Booker Proposes Federal Job Guarantee

[Antiganon]

So I see people criticizing plans like this, and I just have to wonder: why?

We have infrastructure that isn't adequate to our needs correct? And we have people who are underemployed and not making enough money to make ends meet, right?

Why would we not give those people jobs building infrastructure the public will benefit from?

For reference, the very similar Works Progress Administration under FDR created about 8.5 million jobs for out of work Americans after the great depression. The WPA largely covered wages and provided some money for the For reference, the workforce population in 1940 was about 45 million, total US population about 130 million.

So nearly 20% of people with jobs worked for the WPA.

In terms of funding, the WPA operated under a system of Federal grants and loans that partially paid for local projects, which were funded the rest of the way by state, local, and private contributions. No reason to suggest these new plans would have to (or really, be able to) try anything different.

[Deleted]

So I see people criticizing plans like this, and I just have to wonder: why?

We have infrastructure that isn't adequate to our needs correct? And we have people who are underemployed and not making enough money to make ends meet, right?

Why would we not give those people jobs building infrastructure the public will benefit from?

For reference, the very similar Works Progress Administration under FDR created about 8.5 million jobs for out of work Americans after the great depression. The WPA largely covered wages and provided some money for the For reference, the workforce population in 1940 was about 45 million, total US population about 130 million.

So nearly 20% of people with jobs worked for the WPA.

In terms of funding, the WPA operated under a system of Federal grants and loans that partially paid for local projects, which were funded the rest of the way by state, local, and private contributions. No reason to suggest these new plans would have to (or really, be able to) try anything different.

To be a bit fair, we've moved far away from the days of governments doing infrastructure construction and repairs as projects by themselves; we basically only write up contracts at this point. Which there is some logic behind. Back in those days, there didn't exactly exist companies that could take on vast projects by themselves, which tends to be written up to the notion of not having the ample means of communication, internal bureaucratic capability, so government had quite a hand in the progress because they had those means. That went away as more construction companies became more capable in those areas, which then lead us over to only doing contracts.

That's not to say that you can't marry the two ideas of contracting companies, but also having requirements to the people employed to do the jobs. But it is a project that easily gets shut down as being government interfering with the private industry balance etc. etc..

[Antiganon]

To be a bit fair, we've moved far away from the days of governments doing infrastructure construction and repairs as projects by themselves; we basically only write up contracts at this point. Which there is some logic behind. Back in those days, there didn't exactly exist companies that could take on vast projects by themselves, which tends to be written up to the notion of not having the ample means of communication, internal bureaucratic capability, so government had quite a hand in the progress because they had those means. That went away as more construction companies became more capable in those areas, which then lead us over to only doing contracts.

That's not to say that you can't marry the two ideas of contracting companies, but also having requirements to the people employed to do the jobs. But it is a project that easily gets shut down as being government interfering with the private industry balance etc. etc..

Why is government interfering with private industry balance inherently a bad thing?

If companies aren't offering decent work at a decent wage on their own, does it not fall to the government to step in and either legislate a minimum wage, or provide the jobs themselves?

The way I see it, the free market sycophants should love this - rather than legislate the actions of private companies vis a vis minimum wage, the federal government just enters the marketplace as a provider of jobs, forcing private companies to compete. If private companies offer better wages and benefits in response in order to retain their workers, great, mission fucking accomplished. If they don't, no sweat, those people still have good jobs and are learning valuable skills while working for the government, not to mention they are contributing to the general welfare by producing things that the entire public can benefit from.

Further, a construction company making a bridge under government contract needs to cover costs AND turn a profit. A government agency making the same bridge can do it cheaper, because there is no profit motive.

BTW - the reason the WPA folded was twofold:
1) Not enough un(der)employed workers to do the jobs once we were fully involved in World War II.
2) Joe McCarthy and his Un-American Activities Commission saw it as communism, and we can't have none of that.

[Deleted]

Why is government interfering with private industry balance inherently a bad thing?

If companies aren't offering decent work at a decent wage on their own, does it not fall to the government to step in and either legislate a minimum wage, or provide the jobs themselves?

