Slashdot Mirror
$30B IT Stimulus Will Create Almost 1 Million Jobs
itif writes "This report takes a look at how many jobs you get if you invest $10 billion each in three different IT infrastructure projects — broadband, health IT and the smart grid. It argues that if you are going to be spending billions on a stimulus package, investing in 'digital infrastructure' creates more jobs than physical infrastructure (e.g. roads and bridges) in the short-term, and you get a whole host of other benefits in the long-term."
You will get NO net jobs. Every penny spent on a "stimulus" must be taken from taxpayers, either directly or indirectly, either now or in the future, and that penny will NOT be spent creating jobs elsewhere. At best, you are taking away future jobs to support current ones, or, to state exactly the same thing in different terms, you are borrowing from the future to support unsustainable lifestyles now . . . which is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with.
Nonaggression works!
The Internet isn't very useful if the delivery guy can't bring your ThinkGeek toys to you because the roads are broken.
"punywage" is a bad tag for this.
This would also create jobs (at least in the short term) indirectly, as those who get the high-paying jobs directly related to this "stimulus" will demand additional production and services to fill their personal needs, which will create other jobs, and so on. In this way, each dollar invested in this infrastructure will actually be spent multiple times.
Of course, the way this is financed is inflationary and backed by the public debt, etc. etc. so in the long term, we'll have to pay all that back and then some.
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
On the other hand, upgrading roads and bridges keeps us from falling into sinkholes and ravines en masse.
At any rate, this is a false dichotomy, and there's every indication that Obama plans to focus on improving both forms of infrastructure.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I quote from the report, bolding mine: "An additional $10 billion investment
in health IT in 1 year would create as many as 212,000 new or retained U.S. jobs for a year."
Similar wording is on the other two prongs as well. I stopped reading at that point. The report is therefore saying that investing 30 billion could result in ZERO "new" jobs, it will merely allow the retention of existing jobs.
BTW, what good will your retained job will do you little good when you can't drive to the grocery store to buy food to eat due to the bridge to the store having collapsed? I'd rather see the old-fashioned boring infrastructure fixed/updated before the new-fangled stuff.
You're assuming that the money will be alone and that it won't be used for something sustainable. Let's say, for instance, that the government were to give money to a car company to build a factory. It's not likely that the government will give more than 60% of the money necessary to build the factory in the first place. Then, once that factory's built, it will be able to support itself by building cars that wouldn't have been built otherwise and is self sustaining.
In the same way, the government can give Verizon (or similar) 60% of the cost to wire California with fiber to the house. It's enough to convince Verizon to undertake the project in the first place and to gather funding from other sources so that they can complete it. Once complete, they're providing a service that wasn't there beforehand, and is well worth buying. The project after that would be sustained by the subscribers, and it could be sold for less money per month since Verizon doesn't have as much money to recoup. Not all of the jobs which were created for that project will stick around, but more jobs will be created due to the higher available bandwidth in the area.
With the layoffs out there there are *plenty* of IT people who will work for $30k or $35k if you won't. Maybe not in California or New York. But, if work could be outsourced (badly) to India, it can be outsourced (with better oversight) to Sioux City or Tuscaloosa. $35k, plus a part-time-working spouse, means you can afford a $100k house (which is perfectly believable in most of the country), pay off reasonable student loans, and eat. People will take that. Plus, you're working indoors in a nice office, not busting your back in the cold.
Yeah, it's Walmart wages. There are people lining up for those jobs, too.
Are there one million trained and skilled IT workers in the USA that are currently unemployed?
If not, this is just a great jobs package for China and India.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
The project after that would be sustained by the subscribers, and it could be sold for less money per month since Verizon doesn't have as much money to recoup.
Hahahaha! You think Verizon is going to sell the service for less just because they got some money from the government? Hahahaha! They will more likely keep the cost the same and the rest is profit (they'll make even more money faster). The cost to maintain the infrastructure will be the same anyway, so why would they lower the end cost? All a govt infusion will do is get the infrastructure built quicker.
Like many, I'd rather see physical infrastructure updated/maintained sooner than digital infrastructure. You can't even deploy the digital stuff if your physical stuff isn't in good condition.
Can we calculate how many jobs are lost as the indirect result of pulling $30 billion out of the economy via taxation?
