quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

This is hardly a new concept, and it has proven itself before.

Works Progress Administration

By March, 1936, the WPA rolls had reached a total of more than 3,400,000 persons; after initial cuts in June 1939, it averaged 2,300,000 monthly; and by June 30, 1943, when it was officially terminated, the WPA had employed more than 8,500,000 different persons on 1,410,000 individual projects, and had spent about $11 billion.

During its 8-year history, the WPA built 651,087 miles of highways, roads, and streets; and constructed, repaired, or improved 124,031 bridges, 125,110 public buildings, 8,192 parks, and 853 airport landing fields.

That was in 1939 and in 1939 a huge percentage of available work was in industries and for low productive workers. In this day and age, those percentages are much lower, America is now dominated by corporate/public sector workers and so you can't even start to use that sort of history as a comparison of how it would work today.

The Dutch government has already implemented a subsidized employment programme and it hasn't been as successful as they first thought.
They found that although they had a marginal increase in employment, regular employment has been crowded out and this has led to an overall fall in output.
Implementing such a programme is hugely expensive which means individual expenditure will go up.

As per usual, our rabbit is following your rabbit down the rabbit hole.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

What I'm scared about is that I may actually be somewhat in agreement with Wilbur.

I haven't dug out the details of this program and I can tell you that in the sciences, the stimulus money has largely been well spent- people bought equipment that they couldn't afford before and generally it's getting used. Some additional research was funded- also a good thing in my book since we haven't been spending enough on basic R + D. (Military R + D is not the same- and Homeland Security R + D is a sick joke.)

But a big chunk of the reason that our economy is faltering is that Uncle Sam has turned into a Walmart shopper. He's been buying cheap, off the shelf goods, too often made in China that does nothing for our economy. So spending stimulus money stringing more efficient transmission lines? Better roads, high speed rail, more efficient train braking systems etc.... Great idea! Spending money on service businesses that really don't have products that generate additional jobs... lousy idea. Not all jobs are created equal. If you set up a manufacturing plant- there are a whole host of other services that are required that a functioning business will help build ranging from construction to pizza delivery. But those jobs pay $50k/yr. plus. Creating lots of service jobs shows the flaws in the stimulus program that Krugman has been pointing out- you can't do stimulus on the cheap- it's a waste of money. Once the stimulus ends, so will the service jobs. Manufacturing jobs however, can keep going. Uncle Sam needs to prime the business pump- and that's not service jobs. And for advanced goods where performance matters more than bang/buck (which is often the Walmart solution)- Uncle Sam used to be a good customer. He isn't anymore, and we're all suffering because of it.

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

No, the guy making 10$ an hour as a subsidised Pizza Cook will not be buying many Pizzas. Nor will there be a host of bussiness springing up to service him and his newly found disposable income.

As opposed to opening an Oil Refinery (or a high tech R&D outfit) where the worker would be making 50k+. And taking his kids out for Pizza, buying a home, letting the wife get her nails done, taking a vacation, ect.

Not much of that happening on a 10$ an hour subsidised job (with no security at all).

Though I do see how it could be an effective way to buy votes, and ensure party loyalty.

quote:

Not much of that happening on a 10$ an hour subsidised job (with no security at all).

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

No, neither of my examples is a manufacturing job.

It is easy to see why you want to pretend so, however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Sorry Popeye, but I don't agree.

1) We've passed peak oil consumption here in the US, and we're going to be looking at declining oil needs in the future.
2) Chemical firms are rapidly transitioning away from oil feedstocks due to price volatility and the push for green processes.
3) Oil companies get far too much governmental support. While you may get aggravated about gas taxes -I'm not crazy about them because they're regressive- we spend lots more through income tax to support a military to keep oil supplies safe. If we're off oil, then our military budget can be cut drastically. This is not to mention the sweetheart leasing and royalty deals these companies already enjoy.

In terms of peak oil consumption- battery technology will probably arrive in the next 5 years. People who already own electric cars are happy with them and charging at night in the garage is not proving to be a hardship- and surprisingly- the grid can probably accommodate the extra load without too much problem. Also in 5 years- expect there to be a lot of choice in EVs. In short- the days of internal combustion for automotive transport are numbered- the writings on the wall. We won't need new refineries, and we'll be shuttering lots of corner gas stations.

Sam

quote:



ORIGINAL: samboct

Also- there's something of a flaw in your logic. If we should be heading back toward a manufacturing economy based on your previous posts- and the stimulus money is to encourage a service economy, then how are we supposed to get back to a manufacturing economy? Service economies don't build manufacturing capabilities- but manufacturing economies do have a service component. It's the same argument around banking. People put the cart before the horse- strong banks don't build a strong economy- clearly in our case- they destroyed it. A strong economy however, can build a strong bank.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Not much of that happening on a 10$ an hour subsidised job (with no security at all).

But I'll bet the unemployed guy whose $300/week benefits ran out will take the gig.

Unemployment has plenty of security which may be worth trading for income.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBudget/how-much-jobless-pay-would-you-get.aspx