The way I see it, the free market sycophants should love this - rather than legislate the actions of private companies vis a vis minimum wage, the federal government just enters the marketplace as a provider of jobs, forcing private companies to compete. If private companies offer better wages and benefits in response in order to retain their workers, great, mission fucking accomplished. If they don't, no sweat, those people still have good jobs and are learning valuable skills while working for the government, not to mention they are contributing to the general welfare by producing things that the entire public can benefit from.

Further, a construction company making a bridge under government contract needs to cover costs AND turn a profit. A government agency making the same bridge can do it cheaper, because there is no profit motive.

I didn't say that it was an inherently bad thing, I just noted that it is a fairly standard way to shut such suggestions down.

In regards to companies not offering decent work and decent wages, that's first of all questionable to what that actually means. We do not have any particularly laws that protect what your earnings should be based on working. Which I'll note again goes into the sphere of interrupting a natural system that "should" balance itself. Now I will note that's not happening, and it is a valid question to ask what governments role in that should be. But that's hard to discuss, because if you put it too low, you've not really done something, and if you put it too high, you'll inadvertently destroy what was functioning businesses, and if you do things on your own you undermine the private industry which there tends to be laws that states you can't.

Free market sycophants to my knowledge despise the notion of government doing anything that would interfere with the private market. I mean we are talking about people that find the very notion of a government in and of itself to be bad, because it fills a role that they feel should be private (and that's basically everything from fire men, to police, to regulatory organizations etc., the only thing they don't often note down is military).

Now the argument of the no profit gain, I agree is for the most part a valid one, but historically its not been a particularly good track record, and there is also the notion of self investment that government rarely can do in comparison to private industry.

I will also say, just to make sure, I am merely arguing from that perspective, I am not personally opposed to the notion of government doing infrastructure on their own.

[Felya]

Yea, god forbid we encourage accountability and personal responsibility for one’s state in life. This is why your candidate will never win. You can’t separate reality from policy. Handing 50k a year to every idiot with a pulse is not only undesirable, it’ll just encourage them to continue to be irresponsible and demand more. If you can’t govern your actions and/or be held responsible for them, how dare you try to hold others to a standard you don’t feel applies to you.

How exactly do you expect someone else, like government, to teach you accountability and personal responsibility? Your view of Americans is really fucked...

[Felya]

I don’t expect the government too. The government guarantees a base standard of living that most of the world only dreams of. Your definition of poverty isn’t poverty. You know how you guys like to cite the far-left fringe in tiny European countries as the new definition of “left”? Well you can’t ignore the real definition of poverty. People whom have access to food, shelter, medical care and the internet aren’t in poverty.

What? I didn’t even say the word poor... way to go off on a tangent arguing with your self. I said Americans... not poor...

If you’re struggling to live in the west, you’re a fuck up. Plain and simple. If you have kids you can’t support, you’re a fuck up. You should be shamed. I’m not talking about the guy or gal who takes a momentary hit because of a temporary down economy. We have safety nets to catch them and allow them to get back on their feet. I’m talking about the people who never find a 35k a year gig and lack a skill, who blame everyone but themselves. If you can’t show up to work on time and do your 8 hours without causing a scene, you’re the problem; not society.

Uhm... no one is blaming society... this is about not having those fuck ups filling the streets or doing stupid shit like breaking into your house. You know, having a job builds that skill you said they need to move on from an economic downturn. I don’t understand how you can recognize that this impacts all Americans when there is a downturn or a candidate runs on 45% unemployment. It seems like you then switch to the poor and fuck ups, without recognizing you just acknowledged it helps everyone.

That’s my biggest gripe with folks like you. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge there are consequences for being lazy or making poor choices. Your side never attempts to understand why an individual is in a bad spot, you just declare an unfair system and propose fundamental changes that lack any research or guarantee, rather than argue for programs that help change the way people act. Telling someone they shouldn’t have children is infathomable to you, but demanding others pay for your childcare and standard of living without any self sacrifice exist your brain faster than your brain can formulate the idea. It’s a programmed response because actually evaluating the root cause of why individuals are downtrodden takes actual effort. That’s why “victim blaming” has become an argument ended in your world. Unfortunately for you, reality and the rest of the world aren’t limited to your self imposed rules on discussions and evaluations.

My biggest issue with you, is that you don’t seem to know how to respond to people, without putting them in a group to talk shit about. If you knew me, the shit you listed wouldn’t be on a list of things to gripe about. Ask my gf for reference... she has a long list...

[Ripster42]

So I see people criticizing plans like this, and I just have to wonder: why?

We have infrastructure that isn't adequate to our needs correct? And we have people who are underemployed and not making enough money to make ends meet, right?

Why would we not give those people jobs building infrastructure the public will benefit from?

For reference, the very similar Works Progress Administration under FDR created about 8.5 million jobs for out of work Americans after the great depression. The WPA largely covered wages and provided some money for the For reference, the workforce population in 1940 was about 45 million, total US population about 130 million.

So nearly 20% of people with jobs worked for the WPA.

In terms of funding, the WPA operated under a system of Federal grants and loans that partially paid for local projects, which were funded the rest of the way by state, local, and private contributions. No reason to suggest these new plans would have to (or really, be able to) try anything different.

I'm not against jobs programs. The problem is funding. Taxes weren't remotely the same as they are now. We're pretty far down the slope of the laffer curve compared to where they were, so the returns we're going to get aren't the same. I'm also not against deficit spending, as long as that deficit spending isn't exorbitant and leading to unsustainable debt service payments, but we're already at the highest levels of debt spending outside of WW the duece. The people proposing these plans also aren't even bothering to attempt to address the issue of funding, which is the most important part.

[Elegiac]

Yea, god forbid we encourage accountability and personal responsibility for one’s state in life.

Because as we all know, unemployment and other forms of economic hardship are only ever the result of personal failings and every poor person in history has only been so by choice.

This is why your candidate will never win.

Prithee, which candidate is "mine".

You can’t separate reality from policy. Handing 50k a year to every idiot with a pulse is not only undesirable, it’ll just encourage them to continue to be irresponsible and demand more. If you can’t govern your actions and/or be held responsible for them, how dare you try to hold others to a standard you don’t feel applies to you.

I've yet to see compelling evidence that moral hazard is actually a thing as it applies to public assistance.

[Antiganon]

I don’t expect the government to. The government guarantees a base standard of living that most of the world only dreams of. Your definition of poverty isn’t poverty. You know how you guys like to cite the far-left fringe in tiny European countries as the new definition of “left”? Well you can’t ignore the real definition of poverty. People whom have access to food, shelter, medical care and the internet aren’t in poverty.

If you’re struggling to live in the west, you’re a fuck up. Plain and simple. If you have kids you can’t support, you’re a fuck up. You should be shamed. I’m not talking about the guy or gal who takes a momentary hit because of a temporary down economy. We have safety nets to catch them and allow them to get back on their feet. I’m talking about the people who never find a 35k a year gig and lack a skill, who blame everyone but themselves. If you can’t show up to work on time and do your 8 hours without causing a scene, you’re the problem; not society.

That’s my biggest gripe with folks like you. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge there are consequences for being lazy or making poor choices. Your side never attempts to understand why an individual is in a bad spot, you just declare an unfair system and propose fundamental changes that lack any research or guarantee, rather than argue for programs that help change the way people act. Telling someone they shouldn’t have children is unfathomable to you, but demanding others pay for your childcare and standard of living without any self sacrifice exist your brain faster than your brain can formulate the idea. It’s a programmed response because actually evaluating the root cause of why individuals are downtrodden takes actual effort. That’s why “victim blaming” has become an argument ender in your world. Unfortunately for you, reality and the rest of the world aren’t limited to your self imposed rules on discussions and evaluations.

Just a point of order - if somebody were to hand me 50k right now, no questions asked, no strings, I am going to do 3 things:

1 Pay off all my debt.
2 Tell my wife she can quit her job and stay home with the kids instead of working full time to take home MAYBE $250 a month more than the daycare bills.
3 Drop a down payment on a house so I start building equity instead of building my landlord's equity.

What part of that qualifies as irresponsible for you?

[Milchshake]

Just a point of order - if somebody were to hand me 50k right now, no questions asked, no strings, I am going to do 3 things:

1 Pay off all my debt.
2 Tell my wife she can quit her job and stay home with the kids instead of working full time to take home MAYBE $250 a month more than the daycare bills.
3 Drop a down payment on a house so I start building equity instead of building my landlord's equity.

What part of that qualifies as irresponsible for you?

They would be mad that you didnt invest your windfall into Gold or Bitcoin. /s

Seriously, the IT guy at work wont stop telling me to invest in gold or bitcoin. Many of these edgelord cranks on the forums strike me in the same way. Maybe IT work affords a lot of boredom, which they spend consuming hours and hours of alt lite videos on youtube.

I prefer watching vids on cooking or gardening. But fucking youtube algorithms... I search for vids on planting mixes for tomatoes, I still get bombarded by ads for PragerU. Its like some libertarian fanbois at youtube wrote these outcomes no matter your search history.

[Captain N]

Just a point of order - if somebody were to hand me 50k right now, no questions asked, no strings, I am going to do 3 things:

1 Pay off all my debt.
2 Tell my wife she can quit her job and stay home with the kids instead of working full time to take home MAYBE $250 a month more than the daycare bills.
3 Drop a down payment on a house so I start building equity instead of building my landlord's equity.

What part of that qualifies as irresponsible for you?

Considering who you're quoting you're likely going to get something a long the lines of it's your fault you had children you couldn't afford and it's totally your fault for not being able to negotiate better wages for yourself.

That being said did you take any of the advice from your previous thread about the military? Some of the railroads have boosted their signing bonuses up to $25,000 and a majority are still desperately seeking help.2

[Macaquerie]

Just a point of order - if somebody were to hand me 50k right now, no questions asked, no strings, I am going to do 3 things:

1 Pay off all my debt.
2 Tell my wife she can quit her job and stay home with the kids instead of working full time to take home MAYBE $250 a month more than the daycare bills.
3 Drop a down payment on a house so I start building equity instead of building my landlord's equity.

What part of that qualifies as irresponsible for you?

$50k really isn't that much, definitely not enough for your wife to quit her job over, especially not if you're going to use most of it to buy a house. And jumping into home ownership before your finances are ready for it is probably the most irresponsible thing you could do, after all that is what crashed the economy ten years ago.

[cubby]

$50k really isn't that much, definitely not enough for your wife to quit her job over, especially not if you're going to use most of it to buy a house. And jumping into home ownership before your finances are ready for it is probably the most irresponsible thing you could do, after all that is what crashed the economy ten years ago.

You just told him had to get his finances in order, which he said he would do - and then assumed you knew his finances, which weren't even in order, according to you. How do you know $50k "isn't that much" to him, and would in fact not do exactly what he claims? Did you put his finances in order to answer that question?

[Rasulis]

Considering who you're quoting you're likely going to get something a long the lines of it's your fault you had children you couldn't afford and it's totally your fault for not being able to negotiate better wages for yourself.

That being said did you take any of the advice from your previous thread about the military? Some of the railroads have boosted their signing bonuses up to $25,000 and a majority are still desperately seeking help.2

I just read about that.

Why Working on the Railroad Comes With a $25,000 Signing Bonus

Also, NASSCO is hiring like crazy.

General Dynamics-NASSCO looking to hire up to 1,000 shipbuilders

Because of S.D. unemployment of 3.4%, they are willing to hire "green worker."

“We’ll look at people who were working at McDonald’s last week,” DuBard said, underscoring the company’s need for help.

I drove by Ramona yesterday on my way to a meeting downtown San Diego, and saw a big sign along the side of the street, "General Contractor looking for carpenter. $45 per hour."

[Macaquerie]

You just told him had to get his finances in order, which he said he would do - and then assumed you knew his finances, which weren't even in order, according to you. How do you know $50k "isn't that much" to him, and would in fact not do exactly what he claims? Did you put his finances in order to answer that question?

I don't think it's really a matter of opinion, $50k is not a life changing sum of money and should definitely NOT be treated as such, regardless of what your circumstances may be. Oh sure, everyone thinks they have some miraculous business idea that just needs that funding to take the world by storm, but the poster I replied to isn't even claiming that. Quitting your job AND buying a house just from a one time payment of $50k is absolute tomfoolery.

[NED funded]

To be a bit fair, we've moved far away from the days of governments doing infrastructure construction and repairs as projects by themselves; we basically only write up contracts at this point. Which there is some logic behind. Back in those days, there didn't exactly exist companies that could take on vast projects by themselves, which tends to be written up to the notion of not having the ample means of communication, internal bureaucratic capability, so government had quite a hand in the progress because they had those means. That went away as more construction companies became more capable in those areas, which then lead us over to only doing contracts.

