Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands

WASHINGTON (AP) - An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.

The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

LTRT wrote:Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.

The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

'it's working, it's working', the fuzzy math that is

This is becoming more and more of a sham each and every day, but then again what does the public know. For the WH to continue to put their best spin on this makes them look even more like the buffoons they are. But wait everyone says...the bulk of the money hasn't yet been distributed. Why just last week the prez's own economic adviser went on record by stating it's already had it's biggest impact. But I'm sure we'll be inundated soon about how jobless claims have dropped, simply neglecting the fact the people have exhausted all benefits and took jobs as mall Santa's.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

- A company working with the Federal Communications Commission reported that stimulus money paid for 4,231 jobs, when about 1,000 were produced.

- A Georgia community college reported creating 280 jobs with recovery money, but none was created from stimulus spending.

- A Florida child care center said its stimulus money saved 129 jobs but used the money on raises for existing employees.

There's no evidence the White House sought to inflate job numbers in the report. But administration officials seized on the 30,000 figure as evidence that the stimulus program was on its way toward fulfilling the president's promise of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

The reporting problem could be magnified Friday when a much larger round of reports is expected to show hundreds of thousands of jobs repairing public housing, building schools, repaving highways and keeping teachers on local payrolls.

The White House says it is aware there are problems. In an interview, Ed DeSeve, an Obama adviser helping to oversee the stimulus program, said agencies have been working with businesses that received the money to correct mistakes. Other errors discovered by the public also will be corrected, he said.

"If there's an error that was made, let's get it fixed," DeSeve said.

Pez wrote:

LTRT wrote:Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.

The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

'it's working, it's working', the fuzzy math that is

This is becoming more and more of a sham each and every day, but then again what does the public know. For the WH to continue to put their best spin on this makes them look even more like the buffoons they are. But wait everyone says...the bulk of the money hasn't yet been distributed. Why just last week the prez's own economic adviser went on record by stating it's already had it's biggest impact. But I'm sure we'll be inundated soon about how jobless claims have dropped, simply neglecting the fact the people have exhausted all benefits and took jobs as mall Santa's.

I cant understand what it is these days that make people think everything is a conspiracy... Do you think the WH is stupid enough to overstate jobs as part of a conspiracy, knowing that those numbers will be scrutinized and rescrutinized by every media outlet and political watchdog... If you would prefer to think that this is a conspiracy and the WH is a bunch of buffoons, that's an opinion you are certainly entitled to.

meta4 wrote:It appears by your comments you have misunderstood how the job numbers were reporting, attributing the errors to intentional "fluffing" by the administration. The article clearly details this is not the case.

Why don't you give that Florida Child Care center a call and tell them how you feel disappointed with their reporting.

Pez wrote:I cant understand what it is these days that make people think everything is a conspiracy... Do you think the WH is stupid enough to overstate jobs as part of a conspiracy, knowing that those numbers will be scrutinized and rescrutinized by every media outlet and political watchdog... If you would prefer to think that this is a conspiracy and the WH is a bunch of buffoons, that's an opinion you are certainly entitled to.

meta4 wrote:It appears by your comments you have misunderstood how the job numbers were reporting, attributing the errors to intentional "fluffing" by the administration. The article clearly details this is not the case.

Why don't you give that Florida Child Care center a call and tell them how you feel disappointed with their reporting.

meta4 wrote:Have you picked up a mop yet?

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:It appears by your comments you have misunderstood how the job numbers were reporting, attributing the errors to intentional "fluffing" by the administration. The article clearly details this is not the case.

Why don't you give that Florida Child Care center a call and tell them how you feel disappointed with their reporting.

Then my answer would be they screwed up by using untrustworthy numbers. Seriously, why report any number? Well, the obvious answer is to look good. But how can anyone possibly quantify how many jobs were saved/created by any one factor? There are so many components that go into hiring decisions.

meta4 wrote:...but it's still a "job task" that must be performed by a single human.

Broad strokes my friends... I take them for what they are.

meta4 wrote:

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:It appears by your comments you have misunderstood how the job numbers were reporting, attributing the errors to intentional "fluffing" by the administration. The article clearly details this is not the case.

Why don't you give that Florida Child Care center a call and tell them how you feel disappointed with their reporting.

Then my answer would be they screwed up by using untrustworthy numbers. Seriously, why report any number? Well, the obvious answer is to look good. But how can anyone possibly quantify how many jobs were saved/created by any one factor? There are so many components that go into hiring decisions.

My response would be, "it is what it is". You think some of the new jobs created should have been people who call up these recipients of stimulus to interrogate them on how they report their job creation numbers?

Ok, I give you (pretend you're a state) $5M to do road improvements, you accept bids for the contract. One bid is selected, the project begins, and numbers of employees working on that contract are reported... say 310 jobs. They've got dirt movers and stone delivery, asphalt, rollers, and supervisor type guys. These aren't full time positions, but it's still a "job task" that must be performed by a single human.

