Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Government Efficiency

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 4:52:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does anybody know what the total cost was, per job, for the government to save as many jobs at GM as it did?

I thought I did, but I realized another aspect to the story so I have some calculating to do.

In the meantime, what would you say a reasonable amount is to spend, per job, on creating jobs?

Obviously, I don't think the government should spend $1 million per job trying to create jobs...(even assuming they are long-term, stable private sector jobs). $500,000 seems like too much as well. $100,000... for $100 billion the government could create a million new jobs, or lower unemployment by 0.6%. Is $100 billion too much to spend on 0.6%?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
debatestrength
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:02:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 4:52:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Does anybody know what the total cost was, per job, for the government to save as many jobs at GM as it did?

Let's not kid ourselves into believing that propping up a failing company is "saving a job".
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:03:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:02:29 PM, debatestrength wrote:
At 5/25/2012 4:52:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Does anybody know what the total cost was, per job, for the government to save as many jobs at GM as it did?


Let's not kid ourselves into believing that propping up a failing company is "saving a job".

Do you think GM will be able to keep up the good job it is doing? It had to make some big changes, but it's working right now. Everyone is getting paid and the company isn't heading for bankruptcy.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:04:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It doesn't matter how much or how little it spends. It's just money moving around in different ways.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
debatestrength
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:05:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:03:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/25/2012 5:02:29 PM, debatestrength wrote:
At 5/25/2012 4:52:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Does anybody know what the total cost was, per job, for the government to save as many jobs at GM as it did?


Let's not kid ourselves into believing that propping up a failing company is "saving a job".

Do you think GM will be able to keep up the good job it is doing? It had to make some big changes, but it's working right now. Everyone is getting paid and the company isn't heading for bankruptcy.

Meanwhile more efficient smaller car companies are losing out on those jobs due to barriers to entry like having your lobbyists sleeping with the government who apparently is now a bank.
debatestrength
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:06:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:04:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It doesn't matter how much or how little it spends. It's just money moving around in different ways.

Socialist economy, capitalist economy. None of it matters. Great thesis professor.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 6:47:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:06:20 PM, debatestrength wrote:
At 5/25/2012 5:04:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It doesn't matter how much or how little it spends. It's just money moving around in different ways.

Socialist economy, capitalist economy. None of it matters. Great thesis professor.

Yep. Just smoke some weed, man. It's all good.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 6:51:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I see everything working well in 50% ranges. Not that there's anything magical about the number, just a good principle to hold. 50% private sector, 50% public sector, 50% flat tax, 50% revenue spent on welfare, 50% revenue spent on other things.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:55:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:51:14 PM, Sillouette wrote:
I see everything working well in 50% ranges. Not that there's anything magical about the number, just a good principle to hold. 50% private sector, 50% public sector, 50% flat tax, 50% revenue spent on welfare, 50% revenue spent on other things.

You be crazy foo?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:56:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:55:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:51:14 PM, Sillouette wrote:
I see everything working well in 50% ranges. Not that there's anything magical about the number, just a good principle to hold. 50% private sector, 50% public sector, 50% flat tax, 50% revenue spent on welfare, 50% revenue spent on other things.

You be crazy foo?

I agree, 50% is excessive. If you meant a Welfare State, that would be different. But 50% spent on general welfare (TANF, Housing, etc), that is too much.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:00:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:55:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:51:14 PM, Sillouette wrote:
I see everything working well in 50% ranges. Not that there's anything magical about the number, just a good principle to hold. 50% private sector, 50% public sector, 50% flat tax, 50% revenue spent on welfare, 50% revenue spent on other things.

You be crazy foo?

Sure.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:05:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What's the time frame? Every job increase should GDP output unless we're literally talking about digging holes and filling them so its kind of a strange question to ask "how much should each job cost?".

I don't think you can accurately count how many jobs are created or destroyed.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:22:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:56:58 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/25/2012 7:55:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:51:14 PM, Sillouette wrote:
I see everything working well in 50% ranges. Not that there's anything magical about the number, just a good principle to hold. 50% private sector, 50% public sector, 50% flat tax, 50% revenue spent on welfare, 50% revenue spent on other things.

You be crazy foo?

I agree, 50% is excessive. If you meant a Welfare State, that would be different. But 50% spent on general welfare (TANF, Housing, etc), that is too much.

I believe the US budget encompasses 60%+ welfare If you include medicare, social security, and medicaid.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
debatestrength
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:24:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:51:14 PM, Sillouette wrote:
I see everything working well in 50% ranges. Not that there's anything magical about the number, just a good principle to hold. 50% private sector, 50% public sector, 50% flat tax, 50% revenue spent on welfare, 50% revenue spent on other things.

i hope you're trolling, hermain cain.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:12:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:22:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 7:56:58 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/25/2012 7:55:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:51:14 PM, Sillouette wrote:
I see everything working well in 50% ranges. Not that there's anything magical about the number, just a good principle to hold. 50% private sector, 50% public sector, 50% flat tax, 50% revenue spent on welfare, 50% revenue spent on other things.

You be crazy foo?

I agree, 50% is excessive. If you meant a Welfare State, that would be different. But 50% spent on general welfare (TANF, Housing, etc), that is too much.

I believe the US budget encompasses 60%+ welfare If you include medicare, social security, and medicaid.

I like to draw a line between welfare and social programs. Generally, welfare just means payments to unemployed people, while social programs encompasses the whole general area of healthcare, housing, etc...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 9:28:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's difficult to define exactly what a "job created or saved" is. In the private sector about $70,000 invested in a small business will keep one person employed for as long as the business operates. When the government pays a salary of a government worker, say $100K with benefits for a year, the job lasts only one year. The government worker usually does not produce any revenue, so it's not self-sustaining. There are exceptions: workers in the mint, tax collectors, and postal employees bring in some revenue, sometimes positive.

Green energy jobs cost the government about $230K each, and they are generally not self-sustaining. Government salaries are about 140% higher than the corresponding private sector and government employees have six time the job security.

The current tax burden in the US is 30%; Sweden is 50%. That's misleading however, because government has many ways to consume money without collecting taxes. In the U.S., there are huge regulatory costs. One EPA regulation last year will cost power companies $7 trillion (paid over many decades), but it doesn't count as a tax at all. The American with Disabilities Act recently required elevators be installed in swimming pools. That's not a tax. Zoning laws make development difficult or impossible, but those are not taxes. It costs $500 billion each year to prepare tax returns ... you get the idea.

I'm guessing we are already at a 50% total government burden.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 9:33:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
the law currently allows competition for package delivery. FedEx and UPS have about two-thirds of the business. The Postal Service has the advantage of having buildings and trucks paid for by the monopoly on first class mail. The postal service also has the burden of having to deliver junk mail at discounted rates and having to keep unprofitable post offices open.

Japan and Germany are among the countries that have privatized their postal systems. It lowers costs and works fine.