There were good number of mistruths along with downright lies so I’ll just post this following assessment:
"The point is that, clearly, not everyone across the political spectrum and economic spectrum shares the Moody’s assessment that the plan will produce 2.7 million jobs by the end of 2030 – let alone Biden’s suggestion that it will produce up to 16 million jobs.
Another analysis, by the firm S&P Global, also came to a different conclusion than Moody’s. S&P did not look at the particulars of Biden’s plan, but it estimated that a hypothetical $2.1 trillion in infrastructure spending – more than Biden is proposing, whatever definition of “infrastructure” you use – would result in a net 713,000 additional jobs by 2029. (The analysis found that there would be 2.3 million additional jobs by 2024 as infrastructure projects were completed, but that the jobs impact of the plan would decline later in the decade.)"
They were not citing anonymous sources, which lends value to the analysis in this case. It is not logical to dismiss all a medium’s serious reporting purely on the basis of their being the source.
I’ve got another Biden idea? Let’s kill the Keystone pipeline, all the great paying jobs with it, that doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime and let’s all watch the price of gas sky rocket?
Care to discuss the content since this is a topic we had dialogue prior in a different thread. In that thread I argued that I was very skeptical that big government spending push would actually produce permanent good paying jobs.
Ironically the article points out claims a consensus as high as 19 million new jobs, but that’s simply not the case:
“But Strain said that, because the economy is already likely to be at full employment over this extended time horizon, the number of additional jobs the Biden plan will create “is zero.” The plan, Strain argued, is likely to merely shift jobs toward industries “favored by the infrastructure plan,” such as clean energy, while shifting them away from other industries.”
This is more along what I have argued previously, that the Dems will eliminate sectors they don’t like to give to sectors they favor.
Well it also completely ignored the negative impact on jobs of the higher taxes he is planning. Don’t worry, I know, this is where the left comes in to make the absurd case that taking money from the private sector doesn’t reduce the capital they possess for expansion.
For like 10 years now, XL had been the single solitary jobs program Republicans have been able to talk about. Temporary pipeline welding jobs that leads to about 40 full time jobs, to transport Canadian dilbit to Gulf Coast refineries and then shipped back to Canada for export to China.
I think that Covid-19 has thrown a wrench into any predictions about jobs in the future. I don’t think we have a handle yet on how many business have shut down for good and how that will impact job availability. So far the economy seems to be in good shape and there are no obvious signs that high inflation is going to set-in. We do have a history where government spending did create jobs. The steps that Obama made to get us out of a huge depression proved that. This time around it might be mroe limited but I am going to remain optimistic that in general we will see some good job creation.
As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has “[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points” and “[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.”
Permanent private sector jobs. In other words an article indicating that such and such private sector companies have X amount of new permanent jobs as a result of the Stimulus package.