Do they report only the number of personnel working on that contract? Or spend 3 weeks perhaps more time, getting into more granularity by reporting the "numbers" of jobs which only work more than 24 hours per work week for a minimum of 13 consecutive weeks? Why not a solid 40? What if the money only created part time opportunities, say 5am to 12 noon for the child care place?

Broad strokes my friends... I take them for what they are.

meta4 wrote:

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:It appears by your comments you have misunderstood how the job numbers were reporting, attributing the errors to intentional "fluffing" by the administration. The article clearly details this is not the case.

Why don't you give that Florida Child Care center a call and tell them how you feel disappointed with their reporting.

Then my answer would be they screwed up by using untrustworthy numbers. Seriously, why report any number? Well, the obvious answer is to look good. But how can anyone possibly quantify how many jobs were saved/created by any one factor? There are so many components that go into hiring decisions.

My response would be, "it is what it is". You think some of the new jobs created should have been people who call up these recipients of stimulus to interrogate them on how they report their job creation numbers?

Ok, I give you (pretend you're a state) $5M to do road improvements, you accept bids for the contract. One bid is selected, the project begins, and numbers of employees working on that contract are reported... say 310 jobs. They've got dirt movers and stone delivery, asphalt, rollers, and supervisor type guys. These aren't full time positions, but it's still a "job task" that must be performed by a single human.

Do they report only the number of personnel working on that contract? Or spend 3 weeks perhaps more time, getting into more granularity by reporting the "numbers" of jobs which only work more than 24 hours per work week for a minimum of 13 consecutive weeks? Why not a solid 40? What if the money only created part time opportunities, say 5am to 12 noon for the child care place?

Broad strokes my friends... I take them for what they are.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

What if the company that won the job could do it with it's current workforce. Do those jobs count as saved even though they were not going to be laid off due to other work? I would say under the current administration math they would count as jobs saved even though they really weren't.

Pez wrote:No... he didnt really... While that is certainly a GOP talking point, Obama himself never said it, never framed it in terms of a promise. I know the document you are referring to, and it was a chart that stated where unemployment would be with and without the stimulus. Obama's staff prepared the document, and it contained the unemployment projections... hardly promises.

If you find a reliable source that reports Obama actually said that, I will stand humbly corrected.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Well if it is a chart he used to sell his stimulus bill as what would happen with stimulus funds vs without stimulus funds. Then he didn't promise he in "bmans voice" lied and peoples wallets died.

Pez wrote:I will concede that the administration projected that unemployment would not go over 8%, but thats a far cry from any kind of guarantee.

IrishGuy wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:

What if the company that won the job could do it with it's current workforce. Do those jobs count as saved even though they were not going to be laid off due to other work? I would say under the current administration math they would count as jobs saved even though they really weren't.

This is what I am wondering too. At work, we have recieved the construction management contract for three different counties' stimulus jobs for road resurfacing. None of the companies on any of these jobs has "hired" anyone new. Also, at my work, we haven't hired anyone new. We are currently stretched very thin and working overtime hours to cover everything, but the suits have chosen not to hire additional help.

meta4 wrote:

Irish, this will be interesting to see how the numbers are reported... can you give us some rough details on the projects? When do they start construction, when do they end? I understand if you don't want to share that, maybe just the counties? Are you certain these were "stimulated" projects or were they already previously planned/budgeted, and now that stimulus money is available it's being used?

IrishGuy wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Irish, this will be interesting to see how the numbers are reported... can you give us some rough details on the projects? When do they start construction, when do they end? I understand if you don't want to share that, maybe just the counties? Are you certain these were "stimulated" projects or were they already previously planned/budgeted, and now that stimulus money is available it's being used?

These are stimulus projects. Asphalt milling and resurfacing. One of the counties has already started and finished, began about 4 weeks ago and just finsihed. Another county is getting ready to start very soon. That one is supposed to be completed by Thanksgiving. Not really sure when the third one will begin. Many of these resurfacing projects probably were planned in the long term for the respected county/city, but the local government entity applied for and was granted federal stimulus money to pay for the particular projects.

LTRT wrote:

Pez wrote:I will concede that the administration projected that unemployment would not go over 8%, but thats a far cry from any kind of guarantee.

And I project that we won't get over 8" of snow this season. I'm not promising it and I'm not even saying it, I'm writing it. "thats a far cry from any kind of guarantee"

Me thinks you're trying to split that hair again.

Pez wrote:... ultimately the stimuls money (in this example) is doing what it's supposed to do... putting that company on a more sound financial footing.

meta4 wrote:I'll give you a job LTRT, you can beat my horse to death. He's on his last leg anyway...

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:I'll give you a job LTRT, you can beat my horse to death. He's on his last leg anyway...

Some are saying they miss Bman, I'm just trying to pick up the slack where he left off, except I'm on the right side of the equation.