The Great Divergence

[Jester]

I was advocating more of a hiring bonus thinking that a company can make a decision about the benefit of one time boon, versus depending on the government to fund the position. I guess the "smart" companies should have thought about "What happens in Jan 2011?" too.

I would frame this type of bogus "stimulus" as giving money to a company to temporarily employ someone they cannot afford, rather than using the money (or lack of revenue from a tax credit) to enable the company to be able to afford to hire people. The first is what did happen, in temporarily funding someone working, rather than have that person collecting unemployment, as opposed to actually stimulating the economy allowing the business to hire someone they needed, and could afford to hire.

I think my brain exploded trying to figure out what you just said.

Let's see. You oppose "bogus stimulus", giving money to a company to temporarily employ someone they can't afford.

You support "using ... money" (tax credits) to "enable the company to be able to afford to hire people" by giving them a "hiring bonus".

So, in one case, you're giving the company money on the condition that they hire people. In the other, you're giving the company money when they hire people.

I'm not seeing how this is materially different, except perhaps that in scenario 2 they could just fire them immediately.

-Jester