Politics and Public Works
Paul Krugman wonders why we don’t just do direct public works like in the WPA:
You can make a pretty good case that just employing a lot of people directly would be a lot more cost-effective; the WPA and CCC cost surprisingly little given the number of people put to work. Think of it as the stimulus equivalent of getting the middlemen out of the student loan program.
So why aren’t we doing this? Politics, of course: government is the problem, not the solution, even when it is, you know, the solution, and cheaper than running things through the private sector.
Possibly the best way to think about this would be as an alternative to the repeated extensions of unemployment insurance payments. Instead of saying to people whose UI benefits are about to expire “just kidding, here’s an extension” we could say “you’ll keep getting checks but you need to show up at such-and-such a place and pick up trash in parks.” This would be somewhat more expensive than a UI extension—you’d need to pay for garbage bags and supervisors—but it would have less of a disemployment effect than UI extensions and we’d also get cleaner parks in the bargain. It’s a little bit perverse to be paying people to do nothing when there’s work that could use doing.
But a problem modern advanced economies have in advancing this sort of scheme is that the people already working in the public sector don’t want to be squeezed out by facing competition from quasi-unemployed engaged in public works schemes. In other words, the key stakeholders on various different sides of the equation prefer the inefficient choice of just cutting checks—it involves less debt for the “centrists,” less competition for public sector unions, and less arduous demands on the unemployed.
51 Responses to “Politics and Public Works”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 6th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
well, that assumes that out of work people are “doing nothing”, which is probably not the case. they are, um, looking for work. which is hard to do if you’re picking up trash at a park instead.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
A “lower real wages” post followed by a “blame the unions” post, with a “blame Congress” post in between.
Bored now.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
State and local governments are effective middlemen. They have decided which public works they want done, have worked out budgets for them, and now can’t pay for them. While some states have been more responsible than others in managing their budgets, I worry less about picking winners among the 50 states than I do about picking winners among corporations.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
But a problem modern advanced economies have in advancing this sort of scheme is that the people already working in the public sector don’t want to be squeezed out by facing competition from quasi-unemployed engaged in public works schemes. In other words, the key stakeholders on various different sides of the equation prefer the inefficient choice of just cutting checks—it involves less debt for the “centrists,” less competition for public sector unions, and less arduous demands on the unemployed.
There are plenty of conservation/infrastructure projects that aren’t getting done.
- fire prevention in the western states
- river and stream cleanup
- insulation of public buildings
- rural road repair
- tree planting
- etc.,etc.
The opposition is the mindless neoliberal “gubmmit is the problem” crowd.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Instead of saying to people whose UI benefits are about to expire “just kidding, here’s an extension” we could say “you’ll keep getting checks but you need to show up at such-and-such a place and pick up trash in parks.”
I am not sure “need to show up at such-and-such a place and pick up trash in parks” is the best scheme to minimize the pain of unemployment for say, large-firm corporate lawyers.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Or for that matter consultants or investment bankers.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Thanks to union representation, there are a lot of overpaid state and local government workers. Perhaps we should pass a law outlawing unions for such employees and tie pay raises only to inflation and performance. Governments violating the law would have to forego all Federal aid.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I’m not sure that it’s actually more efficient. It’s clearly worse for the people receiving the checks to not have to work for it. Work sucks. And if you just throw people at a park with some garbage bags, you’re not going through the process of bureaucrats deciding whether it’s worth it that you would have for an ordinary infrastructure project, so it’s not clear that the value created cancels out the drudgery. It is far too easy to undervalue leisure.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Er, “clearly better” I mean.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The guy who finds nothing perverse about handing a trillion dollars over to bankers and then watching them recover at the expense of everyone else thinks people in Unemployment are lazy bums who should be forced to do busy work rather than using that time to, you know, look for jobs.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Thanks to union representation, there are a lot of overpaid state and local government workers.
I hate to be the one to break the news, but it’s you who’s underpaid. Union members just happen to be smart enough not to let it happen to them.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Wow, is there any problem that Matt can’t blame directly or indirectly on the unions?
There’s nothing in the world right-wingers hate more than unions (not even the estate tax, or capital gains tax), what does that tell you?
November 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
What do we do about the guys we already pay to pick up the trash in the parks? Terminate the contract, have them become unemployed, then put them back to work?
November 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
it involves less debt for the “centrists,” less competition for public sector unions, and less arduous demands on the unemployed.
