infrastructure jobs are not the kinds of jobs we should be focusing on

[uscitizen]

We do need infrastructure so we can transport imported goods to the retail establishments and we need electricity to power all of our imported goods.

 

[Truthmatters]

For some reason the right wants this country to fall ass appart

 

[uscitizen]

The infrastructure should be maintained by corporations since they have the most monetary gain from them.

 

[oreo]

Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka

I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.

That's what happened in the 1930's you would get this little spurt of employment gains only to watch them drop down once a government project was completed. Albeit--we also needed roads and bridges in the 30's-- today--we have major highways criss-crossing this country and if a bridge needed to be built--it was built.

The problem with this today--is that what took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's- can now be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What permits were issued overnight in the 30's now takes years of engineering and design--and what was a work force of primarily men in the 30's is now 1/2 women who typically don't do road and bridge work.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Customers? I can't imagine what it is you sell.

Jmstile.com

And your site is posted on the Internet? That's "Broadband". Which is "infrastructure".

What good is a "dream house" without roads or bridges to get materials on site?

Or electricity to light all those bulbs?

All "infrastructure".

You might want to "rethink" your position. Because the one you have now seems awfully stupid.

Why do you always have to inject insults into your arguments? I'm well aware that broadband is infrastructure. In fact we have Googles ALL NEW super high speed project starting here in KC. Funny thing is that project is not just funded by uncle Sam.

I think the point of this thread has escaped most of the left leaning posters. I don't claim the need for infrastructure upkeep isn't valid. I claim that it isn't the solution to our nations jobs problems.

 

[J.E.D]

Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka

I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.

Infrastructure jobs usually last for years. It takes a long time to build that bridge, build that new off-ramp, repave that highway, build that new hospital, run those fiber-optics lines. Those jobs employ thousands and last a good while. The money that goes into those workers' pockets in turn goes back into the community. Plus, once done, the projects improve access, improve efficiency, etc.

Why are cons against infrastructure all of a sudden? Infrastructure investment used to be praised by Reps. I wonder if it has anything to do with the Dem in the White House? After all, McConnell's main goal is to make sure that Obama is a one term president.

Infrastructure investment would put people to work and put money into communities, which would improve the economy. Too bad Reps can't put aside their hatred of Obama for the good of the country.

 

[kiwiman127]

The Economist has a great article on the US infrastructure, Life in the slow lane. Contrary to the OP, the article points out several things.
One, the world is passing the US by regarding the state of this country's infrastructure. The US rates 23rd in the world in infrastructure quality.
"In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount."
"At the state and local level transport budgets will remain tight while unemployment is high. With luck, this pressure could spark a wave of innovative planning focused on improving the return on infrastructure spending. The question in Washington, apart from how to escape the city on traffic-choked Friday afternoons, is whether political leaders are capable of building on these ideas. The early signs are not encouraging.

Mr Obama is thinking big. His 2012 budget proposal contains $556 billion for transport, to be spent over six years. But his administration has declined to explain where the money will come from. Without new funding, some Democratic leaders have warned, a new, six-year transport bill will have to trim annual highway spending by about a third to keep up with falling petrol-tax revenues. But Republicans are increasingly sceptical of any new infrastructure spending. Party leaders have taken to using inverted commas around the word “investment” when Democrats apply it to infrastructure.

Roads, bridges and railways used to be neutral ground on which the parties could come together to support the country’s growth. But as politics has become more bitter, public works have been neglected. If the gridlock choking Washington finds its way to America’s statehouses too, then the American economy risks grinding to a standstill."
America's transport infrastructure: Life in the slow lane | The Economist

I think everyone should read this article, The Economist is a very conservative economic resource and is realistic in it's thinking.
The bottom-line, the US has NOT taken care of it's infrastructure. Funding for the US infrastructure is at historical lows. Not having a sound and up-to-date infrastructure costs lives. Not having a up-to-date infrastructure hurts the US economy and not solving this problem" the American economy risks grinding to a standstill".

China is building NEW infrastructure based on the need for it since they have to keep up with a massive population. Second I don't consider this a competition. We have to spend what money we have wisely. The feds distribute the money to the states and the states determine where the money will be spent. Thirdly I admit there are areas of concern but a one size fits all policy does not fit every states needs. As my state is proof. KC and St Louis absorbed much of the money alloted for infrastructure and wastes it yet rural areas are in decline. It's not a matter of lack of money in many cases so much as it is frivolously wasted.

Bottom line is this topics about our countrys desperate need for jobs not about the condition of our sewers. We need a well rounded jobs solution not jobs that expire when a certain project is done.

If the US were to fix it's infrastructure to safe levels, it would take years. It's not a quick fix at all.
From the previous link I posted from The Economists:

__________________________________________________________

America’s dependence on its cars is reinforced by a shortage of alternative forms of transport. Europe’s large economies and Japan routinely spend more than America on rail investments, in absolute not just relative terms, despite much smaller populations and land areas. America spends more building airports than Europe but its underdeveloped rail network shunts more short-haul traffic onto planes, leaving many of its airports perpetually overburdened. Plans to upgrade air-traffic-control technology to a modern satellite-guided system have faced repeated delays. The current plan is now threatened by proposed cuts to the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that America needs to spend $20 billion more a year just to maintain its infrastructure at the present, inadequate, levels. Up to $80 billion a year in additional spending could be spent on projects which would show positive economic returns. Other reports go further. In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount.

And from the same article:

_________________________________________________________

The Census Bureau expects the population to grow by 40% over the next four decades, equivalent to the entire population of Japan.

_________________________________________________________

Any sane person would know that the US would never spend $255 billion a year for infrastructure repair, this country just plain can't afford it. BUT, this article clearly shows that with all the needed repair and with the US population growing at 40% (which means more usage, infrastructure repair is a decades long project.
More and more, private investment is making it's mark in infrastructure repair, this is great for the US economy and the taxpayer and it provides new longterm jobs.
We're talking about more jobs and improving our infrastructure saves life and gives the US more for a sounder and deeper economy.
Here's the link about private investment in the US infrastructure:
http://www.irei.com/uploads/marketresearch/67/marketResearchFile/Opp_Priv_Infr_Inv.pdf

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The Economist has a great article on the US infrastructure, Life in the slow lane. Contrary to the OP, the article points out several things.
One, the world is passing the US by regarding the state of this country's infrastructure. The US rates 23rd in the world in infrastructure quality.
"In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount."
"At the state and local level transport budgets will remain tight while unemployment is high. With luck, this pressure could spark a wave of innovative planning focused on improving the return on infrastructure spending. The question in Washington, apart from how to escape the city on traffic-choked Friday afternoons, is whether political leaders are capable of building on these ideas. The early signs are not encouraging.

Mr Obama is thinking big. His 2012 budget proposal contains $556 billion for transport, to be spent over six years. But his administration has declined to explain where the money will come from. Without new funding, some Democratic leaders have warned, a new, six-year transport bill will have to trim annual highway spending by about a third to keep up with falling petrol-tax revenues. But Republicans are increasingly sceptical of any new infrastructure spending. Party leaders have taken to using inverted commas around the word “investment” when Democrats apply it to infrastructure.

Roads, bridges and railways used to be neutral ground on which the parties could come together to support the country’s growth. But as politics has become more bitter, public works have been neglected. If the gridlock choking Washington finds its way to America’s statehouses too, then the American economy risks grinding to a standstill."
America's transport infrastructure: Life in the slow lane | The Economist

I think everyone should read this article, The Economist is a very conservative economic resource and is realistic in it's thinking.
The bottom-line, the US has NOT taken care of it's infrastructure. Funding for the US infrastructure is at historical lows. Not having a sound and up-to-date infrastructure costs lives. Not having a up-to-date infrastructure hurts the US economy and not solving this problem" the American economy risks grinding to a standstill".

China is building NEW infrastructure based on the need for it since they have to keep up with a massive population. Second I don't consider this a competition. We have to spend what money we have wisely. The feds distribute the money to the states and the states determine where the money will be spent. Thirdly I admit there are areas of concern but a one size fits all policy does not fit every states needs. As my state is proof. KC and St Louis absorbed much of the money alloted for infrastructure and wastes it yet rural areas are in decline. It's not a matter of lack of money in many cases so much as it is frivolously wasted.

Bottom line is this topics about our countrys desperate need for jobs not about the condition of our sewers. We need a well rounded jobs solution not jobs that expire when a certain project is done.

If the US were to fix it's infrastructure to safe levels, it would take years. It's not a quick fix at all.
From the previous link I posted from The Economists:

__________________________________________________________

America’s dependence on its cars is reinforced by a shortage of alternative forms of transport. Europe’s large economies and Japan routinely spend more than America on rail investments, in absolute not just relative terms, despite much smaller populations and land areas. America spends more building airports than Europe but its underdeveloped rail network shunts more short-haul traffic onto planes, leaving many of its airports perpetually overburdened. Plans to upgrade air-traffic-control technology to a modern satellite-guided system have faced repeated delays. The current plan is now threatened by proposed cuts to the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that America needs to spend $20 billion more a year just to maintain its infrastructure at the present, inadequate, levels. Up to $80 billion a year in additional spending could be spent on projects which would show positive economic returns. Other reports go further. In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount.

And from the same article:

_________________________________________________________

The Census Bureau expects the population to grow by 40% over the next four decades, equivalent to the entire population of Japan.

