$30B IT Stimulus Will Create Almost 1 Million Jobs

itif writes "This report takes a look at how many jobs you get if you invest $10 billion each in three different IT infrastructure projects — broadband, health IT and the smart grid. It argues that if you are going to be spending billions on a stimulus package, investing in 'digital infrastructure' creates more jobs than physical infrastructure (e.g. roads and bridges) in the short-term, and you get a whole host of other benefits in the long-term."

Bad assumptions

On the other hand, upgrading roads and bridges keeps us from falling into sinkholes and ravines en masse.

At any rate, this is a false dichotomy, and there's every indication that Obama plans to focus on improving both forms of infrastructure.

brokenwindowfallacy???

Who tagged it brokenwindowfallacy? It's no broken window fallacy. In the broken fallacy nothing is gained from breaking the window and replacing it. Here we invest into an infrastructure, to end up with something better you can make better business with. It's called an investment.

Re:brokenwindowfallacy???

OK. Instead of breaking the shopkeepers window, you mug him, take his wallet, and use the contents to have another, extra, window put in his shop. Now he has an extra window to display his produce in and entice passers by. Is this good for him y/n?

Fix the roads.

I quote from the report, bolding mine: "An additional $10 billion investment
in health IT in 1 year would create as many as 212,000 new or retained U.S. jobs for a year."

Similar wording is on the other two prongs as well. I stopped reading at that point. The report is therefore saying that investing 30 billion could result in ZERO "new" jobs, it will merely allow the retention of existing jobs.

BTW, what good will your retained job will do you little good when you can't drive to the grocery store to buy food to eat due to the bridge to the store having collapsed? I'd rather see the old-fashioned boring infrastructure fixed/updated before the new-fangled stuff.

Why the Soviet Union Collapsed...

...was more to do with lack of physical infrastructure than anything else. They had the means to produce a lot of food, but a lot of it rotted out in the fields. They didn't have the roads and rail to get it from point A (field) to point B (processing plants) to point C (supermarket shelf).
   

Re:Why the Soviet Union Collapsed...

Well, we solve that problem by paying farmers not to grow food. Thus, no rotting in the fields.

And the flip side?

Can we calculate how many jobs are lost as the indirect result of pulling $30 billion out of the economy via taxation?

I'm all for abandoning roads and bridges

It's the only way automakers will finally have enough motivation to give us our flying cars. This the future, dammit.

Digging Holes

Dig more holes faster please. Thanks for taking my hard earned rewards for work and giving it to someone else. I really appreciate it government.

Re:Bad economics

You will get NO net jobs. Every penny spent on a "stimulus" must be taken from taxpayers, either directly or indirectly, either now or in the future, and that penny will NOT be spent creating jobs elsewhere.

If every use of money (including taking it in cash and stuffing it in a mattress or lighting it on fire) were equally effective at creating jobs, this argument might be relevant (except that the relevant thing isn't that every penny must be taken from taxpayers now or in the potentially-infinitely-distant future, but that every penny must be taken from some other use right now, whether its in the form of taxation or borrowing from someone who has money and would use it for something else if they weren't lending it to the government.)

Of course, not every use of money is equally effective at creating jobs, and even moreso not every use of money is equally effective at creating jobs within the US economy, so its pretty clear that changing how money is used by either taxing or borrowing money that would be used for one purpose if it were not taxed or borrowed and applying to a different purpose can create more (or less, depending on the uses the money is taken from and the uses it is put to) jobs than would otherwise be the case, and even more certainly the case that doing so can create more jobs in the US economy than would otherwise be the case.

Re:Bad economics

As someone who might be an H1B visa holder in the not-too-distant future, what's your problem with them? Is it that we didn't -start out- in the U.S., or that we might leave in the future, or that we're sending envelopes stuffed with cash back home in the mean time? While here, we're paying taxes and consuming locally bought (not locally produced, usually) products just like everyone else ...

Re:Bad economics

I think the majority problem that people have with H1B visas is that the H1B visa holders end up working for less than a similarly skilled US worker would normally ask for. As a result it is seen as having their wages pushed down for those who are already here in that particular industry.

So, when you come over as an H1B, don't settle for a reduced wage. Find out how much they are paying for someone with your experience in the area and then ask for that.

Re:Bad economics

So, when you come over as an H1B, don't settle for a reduced wage. Find out how much they are paying for someone with your experience in the area and then ask for that.

But, but... that's not how the free market works, is it? If I can offer services (me) for less than someone else, why shouldn't I?

No, good economics.

You will get NO net jobs. Every penny spent on a "stimulus" must be taken from taxpayers, either directly or indirectly, either now or in the future, and that penny will NOT be spent creating jobs elsewhere. At best, you are taking away future jobs to support current ones, or, to state exactly the same thing in different terms, you are borrowing from the future to support unsustainable lifestyles now . . . which is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with.

Standard reaganomic bullcrap.

Taxing the INCOME of the wealthy to build infrastructure actually compels the creation of MORE jobs than just the infrastructure itself.

I know these things, several of my family members own and manage incorporated entities. The more pressure you put on their personal income, the more they will keep within their corporations, which are taxed far less, resulting in more re-investment (for the layman, that means JOBS AND EXPANSION).

In addition to that, using those taxes from the wealthy to invest in infrastructure provides subsidized infrastructure for yet more growth.. ironically for all the pissing and moaning that subsidy is to the businesses of the wealthy.

It's a win-win-win situation.
the economy is stabilized, jobs are created, and the wealthy get a major subsidy to their business for a little tap-dancing with their accounting.

Re:Bad economics

Every penny spent on a "stimulus" must be taken from taxpayers, either directly or indirectly, either now or in the future, and that penny will NOT be spent creating jobs elsewhere. At best, you are taking away future jobs to support current ones, or, to state exactly the same thing in different terms, you are borrowing from the future to support unsustainable lifestyles now . . . which is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with.

Not exactly. Borrowing for the wrong reasons is what got us into this mess. Borrowing for the right reasons (increase future earning potential) can more than offset the debt, leaving you with an income large enough to both pay back what you owe and have more to live on than you ever would have without that initial debt. It happens all the time at an individual and corporate level, this is just expanding it to the entire country. The key is having the discipline to pay back the debt once the increased earnings are realized, which so far very few incarnations of government have had the discipline to do.

Re:Bad economics

If I borrow $100 now and put it to work now, that $100 will have a net effect of the $100 spent x the current multiplier

Right. And the multiplier has fallen below 1.0 [denninger.net]. The United States cannot print or borrow out of this mess, which is the point that the grandparent post was making.

It's not like the United States has a safe with trillions of dollars that can be distributed or invested in some central planning scheme. The trillions of dollars which are being offered represent money that the US government doesn't have.

Re:Bad economics

If the $100 is spent now, and the multiplier effect takes place now then it's worth say, $100 x R.

If the $100 is simply saved, and spent at a future point then at that future point in time, $100 is still only worth $100.

The net effect of the future $100 would be delayed an additional time until it is actually utilized.

But even saved money gets spent by those that borrowed it from savers. There is very little money sitting idle.

All the government is doing here is diverting saved money that would be spent by borrowers in other parts of the economy and redirecting it to government projects.

It doesn't create jobs. It reallocates jobs.

Re:Bad economics

But even saved money gets spent by those that borrowed it from savers.

It might. It might not. It particularly might not when, as is the case right now, deflation occurs, as $1 tomorrow becomes worth more than $1 today, so it makes perfect sense from the perspective of each individual spender to hold cash and defer spending, since cash then has a positive real rate of return.

There is very little money sitting idle.

Not only does hoarding result in money sitting idle, right now there is money outright being destroyed as banks just don't extend credit at all (at least, not in the quantities they have until recently), while they continue to accept deposits and payments on existing debt. Its not like the actual money supply is some fixed number based on the number of pieces of paper currency printed and in circulation; most money exists entirely as notations of account, and while reserve limits and similar regulations limit the amount of some forms of money that can be created, there is nothing that keeps the money supply constant.

All the government is doing here is diverting saved money that would be spent by borrowers in other parts of the economy and redirecting it to government projects.

Even if this was true (which it is not, even if you refer to the world economy when you say "the economy"), that could still create jobs in as not all spending is equally effective at job creation. This is especially the case if you talk about creating jobs in the US economy, since the economy from which the US government takes money to spend when it borrows money is not exclusively the US economy.

It doesn't create jobs. It reallocates jobs.

No, it reallocates money. Whether or not it creates more jobs than would otherwise be the case depends on how efficient the use it puts money to is at creating jobs as compared to the uses to which the money would otherwise have been put. This is also true (and even more relevant) if you add "in the US" after each instance of "jobs" in the previous sentence.

Re:Bad economics

People sitting around doing nothing is wasted capital. Even if you have to borrow to get them to do work, you have produced something greater than your investment.

The idea that the private sector would more efficiently allocate human capital is irrelevant in deep recessions. In these cases, the private sector is quite literally sitting around waiting for someone else to take the risks.

Good for employment, bad for productivity.

If you really want to stimulate the economy, you have to spend the dollars directly to the wages (that is, massive government hiring).

Yep. The problem is that the government is (with a few exceptions) extremely bad at producing anything other than paperwork and hindrances.

In my opinion, the government SHOULD hire some more people ... who will determine which citizens belong to the group that will spend the MOST money on legal, local services and start pumping the cash into that segment.

It's easier for the local pizza place to hire more cooks and delivery people if there is additional demand for pizza delivery due to the locals having more pizza money available.

Whereas is you just give the pizza store owner additional cash, he's not going to expand his business. There won't be additional demand for him to service.

Focus on funding the demand and let the supply grow itself.

Re:Good for employment, bad for productivity.

Yep. The problem is that the government is (with a few exceptions) extremely bad at producing anything other than paperwork and hindrances.

Why oh why oh why do people keep modding thus utter bullshit as insightful. It isn't it's an ignorant meme repeatedly spread by people with a bizarre faith in business.

Example of there the government produces something worthwhile: the road network. They produced it, and it basically works year in, year out and the country would fall to pieces without it. In many countries, governments run a significant fraction of the school system as well.

Example of big business failing miserably: Enron, the current financial crisis.

So, frankly, anyone spouting this miserable gibberish are unable to muster even the weakest powers of observation of the world around them today, never mind historically. In some cases, the government can do a better job, in some cases they foul up. In some cases businesses do a better job. In some cases they foul up.

Remember the current stink happened because the government stopped being a "hinderance" and let the businesses do what they wanted. Look where that landed us.

Re:High numbers

The project after that would be sustained by the subscribers, and it could be sold for less money per month since Verizon doesn't have as much money to recoup.

Hahahaha! You think Verizon is going to sell the service for less just because they got some money from the government? Hahahaha! They will more likely keep the cost the same and the rest is profit (they'll make even more money faster). The cost to maintain the infrastructure will be the same anyway, so why would they lower the end cost? All a govt infusion will do is get the infrastructure built quicker.

Like many, I'd rather see physical infrastructure updated/maintained sooner than digital infrastructure. You can't even deploy the digital stuff if your physical stuff isn't in good condition.

Re:Love it!

Pretty soon they'll own your health care too. If you thought arguing with the insurance company was bad just wait until you get to argue with a bureaucrat instead. At least you can choose to do business with the insurance company......

Don't talk crap. I live in a country where the government controls the health service, and we have national health insurance that everyone pays.
You know what? It may not always be great, but its always there whenever you need it in an emergency, you can go for checkups without being afraid of your insurance premium going up, and you don't get stuck in a job you hate because you can't get new health insurance for a disease or illness you have developed.

Like I said, it isn't perfect, but compared to your system where its possible to have no health cover at all, its good enough.

Ronald Regan is on the phone...

This would also create jobs (at least in the short term) indirectly, as those who get the high-paying jobs directly related to this "stimulus" will demand additional production and services to fill their personal needs, which will create other jobs, and so on. In this way, each dollar invested in this infrastructure will actually be spent multiple times.

Ronald Regan called from 1980, and wants his trickle-down economics policy back. This is a bullshit lie, and I'll give you two examples of why.

First off, people in high-paying jobs have a lower marginal propensity to consume. It sounds absurd, but the single parent with a $40k job is spending almost their entire paycheck back into the economy just to survive. Someone who makes $120k is not spending 100% of their paycheck- not even close. They're putting a fair amount into long and short term savings. On a related note, gas and food price jumps really hammer the $40k person more than the $120k person; percentage-of-income-wise, the $40k person spends much more on food and gas than the 120k person does.

Second: money spent these days very, very quickly leaves your local, state, and national economy. Spend $5 on a burger at national franchise, and a teeny bit of that goes to employing the people in the store. Some of it goes towards the materials for the product, which were made as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Most of it goes to a trademark holding company aka tax shelter in the Cayman Islands as "trademark license fee". The article I mentioned lists Limited Brands, Toys "R" Us, ConAgra Foods, Home Depot, Kmart, Gap, Sherwin-Williams, Circuit City, Stanley Works, Staples, and Burger King as examples. I'm sure there are hundreds more. [nysscpa.org]

Even locally, money spent largely doesn't go to the business owner if they don't own their own property. It goes largely to the landlord of the property. Commercial property owners aren't in the lower income brackets; they're in the top income brackets, and they're writing off their Mercedes as a business expense.

Back in the 50's, corporations shared tax responsibilities evenly with the American individual. Now, A HREF="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b45142.html">corporations pay about 7% and 60% didn't pay a dime. Meanwhile, their tax rate compared to the GDP is around 1.8%, down from the 1950's level of 5%. Meanwhile, you lose about 33% of your paycheck to state and federal taxes, then get taxed on the gas you put in your car and the stuff you buy.

Re:Or...

Tomato..tomato..

You do realize that that particular idiom doesn't translate well to text-based communication, right? ;)