Unemployment Visualized

[Puppycow]

The Slate Jobs Map (http://labs.slate.com/articles/slate-job-map-updated/)

This is a pretty neat tool for visualizing where in America jobs have been lost or gained in America over the last 3 years. Watch the map turn from mostly blue to massive amounts of red almost everywhere and then back to some blue mixed with red and finally it's starting to look like the blue is about become dominant again.

[YoPopa]

This jobs map looks a lot like the White House white board on jobs.

It is not clear whether the data was compiled including government jobs.

Here is another opinion on that score. The other side of the White House white board. (http://keithhennessey.com/2010/10/21/other-side/)

[Undesired Walrus]

What kind of Government Jobs?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Does unemployment only include people who are receiving unemployment benefits?

I know this is a big issue with recent college grads. They don't get unemployment because they didn't LOSE their jobs, they just can't find any now. They're unemployed but wouldn't be counted if the only measure is unemployment collection.

Also what about severe underemployment? Since graduating college and having his contract with the army reserves end back in June, the only work my husband has had is ten hours a week or so at a game store. Though the few hundred dollars a month helps a little, it's not that much better than him being unemployed. He's been looking for work for months with no bites. Right now it's looking like he's going to have to take a security job in Kuwait and live there for a year due to there just being no job opportunities for him here as an entry level worker who only just graduated school.

[Xephyr]

Does unemployment only include people who are receiving unemployment benefits?

I know this is a big issue with recent college grads. They don't get unemployment because they didn't LOSE their jobs, they just can't find any now. They're unemployed but wouldn't be counted if the only measure is unemployment collection.

Also what about severe underemployment? Since graduating college and having his contract with the army reserves end back in June, the only work my husband has had is ten hours a week or so at a game store. Though the few hundred dollars a month helps a little, it's not that much better than him being unemployed. He's been looking for work for months with no bites. Right now it's looking like he's going to have to take a security job in Kuwait and live there for a year due to there just being no job opportunities for him here as an entry level worker who only just graduated school.

That's an unfortunate reality of the working world, SC.

When you're a young grad with little experience, it's tough to find a company willing to take you on to give you that needed experience to boost your resume.

It's a catch-22... How the heck is someone supposed to get the experience employers want when you can't find an employer that's willing to give it to you ?

I remember those frustrating days all too well.

But eventually someone does. And in the meantime, you have to scrape the pennies off the ground to keep your nose above water.

Chin up, hubby will land something at some point... it's inevitable.

The trick is to try to keep yourselves out of building up debt as best as possible in the meantime or you'll fall into a vicious circle of always living paycheque to paycheque even after you've secured good paying jobs.

[Puppycow]

Does unemployment only include people who are receiving unemployment benefits? No. Unemployment includes anyone who wants to work but has no job, regardless of whether they are receiving unemployment benefits.

Also what about severe underemployment? Since graduating college and having his contract with the army reserves end back in June, the only work my husband has had is ten hours a week or so at a game store. Though the few hundred dollars a month helps a little, it's not that much better than him being unemployed.

That counts as being employed. How the Government Measures Unemployment (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm)

However, there are six different Alternative measures of labor underutilization (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm)(U-1 through U-6). U-3 is the normal "headline" unemployment rate, which is currently 9.6%.

If he only works 10 hours per week and wants to work more it would show up in U-6 as "employed part time for economic reasons." I think anything less than 35 hours per week is considered part time.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Thanks for the clarification Puppy, and the words of encouragement, Xephyr

[Just thinking]

What I would like to know is what qualifies as a "created" job. For example, let's say that among 3 big companies, A - B - C, 1000 people quit their jobs (for whatever reason) and go to work for one of the other two. We now have 1000 new hires among these three companies (basically, replacements) ... but have any jobs actually been "created"? The same number of people are working, but yet I think it will show 1000 new hires in the stats. What's worse, is that we might only find 800 of those 1000 finding work. Now we show 800 hires with less people working. Or what if 1000 people retire and are replaced by 900 new hires? So when we get numbers out of Washington saying that 800,000 jobs have been "created", is that net or gross. Gross, IMHO, would be seriously questionable.

[Garrison0fMars]

Does unemployment only include people who are receiving unemployment benefits?

I know this is a big issue with recent college grads. They don't get unemployment because they didn't LOSE their jobs, they just can't find any now. They're unemployed but wouldn't be counted if the only measure is unemployment collection.

Also what about severe underemployment? Since graduating college and having his contract with the army reserves end back in June, the only work my husband has had is ten hours a week or so at a game store. Though the few hundred dollars a month helps a little, it's not that much better than him being unemployed. He's been looking for work for months with no bites. Right now it's looking like he's going to have to take a security job in Kuwait and live there for a year due to there just being no job opportunities for him here as an entry level worker who only just graduated school.

What did he major in if you don't mind me asking?

[drkitten]

What I would like to know is what qualifies as a "created" job. For example, let's say that among 3 big companies, A - B - C, 1000 people quit their jobs (for whatever reason) and go to work for one of the other two. We now have 1000 new hires among these three companies (basically, replacements) ... but have any jobs actually been "created"? The same number of people are working, but yet I think it will show 1000 new hires in the stats. What's worse, is that we might only find 800 of those 1000 finding work. Now we show 800 hires with less people working. Or what if 1000 people retire and are replaced by 900 new hires? So when we get numbers out of Washington saying that 800,000 jobs have been "created", is that net or gross. Gross, IMHO, would be seriously questionable.

Generally a "created" job is a new budget line. Filling an existing job is not a created job.

Of course, it's fairly easy to game those numbers; if I fire my admin assistant II and then re-hire an admin assistant I, that's technically a "created" job as the new job is a new line with a new description. (It's also quite possibly an example of illegal age discrimination, depending upon how the laws in my state are written, but we'll ignore that.)

Similarly, if a math professor retires and they give the tenure line to the history department, that's a "created" job because it's a new budget line. But most companies don't bother gaming the system this way; not enough incentive.

[drkitten]

It's a catch-22... How the heck is someone supposed to get the experience employers want when you can't find an employer that's willing to give it to you ?

I remember those frustrating days all too well.

But eventually someone does. And in the meantime, you have to scrape the pennies off the ground to keep your nose above water.

The usual solution to the catch-22, by the way, is volunteer work. Depending upon what you (want to) do, you can usually find some local do-good-nik that needs your skills and is willing to let you use them as long as you don't want money for it.

E.g., are you a computer programmer? Offer to update the local homeless shelter's database. Work on a sourceforge project.

Do you do marketing? Work the phones for the local NPR station, or design some ads for a no-kill animal shelter.

Are you a historian? Volunteer to shelve books at the local library or give tours at the local museum.

Anything that will let someone with letterhead say that you've done really good work for the past six months.

Chin up, hubby will land something at some point... it's inevitable.

The trick is to try to keep yourselves out of building up debt as best as possible in the meantime or you'll fall into a vicious circle of always living paycheque to paycheque even after you've secured good paying jobs.[/QUOTE]

[Garrison0fMars]

The usual solution to the catch-22, by the way, is volunteer work. Depending upon what you (want to) do, you can usually find some local do-good-nik that needs your skills and is willing to let you use them as long as you don't want money for it.

E.g., are you a computer programmer? Offer to update the local homeless shelter's database. Work on a sourceforge project.

Do you do marketing? Work the phones for the local NPR station, or design some ads for a no-kill animal shelter.

Are you a historian? Volunteer to shelve books at the local library or give tours at the local museum.

Anything that will let someone with letterhead say that you've done really good work for the past six months.

Don't forget internships as well. A friend of mine who just graduated was able to land himself a job in his field of study pretty quickly largely because he was able to intern in his relevant field of occupational study. This option of course will vary with the individual school, but the internship was offered from a community college, so my guess it's not such a sparse option available.

[drkitten]

Don't forget internships as well. A friend of mine who just graduated was able to land himself a job in his field of study pretty quickly largely because he was able to intern in his relevant field of occupational study.

I didn't forget them as much as write them off, because everyone knows about them and the competition just to get unpaid internships is scary.

Internships are like,... nostrils. As in, if you only have one, people will look at you funny.

[Garrison0fMars]

I didn't forget them as much as write them off, because everyone knows about them and the competition just to get unpaid internships is scary.

Internships are like,... nostrils. As in, if you only have one, people will look at you funny.

Maybe, but if they're a viable option for someone, it can really help with solving the catch 22 problem. Of course volunteering is also viable, and a lot more available, but I was just adding another possibility. Temp agencies, if they exist for your relevant field, may be an option as well at gaining relevant work experience, but I'm not sure how that works (never worked or interacted with a temp agency).

