If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   World economy growing unevenly. Great, now we have to flatten out the air bubbles in the market   (nytimes.com) divider line 89
    More: Interesting, global economy, advanced economies, structural unemployment, current accounts, Organization for Economic Cooperation, emerging markets, consumer confidence  
•       •       •

1454 clicks; posted to Business » on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:46 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-03 08:41:42 AM
The problem of long-term joblessness is best addressed by better training policies, as well as stronger demand, as well as tax reforms to increase work incentives, the organization said.

Absolutely, yes, and aw hell naw! I, for one, am tired of getting (not) trickled on because everything at the top is dammed up and reinforced with security guards posted every square foot.
 
2013-09-03 09:00:38 AM

ajgeek: The problem of long-term joblessness is best addressed by better training policies, as well as stronger demand, as well as tax reforms to increase work incentives, the organization said.

Absolutely, yes, and aw hell naw! I, for one, am tired of getting (not) trickled on because everything at the top is dammed up and reinforced with security guards posted every square foot.


Ever notice that even when there's no significant change to the underlying tax code, business regulations and employment laws, when unemployment takes hold the first thing you hear from the right is how we need to "reduce the burden" on businesses by changing said code, regulations and laws?

It's almost like those with a vested interest in changing those things are just disingenuously using the natural cycle of unemployment to drive the political demand for such reforms.
 
2013-09-03 09:00:45 AM

ajgeek: The problem of long-term joblessness is best addressed by better training policies, as well as stronger demand, as well as tax reforms to increase work incentives, the organization said.

Absolutely, yes, and aw hell naw! I, for one, am tired of getting (not) trickled on because everything at the top is dammed up and reinforced with security guards posted every square foot.


The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.

Anyway, the point being that it's not a stand alone tax break, it's simply a reduction on the hit if they hire someone full time.
 
2013-09-03 09:57:21 AM
stop manipulating the money...start working on stuff

right now, all you're doing it shifting the piles around and covering your ass
build things, create things, do things...

amazing how that works
 
2013-09-03 10:06:14 AM
Someone get a spatula.
 
2013-09-03 10:22:19 AM

Barfmaker: Anyway, the point being that it's not a stand alone tax break, it's simply a reduction on the hit if they hire someone full time.


Why is any investment in anything other than employment considered an "investment," but employees are "horrible unnecessary cost expenditures that the government needs to assist with?" Human Resources means more than cog in the machine. It's a pity the people who actually work in that system don't understand that.
 
2013-09-03 11:47:31 AM

ajgeek: Human Resources means more than cog in the machine.


The term "personnel" was updated to "human resources" precisely to frame labor as more of a cog in the machine than actual people.
 
2013-09-03 11:57:23 AM
There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.
 
2013-09-03 12:01:40 PM

FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.


Oh now you're just trolling!  Not feeding it this time!
 
2013-09-03 12:04:35 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.

Oh now you're just trolling!  Not feeding it this time!


Why not? Wouldn't this be a good thing? There's plenty to do in this country.  We could put everyone to work for a good wage.
 
2013-09-03 12:08:25 PM

Barfmaker:   

The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.


Health insurance tied to employment is a terrible idea and policies that further entrench it should be discouraged.
 
2013-09-03 12:22:16 PM

FarkedOver: We could put everyone to work for a good wage.


I'd ask who would pay said wage, but I already know the answer.  Good luck with that.
 
2013-09-03 12:30:37 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: We could put everyone to work for a good wage.

I'd ask who would pay said wage, but I already know the answer.  Good luck with that.


Short answer: The government.

Long answer: the government after taxing the shiat out of the wealthy and businesses.  You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.  Instead of being uber-rich you would have to settle for being just rich.  *sad trombone*
 
2013-09-03 12:32:16 PM
put a fork in it
 
2013-09-03 12:34:26 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Barfmaker:   

The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.

Health insurance tied to employment is a terrible idea and policies that further entrench it should be discouraged.


I think you misunderstood. Tax breaks for employers who insure would mean more employers could offer it, rather than a lump sum given to execs so they can distribute it as bonuses to themselves.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:05 PM

FarkedOver: You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.


A society where you have to pay to not be killed is not one I'd call "stable".
 
2013-09-03 02:07:32 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.

A society where you have to pay to not be killed is not one I'd call "stable".


Neither is a society where people are forced to sell their labor in order for their basic needs.
 
2013-09-03 02:18:50 PM

FarkedOver: Neither is a society where people are forced to sell their labor in order for their basic needs.


So you think people should be able to sit on their asses and have their every need fulfilled by people who work and pay taxes, if they so choose?
 
2013-09-03 02:19:09 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.

A society where you have to pay to not be killed is not one I'd call "stable".


I love me some Engels:

"What the proletarian needs, he can obtain only from this bourgeoisie, which is protected in its monopoly by the power of the state. The proletarian is, therefore, in law and in fact, the slave of the bourgeoisie, which can decree his life or death. It offers him the means of living, but only for an "equivalent", for his work. It even lets him have the appearance of acting from a free choice, of making a contract with free, unconstrained consent, as a responsible agent who has attained his majority."
 
2013-09-03 02:20:32 PM

GoldSpider: So you think people should be able to sit on their asses and have their every need fulfilled by people who work and pay taxes, if they so choose?


No. Instead of working to benefit a few capitalists we should work to benefit all of humanity.  Crazy.... I know!
 
2013-09-03 02:29:34 PM

FarkedOver: Instead of working to benefit a few capitalists we should work to benefit all of humanity.


The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system.  Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism.  Good luck with that.
 
2013-09-03 02:33:02 PM

GoldSpider: The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system. Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism. Good luck with that.


Not necessarily.  With the improvement of technology and production methods, people should be working less, yet that has not happened.  People should have more free time for themselves and their own endeavors, yet they do not. Why is this? Because capitalism relies on excess labor.  Simply put the more people work and produce, the more profits go up.
 
2013-09-03 02:34:00 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Instead of working to benefit a few capitalists we should work to benefit all of humanity.

The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system.  Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism.  Good luck with that.


Our current system is failing. I, for one, am open alternatives.

Kings or Corporate Executive? WTF is the difference?
 
2013-09-03 02:37:17 PM

FarkedOver: Simply put the more people work and produce, the more profits go up.


To further compound on this issue, this doesn't necessarily relate to standards of living going up for the working class.  In fact, in this day and age it is creating some sort of hyper-bourgeoisie.  Maybe they see the writing on the wall and are attempting to get ever last bit of productivity out of the people for their own personal gain before their house of cards come crashing down on them, or maybe they are just so far removed from the working class that they just don't give a flying fark.
 
2013-09-03 02:40:03 PM

Prophet of Loss: GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Instead of working to benefit a few capitalists we should work to benefit all of humanity.

The real world needs more than platitudes to improve our current system.  Your ideal requires humanity to abandon individualism.  Good luck with that.

Our current system is failing. I, for one, am open alternatives.

Kings or Corporate Executive? WTF is the difference?


Don't get me wrong, I think the income distribution system is pretty farked too. I think we can improve it greatly, though, without scrapping the whole system. Pretending that everyone will work together for the common good, if only we coukd break the shackles of capitalism, is naieve at best.
 
2013-09-03 02:43:11 PM

GoldSpider: Don't get me wrong, I think the income distribution system is pretty farked too. I think we can improve it greatly, though, without scrapping the whole system. Pretending that everyone will work together for the common good, if only we coukd break the shackles of capitalism, is naieve at best.


What's naive is thinking that capitalism can last until the sun burns out.  There will come a point (probably sooner, rather than later) when capitalism will be completely unsustainable.  I have no qualms about highlighting what capitalism is good at (i.e. production), but its shortcomings (allocation) are EXTREMELY detrimental to the rest of the world at large.
 
2013-09-03 02:48:23 PM

FarkedOver: GoldSpider: Don't get me wrong, I think the income distribution system is pretty farked too. I think we can improve it greatly, though, without scrapping the whole system. Pretending that everyone will work together for the common good, if only we coukd break the shackles of capitalism, is naieve at best.

What's naive is thinking that capitalism can last until the sun burns out.  There will come a point (probably sooner, rather than later) when capitalism will be completely unsustainable.  I have no qualms about highlighting what capitalism is good at (i.e. production), but its shortcomings (allocation) are EXTREMELY detrimental to the rest of the world at large.


We cannot continue to grow our economies exponentially year over year. Its not physically possible. Modern Capitalism depends on this premise.
 
