Oh this is rich! The Government Accountability Office has released their estimates on the cost of each job "created" by the stimulus. It cost us $194,213 per job.
Apparently they were not happy with the numbers so they came up with a new term. They are no longer going to use the term "Jobs Created" instead, the new term is one of President Obama's favorites. We've heard it used in speeches when he is trying to sell a box of turds.
You will now see them refer to "Lives Touched" instead of talking about jobs. :D
According to the DOE "Lives Touched" is a figure used to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds. This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act.
Brilliant!
Hey the Recovery Act "Touched" my life. I owe the government an extra $40,000 because of it. So count me in!
I just threw up a little in my mouth. :-X
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/19/obamanomics-touching-lives-195000-at-a-time/print/
Oh! This gets funnier. There's even a criteria on reporting "Lives Touched"
Reporting Data
1. Report the "Lives touched" headcount for all ARRA-funded contracts or releases
a. Total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a CHPRC contract.
b. A worker who charges time to more than one contract or contract release is counted as one life touched.
2. The "lives touched" headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts. The total headcount will never decrease.
a. Administrative/Overhead personnel included in indirect rate pools should not be counted unless they are working full time on the ARRA funded contract.
b. Separate the headcount into labor categories on the reporting spreadsheet –
but DO NOT separate the headcount by contract release.
So basically 1 hour = 1 "Life Touched", and no matter how the workforce shrinks the headcount "can never decrease."
Well that should make the figures look better! :D
Why don't they just make stuff up, it would be easier.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 24, 2010, 10:24:00 AM
Oh this is rich! The Government Accountability Office has released their estimates on the cost of each job "created" by the stimulus. It cost us $194,213 per job.
Apparently they were not happy with the numbers so they came up with a new term. They are no longer going to use the term "Jobs Created" instead, the new term is one of President Obama's favorites. We've heard it used in speeches when he is trying to sell a box of turds.
You will now see them refer to "Lives Touched" instead of talking about jobs. :D
According to the DOE "Lives Touched" is a figure used to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds. This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act.
Brilliant!
Hey the Recovery Act "Touched" my life. I owe the government an extra $40,000 because of it. So count me in!
I just threw up a little in my mouth. :-X
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/19/obamanomics-touching-lives-195000-at-a-time/print/
I think you need to read the source article.
It's just one part of the stimulus, done by the Department of Energy and here is what it was for
"The funds were supposed to create jobs and promote economic recovery by expanding and accelerating the environmental cleanup of hazardous and radiological waste at the nation's nuclear weapons complex."
http://www.ktvz.com/oregon-northwest/24454594/detail.html
This is a good example of how wingnuts work these days. Start with a GAO report on one small program, then take a news report about what a partisan Republican thinks the report says and have far rightwing bloggers take that small nugget of partisan filtered truth and exaggerate it many times over into meaning something else.
Like a report by the GAO whose title is :Most DOE Cleanup Projects Appear to Be Meeting Cost and Schedule Targets, but Assessing Impact of Spending Remains a Challenge"
And turn it into "each job 'created' by the stimulus bill costs an average of $194,213" which is nowhere in this report at all. In fact, the report says that the while the DOE is claiming this project will SAVE $8 billion by speeding cleanup the GAO disputes that and says it may be overstated by as much as 80%, meaning this project will only save $2 billion.
Here is what the GAO report actually says:
Quote
DOE expected that Recovery Act funding would help it achieve several goals, including accelerating the cleanup effort and reducing the footprint of facilities and contamination at 17 of its sites, creating jobs, and reducing total remaining cleanup costs. As the halfway mark in DOE's Recovery Act work approaches, the department has made progress toward completing cleanup projects and the majority, although not all, of these projects appear to be meeting cost and schedule targets. In carrying out its Recovery Act work, DOE has implemented additional steps to address familiar contract and project management challenges, by providing stricter controls over how and when funds are disbursed to cleanup sites, increasing reporting requirements, and paying greater attention to project oversight. Although we do not yet know what effects each of these additional steps to improve project management and increase oversight of Recovery Act projects will ultimately have on DOE's ability to meet projects' cost and schedule targets, some of the steps could be found useful for Recovery Act cleanup work, as well as carry the potential to be beneficial for projects funded under annual appropriations. The department has been less successful in implementing steps to better assess the results of its Recovery Act work.
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/072910_GAO_Report_DOE_Jobs.pdf
The summary starts on page 30
Skid-mounted goal posts would make the job a lot easier:
(http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/goalposts_moving-back.bmp)
Quote from: swake on August 24, 2010, 10:48:18 AM
I think you need to read the source article.
It's just one part of the stimulus, done by the Department of Energy and here is what it was for
"The funds were supposed to create jobs and promote economic recovery by expanding and accelerating the environmental cleanup of hazardous and radiological waste at the nation's nuclear weapons complex."
http://www.ktvz.com/oregon-northwest/24454594/detail.html
This is a good example of how wingnuts work these days. Start with a GAO report on one small program, then take a news report about what a partisan Republican thinks the report says and have far rightwing bloggers take that small nugget of partisan filtered truth and exaggerate it many times over into meaning something else.
Like a report by the GAO whose title is :Most DOE Cleanup Projects Appear to Be Meeting Cost and Schedule Targets, but Assessing Impact of Spending Remains a Challenge"
And turn it into "each job 'created' by the stimulus bill costs an average of $194,213" which is nowhere in this report at all. In fact, the report says that the while the DOE is claiming this project will SAVE $8 billion by speeding cleanup the GAO disputes that and says it may be overstated by as much as 80%, meaning this project will only save $2 billion.
Here is what the GAO report actually says:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/072910_GAO_Report_DOE_Jobs.pdf
The summary starts on page 30
It doesn't matter dude. The above counting procedure is from the DOE. The administration is already using the term, we just didn't know where it came from or what it meant. Now we do. This counting procedure has apparently been in place since April.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 24, 2010, 10:51:24 AM
It doesn't matter dude. The above counting procedure is from the DOE. The administration is already using the term, we just didn't know where it came from or what it meant. Now we do. This counting procedure has apparently been in place since April.
Dude,
This is expensive work that will be done anyway in annual appropriations. By accelerating the work and doing it now, it stimulates jobs and over time will SAVE money in annual appropriations. Over time this doesn't add to the debt, it saves $2 billion in future debt by doing the work now and has the ancillary benefit of creating jobs today.
The DOE is claiming $8 billion in total savings, not cost. the GAO says $2 billion. The difference in the accounting is future dollars vs current dollars and the Time Value of Money.
Either way, this is the stimulus LOWERING the debt.
This program didn't cost you a hyperbolic $40k, it saves you $6.25
Quote from: swake on August 24, 2010, 10:59:30 AM
Dude,
This is expensive work that will be done anyway in annual appropriations. By accelerating the work and doing it now, it stimulates jobs and over time will SAVE money in annual appropriations. Over time this doesn't add to the debt, it saves $2 billion in future debt by doing the work now and has the ancillary benefit of creating jobs today.
The DOE is claiming $8 billion in total savings, not cost. the GAO says $2 billion. The difference in the accounting is future dollars vs current dollars and the Time Value of Money.
Either way, this is the stimulus LOWERING the debt.
I have no problem with that part of it. I am looking at the political spin. The adoption of the term "Lives Touched" instead of an actual jobs figure has already begun.
It is simply hilarious.
You have to actually read the Daily Caller blog entry from Gassy to get to the actual article, which is here. (http://www.ktvz.com/oregon-northwest/24454594/detail.html)
In fact this addresses the portion of stimulus funds attributed to the Dept of Energy to create jobs via environmental cleanup. From the article:
"The lawmakers were concerned about the department's ability to manage the extra $6 billion in funding DOE was provided in the stimulus effort, given the agency's difficulty in managing environmental cleanup spending in a cost-effective manner.
