HICKS: Stimulus job creation has been surprisingly small

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

Earlier this month, the Obama administration released its estimate of the impact of the fiscal stimulus on job creation and retention. The estimate of roughly a million jobs created or retained caused quite a stir among critics of the stimulus.

I believe the administration’s estimates are fair and accurate. Indeed, if they have erred in their predictions, it is in understating job impacts. It is important that economists charged with forming policy preserve their analytical integrity, and this is a fine example of that. Even so, the outlook on the stimulus is not necessarily rosy. Understanding how estimates are made and what the stimulus means in the long run is not as simple as it seems.

The truth is, there are no “data” in the world that can tell you simply what is happening in the economy. Job numbers ebb and flow, industries relocate, and incomes vary across regions and groups of people for a variety of reasons. It requires analysis to understand how these interactions work.

Economists, like virtually all scientists, use mathematical models to tease out cause and effect. It is hard enough with controlled experiments. It is much more difficult if you have to rely on the real world—without controlled experiments. Economists would know a lot more about recessions if we could convince some folks to sign up for a random recession trial. (Come to think of it, California and Michigan just might be doing that for us.)

The stimulus can (and is) creating and saving jobs, even as we continue to suffer employment declines. Pure data tells all of us the world is stationary and flat. It takes a bit of math to know otherwise.

The administration’s economists rely upon models of the economy that account for stimulus spending. The administration’s estimate of a million jobs traced to the stimulus is good news, but it surely isn’t good enough news. There’s a dark cloud on the horizon.

Those million jobs weren’t enough to offset total job losses in the economy. Further, these new jobs have materialized slowly, reminding us why large-scale fiscal-stimulus efforts were largely written off two generations ago. But these observations aren’t the real problem. The concern is not how many jobs have been created, but how few.

The stimulus thus far has returned somewhere between $50 billion and $65 billion in tax relief (you all have noticed those fatter paychecks each week, right?). This alone should have created more than a half-million jobs. That means less than 10 percent of the spending (which will eventually be more than $500 billion) has hit the streets.

The recession is now over. If we continue to spend the stimulus at this rate, we have a real problem. Without any additional rebound, the stimulus alone will account for 7 million to 10 million additional jobs. That type of job creation sounds tantalizing. It is also impossible. What it will give us is inflation.•


Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.