2013-09-03 02:51:24 PM

Prophet of Loss: We cannot continue to grow our economies exponentially year over year. Its not physically possible. Modern Capitalism depends on this premise.


Capitalism depends on a lot of farked up things when you get into it.  It requires that a segment of the population be unemployed, it requires a segment of the world to work in abhorrent conditions in order to satisfy the wants of a select few.  It requires competition among the working class for jobs, thereby driving down wages and creating a race to the bottom mentality.  It requires subjugation on the part of the working class to ruling class that does not create anything except the illusion of power and control.
 
2013-09-03 03:11:50 PM
You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.
 
2013-09-03 03:18:18 PM

GoldSpider: You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.


Unfettered capitalism or regulated capitalism, someone, somewhere is being oppressed.  We can agree that today we have more than we probably need.  We agree that this is possible because of capitalism.  The question that I raise is: "At whose expense has this been made possible?" The trap that many people fall into (i'm not saying you, I do give you much more credit than the next statement) is that think capitalism is a form of government of some sort.  The fact is that capital can and has existed under MANY forms from democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, fascist governments, etc. My point is there is no reason to defend an economic model as the ultimate human achievement.  My belief is that humanity can do better and humanity does deserve better than what capitalism has to offer.
 
2013-09-03 03:25:28 PM

GoldSpider: You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.


For the record, it's always good debating with you man. *fistbump*
 
2013-09-03 03:40:59 PM

FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.


Lol.  Becasue that platitude would have no unintended consequences whatsoever.  That sounds like a perfect way to become even more uncompetitive in the world.
 
2013-09-03 03:44:34 PM

HeadLever: Lol. Becasue that platitude would have no unintended consequences whatsoever. That sounds like a perfect way to become even more uncompetitive in the world.


So just keep on keeping on! WOO HOO all aboard the exploitation express.
 
2013-09-03 03:46:17 PM

FarkedOver: My belief is that humanity can do better and humanity does deserve better than what capitalism has to offer.


Hard to argue with the results.  In historical terms, capitialism has progressed humanity much more than any other system.  You may belive that socalism/communism may be a better path, but most will disagree.
 
2013-09-03 03:47:12 PM

FarkedOver: So just keep on keeping on! WOO HOO all aboard the exploitation express.


Strawman.  I never said anything about re-evaluting the direction forward.
 
2013-09-03 03:49:51 PM

HeadLever: Hard to argue with the results. In historical terms, capitialism has progressed humanity much more than any other system. You may belive that socalism/communism may be a better path, but most will disagree.


A planned economy put the first satellite in space, the first man in space, the first woman in space.

I'd be careful arguing capitalism put a man on the moon though, I didn't see any private enterprise logo on any of the apollo missions....
 
2013-09-03 03:50:29 PM

HeadLever: FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.

Lol.  Becasue that platitude would have no unintended consequences whatsoever.  That sounds like a perfect way to become even more uncompetitive in the world.


No that would not be a problem... if it is only a right to employment.

I am unemployed, hey govt how about a job?

Here is shovel, dig there and move the dirt there.  When done move dirt back and fill hole.  I will give you $.50 an hour up to 4 hours a day.  Congrats you are now employed.
 
2013-09-03 03:50:36 PM

HeadLever: Strawman. I never said anything about re-evaluting the direction forward.


Are you advocating a mixed economy?
 
2013-09-03 03:51:43 PM

Saiga410: Here is shovel, dig there and move the dirt there. When done move dirt back and fill hole. I will give you $.50 an hour up to 4 hours a day. Congrats you are now employed.


Take a look at the sad state of the infrastructure in this country. We could benefit from a massive public works project.  Unless you honestly believe private enterprise will do it better....
 
2013-09-03 03:52:09 PM
At some point we are going to have to admit, as a society, that having 1% of the people move 50% of the wealth between each other on a digital exchange is not a job and can't be the basis for a vibrant economy.
 
2013-09-03 03:53:29 PM

skozlaw: At some point we are going to have to admit, as a society, that having 1% of the people move 50% of the wealth between each other on a digital exchange is not a job and can't be the basis for a vibrant economy.


WHOA WHO INVITED KARL MARX!?

/you're right.
 
2013-09-03 03:54:21 PM

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Here is shovel, dig there and move the dirt there. When done move dirt back and fill hole. I will give you $.50 an hour up to 4 hours a day. Congrats you are now employed.

