Your first sentence suggests that you disagreed with my previous post, but your rationale very much supports my point. Spending 125-250K on a job that only exists for a year is markedly worse than paying a comparable amount for a job that lasts many years.

I dont think the government should be paying for any job.

I disagree with this corporate subsidy, and I disagreed with the Recovery act

That's fine, but my statement was neither for not against. Just observing that one appears to be a better bargain than the other.

What about all the Wall Streeters bailed out? Those are long-term stable jobs, after a fashion.