Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Fun with numbers

Posted in:

Illinois

* The Associated Press takes a look at some of Gov. Pat Quinn’s claimed job creation data…

Quinn said $43 billion the state is spending on the Illinois Jobs Now! public-works program and the Move Illinois toll way construction project are “supporting more than half a million jobs.”

Anderson, his spokeswoman, said 439,000 jobs would be created over the next six years through the $31 billion Illinois Jobs Now! project, plus 130,000 construction jobs and 120,000 permanent jobs courtesy of the $12 billion toll way project. That’s a combined 689,000 jobs. […]

The state actually has 5.78 million non-farm jobs, according to the state Department of Employment Security. So 689,000 jobs actually would be more than 10 percent of all jobs in the state.

For comparison, Illinois’ construction sector currently employs 185,000

So, the Quinn administration is claiming that almost all the construction jobs in the state were created by some Tollway work?

Sheesh.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 10:36 am

Comments

Yet another example of why any claims Quinn makes about his stewardship of state govt should be reviewed very carefully and with extreme skepticism by the voters.

Comment by cassandra Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 10:39 am
Phony-baloney job creation numbers are in every governor and mayor’s tool box. “See, if you multiply by X, you get X jobs.”

Quinn picked up some pointers from Mitch before he left for Purdue. Mitch would put out press releases claiming hundreds of new jobs at vacant lots.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 10:43 am
These laughable claims for job creation are made at every level of government. I might believe 89,000 new jobs, but that would be stretching it — not 689,000.

I could always be wrong.

Comment by walkinfool Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 10:50 am
Word nails it once again.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 10:53 am
I think we are all being a bit harsh on the Governor and his staff.

I think the comma is just in the WRONG place(?)

Math is hard sometimes.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 10:54 am
Job creation numbers for public works are actually estimated in job-years; in other words, if there were 6 years of project construction due to infusion of public capital, those jobs would be divided amongst the time period (not necessarily evenly, as the amount of projects and workers needed fluctuates every year). This distinction is sometimes not made in PR statements.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 10:56 am
Also noted he said “supporting more than half a million jobs.”

Supporting… Not creating or completely paid for by. This is a little trick in the category of “words mean things”…

If you worked for a sub for 4 days on that gig out of a year with money paid for by that project your job is probably counted in that “supported by” number.

As Oswego Willy said. Math is hard. But I will add, its harder if you are trying to put one over on the tax payers.

Comment by Really? Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 10:58 am
Sadly, most of the media simply runs these claims as if they’re accurate and allow them to take credit for all the “jobs” the created.

Actually, that would make a great “fact-check” piece by one of those websites:

“Politician X apparently either cannot count or is blatantly making numbers up out of thin air.

Meanwhile, campaign contributors A, B and C coincidentally happened to receive the contracts on the project Politician X claims created all those jobs.”

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:01 am
I would think those 689,000 “jobs” are actually something like 100,000 jobs in any given year, with a fraction of them being actual construction jobs, others to suppliers and support services, and still others to the increased business at restaurants nd hotels and other service jobs indirectly benefitting from the influx of activity. And, as stated by others, this does not account for the factor that the money taken out of circulation by the public sector would’ve, or might’ve, been spent in other ways had the capital spending not occurred.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:02 am
Actually, these numbers are based on sound economic models. First, there are straight up construction and engineering jobs. Then there are those jobs created by suppliers. Then there is something called the multiplier effect, which means additional development and employment that comes about as a result of transportation investment. Finally, this is a multi-year program as another comment noted. These numbers are not invented, but have a strong basis in economic forecasting and modeling.

Comment by phocion Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:13 am
phocion

Hard to say that… even 100,000+ jobs that are “Straight up construction and engineering jobs” are hard to miss. Yes you may have a model somewhere in some spread sheet or math model, then there is the real world where you also have to look at the dollar spent by the gov is not spent or “invested” by the private sector.

Illinois would notice hundreds of thousands of new jobs wouldn’t you think?

Comment by Really? Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:23 am
These are the same sound economic models which promised unemployment would not crack 8.0% if we passed the stimulus plan, correct?

In reality, there are economic models behind this, just as there were economic models behind the closure studies Governor Quinn and the legislature saw before closing mental health facilities, prisons, etc. last year. The multiplier effect, etc. is very real in both theory and practice.

Since this is all based on such sound theory, however, we should receive this good news with open arms.

We throw another few billion around and Illinois’ unemployment rate just might hit something like -1.5% kiddos!

That’s right. Pat Quinn will take this &#^ unemployment rate negative.

At least that’s what the models tell me.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:24 am
I agree with Phicon. But you should also note, someone finishing concrete on one project, and then goes to different project the next day, and …you have created 2 jobs, each lasting one day.

When the private side tanked a couple of years it was stated housing affects 1 out every 6 jobs. If you count appliance manufacturing, carpet and tile producers, furniture manufacturers and the people that sell and deliver this, 1 out of 6 isn’t that hard to fathom.

Comment by Darienite Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:42 am
- So, the Quinn administration is claiming that almost all the construction jobs in the state were created by some Tollway work? -

Maybe I don’t understand, but I don’t see how claiming 130,000 jobs spread over 6 years equates to this assertion.

Either way, you take a model and do the best you can since you can’t go out and take headcount for every project. Even if the real numbers are lower, the capital program is full of smart investments that will undoubtedly pay off in the long run.

It would be nice to see some reporting on the real people and communities that are benefitting from these projects, instead of just the constant second guessing.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:50 am
A very simple explanation here.

Squeezy had a round with the job-calculatin’ computer.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:56 am
That’s about 8% of the entire workforce!

Maybe we should spend even more money we don’t have and we will have full employment.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:58 am
As they say, statistics never lie, but liars use statistics, or something to that effect.

While there may be “sound economic models” behind these particular statistics, I doubt the models were conservatively, or even correctly, used. And probably by non-economists at that since most of DCEO’s long-time economists are long gone.

I used to cook up such numbers at my former agency and never once did a higher-up ask what model I used, what assumptions I used, etc. They accepted whatever I gave them without question. I suspect that is the case here.

Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 12:02 pm
- Anonymous - Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 11:58 am:

Twas I.

Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 12:04 pm
Ok, I did some quick math on a calculator … if you get the final tally on a calculator … then … turn the calculator upside down, it reads, “hello”… try it!

Or is that one of those silly calculator email chains. Forget it, my bad.

Man, … Math IS hard.

To the Post,

Maybe the right question to ask is what jobs did Quinn NOT create? Can’t claim them all, so give us the ones created by small business or big business hiring.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 12:06 pm
===I used to cook up such numbers at my former agency and never once did a higher-up ask what model I used, what assumptions I used, etc. They accepted whatever I gave them without question. I suspect that is the case here.===

Let me be the first to “Thank You” for you dedication and service to the state of Illinois…

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 12:15 pm
I am going with straight easy math. They say they are going to spend $43 billion over 6 years. Divide that by $50,000 per job and spread over the 6 years and thats 143,333 jobs’. I know that is not how they calculate it, especially when you extrapolate the spending from those jobs, but I would guess 689,000 is high.

Comment by Been There Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 12:16 pm
Formerly Known As,
Only 6% of the money for the federal stimulus went towards roads and bridges. If the money went to where the President said it was going when they sold it, the unemployment rate would have been indeed much lower. The absolute failure of the media to report on where stimulus dollars actually went has given infrastructure spending an undeserved bad reputation as a poor job generator. It isn’t so, no matter how many times Fox news tells us so.

Comment by phocion Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 12:35 pm
Maybe Quinn was referring to those ghost employees that Tollway is so fond of hiring.

Comment by Jack Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 12:57 pm
Phocion,

I’m not quibbling over supposed-to-be’s and could-have-been’s. Nor am I concerned with what you may have seen while you watch Fox news. I am dealing with the very real world.

I was simply pointing out that Jared and Christina both used economic modeling to make some very real predictions.

The government then used those predictions to make some very real promises.

Those promises entailed the spending of hundreds of billions of very real tax dollars at the expense of other possible needs.

And somehow, some way, those predictions and promises and claims of credit for jobs created never quite panned out in the very real world.

If anyone else feels like telling us what FOX or MSNBC is saying today, please do tell, because many of us don’t watch either of them.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 12:58 pm
With job creation numbers like that I guess we can stop talking about the pension shortfall problem. This is just the type of economic stimulus we needed. More jobs, more tax revenue. Aren’t exaggerations like these the same reason we are in the current economic mess?

Comment by Capo Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 12:59 pm
Hey Willy, cut me some slack. I said “cook” because I usually had a few hours or less to come up with the numbers. I tried to be as accurate and conservative as possible under the circumstances.

The most common problem is what multiplier to use for what type of expenditure.