Take a look at the sad state of the infrastructure in this country. We could benefit from a massive public works project.  Unless you honestly believe private enterprise will do it better....


Publicly funded and privately administered with correctly bounded contracts is the best option for massive public works.
 
2013-09-03 03:55:30 PM

FarkedOver: GoldSpider: You're arguing against something (unfettered capitalism) that doesn't exist. I agree government should be a better counterweight against the power of private capital, and in that regard is headed in the wrong direction. I think the idea that capitalism is the only barrier between the people and universal altruism and cooperation is beyond silly.

For the record, it's always good debating with you man. *fistbump*


Agreed, I enjoy our exchanges!
 
2013-09-03 03:55:58 PM

Saiga410: Publicly funded and privately administered with correctly bounded contracts is the best option for massive public works.


No it is not.  Please see the Big Dig in Boston.  It's still a shiat shot because the contractors skimped on the materials they used.  This is the issue with capitalism, they do ANYTHING for profit even at the expense of public safety.

"The capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will use to hang him."
 
2013-09-03 03:56:41 PM

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Publicly funded and privately administered with correctly bounded contracts is the best option for massive public works.

No it is not.  Please see the Big Dig in Boston.  It's still a shiat shot because the contractors skimped on the materials they used.  This is the issue with capitalism, they do ANYTHING for profit even at the expense of public safety.

"The capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will use to hang him."


Further, look at the old WPA projects.  They built high schools which are still standing and STILL being used!
 
2013-09-03 03:58:19 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Neither is a society where people are forced to sell their labor in order for their basic needs.

So you think people should be able to sit on their asses and have their every need fulfilled by people who work and pay taxes, if they so choose?


You mean like the investor class that was born into wealth and never worked a day in their lives?
 
2013-09-03 03:58:33 PM
Direct funding and direct oversight by the government of infrastructure projects is the way to go.  It will cut down on pork and senators and congressmen blowing their rich buddies for deals.
 
2013-09-03 03:58:48 PM

skozlaw: At some point we are going to have to admit, as a society, that having 1% of the people move 50% of the wealth between each other on a digital exchange is not a job and can't be the basis for a vibrant economy.


You don't sound very boot strappy.

Go back to watching your Obama funded MSNBC, comrade.
 
2013-09-03 04:04:08 PM

FarkedOver: Are you advocating a mixed economy?


What is a 'mixed economy'?  If you mean regulated capitalism, then yes.
 
2013-09-03 04:05:31 PM

HeadLever: FarkedOver: Are you advocating a mixed economy?

What is a 'mixed economy'?  If you mean regulated capitalism, then yes.


I was a liberal once too.  I got better.
 
2013-09-03 04:07:38 PM

FarkedOver: Take a look at the sad state of the infrastructure in this country. We could benefit from a massive public works project.


No, there is a place for public work and goverment, but they also work within the confines of our regulated capitalist system.  They oftentimes buy thier designs and labor from private companies for this work.  All of the materials come from the private sector.
 
2013-09-03 04:09:54 PM

FarkedOver: Please see the Big Dig in Boston.


So the one project that went south negates the thousands of successful projects?  Quit cherry picking.
 
2013-09-03 04:10:04 PM

HeadLever: No, there is a place for public work and goverment, but they also work within the confines of our regulated capitalist system. They oftentimes buy thier designs and labor from private companies for this work. All of the materials come from the private sector.


Which is why we get shoddy equipment.  Anything to save a buck.
 
2013-09-03 04:10:46 PM

FarkedOver: I got better.


That is an opionion that you may have of yourself.  Others may disagree.
 
2013-09-03 04:11:01 PM

zeroman987: GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Neither is a society where people are forced to sell their labor in order for their basic needs.

So you think people should be able to sit on their asses and have their every need fulfilled by people who work and pay taxes, if they so choose?

You mean like the investor class that was born into wealth and never worked a day in their lives?


I'm no fan of stagnant wealth but that's hardly the same thing as people on permanent public assistance.
 
2013-09-03 04:12:52 PM

HeadLever: So the one project that went south negates the thousands of successful projects? Quit cherry picking.


That is one off the top of my head, I highly doubt its "the one project that went south".  Ye have way too much faith in capitalism.
 
