So, my questions. One, how do they plan on measuring jobs saved. I mean, how does one count that, really? Should we all go out and look at the unemployment numbers next month, see that they are smaller than this months and declare we've saved jobs? That would be stupid, wouldn't it. So, how do you count this? My second question is more of an observation. After all, I notice that in each scenario, the unemployment rate is significantly decreasing conveniently in time for the next election. Doesn't really mean anything, but it is interesting. In addition, I notice that whether we spend this (possibly 1 trillion dollars) money, by 2014, the chart shows that the unemployment rate would be the same. So, we are going to place the next generation of Americans in greater debt in order to spare the current generation a few years of hard times. I guess that makes sense to a politician who relies only on the current generation to get elected, but to those of us who actually have to think for a living, it doesn't make a lot of sense at all. This money should not be spent, period.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Jobless rates according to the Obama team
USAToday had an article today discussing Obama's intent to save or create 3.7 million (this number has changed so many times over the last several weeks/months that it is beginning to lack credibility, but I digress) jobs over the next 6 years (according to the chart). So, I have a couple of questions. For reference, here's the chart included in the article purportedly from report:
So, my questions. One, how do they plan on measuring jobs saved. I mean, how does one count that, really? Should we all go out and look at the unemployment numbers next month, see that they are smaller than this months and declare we've saved jobs? That would be stupid, wouldn't it. So, how do you count this? My second question is more of an observation. After all, I notice that in each scenario, the unemployment rate is significantly decreasing conveniently in time for the next election. Doesn't really mean anything, but it is interesting. In addition, I notice that whether we spend this (possibly 1 trillion dollars) money, by 2014, the chart shows that the unemployment rate would be the same. So, we are going to place the next generation of Americans in greater debt in order to spare the current generation a few years of hard times. I guess that makes sense to a politician who relies only on the current generation to get elected, but to those of us who actually have to think for a living, it doesn't make a lot of sense at all. This money should not be spent, period.
So, my questions. One, how do they plan on measuring jobs saved. I mean, how does one count that, really? Should we all go out and look at the unemployment numbers next month, see that they are smaller than this months and declare we've saved jobs? That would be stupid, wouldn't it. So, how do you count this? My second question is more of an observation. After all, I notice that in each scenario, the unemployment rate is significantly decreasing conveniently in time for the next election. Doesn't really mean anything, but it is interesting. In addition, I notice that whether we spend this (possibly 1 trillion dollars) money, by 2014, the chart shows that the unemployment rate would be the same. So, we are going to place the next generation of Americans in greater debt in order to spare the current generation a few years of hard times. I guess that makes sense to a politician who relies only on the current generation to get elected, but to those of us who actually have to think for a living, it doesn't make a lot of sense at all. This money should not be spent, period.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment