Study Shows Military Spending Inefficient Job Creator

[Schneibster]

Domestic spending (so-called "infrastructure," like building out the power grid, insulating and repairing schools and federal office buildings, and building high speed rail) is 50% more effective at creating jobs than military spending, according to a study just released by the University of Massachusetts. In other words, for every two jobs created by military spending, the same money would create three jobs if it were spent on domestic priorities.

These facts need to be part of the budget discussions.

Read all about it.

[laklak]

Doesn't surprise me, since a good portion of military spending goes into the pockets of large defense contractors. I'd imagine a lot of infrastructure work goes to smaller companies, which are generally better at job creation.

Did you mean to post this in The Seminary, Schneib?

[Schneibster]

Yeah, these are background facts. Everyone should be aware of this; then we can all talk about reality.

Guess what the one that has the most job impact is?

Education.

Now that should be obvious.

[Tyrannical]

Which is why Ron Paul wants to cut military spending and close foreign bases, it drags down the economy. Of course he didn't need some fancy college study to know that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, these are background facts. Everyone should be aware of this; then we can all talk about reality.

Guess what the one that has the most job impact is?

Education.

Now that should be obvious.

This must the reason the Republicans are rumbling about eliminating the Dept. of Education. "We don't kneed us no book learnin'."

[PsychoSerenity]

I've just had an unpleasant thought. It would be a better job creator if more troops got killed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've just had an unpleasant thought. It would be a better job creator if more troops got killed.

Decimation => job creation?

Please don't tell this to the fucking Republicans. Some of my friends are still out there.

[Clinton Huxley]

With china ramping up, how difficult a sell would serious defence cuts be?

[Schneibster]

I would think a balance of judicious cuts and judicious spending would be the right way to go. Not that we're going to see that. But it's important to keep in mind while the debate is going on that we don't just spend on military or spend on infrastructure or spend on education and get the same number of jobs, even directly from the spending, and when we consider add-on effects we'll get a higher multiplier if we spend on things other than military as well.

Stopping spending on the military, however, would be a monumental mistake, and a lot of the cuts the Republicans are going to want to make are going to be to health programs for military personnel, and retirement programs for them, and their pay, and so forth. And I'm not really very down with that, first and foremost because it's reducing more peoples' pay during the recession again, just like they've been doing to state governments all over the nation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

With china ramping up, how difficult a sell would serious defence cuts be?

Help me there. "Greater threat requires less defense spending"?

[Schneibster]

I will point out that spending on pay and medicine and retirement benefits will have a higher multiplier than spending on equipment.