Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Quarter-billion-dollar stimulus grant creates just 400 jobs - $300,000 per job!!!

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 30, 2012, 1:14 p.m. EST by Dmooradian (-74)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Battery maker A123 Systems vowed thousands of new jobs when it received a nearly quarter-billion-dollar stimulus grant in late 2009, but federal job-tracking figures show only a few hundred positions were created before the company joined a growing list of federally backed energy businesses that ended in bankruptcy.

The latest quarterly report on file with a federal stimulus tracking database shows just seven positions created through the grant from April to June this year. Previous quarters' job reports contained anywhere from a handful of positions created to more than 100 new jobs.

But even when the quarterly reports are combined, a total of 408 new positions were reported under the stimulus program since 2009, amounting to more than $300,000 spent for each new job reported. .

The Massachusetts-based battery maker received a $249 million grant in December 2009 through President Obama's stimulus program, of which the company received about $129 million before it went bankrupt this month. Like all other recipients of stimulus loans or grants, A123 Systems was required to report job creation statistics to Recovery.gov.

26 Comments

26 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

It's because they're stimulating the supply (corporations) side instead of the demand (people) side. If you stimulate demand, profits will come to corporations.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

But Ryan promised that it would create jobs in his District. He wouldn't lie would he??

One third of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts, so that the GOP would support it. Of course they didn't support it, but the tax cuts stayed in. Where are the jobs that those tax cuts for small business (always) create?

[-] -2 points by Futurevision1 (-75) 1 year ago

Well, so what? Lots of people here want 4more years of wonderful "stimulus"!

[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

Well, I know I do. I mean 300,000 to start ain't bad, right? Where do we apply?

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Call Blackwater, or KBR.

According to data provided to the House panel, the average per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a day for operators.

According to data provided to the House panel, Regency charged ESS an average of $1,100 a day for the same people. How the Blackwater and Regency security charges were passed on by ESS to Halliburton's KBR cannot easily be determined since the catering company was paid on a per-meal basis, with security being a percentage of that charge.

Halliburton's KBR blended its security costs into the blanket costs passed on to the Defense Department.

How much more these costs are compared with the pay of U.S. troops is easier to determine.

An unmarried sergeant given Iraq pay and relief from U.S. taxes makes about $83 to $85 a day, given time in service. A married sergeant with children makes about double that, $170 a day.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001352.html

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4784) 1 year ago

http://warisacrime.org/content/unaccountable-private-military-contractor-abuses

And for all this money paid, 'Crimes Against Humanity'.

Those controlling the US Government, 'Could Not Care Less'.

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

Wait a minute, are we talking about Obama's stimulus of 249 mil to A123, which then attempted to sell their company and their tech to the Chinese, or Bush's Iraq? Where am I? Which branch of corrupt government are we talking about?

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It's a comparison between a clear scam, set up by the former admin to fleece the American taxpayer, (why does the military require security forces?) and a genuine attempt to create jobs for American citizens.

Obama didn't send that company broke, and if you read your own link, of the proposed $250,000,000, only $129,000,000 was outlayed. You'd be better off questioning the bank bailouts, which were often doled out to bankster executives as "performance" bonuses, than taking a swipe at a genuine attempt to create jobs.

And remember, the prez gets these proposals okayed through congress, right? And he was doing what other nations also did. Australia's admin has been ridiculed for doing the same thing; jobs were created though, and our economy is rated up in the top ten.

Unfortunately, for your people, the corruption is so entrenched, and there's so many noses at the trough (one gov quango for every 100 Americans) that stimulus packages often get swallowed up before they can do any good.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good comment - though I gotta say in my opinion - bailing out the banks was a mistake - the aid should have gone directly to the victims - the people - there it would have been spent in the wide economy.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Agreed. And handing huge amounts of cash to individuals without any list of provisos on the use of that money was either a huge error of judgement, or cronyism at its worst.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Exactly - you don't throw money at people with out some sort of concrete agreement as to how it be used.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Stimulus, bailout, it's all scam in the US. We can turn anything into a scam.

[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

I vehemently disagree. US foreign aid is what, 60 billion? Or roughly 6% of our GDP. Obama could have tickled everyone in this country with a hundred thousand dollar grant for half of that and many of them would have been highly stimulated; many would not have lost their homes, many would have continued the monthly contribution to the bank.

With all the economists in this country there is no excuse for the level of Federal ignorance regarding our economy; with all of the economists in this country we should be able to pinpoint all primary sources of regional economy; it doesn't require quantum computing, all they have to do is analyze tax returns; it's common sense and it's simple math.

