He didn’t really say that, did he?

$200K Per Job? Timothy Geithner Says White House Jobs Plan Is Still a Bargain

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn’t dispute a Harvard economist’s estimate that each job in the White House’s jobs plan would cost $200,000, but said the pricetag is the wrong way to measure the bill’s worth.

And he also pointed out, in an interview today with ABC News’ David Muir, that there is no other option on the table for getting the economy moving and putting more people back to work.

“You’ve got to think about the costs of the alternatives,” Geithner said when asked about Harvard economist Martin Feldstein’s calculation that each job created by President Obama’s American Jobs Act would cost taxpayers about $200,000.

“If government does nothing, it does nothing now because they’re scared by politics or they want to debate what’s perfect, then there will be fewer Americans back to work, the economy will be weaker,” he said.

Exactly how much will that one job pay and how long will it last?

Because I’m thinking we take that same money and use it to put unemployed people to work digging holes and filling them in for $25,000 a year and create eight times as many jobs.

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to He didn’t really say that, did he?

  1. WMCB says:

    Okay, I used to think that Timmeh was merely in the well, but now I see that Timmeh’s in the well with a bong, some Doritos, and a sleeping bag, and has called animal control on Lassie so she won’t bother him anymore..

  2. DandyTiger says:

    I’m worried that the “creative class” as a hole sees this as reasonable too. { Facepalm }

  3. And is the 200,000 a one-time cost?

    If each job pays 100,000 and lasts for 2 years, the program breaks even.
    If it pays 50,000 and lasts 4 years, break even.
    If it lasts indefinitely, then there’s a longterm gain.

    But giving the money straight to a lot of unemployed would be good too: they’d spend it on haircuts and hamburgers, keeping the barbers and cooks employed. Maybe a safer bet.

  4. Three Wickets says:

    This is pretty wonky but worth the read if you’re interested in monetary policy. Steve Waldman the financial blogger is a pretty smart guy. Essentially what he’s proposing (more serious than a Swiftian “modest proposal”) is that if the Fed is trying to pump money back into the economy via all their easing programs, instead of pumping it to the banks and corporations at the top of the wealth pyramid which has been only marginally effective, why not direct that new liquidity to the broader middle to lower part of the pyramid in the form of what he calls a “helicopter drops.” The concept has been generating some discussion in recent weeks. What he’s talking about is different from the standard fiscal stimulus programs the federal government has been using. Bit cooky maybe but interesting.

    In any case, we have a lot of money swimming around the captial market casinos these days. More short term trading than long term investing in growth and people. What money is not being gambled is ending up right back at the Fed in safe deposits and low yielding treasuries to hide from global risk. What we do not have enough of today in the general economy are: 1) longer term growth *investments* on the sell side (hiring and wages), and 2) consumer and business *demand* on the buy side (earned wages and disposable income). Having confidence in our future, having confidence in our leaders in both public and private sectors would probably help us break out of this inertia, beyond the actual policy and strategy debates. But Obama does not inspire confidence, and that’s part of the problem with the economy.

Comments are closed.