[Aepervius]

This jobs map looks a lot like the White House white board on jobs.

It is not clear whether the data was compiled including government jobs.

Here is another opinion on that score. The other side of the White House white board. (http://keithhennessey.com/2010/10/21/other-side/)

I have a problem with the reasonning of the guy : he himself make the error or seeing a positive job market (less unemployment) as if it benefit middle class. It is clearly not so if the middle class lose well paying job, to only get back basic low paid job.

That said his critic of the guy in the video are at time spot on, the guy in the vide has a very obvious political agenda.
But who doesn't in washington ?

[Nerd]

But how many of the newly gained jobs were temporary positions created by government spending?

[YoPopa]

But how many of the newly gained jobs were temporary positions created by government spending?

Watch the video The other side of the White House white board referenced above for clarity on that.

[Just thinking]

Generally a "created" job is a new budget line. Filling an existing job is not a created job.

Correct ... but if a company takes stimulus money and hires a replacement with it, and then puts the extra money (originally set aside as payroll money) as capital gains ... well, you get the picture.

Of course, it's fairly easy to game those numbers; if I fire my admin assistant II and then re-hire an admin assistant I, that's technically a "created" job as the new job is a new line with a new description.

Yes ... you DO get the picture.

Similarly, if a math professor retires and they give the tenure line to the history department, that's a "created" job because it's a new budget line. But most companies don't bother gaming the system this way; not enough incentive.

But I think my example above is something of an incentive, in that it boosts the company's profits and gets investors to perhaps take second looks.

[Puppycow]

What I would like to know is what qualifies as a "created" job.The BLS doesn't really deal in "created" jobs. The unemployment rate is the number of people actively looking for work divided by the labor force. Hence, hiring one person while firing another makes no net difference to the unemployment rate.

For example, let's say that among 3 big companies, A - B - C, 1000 people quit their jobs (for whatever reason) and go to work for one of the other two. We now have 1000 new hires among these three companies (basically, replacements) ... but have any jobs actually been "created"?If the employees quit rather than being fired or laid off, it seems likely that company A will want to hire replacements for most of them anyway.

The same number of people are working, but yet I think it will show 1000 new hires in the stats.Not the BLS stats. They don't keep track of "new hires." They keep track of who is employed and who is not, but is actively seeking employment.

What's worse, is that we might only find 800 of those 1000 finding work. Now we show 800 hires with less people working. Or what if 1000 people retire and are replaced by 900 new hires? So when we get numbers out of Washington saying that 800,000 jobs have been "created", is that net or gross. Gross, IMHO, would be seriously questionable.
Those numbers "coming out of Washington" would not be official BLS numbers because that's not what they deal with. Those numbers are indeed "questionable." They are probably based on models or surveys, both of which are questionable methods, and are likely put out by people working for politicians or political think tanks or the like.

[Puppycow]

The Slate Jobs Map (http://labs.slate.com/articles/slate-job-map-updated/)


Now they've published Another Way To Visualize Unemployment (http://labs.slate.com/articles/slate-job-map-unemployment-rate/)

This one is based not on monthly job gains or losses but on unemployment rates.

[drkitten]

But I think my example above is something of an incentive, in that it boosts the company's profits and gets investors to perhaps take second looks.

Not really. The company simply cutting costs. It's not trying to "create jobs." The reason it's not trying to create jobs is that very few programs, if any, actually reward job creation over simple employment.

I could easily imagine a badly written government program that offers companies $1000 per "job created." If that were the case, I could easily "create" a new job for every employee in my workforce, with a new budget line and a slightly re-written job description. ("See, in the old description, typing and filing were the second and third items. Now they're the third and second!") A decent sized company could milk the program for millions without hiring anyone new.

A better written program would offer incentives for "new hires"; while I could game this by firing everyone and replacing them with n00bs, that would be dumb beyond belief, because I'd also have to re-train all the n00bs and all my valuable employees would take their skills, contacts, and knowledge to my competitors. So it would still be gameable, but harder.

But since to the best of my knowledge neither of those programs actually exist (at any significant scale), companies wouldn't bother. What was actually written into the stimulus package was an incentive for "new hires" at companies that "expand their payroll," meaning they're putting more people (total) to work; I wouldn't see a dime for simply cutting costs by firing my expensive admin II and getting an admin I. However, I might get $5k or so by hiring an admin I to help my admin II, which might make it cheaper than paying overtime to my poor overworked assistant.

