Comments on: What does it mean to focus on jobs?

By: Constant Focus

Constant Focus — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:06:24 +0000

I have visited lots of sites which talk about this subject but only your site gives me all the important things that I need to know about the subject. Thank you for posting this one.. Can you give me some other site that same as what you have? Thank you and have a great day!

Reply - Quote

By: Constant Focus

Constant Focus — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:31:24 +0000

Reply - Quote

By: Constant Focus

Constant Focus — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:30:23 +0000

I have visit lots of sites which talk about this subject but only your site gives me all the important things that I need to know about the subject. Thank you for posting this one.. Can you give me some other site that same as what you have?

Reply - Quote

By: constant focus

constant focus — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:14:48 +0000

Thank you for posting this information, it will help a lot of people.Can you tell me of other source of this information?

Reply - Quote

By: Hiring Tax Credit Will Not Create Long-Term Jobs | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:23:29 +0000

[...] Hennessey, “What Does It Mean to Focus on Jobs?,” January 29, 2010, at http://keithhennessey.com/2010/01/29/focus-on-jobs/ (January 29, 2010). Tags: Congress, congressional budget office, Economic history, Economics, [...]

Reply - Quote

By: Eric Rasmusen

Eric Rasmusen — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:46:52 +0000

"CBO estimates that for each million dollars of budgetary cost for this kind of tax credit, full-time employment in 2010 will increase by five to nine years. " Do you mean "two to nine"? CBO report. p. 23.

Reply - Quote

By: Eric Rasmusen

Eric Rasmusen — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:16:41 +0000

Having read more of the CBO report, I think maybe you'll want to rewrite the post, which looks somewhat confused, tho your ultimate message is correct. Let's assume the CBO estimates are correct. The White House fAct sheet at www.whitehouse.gov/.../FACT_SHEET_Small_Business%... talks a bout two policieis, a $5000 employee tax credit and a cut in payroll taxes for firms that increase employment. The CBO doesn't talk about a tax credit like that, tho it does talk about tax benefits involving expensing of new investment. The CBO does talk about that kind of payroll tax cut, and it is the most cost-effective one listed on its Table 1. It gives 7 to 16 emplyement-years for each million dollars in cost to the government, over 2010-2015. That is $62,500 to $143,000 per year per job created. The Statistical Abstreact says that in 2007 average earnings were $58000 for males, $42,000 for females. If we want to hire high-school graduate-no-college males, the average (not median) is $42,000. Thus, this policy does not seem to be wise, even by the government's own accounting.

Reply - www.whitehouse.gov\/...\/FACT_SHEET_Small_Business%...<\/a> talks a bout two policieis, a $5000 employee tax credit and a cut in payroll taxes for firms that increase employment. \n \n The CBO doesn't talk about a tax credit like that, tho it does talk about tax benefits involving expensing of new investment. \n \nThe CBO does talk about that kind of payroll tax cut, and it is the most cost-effective one listed on its Table 1. It gives 7 to 16 emplyement-years for each million dollars in cost to the government, over 2010-2015. That is $62,500 to $143,000 per year per job created. \n \n The Statistical Abstreact says that in 2007 average earnings were $58000 for males, $42,000 for females. If we want to hire high-school graduate-no-college males, the average (not median) is $42,000. \n \nThus, this policy does not seem to be wise, even by the government's own accounting. '); return false;">Quote

By: Sandwichman

Sandwichman — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:43:51 +0000

There is a conspicuous omission in CBO's Table 1. No estimate is given for the effect of a "short-time compensation" program such as Germany's Kurzarbeit. Work sharing. It may be that such a program would not be effective in the U.S. But we don't know that. The CBO didn't do the analysis because American economists think they already know the answer. When people don't study something because they "already know the answer" they are quite often wrong. In the case of American economists and work sharing, there is a lump-of-labor taboo on taking the option seriously. Vice President Biden's chief economists, Jared Bernstein, said the following about Dean Baker's proposal for a work-sharing tax incentive: "My old buddy Dean Baker has talked about a program of tax credits to incentivize job sharing. Some analysts have promoted some form of public service employment to generate direct job creation. All of these ideas - and more - are worthy of consideration. I encourage all of you to analyze their potential and to let me know what you find out." Dean Baker has analyzed the potential of his idea but because he is the advocate, his analysis can't be taken as objective. Why doesn't the CBO include that option in its analysis? Why doesn't the White House commission an independent analysis of the option? Why? Because it's taboo?

Reply - Quote

By: Paola

Paola — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:05:08 +0000

FTA: "Like a panicked Homer Simpson trying to prevent a nuclear meltdown, Congress is about to start wildly pressing buttons and turning dials on their control panel, almost all of which will have no beneficial effect." Great, that always works so well.

Reply - Quote

By: Larry

Larry — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:08:23 +0000

If demand for my product or service is slack why would I hire another employee - tax credit or no tax credit? Could I dismiss a current employee and then hire a new one and get the credit?

Reply - Quote