Pretty soon they'll own your health care too. If you thought arguing with the insurance company was bad just wait until you get to argue with a bureaucrat instead. At least you can choose to do business with the insurance company......
Don't talk crap. I live in a country where the government controls the health service, and we have national health insurance that everyone pays.
You know what? It may not always be great, but its always there whenever you need it in an emergency, you can go for checkups without being afraid of your insurance premium going up, and you don't get stuck in a job you hate because you can't get new health insurance for a disease or illness you have developed.
Like I said, it isn't perfect, but compared to your system where its possible to have no health cover at all, its good enough.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Yep. The problem is that the government is (with a few exceptions) extremely bad at producing anything other than paperwork and hindrances.
In my opinion, the government SHOULD hire some more people ... who will determine which citizens belong to the group that will spend the MOST money on legal, local services and start pumping the cash into that segment.
It's easier for the local pizza place to hire more cooks and delivery people if there is additional demand for pizza delivery due to the locals having more pizza money available.
Whereas is you just give the pizza store owner additional cash, he's not going to expand his business. There won't be additional demand for him to service.
Focus on funding the demand and let the supply grow itself.
Wow, I hate to be a typical slashdot commenter, but:
Bzzzt. You're wrong.
An investment is something you do when the benefits outweigh the costs. If that was the case here, it would have been on the books before the decision to "create jobs."
This is being done to "create jobs". The logic is: we need jobs, so we might as well do something that has some value and isn't a total loss.
Creating jobs in a partially useful area is a LOSS MITIGATION STRATEGY not an INVESTMENT.
The whole idea of "creating jobs" is ridiculous. If "creating jobs" is what it sounds like, then why doesn't the government always do it? And why don't we blame government when there is a rise in unemployment?
IF the government is paying for this with tax money (that it doesn't have), then this is just a wealth distribution tool (otherwise where are the wages coming from to pay these currently unemployed people?). IF the government is paying for this with debt and inflation (more likely), then this is just a temporary fix that increases the long-term consequences.
Let's call "creating jobs" what it is: floating more debt and printing more money into the economy and at the same time keeping people busy and superficially happy, with no concern for the long-term consequences. Deciding to do more stuff than was planned in order to create new jobs is by definition doing things where the benefits don't outweigh the costs for the "investment".
When do we stop deciding to screw over the country to temporarily relieve the difficulties of the minority few?
Dig more holes faster please. Thanks for taking my hard earned rewards for work and giving it to someone else. I really appreciate it government.
Just once, I've love to hear a die-hard libertarian explain how privatized roads would work. Just once. I'm not talking highways either, I'm talking arterials, residential roads, etc. And don't cop out and point to tiny road networks found in gated communities. Tell me how you'd have a privatized road system on the scale of say, New York or LA.
And if your answer is "it would be impossible now", explain how you could, from scratch, create a privatized road network that would then give birth to a city of that size.
For extra credit, explain if it is nessicary to create a standard for signs, lighting, turn signals, mirrors, cross-walks and such. If it is, explain how this would be legislated and if it is not legislated who would regulate such things.
Bullshit. My friends and I would definitely like some tax-funded universal health care, and we all hold down jobs, pay taxes, and pay for our own health care. We have a friend with a severe illness, and have seen the private system fuck him over and prevent him from reaching his potential. We want universal health coverage because we respect peoples' freedom and right to life, and we're willing to suffer (very very very) light inconveniences so that we can secure this. We are not selfish assholes.
I have no faith in the private system. The private system will fuck you over hard and fast given half an opportunity if it can increase their profits by .001%. I don't think people should have their freedom and even life taken away because they had the sheer audacity to become ill.
Roads. Fire protection. Police. A thousand other services that make the quality of your life what it is. You don't work for free and neither do the people who do those jobs.
Yours is a typically short-sighted view of taxes, particularly regarding education. If you don't think that you've never benefited from school taxes, ask your doctor where his undergraduate degree came from. Or the pilot of the next plane you fly on. Or the architect who designed your house. Oh, you say, I just meant direct benefits. Well, sorry, pal, we don't differentiate between direct and indirect benefits. You pay to send your neighbor's kid to school and you get the indirect benefit of a more educated citizen. It seems odd that your private education didn't cover the value of benefits such as that.
Now if you want to argue that tax money may not be spent wisely, I might agree with you on that point. Narcissism doesn't really serve us all that well.