what a riot! Freeper saying that "green jobs" will cost 135K EACH, according to

[secondwind]

her fuzzy math, she is dividing 2.3 billion by 17,000 jobs.

What a riot.....they neglect to factor in the COST of going from an industrial economy to a green economy.....



:crazy:

[zbdent]

1. and yet ...

$100 million to exactly one insurance executive is okay with them ...

[secondwind]

2. bingo.

[high density]

4. true

They rail against union workers, teachers, etc but have no issue with execs reaping amazing paydays. I think they all expect to be making $100 million themselves someday.

[zbdent]

14. Hell, where's the outcry of GM blowing how much money on

having Howie Long (Repug) being a pitchman for Chevy? I thought that the Repugs wanted Chevy to fail, so that it would bust the unions???

[baldguy]

6. And that's not even a *NEW* job.

[stray cat]

3. Based on the stimulus package versus number of jobs thats just about the current estimate I think

of how effective the stimulus package was in creating jobs. I remember thinking it would be cheaper just to give people money instead of creating a job which cost more to create than it paid.

[krispos42]

5. It's not just labor costs, either

If I go to install a little wind turbine, and it costs me $15,000... well, 10k of that was just for the wind turbine itself, before an erg of labor was done.

So if it costs $135k per job per year to install, say, upgraded wall insulation... a fair amount of that money will be for THE INSULATION! And the TOOLS! And the HEAVY EQUIPMENT!

Duh, freepers...

[Frustratedlady]

7. You're correct. I forget what the return was for every dollar spent,

but it was significant.

When you figure the jobs created to make the materials to go into the widget, the checks deposited in the bank, the money spent on groceries, gas, babysitting, clothing, etc. that wouldn't be there without a job, each contributes to a larger return.

If the worker put their money in the bank, that would be a different story.

All the Repugs consider is that the money is lost. It isn't lost.

[krispos42]

8. I think that for infrastructure jobs, $1 of infrastructure spending put $1.55 into the economy

While a dollar of tax cuts put less than 40 cents into the economy.

:-)


Food stamps and unemployment have similar numbers to infrastructure, IIRC.



But my point was that when you start a project of some kind, a minority of the money goes towards payroll. If I had a house built for $150,000, and it took 10 people making an average of $15 an hour a month to buil it, the labor costs are only $24,000. Sure, add in taxes and insurance and maybe it goes to $36k (thanks, free-market health-insurance), but it's still less than a quarter of the total cost.

So the freepers would say that "building that house costs $15,000 per job for a month's work", and they'd be correct, but misleading.


Of course, when I sold that house for $200,000, then I could say I MADE $5,000 per job, but they won't admit that. :-)

[zbdent]

15. yes, but truth gets in the way of their rhetoric and lies ...

they have no need for "truth" ... or honesty ... or integrity ... or reality ...

[donheld]

9. Check out the latest Rolling Stone

You'll see where they're getting that BS

[harkadog]

10. Your math is very fuzzy also.

2.3 billion does not even begin to get you from an industrial economy to a "green" economy.

[secondwind]

11. Obama just said he's asking for 5 billion more.......

I didn't say the total cost for "going green" was 2.3....

[harkadog]

12. Then you can't put that cost in the equation.

It is simply not a factor.

[secondwind]

13. I understand.....this wingnut was just using the original 2.3 billion and running with it. Thanks.