[Just thinking]

The BLS doesn't really deal in "created" jobs. The unemployment rate is the number of people actively looking for work divided by the labor force. Hence, hiring one person while firing another makes no net difference to the unemployment rate.

Where have I mentioned the BLS in all this? I'm speaking of the 800,000+ jobs number that keeps coming out of Washington. How are they arriving at that number? And how much of that number can come about from my given scenario?

If the employees quit rather than being fired or laid off, it seems likely that company A will want to hire replacements for most of them anyway.

Yes ... my whole point exactly. But if that company took stimulus money, those replacements might also get counted as a stimulus jobs, which would defraud the whole statistic.

Not the BLS stats. They don't keep track of "new hires." They keep track of who is employed and who is not, but is actively seeking employment.

So? My point is about stimulus jobs numbers, not unemployment. So just how are those numbers arrived at, if not the BLS?

Those numbers are indeed "questionable." They are probably based on models or surveys, both of which are questionable methods, and are likely put out by people working for politicians or political think tanks or the like.

Ah ha ... you've gone around enough of my comments to arrive at my initial concerns. And you too find them "questionable". You see, we're more together on this than you may have at first thought.

[Puppycow]

Where have I mentioned the BLS in all this? I'm speaking of the 800,000+ jobs number that keeps coming out of Washington. How are they arriving at that number? And how much of that number can come about from my given scenario?

A lot of numbers "come out of Washington." It's hard for me to say what the claim really is, much less its basis, based on that description.

It could be the net change in employment (or maybe private-sector employment) since the beginning of the year. Can't be sure without a link to a news article with the specific claim in question.

[WildCat]

Now they've published Another Way To Visualize Unemployment (http://labs.slate.com/articles/slate-job-map-unemployment-rate/)

This one is based not on monthly job gains or losses but on unemployment rates.
Unemployment rates are understated currently, because people who have given up looking for a job aren't counted as unemployed.

[Just thinking]

Unemployment rates are understated currently, because people who have given up looking for a job aren't counted as unemployed.

Not only that, but just who decides if a person has "given up" ?

[daenku32]

Well it's only going to get worse now that they will be cutting the permanent government jobs as well. The temporary ones, gone for sure as well.

[Just thinking]

So?

Wherever does this notion come from that Government jobs are somehow visualized as something above private sector jobs? ... and should never be lost?

[daenku32]

So?

Wherever does this notion come from that Government jobs are somehow visualized as something above private sector jobs? ... and should never be lost?

If you care about unemployment numbers, GDP, etc, I think you should try to save all the jobs you can. Government jobs are the easiest to save. Private sector jobs, not quite so. Unless...you make a condition that the business tax credit MUST go directly into to the paychecks of the workers. IE, you can't get a tax credit AND fire someone.

[ServiceSoon]

If you care about unemployment numbers, GDP, etc, I think you should try to save all the jobs you can. Government jobs are the easiest to save. Private sector jobs, not quite so. Unless...you make a condition that the business tax credit MUST go directly into to the paychecks of the workers. IE, you can't get a tax credit AND fire someone.You've done it, broken the economic code that is. All we have to do is mitigate private sector jobs to gov jobs and our problem will be solved! That way all our precious numbers will look good. :rolleyes:

[Puppycow]

Too many government jobs really is bad. Even Cuba has come to realize this. Recently they laid off half a million government employees.

When people have so much job security that they can't imagine they will ever be fired, there is little incentive to be productive or creative.

[drkitten]

Not only that, but just who decides if a person has "given up" ?

The unemployment office that processes your check. You have to be 'actively looking for work' in order to get the money, and you have to attest to that on a regular basis. And, yes, they will audit you if they feel like it, so you need to be prepared to tell them which jobs you applied for last week.

[TraneWreck]

This just proves that Paris Hilton needs a tax cut.

[daenku32]

Too many government jobs really is bad. Even Cuba has come to realize this. Recently they laid off half a million government employees.

When people have so much job security that they can't imagine they will ever be fired, there is little incentive to be productive or creative.

So they are more productive being unemployed?

PS. Why do I get this feeling that a lot people think that government employees just take their government paychecks and bury them in the flower bed of the government building's green space? That somehow these government employees are really good at not spending that government paycheck in private grocery stores, car dealerships, utility and phone companies, and heck, a little $1 movie rental even. And certainly they won't use that paycheck for home improvements, or paying their kids college tuition, or fixing up the brakes on the car. For some reason, they are just able to live without spending any of that government money.

Strange. Here I thought that even if they spent their day spinning pens between their fingers they would eventually spend their not-hard-earned money to whomever provides the most efficient and quality service? Like the rest of us.

[Garrison0fMars]

Too many government jobs really is bad. Even Cuba has come to realize this. Recently they laid off half a million government employees.

When people have so much job security that they can't imagine they will ever be fired, there is little incentive to be productive or creative.

Well, Cuba hasn't laid them off, well at least not in the same way a "lay off" is here. It's true they've shed quite a few government jobs, but those people who lost their job aren't just left on their own, but will be transitioned into private employment, both through "Traditional" private sector jobs, and worker co operatives. I agree though, public sector jobs shouldn't account for every possible employment like they did in Cuba (This even included hair salons), but it should account for some, perhaps even a significant amount of the job force. Really depends on the situation, and line of work.

[daenku32]

Well, Cuba hasn't laid them off, well at least not in the same way a "lay off" is here. It's true they've shed quite a few government jobs, but those people who lost their job aren't just left on their own, but will be transitioned into private employment, both through "Traditional" private sector jobs, and worker co operatives. I agree though, public sector jobs shouldn't account for every possible employment like they did in Cuba (This even included hair salons), but it should account for some, perhaps even a significant amount of the job force. Really depends on the situation, and line of work.

Exactly. Employment figures are only about 5-10% below 'optimum'. Even if every last one of the unemployed in that gap was hired by the government we would be far from a Communist system.

[Garrison0fMars]

Exactly. Employment figures are only about 5-10% below 'optimum'. Even if every last one of the unemployed in that gap was hired by the government we would be far from a Communist system.

Agreed. If we took all the currently chronically unemployed and say, put them to work via public employment in things badly needed like infrastructure maintenance and redevelopment, the vast majority of the employed would still be through private sector jobs. Keeping people working and productive, especially for the public good, is generally a win/win scenario in my book.

Of course, we don't need to give them all "government" jobs, we can also put more badly needed funds in our public higher education, and make it easier (financially) for people to obtain degrees that translate into decent needed employment.

[tyr_13]

Of course, we don't need to give them all "government" jobs, we can also put more badly needed funds in our public higher education, and make it easier (financially) for people to obtain degrees that translate into decent needed employment.

I have a degree and I'm still in the same job I worked my way through college in. In fact, I was recently passed up for a promotion and one reason they gave me was, 'you'll just leave when something better comes up' because I have a degree. I was told essentially the same thing applying for another job.

So in part because I have a degree I can't find a better job.

[Garrison0fMars]

I have a degree and I'm still in the same job I worked my way through college in. In fact, I was recently passed up for a promotion and one reason they gave me was, 'you'll just leave when something better comes up' because I have a degree. I was told essentially the same thing applying for another job.

So in part because I have a degree I can't find a better job.

Yes, that's a very common situation, but I'm not describing the solution as "everyone gets a degree, then a decent/good job". Of course that's not a good solution, because not all degrees are created equal, and quite a few are rather worthless on the job market. This is why I said "for people to obtain degrees that translate into decent needed employment." But really, that was bad wording anyway. I should have said "translate into degrees that objectively increase the chances of securing employment in a particular field that pays a decent (living) wage". After all, some degrees open up other realms of employment that you simply can't get without it. If I say, want to be a nurse, I'm going to at least need to get an A.S. in nursing before I can even be considered for the job. But I'm not advocating it as a singular solution either, any solution to a problem like large unemployment takes many solutions, all account for various variables, location, and individuals in question.

[Just thinking]

The unemployment office that processes your check. You have to be 'actively looking for work' in order to get the money, and you have to attest to that on a regular basis. And, yes, they will audit you if they feel like it, so you need to be prepared to tell them which jobs you applied for last week.

And if you meet their definition of "actively looking" yet your benefits have expired, then what? They say you've given up, but you may very well still be actively looking --- even more so now that you've no income at all. Basically, it's open season on definitions here.

[Just thinking]

Agreed. If we took all the currently chronically unemployed and say, put them to work via public employment in things badly needed like infrastructure maintenance and redevelopment, the vast majority of the employed would still be through private sector jobs. Keeping people working and productive, especially for the public good, is generally a win/win scenario in my book.

You left out one little caveat ... if the state/federal government can afford the projects. You might just wish to see what's happened in NJ (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6489673#post6489673) to see the effects of just going forward without fiscal responsibility.

[Garrison0fMars]

You left out one little caveat ... if the state/federal government can afford the projects. You might just wish to see what's happened in NJ (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6489673#post6489673) to see the effects of just going forward without fiscal responsibility.

Sure, if you assume that public employment is simply going to be a pure "loss", that would be true. Also, the NJ mass transit project would have been a very good thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/opinion/09herbert.html?_r= I'm more interested if something pays off in the future, rather than what the immediate cost is.

[Just thinking]

Sure, if you assume that public employment is simply going to be a pure "loss", that would be true.

Ever hear of a bridge to nowhere? Public projects are not always a benefit. There are no guarantees to that. I can show you public projects here in the Garden State that are disasters and total wastes of money. Or budgets that run over by multiples of what the original estimates are.

Also, the NJ mass transit project would have been a very good thing.

Not if the state can't afford it. Obviously you didn't read my link or you chose to ignore it. NJ already is in serious debt and can't afford the huge increases in costs this project would have required.

I'm more interested if something pays off in the future, rather than what the immediate cost is.

Then give me $50 billion and I'll return to you $100 billion. What? ... you don't have the $50 billion I need right now? How can you pass this up? It's for the better good ... can't you see that? And don't worry, the pay-off is in the future, which is a guarantee, since the future must behave exactly how we say it will behave.

[Garrison0fMars]

Ever hear of a bridge to nowhere? Public projects are not always a benefit.

Never said they were.


There are no guarantees to that. I can show you public projects here in the Garden State that are disasters and total wastes of money. Or budgets that run over by multiples of what the original estimates are.

So? There are plenty of private sector projects that end up being complete wastes of time and money, that doesn't mean they always are, and shouldn't be attempted.

Not if the state can't afford it. Obviously you didn't read my link or you chose to ignore it. NJ already is in serious debt and can't afford the huge increases in costs this project would have required.

Your link was simply a link to your forum posts. Did you read my link? In reality the project would have had great short term and long term benefits. We have to look further than our nose though when it comes to such matters.

Then give me $50 billion and I'll return to you $100 billion. What? ... you don't have the $50 billion I need right now? How can you pass this up? It's for the better good ... can't you see that? And don't worry, the pay-off is in the future, which is a guarantee, since the future must be better than today.

Meh, there are ways we could get that money, they're just unfortunately not politically acceptable at the moment.

I'm more interested though in what solutions do you have for the unemployment problem? What do you propose?

[Just thinking]

Your link was simply a link to your forum posts. Did you read my link? In reality the project would have had great short term and long term benefits. We have to look further than our nose though when it comes to such matters.

No ... in that post was a link (as well as a critical excerpt). Please read it.

Your link was merely an Op-Ed piece from a left leaning journalist --- not an objective source.

Meh, there are ways we could get that money, they're just unfortunately not politically acceptable at the moment.

There you go ... we're broke, but we can still get the money. Fine, you pony it up, yourself. Meh!

I'm more interested though in what solutions do you have for the unemployment problem? What do you propose?

Wow ... can't use an extra $50 billion? Come on, I'm sure "there are ways you can get that money".

Solution: Stop wasting money and reduce costs (taxes/fees/etc.) to businesses. The word of the day is ... INCENTIVISE.

Also, put an END to this nonsense (http://nonjcapandtrade.com/?p=81). Just click on each district on the map to see how much financial destruction it's costing the state.

[Garrison0fMars]

No ... in that post was a link (as well as a critical excerpt). Please read it.

Yeah, I did read it. It was just an article accounting the end of the project and the particular Governor announcing why, who himself is hardly unbiased in this affair. As if I hadn't read it already...

Your link was merely an Op-Ed piece from a left leaning journalist --- not an objective source.

Well, do you deny our infrastructure is in bad bad condition? Are the American Society of Civil Engineers just biased leftists?

Solution: Stop wasting money and reduce costs (taxes/fees/etc.) to businesses. The word of the day is ... INCENTIVISE.

Ah yes, just stop taxing the business and let the "Free market" fix it all. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

[Just thinking]

Yeah, I did read it. It was just an article accounting the end of the project and the particular Governor announcing why, who himself is hardly unbiased in this affair. As if I hadn't read it already...

