Limbaugh: "Are we ready to admit now the stimulus has not created jobs?"

Levin's been eating too many 'organic peaches'.

Thanks for your enlightening perspective.

Yes, but every public sector job is created by money taken out of the private sector at some point either in the past, present, or future.

The business owners I talk to (mainly in the construction industry) feel too uncertain about economic growth to start hiring again. They have said that this government does not make them feel confident in its ability to foster strong economic growth. I know my world is probably pretty small, but that same sentiment has been shared time and time again. I think the biggest problem is that they don't know what is coming next. They don't know how upcoming legislation and past legislation (mainly healthcare and stimulus) will effect their tax burden and cost of employment in the future.

Why has only $410 Billion been spent? If it is stimulus, why would we flood the system with all of the money within a few short months? Could it be that they plan on politicizing this money as elections draw nearer?

-"A public sector job is still a paying job for someone to feed their children and be good consumers"

Understood, but we also have to consider how much more it costs to create a public sector job vs. a private sector job. Some of these jobs "created" have cost tax payer several hundred thousand dollars.

Sorry, I was including things like the "jobs" bill, cash for clunkers, new home buyer tax credit, etc. as well to get that number to "nearly $1 trillion".

-"Unemployment will only go down, once the companies that are starting to report profits again start taking those profits and hiring people."

Of course. I think our history tells us that this will be the case in the natural cycles of the economy. I guess the question is whether or not the stimulus has now become a hindrance to people hiring?

-"But years of outsourcing have made most American companies equate employees with profit loss"

Fair enough, but actually more jobs have been outsourced TO America than outsourced OUT of America over the last 20 years. I don't believe that employers equate employees to profit and loss necessarily. They equate costs to profit/loss. Most employers cut as many costs as possible before trimming employment because rehiring and training and other means of employing are quite expensive. Many companies invest a lot of money to prepare an employee for the job they do. There comes a point, however, when revenues and demand do not justify certain employees. That isn't an equation of profit/loss to employees, but instead to cost benefit and efficiency.

-"considering how business refuse to hire people even after they have returned to profitability"

Please, see point above. Profitability does not necessarily reflect increased demand or revenue. If higher employment is not deemed necessary, cost beneficial, or efficient it will not happen. Profitabilty comes from many sources in times like these and reduced employment is a very small part of that. You also have to remember that business is not charity.

You are right we could have been looking at 15% or higher, but we can't know that for sure. It could have stayed at 8.5%. Who knows????

-"That 95% you're using is probably for one month (May '10)."

That is why I said "last month". Meaning May 2010.

-"It was a bad month, but this might give you a little better perspective on things."

I think we have to look at these employment numbers in context. In a typical year, April through August is when the highest percentage of hiring takes place. Yet, with the numbers we are seeing this year, net job growth is very bad for these months.