Live data from Hacker News

After getting $824M in state aid, GM to cut 900 jobs at Orion Assembly

michigancapitolconfidential.com

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: After getting $824M in state aid, GM to cut 900 jobs at Orion Assembly

#31

> Taxpayers spent $600 million to create 4,000 jobs Taxpayers spent $0. They gave up the potential to make $600 million. And that was only if Orion created the full 4,000 jobs. So they potentially only forwent ~$135 million based on the actual amount of people hired. But it's ridiculous to frame it this way. If a store gave you a coupon for $20 off your order, no one in their right mind would say the store "spent $20…

That's a terrible way of framing it because taxes for a corporation are involuntary.

Re: After getting $824M in state aid, GM to cut 900 jobs at Orion Assembly

#32

> Taxpayers spent $600 million to create 4,000 jobs Taxpayers spent $0. They gave up the potential to make $600 million. And that was only if Orion created the full 4,000 jobs. So they potentially only forwent ~$135 million based on the actual amount of people hired. But it's ridiculous to frame it this way. If a store gave you a coupon for $20 off your order, no one in their right mind would say the store "spent $20…

How is it like a coupon issued by the store and not like purchased gift cards that later go unused? Do you think $600 million were generated by the state?

Re: After getting $824M in state aid, GM to cut 900 jobs at Orion Assembly

#34

> GM will lay off 911 workers there. Wait, is that a distress message they are sending?

I saw the same. And I have thought of a Porsche 911. Much better than the crap they build at GM.

Someone should go check management didn't get stuck in the money box.. again.

Re: After getting $824M in state aid, GM to cut 900 jobs at Orion Assembly

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, do you think, is a proper way to describe the number of jobs an organization or economy creates?

Just say the number of jobs actually being created. Nobody in Michigan thinks any job is permanent no matter what you say. Or just say "job-years". Anyone reading such an article will know what it means but there's no harm in defining it either. There is obviously no excuse for just lying, and if it was unintentional then the responsible person should lose some job-years of their own.

I think it's less lying and more having no incentive to inform people as to what it actually means.

I agree that calling them "job-years" would clear it up but I think politicians would get a lot more pushback against these deals if people knew. So they don't. For a long time I wondered what these numbers meant, and sometime in my 30s I did some looking into it.

Now whenever one of these deals comes up I like to pop in a little comment to help inform people.

Post reply on HN