Why are you proposing these workers be non-union?
November 6th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Seems that it would be better if a work project taught people valuable skills. Even something as simple as government provided soup kitchens would be an improvement over busy work.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I hate to be the one to break the news, but it’s you who’s underpaid. Union members just happen to be smart enough not to let it happen to them.
I don’t consider myself underpaid. But if the union guys are so smart, why does the percentage of workers in unions go down, their pay and benefits goes up, and state and local governments are financially hard-pressed to pay them, even after tax increases? The thing is that government workers have a legally established monopoly on the services they provide, so government services are immune from competition. We’ve seen the fate of industries that pay on the union scale and the results are not encouraging.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Glenn Beck would have field day with this article. If he read, that is.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I don’t consider myself underpaid.
Perhaps you are not underpaid. But wages in this country have declined for decades now, so union members only appear overpaid compared to people who are getting screwed over.
We’ve seen the fate of industries that pay on the union scale and the results are not encouraging.
You mean like UPS and General Electric?
November 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Personally, I would rather not routine government tasks eing depends on certain amount of structural unemployment. I mean, do we stop maintain our highways and parks once unemployment drops?
I think new one-shot programs are needed. Like wide-spread deployment of fiber-optical network to premises, National high speed train network, more regional public transit infrastructure. A modernized civilian conservation corp would also be great.
Also, many people who collect unemployment are working under the table, the constant extension of UEI is just enabling the abuse. Forcing people to report to government job may save money in the long run.
Also, Californiapublic sectors do not pay unemployment insurance, but reimburse EDD for the benefits their former employees receives. Under current system, every time congress extend the UE benefits, California state and local governments get deeper in the hole, which may necessitate further lay-off. Federal government really should pick up the tap for those.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
One theme of many of these comments seems to be that union members would lose their jobs if if the unemployed were used to pick up trash.I can tell you that in Baltimore they would not run out of trash to pick up anytime soon.And i imagine thats the case in most big cities.
Anyways, i think MR Yglesias was just useing trash pickup as an example.There is an unlimited amount of pick and shovel public works projects that need to be done.
I agree with those that say that it will not allow some people to look for work.But many people are being laid off for a week or 2 at a time.Or they are being cut back to a 4 day week.Or like myself they are self employed and do not qaulify for unemployment.
If the government set up a central office in a city[they could use an abandoned school] .they could use it essentially as a sort of day labor shop for the unemployed and send them to different sites and pay them a check at the end of the day.
This would give the government flexibility to send them where they are needed most.And it would give some of the men the needed flexibility as well.
The big highway projects that HAVE been funded tend not to help the average guy.They are not labor intensive.The days of guys building roads with picks and shovels is long gone.
Why doesn’t the government use unemployed people to lay highsppeed rail tracks.I know the highspeed rail was funded. But i have not heard of any tracks being built.
My basic point is that there is an unlimited amount of work out there and that no one would be “stealing “anyone elses work.Also that many people aren’t in the classic unemployed situation.Many companies are doing very short term layoffs[ 1-4 weeks].Sometimes those layoffs are the worst.Because you lose money .But in this economy you don[or can't ] jump to another job.
Finally , i would say that a majority of guys that i know don’t like to sit around unemployed.And many would prefer to work for a check instead of just recieving one in the mail.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
You know what would be a good thing to build? Government hospitals. At the end of the short- medium term construction projects, there would be useful public facilities that could operate much closer to their marginal cost, instead of having to cover the debt service on buildings and capital equipment.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
No, I mean the auto industry, the steel industry, the apparel industry, etc. You see, dear sir, the manufacturing jobs go overseas. UPS provides services, and based on my experience they don’t perform very well. GE has a large and presumably evil financial segment which makes a lot of money. So please, no more kidding. Perhaps you want to forbid employers from moving jobs overseas. Please respect my intelligence by not being silly.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Regarding my own comment # 20
I also don’t see why the work has to be unskilled.Or manual labor.In most cities there is a backlog of paperwork.It takes forever to get permits for things in many cities.there are many qaulified people that could help with the backlog.And there are others that could get valuable office experience.
If a person was working as a cashier or a laborer it’s hard for them to get an office job.This would allow them to get the necsecary experience
November 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Myles @5: As this former big-firm corporate lawyer can tell you, very few of us would be on UI even if we were laid off. It’s usually part and parcel of whatever exit arrangement gets made with the firm that you *don’t* apply.