2013-09-03 04:14:17 PM

FarkedOver: Which is why we get shoddy equipment.


Then you had better fire you specification writer or spend more time doing your damn job.  If you want the the good stuff, spec it out appropriatly.  If you are too lazy to adequatly review the design and specifications, don't complain when you get shait.
 
2013-09-03 04:15:39 PM

HeadLever: FarkedOver: I got better.

That is an opionion that you may have of yourself.  Others may disagree.


The fact that you think regulating capitalism, is going to solve the problem and you think you have it figured out is why I believe I got better.  The rights of the working class are being stripped back every single year.  If you think that labor is better off than it was in the 50s through the early 80s you're on crack.

By regulating capitalism you only treat one symptom of a dreadful system of exploitation.
 
2013-09-03 04:16:42 PM

HeadLever: Then you had better fire you specification writer or spend more time doing your damn job. If you want the the good stuff, spec it out appropriatly. If you are too lazy to adequatly review the design and specifications, don't complain when you get shait.


Quit cherry pickin' it ain't always the fault of the spec writer! Some times the owner is just an asshole.

/wow your game is fun to play :) Thanks for teaching me.
 
2013-09-03 04:16:50 PM

FarkedOver: That is one off the top of my head, I highly doubt its "the one project that went south".


No, there are a fair number that have gone south.  However, there are many more that have gone fine.  Naming one that went south and then pretending that all or most infrastructure projects are like that is a fine example of cherry picking.
 
2013-09-03 04:19:50 PM

HeadLever: No, there are a fair number that have gone south. However, there are many more that have gone fine. Naming one that went south and then pretending that all or most infrastructure projects are like that is a fine example of cherry picking.


Those projects went great 50 years ago, now they need to be fixed.  They need to be fixed correctly.  I'd rather use the army corp of engineers than any private enterprise to solve the problem.
 
2013-09-03 04:20:13 PM

FarkedOver: Some times the owner is just an asshole.


That is not a problem with the system.  That is a problem with the owner.   I thought that the indictment was on the system, not crappy personnel.
 
2013-09-03 04:21:34 PM

HeadLever: FarkedOver: Some times the owner is just an asshole.

That is not a problem with the system.  That is a problem with the owner.   I thought that the indictment was on the system, not crappy personnel.


I was just being snarky.... but apparently that was lost on you. I apologize.
 
2013-09-03 04:24:00 PM

FarkedOver: HeadLever: Then you had better fire you specification writer or spend more time doing your damn job. If you want the the good stuff, spec it out appropriatly. If you are too lazy to adequatly review the design and specifications, don't complain when you get shait.

Quit cherry pickin' it ain't always the fault of the spec writer! Some times the owner is just an asshole.

/wow your game is fun to play :) Thanks for teaching me.


Yes and when the product does not meet the required specs under a proper contract the jerk owner would probably lose their livelyhood and probably face jailtime for fraud.  Cost plus ruined govt contracting.
 
2013-09-03 04:25:34 PM

Saiga410: FarkedOver: HeadLever: Then you had better fire you specification writer or spend more time doing your damn job. If you want the the good stuff, spec it out appropriatly. If you are too lazy to adequatly review the design and specifications, don't complain when you get shait.

Quit cherry pickin' it ain't always the fault of the spec writer! Some times the owner is just an asshole.

/wow your game is fun to play :) Thanks for teaching me.

Yes and when the product does not meet the required specs under a proper contract the jerk owner would probably lose their livelyhood and probably face jailtime for fraud.  Cost plus ruined govt contracting.


No necessarily.  If you have enough money you can make any charge go away :)
 
2013-09-03 04:28:30 PM

FarkedOver: Those projects went great 50 years ago, now they need to be fixed.  They need to be fixed correctly.  I'd rather use the army corp of engineers than any private enterprise to solve the problem.


They are fixed correctly.  Why do you think that ASTM, AWWA, AISC, NSF, andsimliar entities exist?  Why do you think that regulations exist on these works?

Also, don't forget that ACoE uses privatte enterprise all the time for thier projects.  They also never do that actual construction, only the Construction Management.
 
2013-09-03 04:30:52 PM

FarkedOver: No necessarily. If you have enough money you can make any charge go away :)


You don't know how these public works project work, do you? This type of argument (even if done in a joking fashion) shows how far detached you are from how these projects are done.
 
