An economic analysis is not a jobs analysis, they are playing with people's failure to understand what an economic analysis is and the point of it and this is just used to create an attack point for one side. an economic study looks at economic costs to a company, from those economic costs one could create a jobs analysis from the economic study.
An economic analysis is not a jobs analysis, they are playing with people's failure to understand what an economic analysis is and the point of it and this is just used to create an attack point for one side. an economic study looks at economic costs to a company, from those economic costs one could create a jobs analysis from the economic study.
Well, the congressman asked him straight forward if it was normal practice to not take into account job losses. All the guy had to do was say "That is correct..." and he wouldn't have made himself look like an idiot.
Also I believe that it is irresponsible to not take into account the jobs losses DIRECTLY. Overall economic impact, not just within the company.
An economic analysis is not a jobs analysis, they are playing with people's failure to understand what an economic analysis is and the point of it and this is just used to create an attack point for one side. an economic study looks at economic costs to a company, from those economic costs one could create a jobs analysis from the economic study.
This. Gardner is more interested in spinning this for a talking point than he is in getting at the truth. He's focused on a politically charged word and ignoring every other aspect of what he's being told.
When you did an economic analysis on the impact of purchasing your Jeep, did you directly consider jobs? Is it normal procedure to ignore jobs when conducting an economic analysis on purchasing a new vehicle? How do you justify the loss of jobs at GM and Ford you caused by buying that Jeep?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
(1)When you did an economic analysis on the impact of purchasing your Jeep, did you directly consider jobs?
(2)Is it normal procedure to ignore jobs when conducting an economic analysis on purchasing a new vehicle?
(3)How do you justify the loss of jobs at GM and Ford you caused by buying that Jeep?
(1)No
(2)Yes (for me)
(3)I don't.
See, how hard was that.
The EPA guy made it sound like he had something to hide. He didn't answer the questions directly. All he had to say was "No, we did not take into account job losses because it is not part of our analysis." He did not want to come out and say it (for obvious reasons) and that is why he looked foolish.
"Economic impact analysis (EIA) examines the effect of a policy, program, project, activity or event on the economy of a given area. The area can range from a neighborhood to the entire globe. Economic impact is usually measured in terms of changes in economic growth (output or value added) and associated changes in jobs (employment) and income (wages).
The analysis typically measures or estimates the level of economic activity occurring at a given time with the project or policy occurring, and calculating the difference from what would otherwise be expected if the project or policy did not occur (which is referred to as the counterfactual case). This analysis can be done either before or after the fact (ex ante or ex post). The term economic impact can be applied to analysis of the economic contribution of a given activity or industry to the existing local economy.
EIA is one element of an environmental impact assessment, which is required to examine impacts of proposed development projects. It is also commonly conducted when there is public concern about potential economic impacts of a proposed project or policy.[1][2]"
(1)No - So, you didn't consider jobs when you decided to purchase your Jeep. Why don't you care about the loss of jobs? Are you stupid, malicious, or just incompetent?
(2)Yes (for me) - Do you think an economic analysis is complete despite not considering jobs? (<-- This one is almost a direct quote from Gardner.) Are you stupid, malicious, or just incompetent?
(3)I don't. - Why don't you care about the loss of jobs at GM and Ford? Do you think it is appropriate for you to fire GM and Ford employees? Are you stupid, malicious, or just incompetent?
Obviously, my previous questions and these followups are analogies, and I thank you for playing along. I don't actually think you're stupid, malicious, or incompetent, of course, but if I needed you to look like you were, I only have to ask you loaded questions to which I already know the innocuous answer, and spin your response into something sensational. It doesn't matter that if I were in your shoes, I'd do things exactly the same way that you do. The reality of the situation is completely irrelevant. If torching you in public benefits my own agenda, hell, why shouldn't I? You know, other than because of some sense of morality...
"Do you still beat your wife?" It's a simple yes or no question, but any way you answer is wrong. Yes or No, and you're screwed; any other answer makes you look confrontational or like you've got something to hide.
The EPA guy clearly stated that he did not factor "Jobs" into the economic analysis, but he also correctly pointed out that any economic analysis is going to indirectly consider jobs. That answer didn't satisfy Gardner. Gardner wanted a nice talking point, and if he couldn't get "We didn't consider jobs" from the EPA guy, he was willing to settle for arguing back and forth with a less practiced public speaker, drag him through the mud for awhile, and then explain to everyone how good he is at his job and how evil the democrats are for supporting the job-killing EPA.
I've got no love for the EPA, of course, but there are plenty enough real problems that justify gutting that agency without getting worked up over imaginary problems like this.
Incidentally, I'm quite amused at the entire concept of "jobs". I know of a local magistrate who managed to get a grant based on his club's ability to create jobs. He was (is?) the head of a ham radio club, and created the "job" of talking to friends on the radio. Before this guy got to it, such activities were considered a "Hobby". The fact that amateur operators are explicitly prohibited from accepting compensation for their operations is apparently irrelevant. I've come to understand that this type of "Job" is quite widespread.
The fact is that with such activities classified as "jobs", an economic analysis that does NOT consider "jobs" is going to be far more accurate and relevant than one that does. Pulling this guy's grant would cost dozens of local "jobs", yet the "work" performed by the people holding these "jobs" will continue unabated.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
"Economic impact analysis (EIA) examines the effect of a policy, program, project, activity or event on the economy of a given area. The area can range from a neighborhood to the entire globe. Economic impact is usually measured in terms of changes in economic growth (output or value added) and associated changes in jobs (employment) and income (wages).
The analysis typically measures or estimates the level of economic activity occurring at a given time with the project or policy occurring, and calculating the difference from what would otherwise be expected if the project or policy did not occur (which is referred to as the counterfactual case). This analysis can be done either before or after the fact (ex ante or ex post). The term economic impact can be applied to analysis of the economic contribution of a given activity or industry to the existing local economy.
EIA is one element of an environmental impact assessment, which is required to examine impacts of proposed development projects. It is also commonly conducted when there is public concern about potential economic impacts of a proposed project or policy.[1][2]"
Linear Mode