Second: You really don’t think that WPA-style project planning requires lawyers? Half my bread and butter doing project finance and corporate work at the firm was on behalf of public authorities, utilities, municipal corporations, and state agencies. There’s plenty for underemployed lawyers (and probably I-bankers and consultants, too) to do in the public sector if we were to actually push infrastructure spending on, say, energy independence.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Regarding comment 21 by Aatos
That’s a good point. And we already have hundreds of public hosptials that need repair.I seem to remember that DC General closed down a few years back . My understanding was it was because it was in such disrepair[i could be wrong].
November 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I see dear sir, that you are just making up the rules as you go along, and I call bullshit.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Oh, as someone who’s writing his dissertation on the WPA, this article pisses me off in all kinds of ways.
1. The WPA was not designed as a cheap alternative to Unemployment Insurance – in fact, WPA wages were HIGHER than “poor relief” rates. The whole point is to put more money in people’s hands than they get from stingy welfare programs, leveraging their status as workers to get real wages.
2. It is ridiculously easy to avoid competition with existing public sector employees, by simply requiring that work done can’t be the normal kind of projects – the WPA managed it for eight years. Moreover, in a deep recession, when state and local governments are cutting like mad, there’s no substitution, because the governments aren’t doing the normal work they would be doing anyway.
This is blindly obvious, given the hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure work that the mayors’ and engineers’ associations have identified just to maintain our infrastructure – leaving aside the work needed to be done to construct new infrastructure (smart grid, etc).
3. Contrary to the anti-union logic, I’ll lay this out for you: WPA workers were unionized. They were represented by the UAW. The CIO was the biggest booster of the WPA in the Democratic coalition, and even the AFL was supportive. There is no reason in the world why unions should oppose jobs programs.
4. If you want to learn more, check out my series on Job Insurance, which really lays out how this should work.
———————————————————
In summary: Matt, don’t make me come over there!
November 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Nice bit of satire, Matt.
For those who missed it, and there appear to have been a few, the giveaway was forcing people to clean up parks: that’s something we already do, of course, only we call it “community service” and use it to sentence people convicted of minor non-violent infractions. Skipping that middle step would be a violation of due process, hence unconstitutional.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
StevenAttewell Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Oh, as someone who’s writing his dissertation on the WPA,
==========================================================
Excellent timing, sir!!!
As an archeologist, I have to point out that it is a tremendously important period in the history of American archaeology when WPA funded large excavations of sites during the 30s. It was a great step forward for the discipline, though many wouldn’t call it productive work.
Frankly, there is a huge warehouse/museum in Kentucky that is filled with artifacts excavated during the 30s that havent’ been completely analyzed yet.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Well you’re moving the goalposts here, UPS performs very well financially, even if you personally got a crack in your dell laptop. This doesn’t really address the main issue, either, which is that service jobs are ideal for unionization, because they are tied to location and cannot generally be outsourced (the extent to which they can be is the extent to which they are actually commodities.)
I’m not sure how much of a difference it would have made to manufacturing to either have or not have an auto or labor union, when people in the Marshall Islands and China are willing to take single-digit dollars a day. There’s simply no way for an American to compete on that level, union or no.
I’m personally of the opinion that we’d still have a US garment industry today if people were able to find US-made clothing, but since US-made clothing became more expensive to retail, the large chains just stopped carrying it. It’s not like people price-compared blouses in the store one day and found the ones from Bangladesh to be a better value; a department store/Walmart buyer discovered that they could charge you about 5% less for something they aquired for 50% less.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
It should also be mentioned that the WPA built 3 ” Greenbelt” towns.One is in Wisconsin And another is in Maryland near DC.After 70 years the buildings are still in great shape and will probably outlast the crappy buildings that developers are buiding nowdays.
As many here have mentioned ,if you travel through America you will see many projects from the 30’s still in use.I fear that years from now no one will be able to see any thing from this present time period except for very badly built mcmansions.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Those of us who have received UI benefits PAID into the system – in many cases for years or even decades before ever collecting a single UI check. And looking for a job is a full-time job, especially if you want to get back into the workforce in less than a year!
November 6th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Matt, no matter how much you beg, Megan is getting married, and it ain’t to you.