2013-09-03 04:32:57 PM

FarkedOver: The fact that you think regulating capitalism, is going to solve the problem and you think you have it figured out is why I believe I got better.


Any system is going to have its problems.  The fact that you think that some other system will be all unicorn farts and rainbow skittles is not living in reality.
 
2013-09-03 04:35:48 PM

HeadLever: FarkedOver: Please see the Big Dig in Boston.

So the one project that went south negates the thousands of successful projects?  Quit cherry picking.


While we're at it, I'd just like to send a big ol' "FARK YOU!" to Boston once again for screwing up the Big Dig so badly.
 
2013-09-03 04:44:44 PM

FarkedOver: If you have enough money you can make any charge go away :)


Another point here is that many municipalites don't have an unlimited amount of funds.  They have to work within a *gasp* BUDGET, just like the rest of us average joes.  They get to choose on things like 1) do we want to replace 3 of our old bridges with new ones that are plain-jane and that maybe cuts a few corners, or just 2 that are done with flair 2) should we replace that leaky sewer line down by the river that no one knows about or extend the greenbelt bike path that will be done with ribbon cuttings and much fanfare.
 
2013-09-03 05:33:06 PM

HeadLever: FarkedOver: That is one off the top of my head, I highly doubt its "the one project that went south".

No, there are a fair number that have gone south.  However, there are many more that have gone fine.  Naming one that went south and then pretending that all or most infrastructure projects are like that is a fine example of cherry picking.


Okay, here's another anecdote: when I was in high school in Phoenix in the early 80s, annual flooding of the Salt River routinely damaged or destroyed one or more of the city bridges that had been built by the private sector.  The several bridges that had been built in the 50s by the Army Corps of Engineers never had problems.
 
2013-09-03 06:31:51 PM

El Pachuco: Okay, here's another anecdote: when I was in high school in Phoenix in the early 80s, annual flooding of the Salt River routinely damaged or destroyed one or more of the city bridges that had been built by the private sector. The several bridges that had been built in the 50s by the Army Corps of Engineers never had problems.


Again, the ACoE does not build the bridges.  They may design and manage the construction, but they almost always contract out the actual construction to private construction companies.  I am pretty sure that is the same as the city bridge as the city likely did the design themselves (or maybe had a private 3rd party do the engineering).

This sounds like more of a design issue as the city bridge appears to not have enough clearance during flood events.  Also, it could be because the stream characteristics have changed since when the bridge was designed.  Urbanization usually means more runoff and increasted peak flows during heavy rains.
 
2013-09-03 08:45:31 PM

Barfmaker: ajgeek: The problem of long-term joblessness is best addressed by better training policies, as well as stronger demand, as well as tax reforms to increase work incentives, the organization said.

Absolutely, yes, and aw hell naw! I, for one, am tired of getting (not) trickled on because everything at the top is dammed up and reinforced with security guards posted every square foot.

The tax reforms can refer to useful and smart things such as giving some kind of break to the employer's share of the worker's costs such as health care, employment insurance...I have no idea if you guys even have this stuff.

Anyway, the point being that it's not a stand alone tax break, it's simply a reduction on the hit if they hire someone full time.


That's the key.  You can't give the reward until the employers have done the good behavior.  The "tax cuts will spur hiring" crowd wants to give employers the tax cuts and then just hope that there will be employment.  But that's just silly.  You have to offer the tax cuts as a carrot (or tax increases as a stick would work too, I suppose).  If companies know they can reduce their tax burden by X% if they hire Y number of people, watch them scramble to throw up the "Help Wanted" signs.
 
2013-09-03 09:15:09 PM

FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.


OK.  You get to work one hour this month.  Me, I'm working my usual 40 a week.
 
2013-09-03 10:00:49 PM

Smeggy Smurf: FarkedOver: There should be a new amendment to the U.S. constitution guaranteeing the right to employment.

OK.  You get to work one hour this month.  Me, I'm working my usual 40 a week.


For now ...
 
2013-09-03 10:58:58 PM

HeadLever: El Pachuco: Okay, here's another anecdote: when I was in high school in Phoenix in the early 80s, annual flooding of the Salt River routinely damaged or destroyed one or more of the city bridges that had been built by the private sector. The several bridges that had been built in the 50s by the Army Corps of Engineers never had problems.