It also included the one sided costs to NJ and very much increased costs that were not in the original estimates. Nice how you omitted those "biased" numbers. Unless you can debunk that information, your arguments are moot.

Well, do you deny our infrastructure is in bad bad condition? Are the American Society of Civil Engineers just biased leftists?

I don't deny that some projects are indeed needed ... but cost/benefit models are what will determine priorities. And no, the ASCE is not leftists, but the majority of union workers that build the projects vote Democrat. Hmmmm, do I sense an agenda looming here?

Ah yes, just stop taxing the business and let the "Free market" fix it all. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

Just where did I say NO Taxes? (Why do I get the sense I'm arguing with a loon? --- Perhaps you really are from Mars.)

[Garrison0fMars]

I don't deny that some projects are indeed needed ... but cost/benefit models are what will determine priorities. And no, the ASCE is not leftists, but the majority of union workers that build the projects vote Democrat. Hmmmm, do I sense an agenda looming here?

According to the ASCE, it's a lot more than "some". If you're attempting to argue that these projects are a plot by "union" workers, that's what I'd call loony.

Just where did I say NO Taxes? (Why do I get the sense I'm arguing with a loon? --- Perhaps you really are from Mars.)

I never said that either. You really ought to stop putting words in my mouth ;) I in fact, was simply responding to your call to reduce "fees" (taxes), I never claimed you didn't believe in any taxes.

[drkitten]

It also included the one sided costs to NJ and very much increased costs that were not in the original estimates.

Of course, the benefits were also very much one-sided. As I recall, Christie was trying to shift the extra costs to the Federal government, because naturally the state of North Dakota would benefit so dramatically from improved transportation infrastructure in New Jersey.

New Jersey was supposed to be reaping most of the benefits and also managing the construction. It makes sense that New Jersey should be on the hook for cost overruns that happened on its watch and under its supervision. If the Fed had actually offered to pay for the cost overruns, you would have been coming back and complained about how the Fed was spending money without adequate supervision and incurring unnecessary waste....

[Garrison0fMars]

Of course, the benefits were also very much one-sided. As I recall, Christie was trying to shift the extra costs to the Federal government, because naturally the state of North Dakota would benefit so dramatically from improved transportation infrastructure in New Jersey.

How much extra costs did he want to shift to the Federal government?

New Jersey was supposed to be reaping most of the benefits and also managing the construction. It makes sense that New Jersey should be on the hook for cost overruns that happened on its watch and under its supervision. If the Fed had actually offered to pay for the cost overruns, you would have been coming back and complained about how the Fed was spending money without adequate supervision and incurring unnecessary waste....

Well, you can't please them all I suppose...

[drkitten]

How much extra costs did he want to shift to the Federal government?

No one knows, not even Gov. Christie. That's the thing about cost overruns.

The deal that was originally cut is that out of the umpteen zillion dollars -- actually, about eight-and-a-half billion -- that this project was supposed to cost, the fed would kick in $3B, the Port Authority would kick in another $3B, and the New Jersey would pay "the rest," originally estimated at two and a half billion dollars, but Cheops' law says that nothing gets built on time or under budget.

That's actually a pretty good deal; New Jersey gets the lion's share of the benefits for the fox's share of the costs, if it can manage the project with any reasonable degree of efficiency. if it can't manage it, then it has to clean up its own mess.

Turn the deal around, and you can see what a sucker's deal it would be if the Fed had agreed to cover overruns. New Jersey would be managing a project knowing that whatever money they spent would be reimbursed -- which means they could put every politically connected hack on the payroll as a "consultant" at exorbitant salaries, knowing it wouldn't cost them a dime. It would be an open license to pick the Department of Transportation's pocket. A blank check.

Even so, the Fed was willing to pick up a larger share of the cost; it offered to increase its direct funding, and also offered to provide loan guarantees for almost any amount. The one thing it wasn't willing to do was provide that blank check. Christie turned it down because he wasn't willing to take responsibility for his own money, only for other people's.....

[Just thinking]

According to the ASCE, it's a lot more than "some". If you're attempting to argue that these projects are a plot by "union" workers, that's what I'd call loony.

No ... it's known as payback.

I never said that either. You really ought to stop putting words in my mouth ;) I in fact, was simply responding to your call to reduce "fees" (taxes), I never claimed you didn't believe in any taxes.

Really? ... from post no. 45:

"Ah yes, just stop taxing the business ..."

You put those words in your mouth ... OK, post.