(hehe)
November 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I am not sure “need to show up at such-and-such a place and pick up trash in parks” is the best scheme to minimize the pain of unemployment for say, large-firm corporate lawyers.
No, but it might have some educational value for the bastards.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Steve Attewell makes my points rather well. There’s no reason to assume that such huge projects as a smart grid, national green infrastructure, wholesale bridge upgrades, healthcare efforts or other potential projects wouldn’t require vast amounts of white-collar labor. It might be true that not every lawyer would be working as a lawyer perse, but I don’t think it’s at all impossible that previous white-collar people would all work at some level of white-collar jobs. Of course, some white-collar folks might well actively want to work at blue or pink collar positions (and, of course, vice-versa).
November 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Burritoboy -
Just to follow up on the white collar point. While the WPA was somewhat less good at this, its immediate predecessor, the Civil Works Administration, was really, really good at giving white collar people work. What the CWA did was to establish the Civil Works Service specifically for unemployed white collar workers – unemployed architects did the designs for buildings, unemployed teachers did adult education, unemployed academics were put to work doing some pioneering social surveys (some of our earliest “modern” statistics on poverty, health, housing, etc. came from the CWS), etc.
The most amazing part is that the CWA was able to cut WAY down on administrative overhead by employing from within – most of the CWA administrative staff were CWS workers, doing interviews of applicants, maintaining payroll lists, handling workers comp, etc.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
To get anything of size built anywhere near a city you’d need to, on several different fronts (site planning/traffic hookups/sewer hookups/environmental impact) draw up plans and then present the plans and pretend to listen to criticism of the plans and then go to court to defend the plans from the critics, which would exceed professional capacity at hand if repeated on a large scale and would kick the projects a few years back and maybe out of the unemployment spike you’re trying to fix in the first place.
You could maybe speed it up a bit by dragooning unemployed professionals, like Mayur suggests, but this stuff is kinda political such that
A) a dragooned lawyer/planner/environmental consultant might actually oppose any given project they’re assigned to, and might lack a civil service heads-down mentality
and
B) a freshly dragooned lawyer probably doesn’t have the connections with the poobahs necessary to push stuff through
And the poobahs can’t really be dragooned or supplemented, that’s the point. And that was the point of lot of this procedural stuff, which was largely a response to Great Society era programs where the federal government fronted the money for non-poobah groups to work with (which was itself a response to New Deal experiences working with the various city poobahs).
November 6th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
In my experience, those lawyers are unemployed because they are not good businessperson, and haven’t adopt their business model. For example, I know this guy who earn more than most big law associates and some partners. How does he do it, charge
$100 flat rate for bankruptcy filing. And his clients actually received very high quality of legal service.
As a public law librarian who have to deal with many self-representing litigants, and help many (former) big law associates transition into solo/small firm practice, I have no sympathy for unemployed corporate lawyers
November 6th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Many people have written in and complained about people being forved to work against their will.After rereading what MR Yglesias wrote, i do not see him mentioning coersion of any kind.
In my own comments [#20,23, 25] I was writing under the assumption that a modern day WPA program would be a great help to those that want to work but can’t find work or are stuck in jobs that are on 3-4 day workweek.I think that a voluntary WPA style program would find more than enough volunteers.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Re: There are plenty of conservation/infrastructure projects that aren’t getting done.
How many of the unemployed are suited for such work? Unemployed construction workers, yes. But a 50 year old unemployed loan officer? An obese unemployed auto worker with incipient diabetes? A modern day WPA would have to put a lot of people to work who aren’t fit for physical labor. How much office work could we drum up? I have a feeling there’d be a lot of people getting paid for sitting around surfing the web all day.
Re: I can tell you that in Baltimore they would not run out of trash to pick up anytime soon.
I have to second Pete on this. Last year we had a “Clean up your street” weekend just before Christmas. For one day my street was pristine. The next day it looked like the town dump again. This city is populated by the choicest collection of litterbugs on the planet. Plus kind-hearted animal lovers who put their trash out (in easily ripped plastic bags) days early so that the poor rats will have something eat.
Re: It’s usually part and parcel of whatever exit arrangement gets made with the firm that you *don’t* apply.
You’re kidding. It’s legal for firms to extort a promise not to apply for UI? What do they use as bait? Generous severance I hope.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
But wages in this country have declined for decades now…
Regardless, real employee compensation per hour has risen, because much of our income is going into non-wage benefits such as health insurance, 401(k) plans, and the “employer portion” of Social Security and Medicare.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
It should also be mentioned that the WPA built 3 ” Greenbelt” towns.
