There are some interesting points....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/b...l=1&adxnnlx=1258780519-9u0P2k5z22aLDtSjra87Bw
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/b...l=1&adxnnlx=1258780519-9u0P2k5z22aLDtSjra87Bw
New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step
- Thread starter OntarioVanMan
- Start date
Yeah Right!! If that's the Case then Where are All Those Jobs it was supposed to Create? I was Listening to a Radio Station This Past week who Did a Consensus On How Many Jobs this Gigantic Give Away of Tax Payer Dollars Created and Found Out that MOST of the States Spent the Money On "Other" Things as There were Only a Few Jobs Created or Saved..Michigan Spent the Money and only Created 3 Jobs according to the Radio as well as Colorado who Created NO Jobs But Spent the Money! This Radio Station is Trying to Get the Toledo Blade to do an Independant Survey on How Many Jobs That Ohio Has Created or Saved But no word from the Blade as of Today if they are Going to do it! Can't Imagine the Blade doing Anything that would Put Obumma and His Cronies in a Bad Light!! If you want the Whole Scoop Then go to ExpeditersOnline.com Expedited Trucking Owner Operator Careers and Truck Sales and Click on Fred!!
Thats what the article said....where are the NEW jobs
greg334
Veteran Expediter
You know this is BS.
How do you actually count the jobs that are created directly from the money that was handed out and filtered down to the employers in all kinds of different ways while there are no sustainable jobs being created with all of this temproary work. The amount of money being spent on doong road work for one road is far more than it would be if there was true competitive bidding. With all the money there is no requirement to hire people, maintaining jobs that would have been maintained is not even saving jobs.
When FDR created the WPA and CCC, it was figured in that there would be at least 3 to 5 years worth of work. The WPA went on through the war. Starting in 1935 and ending in 1943, it spent 7 billion on directly employing people on a lot of different public work project with no union interfierence.
This time around, there are no public works projects, there are no real jobs and there is money being wasted without oversight. To think that we may have a jobs bills that is to "solve" these problems, another bill to provide no real jobs, no real training and no real accoutablity begs the question are we getting to be that stupid in this country?
How do you actually count the jobs that are created directly from the money that was handed out and filtered down to the employers in all kinds of different ways while there are no sustainable jobs being created with all of this temproary work. The amount of money being spent on doong road work for one road is far more than it would be if there was true competitive bidding. With all the money there is no requirement to hire people, maintaining jobs that would have been maintained is not even saving jobs.
When FDR created the WPA and CCC, it was figured in that there would be at least 3 to 5 years worth of work. The WPA went on through the war. Starting in 1935 and ending in 1943, it spent 7 billion on directly employing people on a lot of different public work project with no union interfierence.
This time around, there are no public works projects, there are no real jobs and there is money being wasted without oversight. To think that we may have a jobs bills that is to "solve" these problems, another bill to provide no real jobs, no real training and no real accoutablity begs the question are we getting to be that stupid in this country?
The jobs saved are a lot more than just the ones doing the roads or working on a few other projects. We must as the govt does account for all the suppliers to the companies doing the work and the couple of jobs each that were also saved. Hence you get a rosier picture of jobs saved. Now if all these people with saved jobs start spending instead of saving then you'd have demand for consumer goods again saving another couple of jobs and also possibly creating a few part time or full time jobs. Unfortunately these jobs created are at the end of the chain and usually are low paying jobs.
However something I don't think that is being factored into all this is the fact that over the last 10 years employment agencies (labor agencies) have taken off and are currently one of the largest suppliers of workers to many operations. The companies actually show no labor employment growth but have actually hired an agency to supply labor on a demand basis. The company pays one bill with no benefits, no tax deductions, no workers comp etc. Therefore no job growth reported. I know of a few companies up here doing exactly this. One a multinational is under a hiring freeze but has a budget to get things done. They show zero employment growth but have a dozen agency persons in their office alone.
Samething for their warehousing operations. All new personnel are agency people so they can have them but no actual payroll increase as well as they can get rid of a bad worker easier as labor laws do not apply the same.
So the question remains of actual growth in employment figures and are they accounting for the boom in labor agencies? If yes then this is a bad picture. If not then the picture may be a little out of whack.
Rob
However something I don't think that is being factored into all this is the fact that over the last 10 years employment agencies (labor agencies) have taken off and are currently one of the largest suppliers of workers to many operations. The companies actually show no labor employment growth but have actually hired an agency to supply labor on a demand basis. The company pays one bill with no benefits, no tax deductions, no workers comp etc. Therefore no job growth reported. I know of a few companies up here doing exactly this. One a multinational is under a hiring freeze but has a budget to get things done. They show zero employment growth but have a dozen agency persons in their office alone.
Samething for their warehousing operations. All new personnel are agency people so they can have them but no actual payroll increase as well as they can get rid of a bad worker easier as labor laws do not apply the same.
So the question remains of actual growth in employment figures and are they accounting for the boom in labor agencies? If yes then this is a bad picture. If not then the picture may be a little out of whack.
Rob