month of holding the position open - that's' one every two days.)

And it caused so much keynesy-awesomeness that the subsequent far more severe cuts in spending in 2009 and 2010 couldn't undo it?

Like I said, those cuts were caused by revenue shortfalls. When we had a state shutdown over the budget, the economy began to slow down because 36,000 state employees essentially were unemployed during that time. It was a disaster for Republicans who were pushing draconian Tea Party cuts and refused to negotiate.

Let's look at a state that is cutting-revenue-awesomeness: Kansas

 

[laughing dog]

Do I also have to define the word "is"?

One conclusion from this evasive response is that you really have no idea what you mean by "make work jobs".

 

[dismal]

No. My position is that not cutting government jobs or slashing budgets kept things working.

I'm sorry I thought when ksen said "government needs to step in to replace lost spending" and you responded "this is what Minnesota did" you meant that Minnesota had increased spending instead of reducing it.

I guess the good news is that the Keynsey-magic is so powerful it made the Minnesota economy awesome even though they didn't do it. No reason to lose the faith over this. Just wave the hands more and avoid facts.

 

[ksen]

Just wave the hands more and avoid facts.

Which facts are those?

 

[dismal]

Just wave the hands more and avoid facts.

Which facts are those?

The budget history released by the state of Minnesota that show they cut spending in 2009 and 2010 and are not materially above 2007-2008 levels adjusted for inflation today.

 

[ksen]

Which facts are those?

The budget history released by the state of Minnesota that show they cut spending in 2009 and 2010 and are not materially above 2007-2008 levels adjusted for inflation today.

But they didn't cut spending. You just chose to look at general fund spending. Here's the data for spending across all funds and not just the general fund:

2006-7: $49.7 billion
2008-9: $55.1 billion
2010-11: $58.4 billion
2012-13: $61.9 billion

 

[PyramidHead]

The budget history released by the state of Minnesota that show they cut spending in 2009 and 2010 and are not materially above 2007-2008 levels adjusted for inflation today.

But they didn't cut spending. You just chose to look at the general fund spending. Here's the data for spending across all funds and not just the general fund:

2006-7: $49.7 billion
2008-9: $55.1 billion
2010-11: $58.4 billion
2012-13: $61.9 billion

And that's just the money spent by the state. It doesn't count the influx of federal funds.

 

[dismal]

The budget history released by the state of Minnesota that show they cut spending in 2009 and 2010 and are not materially above 2007-2008 levels adjusted for inflation today.

But they didn't cut spending. You just chose to look at general fund spending. Here's the data for spending across all funds and not just the general fund:

2006-7: $49.7 billion
2008-9: $55.1 billion
2010-11: $58.4 billion
2012-13: $61.9 billion

OK, so this is all fund spending by year:

2007: 25.2
2008: 26.9
2009: 28.3
2010: 28.4
2011: 30.0
2012: 29.6
2013: 32.3

These number are not adjusted for inflation. We can do that later if necessary. Is it your view that there was enough of a spending increase after 2008 to create enough Keynesy-awesomeness to make Minnesota's economy awesome?

The price of awesome is $1.4 billion, give or take?

 

[ksen]

Just so I'm clear, we're going to go ahead and move from "they cut spending" to "they didn't increase spending enough to make a difference" now?