The problem is that “prevailing wage” laws would make such an effort quite expensive today, along with the environmental impact statement, NIMBYism, etc.
(Actually, maybe not such a bad idea, Greenbelt MD’s artificial lake is a bacterial cesspool…)
November 6th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
JonF – the WPA’s workers were unskilled, and came from a population that was much more likely to be underfed, impaired by diseases we’ve cured, and uneducated. And look what they were able to build.
I think we’ll be fine.
Mr. Econotarian – even accounting for prevailing wage, it’s still a cheap way to create jobs, and the extra wages just mean more consumption.
As for the planning project difficulties (environmental impact statements, permit approval, etc.), there’s a way to deal with that.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I realise that most people are probably done with this thread by now.But i would like to say that many people made some very good points about the pros and cons of a modern day WPA program. There are obviousely modern day obstacles to installing a modern day WPA program.But that is not a reason to dismiss the idea.It’s all the more reason for figuring out a way to overcome the obstacles and to institute reforms in the permit process ect. where it is required.
I know that this sounds hopelessly idealistic , but it would be nice if our politicians[Both D and R] sat down together and made some deals.Like reforming the permit process in return for installing a WPA style program.It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
As for the prevailing wage issue, i think that it is important in someplaces but not in others.It goes state by state.For instance a laborer in New York does very well from what i understand.But in Maryland on a federal jobsite he makes $13.81 an hour or $12.65 an hour depending on what he is doing[ i might be off by a few pennies ,it's been a while since i earned "scale"].This is a good wage.But not overly large if you ask me.Laborers don’t just stand around ,despite the popular perception.It can be backbreaking work.
In louisiana it’s around $9 an hour.Which is defintly not a lot.I assume that it’s fairly low in most southern states.In short ,while it can be a problem for project budgets up north, it really shouldn’t affect the affordability of WPA style jobs down south.I do not know enough about the prevailing wages in other parts of the country.[i do know that it is state by state].
I can understand not being able to afford to pay laborers $2o an hour for public work jobs. But to pay someone less than $9 an hour to do work that is often back breaking is wrong on many levels.
It would be great if MR Yglesias did a post on issues like the prevailing wage system and enviromental impact laws.I think that while some of these laws could be modernised and reformed, they should not be abolished.One wishes that our politicians could find some middle ground on these issues instead of demagauging.That is what they are paid for.
One final question for the night.
MR JonF regarding your comment # 40 about only being able to keep your street clean for 24 hours.What’s your secret for keeping it clean that long? I can’t keep my block clean for 30 minutes.The kids sitting on their steps actually throw stuff on the ground as i sweep the gutters!
Good night and best wishes and regards to all of the commenters here
November 6th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Regarding Steven Attewell’s comment # 43.
MR Attewell
You have made many interesting comments today.I clicked the link to your website and it does look interesting.Sadly it will have to wait for tommorow because it’s way past my bedtime. I do want to thank you for the link though.
Good luck on your disertation on the WPA. As someone who grew up in Greenbelt [built as you know ,by the WPA] the WPA has always been something that i have been interested in.One of the main reasons that i became a construction laborer was that i went to a school that stone carvings of WPA workers on it’s outside walls.The WPA defintly inspired me as a child.
Best regards to you MR Attewell
November 6th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Pete – thanks for the encouragement.
As you point out, prevailing wage is not exorbitant.
$14 an hour works out to about $27k a year, and that’s less than 122% of poverty for a family of four. That’s livable, but it’s still a working class salary.
I think we really need to rethink our priorities when we classify those kinds of wages as unaffordable or uncompetitive – because what we’re basically saying is that capitalism can’t provide a living wage. Which should prompt further thought rather than an acceptance of the going rate.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:20 am
MR Attewell
I just was turning in for the night when i saw your response.Thanks for your reply.I would have to add one thing to your last comment.That’s $27,000 a year IF the laborer works 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year.
Some laborers do do that.And others even work enough overtime to make more.But in my own personal experience of 20 years of laboring i would say that this is not the norm.You might work 12 hours one day and get rained out the next 3 days.Or the project might last 6 months and then you are layed off.This obviousely adds to the basic point that you were making.
