so hiring people to fix roads. (ie: putting them to work) is less likely to create jobs than putting the same money into their savings.
Who is hiring people to fix roads? What are those people currently trained to do? How long is their hiring contract? Who pays their salaries? Your statement requires all of these to be assessed properly. Or, to put it another way:
1) Programs like the WPA are temporary in nature from the beginning, and as such merely exist as a stop-gap. They do not provide jobs, they provide a short-term monetary input until the person can find a permanent job. As such, they do not create jobs. 2) In order to actually create infrastructure jobs, the money must be perpetual. So, there would need to be a perpetual source of the funding, or those jobs will need to be removed later.
Now, all of that having been said, I would welcome a program where we added permanent infrastructure jobs at the county and state level that were funded via perpetual federal sources. Thus far, I don't know of any such program.
Of the programs listed here, only one can even claim to be tangentially related to job creation, and that would be the $4.1B for job training. That program, I'm likewise all for.
for 1): I'm not saying that such a program wouldn't help people. But it wouldn't create jobs. Just as reducing taxes certainly would help people, but it likely will not create jobs.
2) We are in agreement. 2 down, several hundred million to go. :)
Who is hiring people to fix roads? What are those people currently trained to do? How long is their hiring contract? Who pays their salaries? Your statement requires all of these to be assessed properly. Or, to put it another way:
1) Programs like the WPA are temporary in nature from the beginning, and as such merely exist as a stop-gap. They do not provide jobs, they provide a short-term monetary input until the person can find a permanent job. As such, they do not create jobs.
2) In order to actually create infrastructure jobs, the money must be perpetual. So, there would need to be a perpetual source of the funding, or those jobs will need to be removed later.
Now, all of that having been said, I would welcome a program where we added permanent infrastructure jobs at the county and state level that were funded via perpetual federal sources. Thus far, I don't know of any such program.
Of the programs listed here, only one can even claim to be tangentially related to job creation, and that would be the $4.1B for job training. That program, I'm likewise all for.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I'm not saying that such a program wouldn't help people. But it wouldn't create jobs. Just as reducing taxes certainly would help people, but it likely will not create jobs.
2) We are in agreement. 2 down, several hundred million to go. :)
Reply
Leave a comment