Again, the ACoE does not build the bridges.  They may design and manage the construction, but they almost always contract out the actual construction to private construction companies.  I am pretty sure that is the same as the city bridge as the city likely did the design themselves (or maybe had a private 3rd party do the engineering).

This sounds like more of a design issue as the city bridge appears to not have enough clearance during flood events.  Also, it could be because the stream characteristics have changed since when the bridge was designed.  Urbanization usually means more runoff and increasted peak flows during heavy rains.


No sir.  The construction and maintenance of the bridges and surrounding riverbeds are designated ACoE projects, in the past and continuing.

The ACoE bridges predate the majority of the area's urbanization.  Your theories are exactly backwards, as usual.

Arizona has a great many government  public works projects, with many landmark buildings and structures still in use today.  There is absolutely no truth to the bare assertions that government can't create jobs, and can't build as well as the private sector.
 
2013-09-03 11:23:09 PM

FarkedOver: Neither is a society where people are forced to sell their labor in order for their basic needs.


Excepting totalitarian societies, where are people forced to sell their labor?
 
2013-09-03 11:29:32 PM

El Pachuco: The construction and maintenance of the bridges and surrounding riverbeds are designated ACoE projects, in the past and continuing.


I'll make you a bet that the ACoE did not do the construction.  Tell me what bridge it is.  Bet would be they designed the span and possibly the river bed.  They likely did the construction management as well.  However, the ACoE does not have a construction arm that works in the States as I believe they are required to do this per standard government contracts to private companies.  I believe that this is law.
 
2013-09-03 11:32:56 PM

El Pachuco: The construction and maintenance of the bridges and surrounding riverbeds are designated ACoE projects, in the past and continuing.


Point to one project where ACoE was the actual construction company (operator of excavators, cranes, trucks, provider of concrete, steel and asphalt).  Not the construction manager, design consultant, or inspector.

Yes, they are greatly involved in maintenance as well, however, only as an inspection and technical resource.  Again, I am pretty sure that they don't do the rehabilitation work.
 
2013-09-04 12:07:43 AM

HeadLever: El Pachuco: The construction and maintenance of the bridges and surrounding riverbeds are designated ACoE projects, in the past and continuing.

Point to one project where ACoE was the actual construction company (operator of excavators, cranes, trucks, provider of concrete, steel and asphalt).  Not the construction manager, design consultant, or inspector.

Yes, they are greatly involved in maintenance as well, however, only as an inspection and technical resource.  Again, I am pretty sure that they don't do the rehabilitation work.


You are desperate - desperate - to somehow prove that government projects can't possibly be as good as private sector projects.  To ignore the fact that there are near-infinite examples of free-market projects that turned out to be junk because somebody tried to save a buck (and thus increase profits).

A few minutes' search doesn't turn up a whole lot of details on who turned which wrench on a bridge project in the 1950s, but it really doesn't matter who specifically held the trowel.  You concede that ACoE probably designed the span and possibly the river bed, and likely did the construction management as well, plus QC inspection afterwards.  That sounds like:

FarkedOver: Direct funding and direct oversight by the government of infrastructure projects is the way to go.


NASA doesn't produce every component of their spacecraft either, but they damn well make sure everything is produced to spec.  Government works, and works well - it's weird how well things can turn out when profit isn't a factor.
 
2013-09-04 03:03:44 AM
We will one day have to reach an end to this notion of economic growth. It's unsustainable for anything, including the global economy, to grow forever. We can't make 5% more widgets than last year every year. There aren't enough resources on the planet. We should be coming up with plans to navigate the transition to population, wealth, and resource stability. No one ever talks about this.
 
2013-09-04 10:44:54 AM

El Pachuco: You are desperate - desperate - to somehow prove that government projects can't possibly be as good as private sector projects.


No, I am just sure that your assertion that the ACoE constructed the bridge is incorrect. If you would have spent the time to look at my post @ 2013-09-03 04:09:54 PM , you would see that I am defending this type of system goverment based public infrastructure system.  The government does well in many circumstances with identifiying the neeed, dictating the design requirements and criteria, reviwing and specifying equipment needs and sometimes managing the construction.  However, goverment is not really set up do the actual construction very well.  It is not that they couldn't do it, but that they are not as efficient at it as the private sector (plus they don't have to buy all the heavy construction equipment).