That's not to say that you can't marry the two ideas of contracting companies, but also having requirements to the people employed to do the jobs. But it is a project that easily gets shut down as being government interfering with the private industry balance etc. etc..

The US government gets involved a lot in infrastructure projects. Buy America provisions,Obamapassed an EO making it so that companies had to hire union workers and I think some states legislate that a minimum amount of employees have to be hired in order to do a project.

Personally, I'm opposed to this as it is nothing more than a waste of tax payer money.

[Cthulhu 2020]

There's a difference between declaring something to be an instance of cognitive dissonance, and something actually being an instance of cognitive dissonance, bud.

There is, but in this case he's more than correct. You are incredibly cocksure and naive at the same time, which always makes for a good chortle.

[cubby]

I don't think it's really a matter of opinion, $50k is not a life changing sum of money and should definitely NOT be treated as such, regardless of what your circumstances may be. Oh sure, everyone thinks they have some miraculous business idea that just needs that funding to take the world by storm, but the poster I replied to isn't even claiming that. Quitting your job AND buying a house just from a one time payment of $50k is absolute tomfoolery.

Maybe to you - but so far you're ignoring the only evidence, which directly contradicts your point, that is at hand. The person you replied to said it would, in fact, change his life. Pay off remaining debt, bring wife off working a job, down payment on house.

I can think of a number of other life changing events that $50k would bring to any number of people. But that isn't even the point.

You're dismissing a claim, and mocking it now, without even asking for details. That's not how bridges are built. I'd prefer you not come back with more mocking of this other guy, or making outlandish claims. What would be really, honestly impressive, is if you responded with "what do you mean?" or "how so?".

Will it happen? Let's watch and find out!

[Rasulis]

The US government gets involved a lot in infrastructure projects. Buy America provisions,Obamapassed an EO making it so that companies had to hire union workers and I think some states legislate that a minimum amount of employees have to be hired in order to do a project.

Personally, I'm opposed to this as it is nothing more than a waste of tax payer money.

The word that he used in his EO was “encourage” not “require.” Executive Order 13502 encourages federal agencies to "consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement." A project labor agreement does not require contractors and subcontractors to use union companies or be a union shops, they just have to pay their workers union wages on that specific project.

This is not as big a deal as it sounds. As it is, Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage (which has been on the book since 1931) applies to all contractors and subcontractors performing work on Federal or District of Columbia prime contracts in excess of $100,000. Trust me when I say, that with the exception of a few states where unions are still strong, the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage is better than any non-union construction wage.

As for “Buy America” provision, that is a much better option than getting into a tariff fight with China or doing outright subsidy. We, as the tax payers, will pay for it one way or another.

[Antiganon]

I don't think it's really a matter of opinion, $50k is not a life changing sum of money and should definitely NOT be treated as such, regardless of what your circumstances may be. Oh sure, everyone thinks they have some miraculous business idea that just needs that funding to take the world by storm, but the poster I replied to isn't even claiming that. Quitting your job AND buying a house just from a one time payment of $50k is absolute tomfoolery.

50k is debt erasing money.

My wife would quit her job to stay home and watch the kids, because currently we both work full time and pay for full time daycare for our 2 kids. With our debt gone, we would no longer need the ~250 a month she pulls in over and above daycare costs, because we wouldn't be paying down debt.

I would be putting about 10k down on a~150k house, more than enough to qualify for FHA, with a mortgage/tax/PMI payment lower than my current rent.

So yeah, for us, it would be life changing money. 50k would erase the failures of our past and let us move forward into the future without being saddled with thousands of student loans, credit card debt, or a car payment.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering who you're quoting you're likely going to get something a long the lines of it's your fault you had children you couldn't afford and it's totally your fault for not being able to negotiate better wages for yourself.

That being said did you take any of the advice from your previous thread about the military? Some of the railroads have boosted their signing bonuses up to $25,000 and a majority are still desperately seeking help.2

Have an interview tomorrow to do desktop support for a huge DoD contractor, then another one for a local hospital that just got bought out and completely changed their computer system. Both offer more than I make now, are closer to home, and offer better benefits than either my wife or I can currently get.

Railroad is on the back burner for the moment.

Military option is all but off the table unless some serious shit hits the fan.