But pinpointing the sources of regional economy was not necessary because stimulating our regional economies was never the intention; the intention was to hedge the success of specific companies and specific industries; these companies may or may not impact regional economies but the question itself is nonsensical because these are simply energy companies that are entirely dependent on the demands of growing economy.

While Obama has raised taxes and virtually all living expenses, he has also simultaneously aided in the extraction of many of the primary movers of economy through Free Trade.

Go sell this nonsense somewhere else; Americans aren't buying Green in this form as anything but more corruption.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

60 billion is .36% of GDP of 16 trillion. $200 per person.

[+] -4 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

Yup, and now you know why stimulus can't work - we can't afford to simulate individuals - and to stimulate economies would require grants to millions of companies. You could say that Obama was trying to boost employment, lower his unemployment numbers in the chase of the vote, but this definitely was not an attempt to boost economy. Halliburton or Green stimulus, it's like comparing cyanide and arsenic - they're both poison.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

What's needed is a more equal distribution of wealth. The lower 90% haven't had a raise in 40 years. When a large part of the economic body doesn't receive adequate nutrition, the whole body risks a fall.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

[-] -3 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

Stealing from the über rich to give to the poor, with government empowered as the middleman? Organized crime has been fighting for years for this very reason - the corrupt middleman - so good luck with that.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Did you notice where all of the increase in wealth is going? If it continues another depression is sure to follow. The period from 1958 to 1968 had the best growth in recent memory with high taxes for the wealthy, including capital gains, income, and corporate. Union membership was also high as well as a climbing minimum wage.

I know it seems counter intuitive, but a fairly distributed share of wealth is better for the economy as a whole. The real theft has been the lack of any raise for the lower 90% of the population even though productivity has increased by 80% over the last 40 years. Are you old enough to remember back to the 50's and 60's when it took just one person to support a family?

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1958&end=1968

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates_2011.png

http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/the-decline-of-american-labor-unions/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg

[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

The way I remember the 50s and 60s may not be familiar to you. I remember the male head of household working 80 and 90 hour weeks at jobs where people were actually expected to produce. We cannot compare the last two generations to that generation - as a society we got lazy; we put our wives out to work to compensate and now we're complaining because we've lost the labor leverage that labor demand created. Wives in the work place, immigration both legal and illegal, coupled with advances in robotics, outsourcing, civil service reductions in force due to debt, etc., have created a labor force that is no longer economically balanced towards universal prosperity. We have tipped the scales to enslave ourselves. Wages are not going to increase, they're going to decrease while simultaneously they will be taxed at a higher rate; look around - most will be lucky if they even keep their jobs. Just curious but how many do you know, personally, that have been effected by this over the last ten years? In my world, there is virtually no one that has not been negatively impacted in some way. In most industries we no longer have the labor advantage, nor can the once labeled "lazy" turn to civil service for any easier go of it because municipalities are broke nationwide.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Hot air. Any statistics to back up your claim of 80 to 90 hour work weeks? This chart shows that a worker in 1950 averaged just 15% more hours than now. You do realize that many companies purposely limit hours to employees to avoid paying benefits even though the employees would like to work full time.

http://emsnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/screen-shot-2012-01-11-at-8-01-15-pm.png

Obviously you didn't take a look at this graph that shows why wages for the lower 90% haven't increased. All the increase went to the top 10%.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

American labor is not in a position to demand more; see the above. The value of labor in this country is rapidly decreasing and will continue to decrease.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The value of labor is always negotiable. There is plenty of room to bargain as shown in the graph above.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

That is an extremely grim, but 100% true statement. Another number to add into your equation is the fact that far more kids are now turning 18, and therefore now 'employable,' than the number of jobs being created. If something isn't done fairly quick, we'll see staggeringly high unemployment numbers.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

gnomunny wrote; [quote] far more kids are now turning 18, and therefore now 'employable,' than the number of jobs being created. If something isn't done fairly quick, we'll see staggeringly high unemployment numbers.[unquote]

Or, we'll see a rationalisation of the whole concept of "employment". Wealth concentration is the real cancer killing western civilisation, along with globalisation.

Get rid of present currencies, and start over, with 20 hour weeks, and a living wage for all.

The greedy 0.01% can see it coming, and that is why they are madly murdering national leaders to steal their gold supplies.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

The way the numbers are going, they're either going to have to start employing a whole lot of people, or killing them off. The jury's still out.

Wait, the jury foreman just stuck his head out and asked someone about "sustainability of finite resources."

[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

That would be my prediction, yes.