The funds were supposed to create jobs and promote economic recovery by expanding and accelerating the environmental cleanup of hazardous and radiological waste at the nation's nuclear weapons complex.The report shows DOE has taken some positive steps to manage the spending and meet project timetables, but also finds that DOE does not clearly show how the funding has impacted job creation or will reduce environmental risks and future cleanup costs. "So the DOE has spent lots of money per job (each of which is tasked to help clean up nuclear waste at weapons sites) and hasn't sufficiently accounted for the money spent, how it impacts job development, or the ROI.
What's interesting is that the investigating (GOP) congresspeople have done what Gassy has done, which is extrapolate this to cover the entire stimulus effort, and in fact the entire idea of stimulus, or government spending in general. They said:
Quote"It seems our concerns about DOE's ability to effectively and efficiently used the funds given to them have become reality. This is yet another example of how, despite the White House's assertions, the almost $1 trillion of stimulus funding has failed to stimulate anything other than government bureaucracy," Burgess said.
I'm truly impressed to see how this can be expanded, rejiggered, and in general repurposed to support a thesis which it might otherwise not support. In other words, kudos, GOP, for being unswervingly on message.
EDIT: What Swake said. That'll learn me to spend too much time editing my post.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 24, 2010, 11:01:35 AM
I have no problem with that part of it. I am looking at the political spin. The adoption of the term "Lives Touched" instead of an actual jobs figure has already begun.
It is simply hilarious.
So you admit that this program is a good one, that it is a positive to the economy and to the debt?
Also, please note that a big part of the disagreement over the counting of jobs is only if sub contractors can be counted too.
Relax Obama apologists! The OP was simply looking at how silly accounting for the benefits of stimulus has become. Lives touched? Seriously?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 11:10:33 AM
Relax Obama apologists! The OP was simply looking at how silly accounting for the benefits of stimulus has become. Lives touched? Seriously?
Well, you know . . . before I finally give in to all that delicious right wing rage, I'd love to know that I'm not wasting my fury on either a lie, a half-truth, or something Gassy neglected to cite.
I'm having a hard time finding much news reporting on this. Maybe someone can help me sift through all the Fox Nation punditry?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lives+touched%22+Obama&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=PvJzTOK2NcT_lgeC74DICA&start=0&sa=N
(http://www.wellpromo.com/upload/upimg25/Good-Touch-Bad-Touch-Education-29325.jpg)
Quote from: sgrizzle on August 24, 2010, 11:40:22 AM
(http://www.wellpromo.com/upload/upimg25/Good-Touch-Bad-Touch-Education-29325.jpg)
Boy, that's a thread-ender if I ever saw one!
Typical Sgrizz. Shutting down debate with a well placed .gif.
Got anything for mosques?
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2010, 11:42:59 AM
Typical Sgrizz. Shutting down debate with a well placed .gif.
Got anything for mosques?
(http://www.daylesfordorganic.com/content/ebiz/lightmaker/invt/organicporkchops/Pork_Chop.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 11:51:24 AM
(http://www.daylesfordorganic.com/content/ebiz/lightmaker/invt/organicporkchops/Pork_Chop.jpg)
That one's not gonna
shut down debate.
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2010, 11:27:25 AM
Well, you know . . .
What is making you so mad. There was nothing Mis-quoted here. My comment was not on the program, or on the money spent, or on weather creating more debt is good for eliminating debt (whatever).
My comment was on the birth of a new statistic. A statistic that owes it's very existence on failure. Had the Stimulus actually created real jobs, there would be no need for such an outrageously constructed statistic.
Further more, we have seen this term "Lives Touched" used in several of the President's own speeches, dating back to the campaign. So we know who the father is.
Now. Focus your outrage. We will hear more of this term. I promise.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 24, 2010, 12:10:01 PM
What is making you so mad. There was nothing Mis-quoted here. My comment was not on the program, or on the money spent, or on weather creating more debt is good for eliminating debt (whatever).
My comment was on the birth of a new statistic. A statistic that owes it's very existence on failure. Had the Stimulus actually created real jobs, there would be no need for such an outrageously constructed statistic.
Further more, we have seen this term "Lives Touched" used in several of the President's own speeches, dating back to the campaign. So we know who the father is.
Now. Focus your outrage. We will hear more of this term. I promise.
My outrage? You are the outrage junkie. You are the one that claimed each job "cost us $194,213 per job." and "I owe the government an extra $40,000 because of it."
All I did was prove that you are full of crap with your claims, again.
Say, when are you scheduled to predict your next market melt down, can I get some notice so I can play against you? You're the friggin' anti-Nostradamus of economic facts and predictions.
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2010, 11:42:59 AM
Typical Sgrizz. Shutting down debate with a well placed .gif.
Got anything for mosques?
(http://ae.alliedpickfords.com/images/content/household_moves/Truck_at_Burj_Al_Arab_desaturated.JPG)
Quote from: swake on August 24, 2010, 12:23:17 PM
My outrage? You are the outrage junkie. You are the one that claimed each job "cost us $194,213 per job." and "I owe the government an extra $40,000 because of it."
. . .and that is true.
Quote
All I did was prove that you are full of crap with your claims, again.
Say, when are you scheduled to predict your next market melt down, can I get some notice so I can play against you? You're the friggin' anti-Nostradamus of economic facts and predictions.
. . .I am not a professional, but I expect it to fall under 8,000. It's not falling as fast as I anticipated and that is good.
You are right. I am outraged, but my outrage is focused on the things that I think matter. Apparently we disagree on what matters. You're outrage is simply based (as typical) on any comment deemed as blasphemy against President Obama. In your eyes I am considered a heroic, for any disagreement I may have against the administration. I have both complemented President Obama and criticized him. I find myself far more critical than complementary.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 24, 2010, 12:35:59 PM
. . .and that is true.
. . .I am not a professional, but I expect it to fall under 8,000. It's not falling as fast as I anticipated and that is good.
You are right. I am outraged, but my outrage is focused on the things that I think matter. Apparently we disagree on what matters. You're outrage is simply based (as typical) on any comment deemed as blasphemy against President Obama. In your eyes I am considered a heroic, for any disagreement I may have against the administration. I have both complemented President Obama and criticized him. I find myself far more critical than complementary.
Will you admit that the government program that you were outraged about, the one that your figure of $194,213 was derived from, that this actual report states that this specific program will not cost tax payers $194,213 per job and will in fact save taxpayers two billion dollars.
This isn't about Obama, it's about honesty. Are you willing to be honest here? You were wrong, really wrong. Can you admit it?
www.plateauremediation.hanford.gov/.../arra_reporting_instructions_r3.doc
This is the doc Gassy's "lives touched" comes from. From the doc:
"Total Head-count (lives-touched): This is a cumulative total that includes contractor employees, subcontractor employees, and vendor employees, reflecting the total number of people (including temporary workers and part-time workers) that have been compensated for work under the Recovery Act funding for anytime during the period of performance.
Job Types: Management, Technical. Business, Admin/Clerical and Trade/Craft – Examples include:
1. Management: Managers, Supervisors, Executives
2. Technical: Engineers, Scientists, Technicians
3. Business: Accountants, Architects, Analysts, Procurement, Communications, Human Resources, Legal, Planners, Information Technology
4. Admin/Clerical: Secretaries, Administrative, Clerks
5. Trade/Craft: Carpenters, Electricians, Painters, Plumbers, Laborers, Drivers"
Further,
"ARRA Headcount Reporting
Additional Clarification
ARRA Headcount reporting shall be inclusive of any and all employees who have performed work on one or more ARRA Funded contract(s) and or releases. This includes temporary workers and part-time workers that have been compensated for work performed under the ARRA Funded Contracts.
