Hacker News Reader

Comment by dshields1 | Hacker News Reader

The subsidy is $1.5B for 13,000 jobs. The other half of the subsidy is for capital investment and construction expenses.

It's still a huge number though.

View on HN

The article states that: "At $3 billion for 13,000 jobs, the Wisconsin deal would cost $231,000 per job."

By comparison, economists have estimated $125K/job-year to $202K/job-year from the 2009 stimulus (ARRA). [1]

[1] https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/revie... , page 3

I'm confused about the comparison between cost per job and cost per job year. Presumably this (the Wisconsin deal) would be the better deal as the jobs presumably last more than one year?

Doubtful alot of the Recovery Act was for One Time Construction projects, like paving a road.

There were also alot of one off projects like sending people out to help with Energy Efficiency in homes.

There was not alot of long term stable jobs in there.

What about all the Wall Streeters bailed out? Those are long-term stable jobs, after a fashion.

Your first sentence suggests that you disagreed with my previous post, but your rationale very much supports my point. Spending 125-250K on a job that only exists for a year is markedly worse than paying a comparable amount for a job that lasts many years.

I dont think the government should be paying for any job.

I disagree with this corporate subsidy, and I disagreed with the Recovery act

That's fine, but my statement was neither for not against. Just observing that one appears to be a better bargain than the other.

That should just about cover Trump's first term.

Interesting to think of this as a highly inefficient welfare system for the electoral college.

Up to 13,000 jobs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com