My point was the lack of knowledge and interest by the folks who spout this stuff.

Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 1:16 pm
Divide that by $50,000 per job and spread over the 6 years and thats 143,333 jobs’.

Actually, by your estimate using $50k per job per yearthat would be 859,000 job-years, which is even more optimistic than the claimed 689,000 (Which I’m 99% certain was the actual calculation based on job-years rather than single jobs sustained over 6 years).

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 1:25 pm
Phocion, one addendum:

I believe that we are ultimately in agreement and would find common ground on many of the details about why the plan did not work as it was supposed to.

If you believe the flaw in such plans is not in the planning and modeling, but rather in the execution, then we arrive at the same conclusion regarding the nature of these claims: they are dubious.

But if you are defending such programs as a paragon of economic revival beyond reproach, then we part ways. The State of Illinois and our politicians share a less-than sterling reputation in ensuring the promised dollar amounts reach the proper destinations in a timely fashion and unmolested.

btw, here’s Paul Krugman’s take on the Romer-Bernstein report: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/romer-and-bernstein-on-stimulus/

And the full report itself, for those so inclined: http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

Infrastructure spending can obviously inject money into the economy, just as SNAP and other programs do. The flaw is not always with the theory, but the execution.

By the way, we might want to stimulate our economy in Illinois by paying some of our service providers while we’re at it. They’re only been waiting for months on end.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 1:25 pm
===The most common problem is what multiplier to use for what type of expenditure.===

Look, I was told there would be “No Math” …

- Sir Reel -, If I was calling you out on it, you would know. I was actually having “fun” with the premise of government and your truthful statement that applies at times …like …

“I need to prove ‘X’ by 4 pm, AND with some numbers to show… I dunno, whatever …”

And you providing that “service to the state”

And, …have ya ever met a “Mass Com” or English major who claimed they excelled in Math? When you find that ONE, that will be a first one for me.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 1:30 pm
Quinn is full of typical political blather, why take any elected official at their word?

Comment by bman Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 1:36 pm
“Actually, by your estimate using $50k per job per yearthat would be 859,000 job-years, which is even more optimistic than the claimed 689,000 ”

I know the state is basically broke, but I don’t think anyone is yet interested in *donating* to the state the materials/equipment/fuel/profits related to all that construction. And I do expect that those costs will exceed 20% of the total.

Comment by Chris Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 3:42 pm
Well before jumping to rash conclusions, in fairness, one might keep in mind those are job numbers reportedly spread OUT over SIX years so that the Total may not really suggest a deceitful-by-the-Administration 10% figure of All CURrently non-farm Illinois employees at the present moment…just sayin’.

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 5:06 pm
The flaw is not always with the theory, but the execution.

Reminds me of coach John McKay’s exhortation after another Buccaneer loss after a reporter asked him about the team’s “execution” (during the game).

“I’m all for it” said McKay.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 6:25 pm
I don’t think anyone is yet interested in *donating* to the state the materials/equipment/fuel/profits related to all that construction.

Contractor gets award for state construction project.
Celebrates by buying 8 bottles of Maker’s Mark from Ray’s liquor store.
Supplier sells contractor 8000 tons of crushed stone. Uses profit to make down payment on Caterpillar end loader.
Caterpillar employee goes out to Avanti’s and treats his family to a round of Gondolas.
Avanti’s orders another 500 lbs. of luncheon meat from Sysco in Chicago.
Sysco salesman gets bonus and takes family on vacation to Pere Marquette state park.
Hotel in Grafton and restaurant in Alton gets 4 additional customers.
Notice how little of the $ left the USA and circulated several times thru the state economy, at least on first glance. I think that is essentially the argument that infrastructure spending uniquely helps the local economy where other “stimuli” don’t necessarily do so.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 7:12 pm
Six Degrees –

You left out the part about how the state taxed or borrowed the money it spent on the construction project, so that 8 people cut one bottle of Maker’s Mark off their order from Ray’s this month, and cut their orders of crushed stone by 1000 tons each, so their supplier couldn’t buy a new end loader, etc. If I were a real anti-government type, I would pad my example by saying that the projects that got cut back would have created profit-making enterprises, while the state construction project was a road to nowhere that benefited nobody. And the last thing is the true point — it isn’t the amount of government spending that counts, it’s what the government spends the money on. Even classic Keynesianism is premised on the notion that there is insufficient consumption, which is rectified by government consumption spending.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 18, 13 @ 9:20 pm