That is why in an earlier comment of mine[comment 20] i suggested that any jobs program that the government creates should be flexible.You often hear about “unemployment” in our inner cities like Baltimore.My own experience with myself and others is that there is usually very little unemployment[ except in a rescession like this].But massive UNDERemployment.If you are working for a small contractor [which many are] than you might have work for 2 or 3 weeks tops.Usually a labor has to know 3 or 4 contracters to keep busy all of the time.During the boom years i was lucky to be able to do this.Some weren’t so lucky.Even in the boom years.If you are working for a big contractor you might be able to work 3-6 monthes straight.
This is why highway construction rarely helps the average laborer.Highway construction companies almost always require their laborers to have their own car[thereby disqaulifying a lot of Baltimore guys].And highway jobs just aren’t labor intensive.That is why when people drive by them they see very few people actually working.Sadly, This is most peoples image of the average construction laborer, because they do not see the majority of laborers who are working out of sight in buildings .
Basiclly right now what a lot of guys that i know need is some temporary work to keep them afloat until their old companies either rehire them or increase their hours from 3 days a week to 5 days. Normally they would go to the day labor shops[Temp agencies] .But these have absolutly no work right now in many cities[I know for a fact that they don't in Baltimore right now].
This is a void in which the government can fill. But If they go through a long hiring processes and create a huge bueracacy they will be wasting everybodys time. But If they announce that they are setting up a hiring hall and sending people out to work that day ,people WILL show up.And the fact that they are standing in line early in the morning should be evidence enough that they need work.
That’s just my perspective from what i have observed in the construction industry over the last 20 years.I have spent many of those years being a day laborer.It might surprise many people to know that there are probably far more white and black day laborers than there is latino [ i myself happen to be white].For the record, now i am fortunate to have my own ,very small, company. But i still consider myself a laborer.
Best regards to you MR Atewell
November 7th, 2009 at 4:31 am
We are talking about rebuilding the country, building a smart grid and wind farms and an HSR network and generally creating a spirit in this nation that America can still be a great country; and Matt is talking about KEEPING PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED AND FORCING THEM TO PICK UP TRASH.
Unfucking believable. Here is guy who supposedly loves HSR but instead wants the government to use it funds to make out-of-work Americans wonder around parks with a pointed stick and stab pieces of garbage.
China, through PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, will lay down fifteen thousand kilometers of high speed rail in the next three years. Tunnels, bridges, track, stations, locomotives, cars, and people, will all be required. Employed people, at so many varied levels, will be part of this tremendous government project.
And you want the US government to use its stimulus, use its resources and its power, to reduce the nation to a bunch of garbage pickers. What a progressive.
November 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Max,
Actually, if you note what the WPA / CWA were, was that this won’t be forced make-work projects (a la the welfare reforms of the 1990s). If folks are ok with staying on unemployment and spending the time looking for work, they should do be allowed to do that.
The point of the neo-WPA is NOT primarily to provide monetary benefits – if we wished to just do that, unemployment insurance works just fine (actually, quite a bit more efficiently). The point of the neo-WPA is quite precisely the opposite: to remove the pressure from the private employment markets, to move long-time unemployed workers back into the workforce in a coordinated and logical way, to boost their skills (and, yes, self-esteem) in actual (and meaningful) projects, to retrain workers on actual projects and so forth.
Note: if we are talking about a family of four in which both the father and mother work in Attewell’s neo-WPA, their combined salary will be in the region of $54,000. Which isn’t precisely wonderful, but isn’t at all unreasonable to survive on, at least for a while.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:30 am
We have this in Australia – it’s known as ‘work for the dole’. It was a bit controversial when it went in but now it’s widely popular. Puts off welfare bludgers, gets valuable things done, and gives unemployed people a bit of purpose and often also skills to help them find real work.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Burritoboy –
Not to mention that a neo-WPA would actually provide superior benefits to UI (the average UI benefit works out to about $15k a year; compared to $24-27k on neo-WPA).
I would point out that: A. only 46% of American workers are eligible for UI, which itself is a major problem; B. most workers would greatly prefer an actual job to being on UI; C. (and this part is too often overlooked) with UI, we permanently lose the labor value of the work that could have been done by the unemployed – there’s no way to store it or make it up afterward. With a neo-WPA that otherwise lost productivity is captured in public goods and services, resulting in a net gain to GDP that’s quite substantial.