To ignore the fact that there are near-infinite examples of free-market projects that turned out to be junk because somebody tried to save a buck (and thus increase profits).

You can find the same issues with government projects as they typically have to stick within a certain budget as well.  This problem is not isloated to just the private sector.


but it really doesn't matter who specifically held the trowel.

For a project to be sucessful, it does matter who held the trowel.  It aslo matters who designed and reviewed the project; it matters who wrote the specifications; it matters who did the inspection; it matters who did the construction.  A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
 
2013-09-04 11:26:29 AM

HeadLever: Any system is going to have its problems. The fact that you think that some other system will be all unicorn farts and rainbow skittles is not living in reality.


I have never said it would be unicorn farts and rainbow skittles.  The struggle of the working class has NEVER been easy.  But you seem to enjoy putting words in people's mouths, so you can believe whatever you will.
 
2013-09-04 11:47:53 AM

FarkedOver: I have never said it would be unicorn farts and rainbow skittles.


Then why put the words in my mouth that a regulated capitalist system will 'solve the problem'?  You seem to enjoy putting words in people's mouths, so you can belive what ever you will.
What I did there.  You didn't see it.
 
2013-09-04 11:54:41 AM

HeadLever: FarkedOver: I have never said it would be unicorn farts and rainbow skittles.

Then why put the words in my mouth that a regulated capitalist system will 'solve the problem'?  You seem to enjoy putting words in people's mouths, so you can belive what ever you will.
What I did there.  You didn't see it.


Well just read your goddamn posts because that is what you espouse in every one of them.
 
2013-09-04 12:23:26 PM

FarkedOver: Well just read your goddamn posts because that is what you espouse in every one of them.


Strawman.  Go ahead an point out where I said this. I'll wait right here.

I have already agrued the opposite a few post upthread and you even quoted it.  I know that it is shocking that you would choose to ignore this argument so you can continue to prop up that straw filled suit.   I guess that is what I get when I agrue with trolls.
 
2013-09-04 12:49:48 PM

FarkedOver: GoldSpider: FarkedOver: You want to live in a stable society where people aren't going to guillotine your head, you have to pay for it.

A society where you have to pay to not be killed is not one I'd call "stable".

Neither is a society where people are forced to sell their labor in order for their basic needs.


Hmm maybe the world by its nature is not "stable" and trying to make it so is imposing artificiality no matter how you do it. Maybe "basic needs" naturally need to be earned.

And to the headline, wouldn't the opposite be global communism? Is not the lack of equilibrium what causes economies to exist?
 
2013-09-04 04:08:16 PM

FarkedOver: HeadLever: FarkedOver: I have never said it would be unicorn farts and rainbow skittles.

Then why put the words in my mouth that a regulated capitalist system will 'solve the problem'?  You seem to enjoy putting words in people's mouths, so you can belive what ever you will.
What I did there.  You didn't see it.

Well just read your goddamn posts because that is what you espouse in every one of them.


You will never ever get HL to admit he was wrong.


i0.kym-cdn.com

I routinely chop him into pieces on Fark, and then he accuses me of running away when I get bored. Like this thread, for instance - he really wants to cling to the idea that, despite admitting that the Army Corps of Engineers indeed gets credit for every important detail in the construction and maintenance of a couple bridges in Phoenix, they don't get that same credit because there's an unproven possibility that private contractors may have been involved at some stage of the construction, even if they were following ACoE designs, supervision and inspections.  What he does there, nobody sees it but him.
 
2013-09-04 06:19:31 PM

El Pachuco: You will never ever get HL to admit he was wrong.


I am still waiting for him to back his strawman assertion up as I requested.  So far he has been unable or unwilling.  Lets just say that neither one of us should be holding our breath while we wait.


Oh, and don't figure that I am surprised that you also ignored my comment to the contrary.

The really wants to cling to the idea that. . . they don't get that same credit because there's an unproven possibility that private contractors may have been involved at some stage of the construction

Strawman.  Where did I say that they don't (or shouldn't) get the 'same credit'.  I'll wait right here for you to respond.  Again, I won't hold my breath while I wait.

Seems like the only way you two can attempt to argue with me is by propping up strawmen arguments.  If you could change the text in your pic to "STRAWMAN", you would be much more accurate in your braggadocio.
 
Displayed 89 of 89 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report