There was complaining about how expensive was it for government to add a worker through the stimulus package. The number was high, like much more than the average wage of a worker.
So, I got a bit curious. How efficient is the current market in my State--Indiana.
In 2010, Indiana GDP was $267 billion. The per capita GDP for the state was $41,169 (in 2010, per Wikipedia).
While this first caused the reaction that "hey, it shouldn't cost most that $41k on average to hire a worker", that's not the correct formula.
Indiana's labor force is around 3 million (as opposed to total population of 6.5 million used in the per capita calculation). So when you divide the GDP by Indiana workforce, you get $89,000 per job. Since the average wage is around $34,000 per year (2007 data), it means over half is "wasted", when GDP is used as a reference point. What's worse is that 50% of all those laborers work for under $28,000 per year. So to hire an unemployed worker you shouldn't need more than $30,000, right? (Ref: Wage Pyramid)
The point here is that when calculating the 'extra' that a program paid to create a job, you need to be careful with the numbers. It also gives an indication of how some jobs are much more beneficial for workers all around even if they do not have a big impact on the GDP.
PS. On a national scale, it costs about $100,000 in economic activity to have a single paid job.
So, I got a bit curious. How efficient is the current market in my State--Indiana.
In 2010, Indiana GDP was $267 billion. The per capita GDP for the state was $41,169 (in 2010, per Wikipedia).
While this first caused the reaction that "hey, it shouldn't cost most that $41k on average to hire a worker", that's not the correct formula.
Indiana's labor force is around 3 million (as opposed to total population of 6.5 million used in the per capita calculation). So when you divide the GDP by Indiana workforce, you get $89,000 per job. Since the average wage is around $34,000 per year (2007 data), it means over half is "wasted", when GDP is used as a reference point. What's worse is that 50% of all those laborers work for under $28,000 per year. So to hire an unemployed worker you shouldn't need more than $30,000, right? (Ref: Wage Pyramid)
The point here is that when calculating the 'extra' that a program paid to create a job, you need to be careful with the numbers. It also gives an indication of how some jobs are much more beneficial for workers all around even if they do not have a big impact on the GDP.
PS. On a national scale, it costs about $100,000 in economic activity to have a single paid job.
Last edited: