California Finds Public-Works Spending No Unemployment Cure-All
— People are starting to realize that consumer-oriented jobs just aren’t coming back. Unfortunately, despite the fact that there’s a clear glut of construction jobs, the government spending to prop up that sector is viewed as a positive. Remember kids, there’s always a job in construction.
Why are construction jobs worth spending taxpayer money to save, but other jobs are not?
Well, because improving infrastructure makes the economy more efficient in the long run, right? Unlike the Bush rebate checks, public works projects are a good civic investment, because their effect lasts beyond the initial outlay of funds. A lot of New Deal-era projects have had very visible economic benefits, from the highway system to the extension of power lines. Theoretically, by improving infrastructure, we make it easier for commerce to happen in the future, which will help people be employed for years to come. Plus, you know, public policy isn’t about fairness.
The rebate checks were retarded. Please, don’t support an idea by saying it’s better than a retarded idea. Japan tried a lot of infrastructure projects over the last 15 years that had very little public support and even less benefit. They too thought that construction spending was a cure-all. Now they have concrete monstrosities in every city.
I don’t think the US is going to go as overboard as Japan. Obama came out with a reasonable dollar figure for the construction projects. It’s hard to make construction without benefit. After all, something is created that wasn’t there before (or, they could fix something in our existing, broken infrastructure). We aren’t likely to be building bridges that will sit unused. But that doesn’t make it a good investment. If we can build a bridge for $1 million, why should we build it for $2 million? By law, the government must pay above-market rates for their construction projects. That makes it a bad investment. Bad investments don’t make the economy more efficient in the long run. Increasing the burden on future generations by deficit spending doesn’t automatically make the economy more efficient in the long run either. Supporting the construction industry when there is clearly an oversupply of construction workers discourages those workers from moving into more productive industries. That’s not good for the economy in the long run. True, public policy isn’t about fairness, but it clearly isn’t about economic benefit either.
Uh…well, sure, if you think that defecit spending in and of itself is a bad thing, then I guess it makes sense to be against public works projects. But it’s not like they don’t desperately need to be done, recession or no recession. There haven’t been any major public works projects in 40 years, which in many cases includes even upkeep. Private industry isn’t going to take care of this. If we can employ people while also reducing energy and transportation costs for the future, then cool, we can pay a little more money for it than whatever mythical private corporation engaged in building roads that would be free to the public would pay. Again, this is only a problem if these programs work alone; while we’re employing people whose existing skill is in construction we can also provide incentives to get people into nursing or other areas where there’s a lower supply of labor (though, of course, this is the exact opposite problem we have right now, so I can see why it wouldn’t the biggest concern on policymakers’ minds). And any new policy is legally required to be analyzed for economic efficiency, so I don’t know what it’s supposed to be about, exactly. Making everything bad and wrong? Well, OK, you can think that, but then why would I care about your opinions on public policy?
And fair enough about the stimulus checks, but what sort of aid should we be providing to non-construction workers?
