4 ms·
The subsidy is $1.5B for 13,000 jobs. The other half of the subsidy is for capital investment and construction expenses. It's still a huge number though.
by dshields1 9y ago
The subsidy is $1.5B for 13,000 jobs. The other half of the subsidy is for capital investment and construction expenses.
It's still a huge number though.
- bbayles 9y agoThe article states that: "At $3 billion for 13,000 jobs, the Wisconsin deal would cost $231,000 per job." By comparison, economists have estimated $125K/job-year to $202K/job-year from the 2009 stimulus (ARRA). [1] [1] https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/2014/q2/dupor.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/revie... , page 3
- weberc2 9y agoI'm confused about the comparison between cost per job and cost per job year. Presumably this (the Wisconsin deal) would be the better deal as the jobs presumably last more than one year?
- syshum 9y agoDoubtful alot of the Recovery Act was for One Time Construction projects, like paving a road. There were also alot of one off projects like sending people out to help with Energy Efficiency in homes. There was not alot of long term stable jobs in there.
- wavefunction 9y agoWhat about all the Wall Streeters bailed out? Those are long-term stable jobs, after a fashion.
- weberc2 9y agoYour first sentence suggests that you disagreed with my previous post, but your rationale very much supports my point. Spending 125-250K on a job that only exists for a year is markedly worse than paying a comparable amount for a job that lasts many years.
- grizzles 9y agoThat should just about cover Trump's first term.
- zachrose 9y agoInteresting to think of this as a highly inefficient welfare system for the electoral college.
- sli 9y agoUp to 13,000 jobs.