If someone from the Fed said they were going to stop taxing my income, then it's pretty safe to think that means I would pay no Federal income tax. [$0.00]

[Just thinking]

Of course, the benefits were also very much one-sided. As I recall, Christie was trying to shift the extra costs to the Federal government, because naturally the state of North Dakota would benefit so dramatically from improved transportation infrastructure in New Jersey.

Silliness will get your idealogical arguments nowhere. This was a shared infrastructure that was to benefit both states ... yet New York State coughed up zero. Nada. Null. Plus there are many federally funded programs that have nothing to do with NJ ... so whatever point you were trying to make is meaningless.

New Jersey was supposed to be reaping most of the benefits and also managing the construction. It makes sense that New Jersey should be on the hook for cost overruns that happened on its watch and under its supervision. If the Fed had actually offered to pay for the cost overruns, you would have been coming back and complained about how the Fed was spending money without adequate supervision and incurring unnecessary waste....

Evidence to your claims?

[Just thinking]

The deal that was originally cut is that out of the umpteen zillion dollars -- actually, about eight-and-a-half billion -- that this project was supposed to cost, the fed would kick in $3B, the Port Authority would kick in another $3B, and the New Jersey would pay "the rest," originally estimated at two and a half billion dollars, but Cheops' law says that nothing gets built on time or under budget.

And when that fell through, and NY still came up dry, Christie pulled the plug. Enough was enough. NJ is broke (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61A49V20100211), and paying up billions now for estimated benefits is something the state cannot now afford.

From link:
Next year's deficit is the largest per-capita budget shortfall (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparereport.jsp?rep=56&cat=1) of any U.S. state ...

[Garrison0fMars]

No ... it's known as payback.

Payback to unions? That'd be an interesting change for once. But anyway, this "payback" entailed reduced congestion and pollution in the New York-New Jersey corridor, whist generating economic activity and putting thousands to work. The project at the end of the day is simply a railroad tunnel, largely to ease pressure on the decaying 100 year old railroad. That railroad is going to have to be addressed sooner or later, I wonder how much it will cost once things get worse with it.


Really? ... from post no. 45:

"Ah yes, just stop taxing the business ..."

You put those words in your mouth ... OK, post.

If someone from the Fed said they were going to stop taxing my income, then it's pretty safe to think that means I would pay no Federal income tax. [$0.00]

You're taking what I said too literally, but alas, it was hyperbole on my part, so I'm fully to blame there, my bad. I'll chose my words more carefully in the future.

[Just thinking]

Payback to unions? That'd be an interesting change for once.

When was the project initialized? Who was Governor? Of what political persuasion was he?

But anyway, this "payback" entailed reduced congestion and pollution in the New York-New Jersey corridor, whist generating economic activity and putting thousands to work. The project at the end of the day is simply a railroad tunnel, largely to ease pressure on the decaying 100 year old railroad. That railroad is going to have to be addressed sooner or later, I wonder how much it will cost once things get worse with it.

Moot, Moot and .... ah, Moot. (BTW, I'm still waiting for that $50 billion of yours.)

Right now it has little to do with benefit and everything to do with "Can we afford it?" And I've linked to several sites that clearly indicate the answer is NO. You have no idea just how much industry was driven out of NJ when Democrat Florio took hold of everything. His taxes on the wealthy (anyone making over $35,000 --- his policy), 17% increase in the sales tax and increases on businesses dried up a good chunk of the economy. Little if any of that industry has returned ... yet government programs until now haven't taken a cut. Just what do you think that leads to? And one of the largest demographics to leave the state (population-wise) are the wealthy. Why? ... because they don't feel all that wealthy having to put up with overall costs here. Right now NJ is either the highest or second highest taxed state per capita of the lower 48 --- and it's a depressed economy. Go figure.

You're taking what I said too literally, but alas, it was hyperbole on my part, so I'm fully to blame there, my bad. I'll chose my words more carefully in the future.

That's OK ... I'm guilty of that myself at times. Remember, all this posting is suppose to have an element of fun in it ... somewhere.

:D

[Garrison0fMars]

I think I'm going to partially concede this argument to you "Just thinking". I decided I'm going to remain neutral on this issue until I do more reading and study on it. I'm skeptical of Governor Christie, but I should really re examine the issue before I take a stand strongly on it. Still, I'm worried on how much it's going to cost in the future, if the tunnel continues to wilt away, we'll see though I guess.