_________________________________________________________

Any sane person would know that the US would never spend $255 billion a year for infrastructure repair, this country just plain can't afford it. BUT, this article clearly shows that with all the needed repair and with the US population growing at 40% (which means more usage, infrastructure repair is a decades long project.
More and more, private investment is making it's mark in infrastructure repair, this is great for the US economy and the taxpayer and it provides new longterm jobs.
We're talking about more jobs and improving our infrastructure saves life and makes the US more for a sounder and deeper economy.
Here's the link about private investment in the US infrastructure:
http://www.irei.com/uploads/marketresearch/67/marketResearchFile/Opp_Priv_Infr_Inv.pdf

And where do you propose we get the money for all this. In a perfect situation we could afford it, but we can't. Obama claimed his last stimulus was going to address this and what happened? It got wasted and the so called shovel ready jobs were just an illusion. You need to separate the two issues. Jobs and infrastructure are do not have the same needs. All the people looking for work are not ditch diggers or brick layers.

 

[konradv]

Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka

I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.

Yeah, but there's lots of bridges. What can Obama do in the private sector, anyway? We didn't raise taxes, so where are the jobs that were promised? Raising taxes were supposed to hurt jobs, so are they just pocketing the money instead of using them for jobs?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka

I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.

Yeah, but there's lots of bridges. What can Obama do in the private sector, anyway? We didn't raise taxes, so where are the jobs that were promised? Raising taxes were supposed to hurt jobs, so are they just pocketing the money instead of using them for jobs?

They are pocketing the money to weather the shitstorm that is Obamas regulations and healthcare. Obama has threatened many industries to do what he tells them to do or else. These threats don't fall of deaf ears ya know.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player]SHOCK Audio Unearthed OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY - YouTube[/ame]

 

[kiwiman127]

China is building NEW infrastructure based on the need for it since they have to keep up with a massive population. Second I don't consider this a competition. We have to spend what money we have wisely. The feds distribute the money to the states and the states determine where the money will be spent. Thirdly I admit there are areas of concern but a one size fits all policy does not fit every states needs. As my state is proof. KC and St Louis absorbed much of the money alloted for infrastructure and wastes it yet rural areas are in decline. It's not a matter of lack of money in many cases so much as it is frivolously wasted.

Bottom line is this topics about our countrys desperate need for jobs not about the condition of our sewers. We need a well rounded jobs solution not jobs that expire when a certain project is done.

If the US were to fix it's infrastructure to safe levels, it would take years. It's not a quick fix at all.
From the previous link I posted from The Economists:

__________________________________________________________

America’s dependence on its cars is reinforced by a shortage of alternative forms of transport. Europe’s large economies and Japan routinely spend more than America on rail investments, in absolute not just relative terms, despite much smaller populations and land areas. America spends more building airports than Europe but its underdeveloped rail network shunts more short-haul traffic onto planes, leaving many of its airports perpetually overburdened. Plans to upgrade air-traffic-control technology to a modern satellite-guided system have faced repeated delays. The current plan is now threatened by proposed cuts to the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that America needs to spend $20 billion more a year just to maintain its infrastructure at the present, inadequate, levels. Up to $80 billion a year in additional spending could be spent on projects which would show positive economic returns. Other reports go further. In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount.

And from the same article:

_________________________________________________________

The Census Bureau expects the population to grow by 40% over the next four decades, equivalent to the entire population of Japan.

_________________________________________________________

Any sane person would know that the US would never spend $255 billion a year for infrastructure repair, this country just plain can't afford it. BUT, this article clearly shows that with all the needed repair and with the US population growing at 40% (which means more usage, infrastructure repair is a decades long project.
More and more, private investment is making it's mark in infrastructure repair, this is great for the US economy and the taxpayer and it provides new longterm jobs.
We're talking about more jobs and improving our infrastructure saves life and makes the US more for a sounder and deeper economy.
Here's the link about private investment in the US infrastructure:
http://www.irei.com/uploads/marketresearch/67/marketResearchFile/Opp_Priv_Infr_Inv.pdf

And where do you propose we get the money for all this. In a perfect situation we could afford it, but we can't. Obama claimed his last stimulus was going to address this and what happened? It got wasted and the so called shovel ready jobs were just an illusion. You need to separate the two issues. Jobs and infrastructure are do not have the same needs. All the people looking for work are not ditch diggers or brick layers.

Gramps, the link I provided about private investment covers your concerns about the funding. We are talking about the privatization of this countrty's infrastructure! We're talking about private investment in America instead of private investment in other countries!
It's a no-brainer! It's a win-win situation! It's good for the economy, it's good for longterm jobs, it's good for US citizen's safty and it's good for the US taxpayer!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I read your posted quotes not the link. I will check it out.

 

[Nosmo King]

Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka

I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.

So....after the road has been built, the bridge repaired, the sewer line laid there's no long term benefit vis-a-vis job growth? Have you really thought this out, or are you parroting some DJ turned pundit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

WWII was temporary and the spending involved got us out of the Depression,

so we're told,

by the Right...

 

[Nosmo King]

WWII was temporary and the spending involved got us out of the Depression,

so we're told,

by the Right...

And yet before the war, the spending gave us paved highways, bridges, dams, public libraries and museums, school houses and other academic buildings and facilities, public art, jobs, skills and a higher quality of living.

Oh! The evils of Socialism! Who on earth would want all that?