Must be government jobs

February 17th, 2010

The administration claims they’ve spent $453 billion of the stimulus package to date and generated 2 million jobs.

Assuming that’s true, viagra usa viagra that’s $226,500 per job.

For comparison’s sake, my friend Mike’s company easily employs 4 (of his 6) people for that same amount of money.

Government…a model of efficiency.

Entry Filed under: Observations

8 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Debunked  |  February 17th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    You’re not considering that a good portion of that money went to infrastructure projects. That is, roads, bridges, public transportation, EPA, et cetera.

    Your friend’s business is not in the market to provide public services – I would assume they’re in the market to provide a service or product that generates revenue. The jobs generated to work on those projects were but a portion of the cost of the package. Paying for the materials, equipment, and waste disposal is also factored in.

  • 2. Elliot  |  February 17th, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Fair enough. Let’s get the “infrastructure” our of the equation.

    Let’s add it up, shall we?

    According to the NY Time’s breakdown ( all the expenditures that they consider transportation, energy or infrastructure add up to around $112 billion. Of course, only a little more than 1/2 of total has been spent so let’s call it $60 billion (and not all of that is going to be the cost of wire, concrete and other “real” infrastructure improvements but I’ll leave it at $60 billion to make up for any infrastructure costs that the Times or I missed).

    Subtracting that $60 billion from $453 billion gets you around $393 billion. (I have thus taken into account your infrastructure objection.)

    That leaves us with $196,500 per job.

    So you’re right. Mike only creates or saves three (professional level not waitress level) jobs for the cost of one government sponsored job.

    I apologize.

  • 3. Debunked  |  February 17th, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Using your numbers, I would imagine part of the $112 billion actually accounts for salary too, which you are completely eliminating by subtracting it straight from the $453 billion.

    And yes, I’m aware that would actually cause your $196,500 figure to increase.

    But that aside, there’s a few things to respond to. First, I don’t know exactly what you added up to achieve the $112 billion figure.

    Second, my infrastructure comment was probably poorly phrased. More than just roads and transportation requires investment above salary.

    Funding research requires paying for chemicals, materials, lab equipment, et cetera. And that wouldn’t be included in the figure.

    Another portion of the stimulus went to help funding the approximately 25-30 million people claiming unemployment and health care while unemployed which is most certainly not captured in number of jobs created that you need to remove from that figure.

    My point is, not every dollar spent was on salary. Some of it was on required objects needed for people so they could work. Some of it was on padding for unemployed. And yes, I’ll admit some of it was likely lost to fraud, corruption, or mismanagement.

    But to do blind math calculations the way you are doing them isn’t going to get an accurate result.

  • 4. Elliot  |  February 17th, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    But isn’t that part of the point? Government math is always fuzzy. And I’m willing to bet that no matter how you crunch the numbers, the 2 million jobs saved or created will have been at a much higher cost than jobs created by the private sector.

    And thus my criticism of government efficiency.

  • 5. Debunked  |  February 17th, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Okay, let’s look at the private sector – Exxon Mobile.

    $25 billion budget per year expected.

    They employ under 80,000 employees:

    $25 billion / 80,000 = $312,500 per person.

    $312,500 – $226,500 = $86,500 extra per person by Exxon versus the stimulus using your original numbers.

    I’d say government won hands down there.

  • 6. Elliot  |  February 17th, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    You and I both know Exxon spends the vast majority of that money on bribing third-world dictators so they can keep exploiting their countries!


  • 7. Debunked  |  February 17th, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    So you’re saying there’s no difference between ExxonMobil and the US government?

  • 8. Elliot  |  February 17th, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Of course there’s a difference! I can choose not to pay for what Exxon wants to do. ;)

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments