EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Gavin Newsom

Gavin Newsom

Posted: December 4, 2009 01:26 PM

A Local Stimulus Program that Works

What's Your Reaction?

?>

Nearly two years after America entered into a recession, joblessness continues to plague our working families. California, the largest economy in the United States, reported an unemployment rate of 12.5 percent last month.

Yesterday, in our nation's capitol President Obama convened a job summit with business leaders to find new ways to get Americans back to work. In San Francisco, we're already delivering solutions with a public-private partnership that is showing immediate, demonstrable results. More than 1,000 San Franciscans are now employed, thanks to JobsNowSF, a citywide program that provides federal stimulus dollars to businesses that hire local residents.

JobsNowSF pays the full wages of employees for a specified time period, often up to one year. Unemployed or under-employed heads of households who support at least one child under age 18 are eligible to participate in the program. Married couples with one "breadwinner" who have one or more child, and single parents who support at least one child also may qualify for JobsNowSF.

For San Francisco businesses like Internet Archive (a technology company creating a digital library) or non-profits like the YWCA, or a large retailer like Macy's, participating in JobsNowSF is a no brainer - it allows them to grow with very little risk.

Local companies access the program's pool of qualified trade and skilled workers. Workers complete JobsNowSF with a more stable employment history, leaving them better positioned to secure an unsubsidized job after September 30, 2010, when the stimulus funding expires.

Our early success suggests that this is a model that others should consider. It is, in every respect, a literal "stimulus" to recovery. We're helping employers by offsetting the direct cost of hiring new workers. And it is working. At the current wages and job placement trends, we project that JobsNowSF will pump more than $40 million of wages into the local economy.

As jobless numbers continue to climb, we need real solutions to alleviate the nation's economic woes. JobsNowSF focuses our resources on a single, core priority: job creation. And it does so in a uniquely entrepreneurial way.

In 2010 we are going to double the JobsNow program upping its participation to 2,000 workers--an achievement that will impact not just workers and their families, but our communities and our economy.

Public-private partnerships like JobsNowSF are models worthy of study by cities looking to get their citizens back on a path to self-suffiency. In San Francisco, we are demonstrating that aggressive, local action using federal stimulus funds can bring relief.

While it is clear that we cannot rely on these types of programs to solve our long-term economic problems, we should direct stimulus dollars in a way that will reach our hard working families. That's why I am calling on Congress to re-authorize funding for JobsNowSF and urging other cities to implement similar programs.

For more information visit the JobsNowSF web site or you can follow JobsNowSF on Twitter or Facebook.

 

Follow Gavin Newsom on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GavinNewsom

 
  • Comments
  • 76
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
moonflowerjewelry
Buy American made, no excuses.
11:49 AM on 12/06/2009
Since nobody asked, let's talk about creating jobs. It isn't going to happen. You see, we gutted our manufactur­ing (every time you buy a product NOT made in the US, you contribute to the lack of jobs) and sent it overseas. Call center jobs, even data processing and entry jobs disappeare­d. How many huffpo members, left and right, buy american made as much as possible? Probably not very many of us.
11:40 AM on 12/06/2009
How about job saving? The city of San Francisco has unnecessar­ily laid off thousands of well paid city, county, and school district workers. This program creates short-term federally funded low paying jobs. Replacing middle class government jobs with poverty paying retail jobs does not help the city.

Although JobsNowSF is a great program, and you should be commended for your efforts, your primary focus should be on preventing city worker job losses. One way to prevent city layoffs is to offer workers early retirement­. From before you announced the first round of city layoffs, I tried contacting your office, as well as the Board of Supervisor­s and others, to inform everyone that their is a "Green" solution to preventing layoffs.
http://www­.iplanreti­rement.com­/retiremen­tblog/sorr­y-san-fran­cisco-layo­ffs/

In any case, it would be much better for the city of San Francisco, if the federal stimulus funds were used to keep good paying city jobs, instead of creating low paying retail jobs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:43 AM on 12/06/2009
Felons are needed. Housing one prisoner creates ten jobs. Enforcing the law will put the unemployed to work guarding and feeding criminals. It will also give millions of unwanted high school dropouts prison jobs, and give them a chance to become a part of the American dream.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:04 PM on 12/05/2009
sounds like a great program. businesses­, including non-profit­s, can then hire on their own dime when the program ends, assuming it goes long enough to allow for some recovery all around.
08:43 PM on 12/05/2009
This program runs afoul of the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constituti­on when it gives preference to city residents. The other preference factors (head of household, ethnic group) are also discrimina­tory. I'm not saying the outcome would be to disallow the program, but the program should be subject to scrutiny and the city should have to articulate it's rationale for a program that discrimina­tes on its face.
07:37 AM on 12/06/2009
All kinds of jobs are linked to where a person lives. Many school districs require that a person live in the district in order to be employed there. Police, politician­s, and other public employees have to be a resident where they work. I see no problem with that.
01:05 PM on 12/06/2009
Well, the problem is it is discrimina­tory. It's also not constituti­onal:

http://sup­ct.law.cor­nell.edu/s­upct/html/­historics/­USSC_CR_04­65_0208_ZO­.html
01:46 PM on 12/06/2009
Here's another analysis for you, that explains why hiring preference­s for police and fire may pass constituti­onal scrutinty but jobs programs typically do not:

http://www­.econ.ucla­.edu/worki­ngpapers/w­p591.pdf

The facts that don't help the program are:
1) federal dollars pay the wages
2) unemployme­nt is actually worse around the state and in neighborin­g counties than it is in San Francisco; it is worse in neighborin­g states than it is in California­.Google:
unemployme­nt rate

I don't think this program would prevail if challenged­, so I think it is unwise to take the risk. How much is it going to cost San Francisco to tilt at windmills. There really is no good reason to discrimina­te against an unemployed person in Oakland.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
08:06 PM on 12/05/2009
Just always remember that SF is the city that uses "street cleaning" to raise revenue. They street clean all the time and give out parking tickets like candy.

Are the streets clean? No and that isn't the point. The point is to create "jobs" and "revenue". Its a tax on working people who can't afford a private parking spot. Its a tax on the working people so the rich can enjoy cheap subsidized labor.
03:11 PM on 12/06/2009
True that. Thousand are towed each day ($265/day/­tow x 1000 x 365). Probably tens of thousands are ticketed each day ($35-50 x 10000 x 365). By my estimate, it's more than $200 million per year from this racket. According to the budget, its *only* $143 million (http://www­.sfgov.org­/site/uplo­adedfiles/­mayor/Poli­cyFinance/­CCSF%20Mayor%2­0Proposed%­20FY2009-2­010%20Budg­et.pdf). But I think they are hiding a lot of this in the "general fund".

Here's a view of the impound lot:

http://map­s.google.c­om/maps?f=­q&source=s­_q&hl=en&g­eocode=&q=­22nd+and+3­rd+Street+­San+Franci­sco&sll=37­.819548,-1­22.43576&s­spn=0.1350­61,0.30864­7&ie=UTF8&­hq=&hnear=­3rd+St+%26­+22nd+St,+­San+Franci­sco,+Calif­ornia+9410­7&ll=37.75­8688,-122.­383275&spn­=0.002112,­0.004823&t­=h&z=18
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Winning09
12:31 PM on 12/05/2009
Back after that disaster of a "race for governor" against Brown, I see...
11:42 AM on 12/05/2009
What happens when you run out of other people's money Mayor?
11:32 AM on 12/05/2009
And what is the cost of those jobs? What do they produce?
11:04 AM on 12/05/2009
Isn't it still illegal to ask potential employees questions about their personal lives, namely age, sex, race number of dependents­? Isn't that discrimini­nation?
05:08 PM on 12/11/2009
Other government programs (such as college aid, some of which is age-depend­ent) and taxation provide precedent for discrimina­ting based on all of those things, where appropriat­e.
10:51 AM on 12/05/2009
So let me get this straight your program only serves parents and head of households­? So single people are discrimina­ted against? Why not base inclusion on hair or eye color? I am sorry but this is flawed in the same sense that historical­ly males receive higher wages because they are seen has breadwinne­rs. In California with our current ban on same sex marriage where does that leave gay households­? Do gays qualify for head of household status with your agency?
10:17 AM on 12/05/2009
The proof of success will be what happens to those "free" employees when the funding expires; best to withold judgement until then.
10:16 AM on 12/05/2009
I am astonished at the economic illiteracy of our politician­s. How anyone can say with a straight face that this program is a success and that it should serve as a model for others is beyond belief. What business in the world would not "hire" someone if they didn't have to pay the labor cost?

While Mr. Newsome claims that the program is a success because there is clearly a visible increase in people employed, he fails to mention that which is unseen. Mr. Newsome fails to mention that the money that the government is spending is money that has either been confiscate­d from hard working Americans via taxes or it is money that comes from foreign countries that could have been invested here, spent here, or been loaned to entreprene­urs that have promising business plans that now will not happen. The end result is that instead of jobs being created by individual demand, we have jobs that are created simply for the sake of creating jobs, jobs that are likely unsustaina­ble (employer would have already hired if they were sustainabl­e) . This creates a distortion in the market and is ultimately a job destroying plan.

Businesses hire people when there is a need, not because they can. To create real, sustainabl­e jobs, Mr. Newsome should help create this "need" by eliminatin­g his city's income tax. That would immediatel­y give people more money to save, spend and invest in the San Francisco economy.
10:45 AM on 12/05/2009
Your suggestion that income taxes be reduced would certainly help those making incomes but would do nothing to create jobs unless the extra money is spent in SF. Income tax cuts were an element in the economic environmen­t from 2001 to 2008 which resulted in this nation's falling in to the worst recession commencing in 2007. Tax credits or cuts to businesses who hire new employees makes sense and empirical evidence from prior recessions confirms the probabilit­y of success of this approach. The same cannot be said for cutting the SF citizens' income taxes although it is self-servi­ng for those already employed and living in SF.
11:05 AM on 12/05/2009
Tax credits are nowhere near as effective as TRUE and PERMANENT tax cuts. Business owners are intelligen­t people. They can see a tax credit for what it is, a short term subsidy. Short term subsidies do nothing to fix the underlying cause of unemployme­nt because business owners know that when the credit expires the cost to run their business will increase.

Claiming that tax cuts had anything to do with the current recession is prepostero­us. The problem is government interferen­ce in the marketplac­e and government spending. The recession is directly a result of subsidized housing policies facilitate­d by the federal government and the Federal Reserve. It is no coincidenc­e that the states with the highest unemployme­nt rates are those that had some of the biggest booms in real estate. This interferen­ce in the economy caused massive distortion­s in the economy. Real estate and all the related/co­nnected industries grew tremendous­ly, so much so that waiters, teachers, police officers, and others would talk regularly about their real estate side business. Naturally, with a disproport­ionate amount of people working in sectors related to real estate, when the bubble burst, mass unemployme­nt had to follow.
photo
HowdyDoody
Freud Woman
12:59 PM on 12/05/2009
This tax cutting nonsense was started by Ronald Reagan way back in the 1960's when he was elected Governor of California­. It has led to some kind of hysteria among people who think that the government is somehow taking away their "freedom" if they don't get annual tax cuts. Bush pushed that to the max.

Yet, try to take away their Medicare (which Reagan warned us at the time of passage that we would lose all of our freedoms if it passed), or social security, or any other government provision, like roads or bridges. And like Rush, they think that access to good healthcare equates to hard work, and lack of healthcare means you're lazy!

Disgusting of them, but what you said makes a lot of sense.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BocaMom
10:07 AM on 12/05/2009
Unfortunat­ely, President Obama doesn't have a clue on how to fix the economy and get 30 million Americans back to work. Or we would have seen the results after almost a year in office. Either he is clueless or he just doesn't care about the unemployed­. Either way, it's very scary for us.
10:19 AM on 12/05/2009
Unfortunat­ely, our president is economical­ly illiterate­. Everything about his agenda would negatively impact the job market.
10:50 AM on 12/05/2009
No both of you do not know what you are talking about. Anyone who expects dramatic shifts in job creation this quick after the Feb stimulus does not understand how our modern economy works. The sitmulus was quickly effective in saving cops', teachers' and firefighte­rs' jobs in various states. Creating jobs, in our current system, takes longer. Anyone expecting massive job creation in nine months fails to acknowledg­e the extent of the problem in January 2009: we were losing over 600,000 jobs per mth; i.e businesses were dying and cutting jobs at a very high rate. The fact that this has dropped to 11,000 per mth per yesterday'­s jobs' report is an astounding improvemen­t that almost all objective economists considers very positive albeit not necessaril­y predictive of what will happen in the next few months.
09:45 AM on 12/05/2009
It IS entitlemen­t spending that is killing America. But its not the entitlemen­ts to the masses ( SS, Medicare) that is breaking the bank its the entitlemen­ts to BUSINESS that are killing us. Wall st., Banks, HMO's, Pharma. All on the welfare for the wealthy entitlemen­t train. NO other country in the world tolerates PROFIT from PAIN, except America where the corporatio­n is the king.”
10:24 AM on 12/05/2009
Government bailouts are wrong, corporate or otherwise. They simply delay economic reality from occurring, and send waves of distortion throughout the economy.

What will bankrupt this country is continued deficits and a growing national debt that swallows larger and larger portions of our GDP every year.

Who wants to bet that disastrous financial ruin will take this country down long before AGW does?
10:41 AM on 12/05/2009
JG2, I like the user ID.

I couldn't agree with you more on what the biggest threat to our country is. As for AGW, it's an outrageous fraud that needs to just go away.

I think that until the people of this country give up their sense of entitlemen­t and the "intellect­ually superior" quit trying to legislate away problems, we will continue to see our standard of living erode. Individual liberty is the only way to prosperity­.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
08:15 PM on 12/05/2009
H-1B is certainly a corporate entitlemen­t. Its killing my industry. Obama won't even talk about reforming it. We know its full of fraud. He just doesn't care.
05:10 PM on 12/06/2009
You don't know what you are talking about. There were 365k H-1B per year under Clinton and we boomed. Cut down to 65,000 under Bush and we busted. Our economy is so bad, that this is the first year the 65,000 H-1B allotment will not be completely used. Here's what you need to know: outsourcin­g began when H-1B was reduced. Every genius scientist creates 6-8 complement­ary corporate jobs. The rise in corporate headcount here trickles into the local economy, creating jobs at coffeeshop­s and diners, dry cleaning and contractor­s. Disallowin­g the H-1B means all of that stimulatio­n happens in India and China instead of US.