Headcount reporting shall identify each employee only once within one of the specified categories; Manager, Administrative, Business, Technical, Non-Union, or Union. Choose the category that best represents the employee's role & position overall.
Example: John Doe works 20 hours on contract 12346 Release 3. The headcount is 1 and the hours noted are 20 on contract 12346 Release 3."
So, "lives touched" is a way to count all the man hours associated with ARRA work. I admit, it's a hamfisted term. The metric, however, is legit.
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2010, 12:54:22 PM
www.plateauremediation.hanford.gov/.../arra_reporting_instructions_r3.doc
This is the doc Gassy's "lives touched" comes from. From the doc:
"Total Head-count (lives-touched): This is a cumulative total that includes contractor employees, subcontractor employees, and vendor employees, reflecting the total number of people (including temporary workers and part-time workers) that have been compensated for work under the Recovery Act funding for anytime during the period of performance.
Job Types: Management, Technical. Business, Admin/Clerical and Trade/Craft – Examples include:
1. Management: Managers, Supervisors, Executives
2. Technical: Engineers, Scientists, Technicians
3. Business: Accountants, Architects, Analysts, Procurement, Communications, Human Resources, Legal, Planners, Information Technology
4. Admin/Clerical: Secretaries, Administrative, Clerks
5. Trade/Craft: Carpenters, Electricians, Painters, Plumbers, Laborers, Drivers"
Further,
"ARRA Headcount Reporting
Additional Clarification
ARRA Headcount reporting shall be inclusive of any and all employees who have performed work on one or more ARRA Funded contract(s) and or releases. This includes temporary workers and part-time workers that have been compensated for work performed under the ARRA Funded Contracts.
Headcount reporting shall identify each employee only once within one of the specified categories; Manager, Administrative, Business, Technical, Non-Union, or Union. Choose the category that best represents the employee’s role & position overall.
Example: John Doe works 20 hours on contract 12346 Release 3. The headcount is 1 and the hours noted are 20 on contract 12346 Release 3."
So, "lives touched" is a way to count all the man hours associated with ARRA work. I admit, it's a hamfisted term. The metric, however, is legit.
Correct! I, again, am not debating WHAT it is. I am debating how it is being used. It WILL be the new political term used to tout the stimulus. Furthermore, as it states it is not a "Live" statistic. This means that if you worked for 1 hour on a job and then were laid off, you are still counted as a positive statistic equal to the guy that worked 8,760 hours on the project.
It is more than "hamfisted," it is ridiculous.
Quote from: swake on August 24, 2010, 12:49:00 PM
Will you admit that the government program that you were outraged about, the one that your figure of $194,213 was derived from, that this actual report states that this specific program will not cost tax payers $194,213 per job and will in fact save taxpayers two billion dollars.
This isn't about Obama, it's about honesty. Are you willing to be honest here? You were wrong, really wrong. Can you admit it?
Guess not.
Quote from: swake on August 24, 2010, 01:37:13 PM
Guess not.
Sure, this was the cost for the jobs created by the DOD projects.
Other departments have different costs associated, and it varies from state to state. Most reports I've seen are in excess of $100,000 and few are permanent positions.
Some are worse than others such as ODOT's projects on Interstate 35. They created/saved 72 jobs at a cost of 1.04 million per job. According to federal data, several ODOT projects had little direct effect on employment. Some states created jobs for a bargain, TN reports that the 1,200 transportation jobs created/saved cost $161,500 each.
We can argue about what the cost of jobs actually is, but that's not the subject of this post, and I refuse to be led away from the hilarity of how this administration is attempting to re-sell a dead horse.
Has nobody noticed that it's only the DoE using this term and not the rest of the administration? Go look at recovery.gov, where it states "recovery funded jobs."
Also, taking the entire cost of a contract, including building materials, equipment rental, and whatever else and dividing it by the number of jobs paid for by the contract is a fundamentally dishonest way of calculating the cost of the jobs themselves. Only the labor cost should be counted. Unless they're digging holes and filling them back in..although that wouldn't have much material cost.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2010, 04:38:51 PM
Has nobody noticed that it's only the DoE using this term and not the rest of the administration? Go look at recovery.gov, where it states "recovery funded jobs."
Also, taking the entire cost of a contract, including building materials, equipment rental, and whatever else and dividing it by the number of jobs paid for by the contract is a fundamentally dishonest way of calculating the cost of the jobs themselves. Only the labor cost should be counted. Unless they're digging holes and filling them back in..although that wouldn't have much material cost.
In my previous position we designed ADA sidewalk ramps for ARRA projects at intersections hundreds of miles from civilization out in the NW OK. No plans for any sidewalks, just the ramps. We got a kick out of it, but it paid. . .Not enough to keep the company healthy, but a little. Amazing how many pages of CAD are necessary to design a concrete ramp at an intersection.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 24, 2010, 04:57:06 PM
In my previous position we designed ADA sidewalk ramps for ARRA projects at intersections hundreds of miles from civilization out in the NW OK. No plans for any sidewalks, just the ramps. We got a kick out of it, but it paid. . .Not enough to keep the company healthy, but a little. Amazing how many pages of CAD are necessary to design a concrete ramp at an intersection.
Who proposed those projects? ODOT, a city or county? Just curious.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2010, 04:59:07 PM
Who proposed those projects? ODOT, a city or county? Just curious.
Don't know they were all ODOT RFQs. Who knows where they originated. They were mostly busy-work projects. We weren't used to gubment projects. We could have designed a whole office building on the paper generated from one little gubment sidewalk ramp.
I can think of a whole lot of bridges that could have benefited from that money!
Apparently fewer lives were touched last month as "recovery summer" saw an increase in the number of the unemployed. Bonus, Obama goes on another vacation:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11550156
Quote from: guido911 on September 03, 2010, 11:54:01 AM
Apparently fewer lives were touched last month as "recovery summer" saw an increase in the number of the unemployed. Bonus, Obama goes on another vacation:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11550156
That would be the reduction in government employment continuing apace.
Quote from: guido911 on September 03, 2010, 11:54:01 AM
Apparently fewer lives were touched last month as "recovery summer" saw an increase in the number of the unemployed. Bonus, Obama goes on another vacation:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11550156
"Please hold, the first Obama apologist available will be here soon to remind you how many days Baby Bush spent at Camp David."
Quote from: Conan71 on September 03, 2010, 12:21:13 PM
"Please hold, the first Obama apologist available will be here soon to remind you how many days Baby Bush spent at Camp David."
If you weren't embarrassed by Bush, you'll be critical of Obama.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 03, 2010, 12:41:34 PM
If you weren't embarrassed by Bush, you'll be critical of Obama.
I'm still trying to figure out how that makes sense. Sorry I left my comprehension glasses at home this morning I think.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 03, 2010, 12:56:59 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how that makes sense. Sorry I left my comprehension glasses at home this morning I think.
Have you tried a few hits from one of these yet?
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT52LRk1eDB3MNY012ZWy64egmLWV5eTUTXHbvP8bFbH9HZrcw&t=1&usg=__DfQdJyV-uYQeJvtMBf6Q_rmLeQY=)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 03, 2010, 12:56:59 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how that makes sense. Sorry I left my comprehension glasses at home this morning I think.
Really Colin? Really.
Bush supporter = Obama critic?
That's actually pretty simple. And I don't partake.
Quote from: Hoss on September 03, 2010, 05:24:07 PM
Really Colin? Really.
Bush supporter = Obama critic?
That's actually pretty simple. And I don't partake.
Really Mark, Really. I'm a little slow on the uptake today.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 03, 2010, 06:51:02 PM
Really Mark, Really. I'm a little slow on the uptake today.
LOL...