| 544554 |
| ||
|
I've heard folks argue that we should fund the construction $750 million "high speed rail line X" because of all of the temporary construction jobs it creates. What do you think of that argument? I'm not decided, but every time I hear someone make that argument, I tend to cringe just a little bit. |
| random a hole |
| ||
|
Aren't all construction jobs temporary? |
| UsedToBeKnowItAll |
| ||
|
No. It makes sense to fund >$400 million construction projects because they need to be done. A side benefit is that they create a lot of jobs. You often hear about the downstream benefits of major projects. For example, the one that annoys me the most is when a NFL owner tells a city they have to build him a new stadium or he will take the team to another city. Then they talk about how much local revenue the team brings to the city. Usually the city caves in and subsidizes the owner's new stadium. Then he jacks up prices on the seats and every single thing inside the stadium, so he can further screw all the loyal fans of the team. |
| luv2run |
| ||
|
You build something because it is needed, not just to create jobs. Liberals think the responsibility for a company or government is to create jobs. No, the job of a business is to earn a profit for the investors. Sometimes you do that by hiring more people to meet a demand. This high speed rail line will just continue to be funded with government money as the fares will be subsidized. It was also probably end up costing at least 4x the initial estimate. |
| 544554 |
| ||
|
I think I need to be more descriptive. I often hear people saying that public dollars should be invested in project X (stadium, high-speed rail, etc.) because it will create temporary construction jobs for three years. But, in many cases, the taxpayers are left footing the bill for that project for 20-30+ years. In many cases, I do agree that the projects are worthwhile. I sometimes cringe at the "temporary jobs" statement, though. Yes, jobs are good. No doubt. But putting people to work for three years so we can be in debt for 30 years? Who knows? |
| ryan foreman |
| ||
|
Yes its stupid to do it just for the sake of creating jobs. But it is no more stupid than eliminating all taxes on investment income to create jobs. Look, as long as we have high taxes on jobs then there will always be chronic high unemployment. Its that simple. Massive tax breaks on investment or massive spending projects will never change that except temporarily. The only long term solution is drastically raising the standard deduction to as high as $100,000, maybe lowering tax rates, and drastically reducing payroll taxes. |
| 544554 |
| ||
|
Thanks for the feedback. |
| Keynesian 121 |
| ||
|
For the most part these construction projects are really desperately needed, or will be soon. We've been underspending on infrastructure for a while, and eventually that's going to bite us in the ass. As others already said, a corollary benefit of these projects is that they stimulate the economy by providing jobs to the people hardest hit by the recession (construction workers). They then go out and spend most of their money in the economy, plus they aren't drawing welfare/unemployment, and the beautiful cycle continues. That's the idea, at least. Hopefully the economy has picked up enough in 3 years that they'll quickly find other jobs. |
| DailyDriver |
| ||
|
I commute 15 miles, one way, largely by freeway in Denver. During rush hour, it is 25-30 minutes, door to door. With no traffic, it is 15 minutes. Congestion costs me 20 minutes per day, minimum. Over a year, 20 minutes per day adds up to around 80 hours. My jeep gets 20 miles per gallon. My work commute is about 8000 miles per year-so I use 400 gallons of fuel to get to work. The state and Federal gas tax is 40.4 cents per gallon, so I spend 160 bucks on highway use taxes. I would gladly DOUBLE OR TRIPLE that to get back the 80 hours of lost time that I spend sitting in traffic because of "folks" cringing because of the cost of infrastructure. I'm not a big believer in high speed rail, but our highways are woefully underfunded. |
| luv2run |
| ||
Do you really think high speed rail would make a dent in your commute? Wasn't Denver's light rail supposed to that? Here are some tips: 1) talk with your boss about adjust your work hours by 30 minutes. Either go in 30 min earlier and leave 30 min earlier or do the same shifting the time later. 2) Buy a more fuel efficient car or heck a scooter. 3) You are free to write a check to the government, but do not make others pay higher taxes. As for #1, I lived in Atlanta at one time. I knew that I left during a certain window I would sit in traffic. I lived close to the Perimeter and worked/went to school downtown. If I left between 7:30 and 8:15, I would get downtown in 40 minutes. If I left at 7:15 or 8:30 it would take about 20 minutes. I then time shifted accordingly. Other options, depends on one's line of work: see about working 4, 10 hour days. Commute will easier coming in 1 hr earlier and leaving 1 hour later on those days. Work from home options (again depends on the nature of the work). |
| Sumguy |
| ||
|
DailyDriver, I love you. You almost never hear real analysis of things regarding cost. The global population is currently subsidizing all of our fossil fuel consumption through the vast number of negative externalities (pollution, climate change, etc.) Conservatives love calling something a subsidy when they don't like it. Coal is more than 100% subsidized. It is believed to contribute a negative amount to the economy. We pay so coal miners can play in the dirt. Should the gov. spend XXXX amount on a project? If the value it returns when considering all costs and benefits (reduced pollution, reduced traffic fatalities, reduced fossil fuel consumption, reduced noise, reduced commute times, reduced insurance rates) exceeds XXXX, then YES. If not, NO. Hey conservatives, if the government could spend $1 to make/save/generate $100, would you be in favor? |
| basic |
| ||
There is also a multiplier associated with those construction jobs. Restaurants and suppliers will get more business. Employees of those businesses will in turn spend more on clothing, furniture, etc. It's true those jobs are temporary, but you could argue that jobs at HP (laying off 25,000) or FB, or anywhere else are temporary as well as market demand for products is always shifting. |
| DailyDriver |
| ||
Do you really think high speed rail would make a dent in your commute? Wasn't Denver's light rail supposed to that? quote] What'd I say-I'm not a big believer in high speed rail. Aside from my commute, think of all the freight and lost productivity sitting in traffic jams. What built this country-the transcontinental railway turning a coast to coast trip from 6 months to 3 weeks. 75 years later, the automobile turned it into 10 days. 40 years later, the Interstates turned it into 3 days. Speedy, reliable transportation is the lifeblood of America. We pay negligible fuel taxes to pay for this infrastructure, and it is falling apart. |
| ryan foreman |
| ||
|
Isn't that like using funds from a cigarette tax to fund new equipment to make more cigarettes so you can smoke more? I'm all for spending to improve existing roads. Maybe add lanes here and there. But the freeway system is fine. Its already been built.
|
| Charles Nonhomogenous |
| ||
|
Increasing roads is pointless. The new lanes never meet the demand. Billions of dollars and a few years later, you have the same problems. It's the 21st century -- we need to re-think the way we work. There are vast numbers of people that could work from home -- or from anyplace that has a nice, fast, high-bandwidth internet connection. I suggest we do two things: first, build regional work centers. These are places with extremely high bandwidth (think hundreds of mpbs fiber) with free wifi, etc. These will be in located in suburbs, with the goal to getting people to go there to work (or just stay home) instead of commuting. We will get people to do this by giving employers a subsidy/tax cut if their workers only come to the office three out of five days. Or even 2 out of 5. The other days they are working from home, or working from the work center. How will we pay for it? The tax subsidy and regional work center costs will come from removing the BILLIONS of dollars out of the budget to expand roads that never meet demand anyway. We will have fewer people on the roads, use less fuel, cut pollution, and encourage people to stay in their community instead of commuting every day. Of course, some people will always have to physically be at work -- that can't be avoided. But moving those who can work remotely to remote work sites is the right thing to do. |
| DailyDriver |
| ||
|
What about the VAST majority of people that make or do something that does not involve moving pixels around on a computer screen. Tough to build or repair a house, or deliver grain, or manufacture something over the internet. |
| asdfe |
| ||
Would it not be easier for them if the one's that could work over the internet weren't on the road? The problem with these projects is that, instead of building a quality HSR program a piece at a time, they spread the money over several states for political reasons. Now, instead of having one high quality HSR that could be added to, you have 10 crappy HSR programs that no one will use. |
| Charles Nonhomogenous |
| ||
As I mentioned in my last paragraph, this can't work for everyone. Look, a hundred years ago, 70% of workers worked in agriculture. Today it's 2%. Patterns of employment are always shifting. More and more people work with their brains, not their hands. Some have to be in the office. Some don't. Some may be able to juggle work schedule to be in the office 2 days for meetings, clients, etc. The other 3 days are out. Etc. |