These things just write themselves…

Gov. Walker: Announces funding for Marquis Yachts, LLC, Inc.

Thus reads the headline of a press release issued by Governor Scott Walker’s office.

I’ll let you add your own commentary.

Share:

Related Articles

27 thoughts on “These things just write themselves…

  1. Outstanding! A whopping 379 jobs!! (The specificity of that number is itself interesting.) Now all Governor Prevaricator needs to do now is to issue 3 of those proclamations a week, every week, for the rest of his (one) term, and he’s met his pledge.

    It bothers me not at all that this is a yacht company. They appear to do more than just that. I’ll take a business with skilled, well paid labor over any WalMart any day and twice on Sunday.

    1. (The specificity of that number is itself interesting.) Now all Governor Prevaricator needs to do now is to issue 3 of those proclamations a week, every week, for the rest of his (one) term, and he’s met his pledge.

      Not quite sure why it would be shocking that a company would have a figure calculated for how many workers they will need for a project?

      Though clearly he doesn’t deserve much credit since most of this has been in the works, it’s worth noting that based on the first 3 months, Wisconsin IS in fact on pace to surpass the job creation goal.

      1. I’m sure you didn’t expect people to actually read your link did you? Here is the relevant portion of the article.

        “The gains are most likely the result of the economic recovery that began in 2010”

        So we will need to separate out Walker’s jobs from Obama’s jobs. Let’s not forget the bulk of the stimulus was tax cuts for 95% of us. So that infusion of money into the demand side probably saved and created all the jobs Walker will claim he created.

        1. I’m sure you didn’t expect people to actually read your link did you?

          Congratulations, you read my link. Now perhaps you might want to go back and…you know…actually read the text of my post as well. In particular, when I said,

          Though clearly he doesn’t deserve much credit since most of this has been in the works

          So if you were going for a gotcha – sorry. I already clearly & directly said just that.

          Overall though, I don’t really have any expectations. Seems, people around here who reply to me are generally about 50/50 as to whether they actually read and consider my words before replying.

          1. Locke,

            I feel your pain. Independents are not always welcome by all readers on blogs. If you try to educate a few, scorn and ridicule is sure to follow.
            Good to see your comments.
            As you can see, I still stop by Zach’s place although I stopped blogging.
            I’m a fan of BB.

      2. Locke, that’s an interesting article…it states that at the current rate of increasing employment we would have 385,600 new jobs by the end of 2014. But I think that will be impossible. The population of Wisconsin was 5,654,774 in 2009 per census estimates. Unemployment in Wisconsin for February 2011 was 7.4% or 418,453. So by the end of 2014 we will have only 32,853 or 0.6% of Wisconsin’s total population employed…a number that I don’t remember ever being attained anywhere in this country in my lifetime. And of course I haven’t reduced the state population for minors who are too young to be employed.

        1. Without question, the whole “jobs created” or as the Obama administration later added, “created or preserved” metrics are questionable at best.

          Presumably, Walkers target was a gross number because as you showed, as a net number, it’s not realistic. Or to some extent, even desirable. Though many don’t want to hear it, an unemployment number that low is actually a bad thing. Of course the negatives there certainly are better than those accompanying high unemployment…

          Anyway – on one hand, certainly the net jobs number is the most important. If you lose more than you gain, you aren’t really any better off. That said, adding jobs is certainly better than NOT adding jobs. And of course the deeper you dig, the more complicated it becomes. Adding tons of crappy jobs while good jobs are eliminated certainly isn’t desirable. Of course “crappy” and “good” are also subjective.

          All of this is to say, I understand things are a lot more complicated than one simple statistic. As much as anything it was simply a response to the attitude of belittling this announcement. Just to say, there have been a number of these, and again, while it’s not all or likely even mostly attributed to Walker, hopefully they’re a sign of momentum.

          1. “That said, adding jobs is certainly better than NOT adding jobs.”
            –Locke

            Obama has 13 straight months of adding private sector jobs. This after losing 2.6 million jobs in 2008.

            Do me a favor. Just admit the economy is better now than it was two years ago.

            1. Do me a favor. Just admit the economy is better now than it was two years ago.

              No shit. What the hell are you arguing with? To sum up my post using smaller words:

              The job numbers politicians report are easily distorted. That said, things seem to be improving.

              1. You obviously have a clue.

                Why not lose the arrogance, and let your intelligence speak for itself?

          2. Or to some extent, even desirable. Though many don’t want to hear it, an unemployment number that low is actually a bad thing.

            …a bad thing for higher wages, sure.

            But then, folks who represent that type of bourgeois mentality (of the need to always have a reserve of unemployed around to leverage wages down), are also the ones who advocate against welfare safety nets. So the summation of that view is there always needs to be a (large) group of people out there unemployed, and they further need to be made by society to suffer.

            Truly awful people. But them again, in that Randian world selfishness is virtuous.

            1. I believe in the 60 – 70s, 4% unemployment was considered desirable. That was about the number of people who voluntarily left jobs while seeking a new one and it easily accomodated both employees ease of movement and employers having an available pool of potential employees.

            2. I guess pretty much every economist is bourgeois then. Natural/Systemic/Structural unemployment is not something particularly controversial – hell even Marx recognized that his “reserve army of labor” had a “floating” (temporary) component that enabled workers to voluntarily change jobs.

              Of course if you’re just going to play straw man and mis-characterize the argument to be that high unemployment is a just great, then of course we’re all villains. And since you know everyone who believes in structural unemployment is against any safety nets, I feel sorry for you and the world you live in.

              Ed – that’s exactly what I’m talking about. We can squabble over where exactly the number is in the current economy & society, but there is a floor below which, job mobility and productivity are hampered. In a very long view, I really do fear how we transition into something closer to the Sci-Fi future where only a few people are truly needed to work. Despite the what the anti-free trade & anti-globalization folks say, the real threat – and biggest reason behind the loss of manufacturing jobs is technology. Automation – the robots are taking over! Watch Unwrapped on the FoodNetwork, How Stuff is Made, etc. There machines doing in a hour, what took dozens or hundreds of workers weeks to do. But also, instantaneous supply chain & inventory management, and a lot of really smart math geeks doing logistics. Luckily for me, while we’re going to continue to feel bumps along the way, I think the tipping point where it get’s really difficult won’t come until after I’m gone. Gonna be tough for the kids though.

              1. When I was in Siam Reap Cambodia in January of 2005, I asked my driver why they didn’t get a street sweeping machine instead of the dozens of older women with brooms who were sweeping the streets and sidewalks every where we went. He replied, we could do that but then these people wouldn’t have jobs.

                1. A darn good example of what I’m talking about. I’m sure there will be some places that are committed enough to resist such changes. While that approach isn’t for me, I wouldn’t for a second fault communities that take that approach together. But they’ll be the exceptions. And I suspect for most, it’s a sisyphean task. I certainly don’t expect the United States to fall into that category.

  2. the irony here is this job growth is once again spurred by purchases by the federal government, not private industry…much like Oshkosh trucks building IED resistant vehicles and Marinette Marine building Navy ships. And they say government doesn’t create jobs?

  3. and every new Yacht will be named The Marie Antoinette

    ba dum bum!

    for the jobs to be counted as “created by Walker’s promise” at LEAST 2 things must be true (maybe more I’m in a hurry)

    one, they have to be created by the private sector and created because the Private Sector has suddenly had their girlish fears over “uncertainty” calmed by Walker’s manly policies and are now feeling confident enough to begin hiring.
    Anything else is merely more Corporate welfare. Which could easily have been done to create jobs by having a public works program to improve infrastructure like in the old days. and done so more efficiency without the complications of the profit motive. THat would have meant an increase in Public sector workers instead of a percent of taxpayer money being diverted into private cronies pockets, it could actually have created MORE jobs without that Middle Man siphoning off profits.

    2. ALL JOB ELIMINATION due to Walker’s policy’s, or consolidation of departments, or whatever mess he’s been making of existing systems have to be subtracted from the totals (should there be any, so far he hands over taxpayer money so private sector can hire)Or the whole thing is a sham.
    YOu can’t just show one side of the Balance sheet and yell about how healthy your business is. duh.

    As it stands right now he is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. A really old trick that fools no one but the Trickster.

    And finally these totals must be analyzed AFTER municipalities adjust to the new Walker budgets, after police et al have been fired. Those are jobs too. Right now Walker looks like a scammer who is causing jobs to be lost in one building in order to be “added” a few miles down the road. This is merely shifting the resources.
    It is NOT CREATION.

    Maybe his slight-of-hand Jobs policies can be re-named “job prestidigitation” in stead of Job Creation!!!!!

  4. Will this money be repaid? Once again it says it’s a grant but it’s coming from the same place the money for Catalyst came from…and that was reported as being a grant in some newspapers and a loan in other newspapers. So I’m confused…will any of this grant/loan money be repaid?

  5. I just read on another site this company only employs 75 people right now. How are they going to hire 379 more employees? Are they going to expand by 5 times the current size?

    Also, anyone got a link to these shipping containers? There website only shows yachts.

  6. “MADISON—Governor Scott Walker announced today that Brown County will receive a $2 million grant from the Community Development Block Grant–Economic Development (CDBG-ED) program of the Department of Commerce.”

    Guess what? That 2 million is Obama’s stimulus money.

    The Economic Development Administration GRANT was $1,860,000.

    http://recovery.wisconsin.gov/MoneyTracker.aspx

Comments are closed.