I think the average unemployed construction worker is.
I was mainly objecting to the misleading portrayal of the federal workforce and the stupid comparisons between the federal work force and the general work force.
I’m not supporting the notion of hiring EVERYONE but the government can certainly hire a lot of people temporarily right now and create some wage inflation.
Average benefits for a federal worker hired today (you realize that the federal pension program gives you 22% of your base pay per year after 20 years?) is supposed to be between 20-25K.
Size of the federal workforce:
in 1940 (earliest year on the chart, the civilian work force was 443K.
"At its peak in 1938 it [WPA] provided paid jobs for three million unemployed "
Not quite 12 times but you its more than halfway there.
Once again, not passing on the merits of the plan to hire everyone without a good idea of what they are going to do but I can make an argument that government can absorb quite a bit of the slack in the labor market right now and put them to good use.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Average benefits for a federal worker hired today (you realize that the federal pension program gives you 22% of your base pay per year after 20 years?) is supposed to be between 20-25K.
[/QUOTE]
You do realize that loaded costs entail more than the pension, right? I seriously doubt that the average loaded costs for federal employees is 20-25k. Again, if you have a cite showing otherwise then I’ll certainly take a look at it.
What was the misleading portrayal of federal workers and what was the stupid comparisons between the federal work force and the general work force?? Are you sure you were talking to me about those?? Or was this part of some other discussion? I ask because you quoted me and then sort of went off on a tangent afaict.
I’m unsure what this drive by link is supposed to prove, since you didn’t quote the relevant parts. I’m reasonably familiar with Keynes, and while it’s true he did seemingly say “government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up.”, I don’t believe he had in mind to hire ALL of the unemployed and bring them in as federal workers…which is what the OP is about here.
-XT
I’m late to the game, but here’s what I think. The whole idea sounds like it’s doomed to fail because it’s based on the assumption that all 12.5 million unemployed people are willing to take any job that’s offered to them. This is untrue. Unless we intend to create a position based on each individual’s existing skill set, it’s likely that many people would turn down these new jobs. If you were a systems administrator for ten years with an $80k salary, it’s unlikely that you’d be happy answering phones at the DMV for $30k. And let’s face it, there are only so many sys admins needed, unless, as I said, you’re willing to create jobs specifically for these people. However, even if you are, what happens if the person gets fired, or quits, or dies? Do you start looking for another sys admin or do you find another person who needs a job, create a new job for them, and get rid of that sys admin position? And if you do get rid of that position, wouldn’t that leave that department short-handed? If not, does that mean the position wasn’t really needed in the first place and the work that was created was unnecessary?
Nor will people pick crops for a buck an hour.
One stupid Repub said Americans wont pick crops for 25 bucks an hour. He is an idiot swallowed up in Republican belief that Americans wont do hard work. He believed it because he has lived so far away from those who have to work hard for little money.
A living wage would be reasonable.
You seemed to have missed the main gist of this thread. We aren’t talking about current federal employees, or about adding a few more federal employees. The proposal is to guarantee 12 million people (or more) a job doing something/anything with the federal government. It also seems to imply that the DMV is going to become federal.
My “warped view” has nothing to do with the federal workforce, I’m quite accurately describing the potential workforce this program would create.
But let’s pretend it plays out the way you suggest, and 11million people get fired, we’re back to where we started. Except that the program guarantees everyone a job, so they’ll have to be re-hired, only to be fired again, requiring that they be re-hired. If the job is guaranteed, a person can never actually be fired.
Are you really going to let those people starve to death in the streets just because they refuse to show up to work on time? Not cool man, not cool.
Seems Georgia Gov. Nathan is trying a new twist on the idea, he’s hiring people on probation to toil in the fields. Fighting unemployment and illegal immigration all at once.
A better soloution would be for the federal reserve to sell its 2.5 trillion dollars worth
of assets and buy vacant houses and either bull doze them or convert them into rental
properties. this will stabalize home prices and facilitate lending and consumption.
Another thing would be to allow people to take money out of there
401K’s tax free to pay down debt.
the department of education should just forgive about 500 billion
worth of student loan debt. as well
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=821&type=0
Maybe I’m confusing you with someone who was trying to compare federal employee compensation adn ebenfits with private sector workforce and benefits.
Like I said, I’m not passing on the merits of this particular plan but I thought you asked for a cite supporting the claim that massivley increasing teh federal workforce would spur the economy.
Maybe the disconnect is that I am addressing what seemed to be underlying assumptions on your part when in fact you were addressing what would happen if the OPs suggestion were adopted as written, AND that you haven’t picked up on the fact that I don’t really agree with teh OP in the particulars but the notion of a federeal jobs program where the government directly hires people to soak up some of the slack in the labor supply.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=821&type=0
[/QUOTE]
And what is this drive by link supposed to prove? Loaded costs include pensions, vacation, holiday, sick leave, medical/dental, ‘other benefits’, plus overhead costs such as HR costs and processing, even IT costs. IOW, it’s all the other costs besides salary that is associated with having an employee.
So, assuming you agree with the above, what does your link have to do with that? How does it demonstrate…well, let me rephrase. What IS it supposed to demonstrate wrt the discussion or wrt anything I was saying that you quoted? Could you, perhaps, elaborate instead of just giving a drive by link?
You must be confusing me with someone else since nothing I’ve said in this thread has anything to do with this. My own point is to try and establish some sort of realistic cost for these 12+ million new federal workers…a cost that includes the loaded costs that will be associated with hiring and supporting these 12+ million new federal employees. A cost that will include benefits.
So, in light of this, do you have anything to add?
Your cite doesn’t demonstrate support that massively increasing the federal work force will in any way spur the economy. Do you have anything else?
-XT
Since we all know the infrastructure needs to be updated, is this not a good time to do it? We have a mass of unemployed people who need work. We have work that needs to be done. We could hardly have a better time to take care of business.
So, you are going to hire 12 million people, most of who have no idea how to build infrastructure or do road construction, to build roads and bridges?
-XT
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper Here is where the deficits came from.
Did I say I would hire 12 million people? The point is ,that if you spend the money to get honest work done now, you will increase demand. That is where more jobs are created. Poorer people with money in their pocket, buying the things they need. The workers would create more jobs and more demand. Then more people with more demand. That is how it is done. The multiplier effect in action.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Here is where the deficits came from.
[/QUOTE]
What is your drive by supposed to prove? Could you (please) quote the relevant parts and why you linked to it in the context of this thread?
Have you actually read the OP or the thread? That’s what we are discussing here. If you don’t plan to use the people who are currently unemployed to build your infrastructure then you aren’t responding to the OP, and are essentially arguing some other point. If you want to discuss and debate whether we should spend money to rebuild infrastructure then start a new thread on that subject and I’ll gladly give my two cents worth…my answer might surprise you, since you have a ton of preconceptions about my beliefs.
No, the point is that the OP is talking about hiring all of the people who are currently unemployed. If you want them to do road construction and bridge building then what you are talking about is relevant to the OP and we can discuss that. If not, then you are hijacking the OP to talk about something not relevant.
Blah blah blah. Are you saying you want to use the 12 million people currently unemployed to do this construction or not? The OP wants to hire them all as federal workers. Would you do so and put them to work building bridges, dams, roads and other infrastructure? Yes? No? Don’t want to discuss and wish to go off on a tangent?
-XT
Are you new to this board? There have been lots of posts and who said 12 million? The thread was practically whimsical while suggesting hire everybody. But since you lack humor, you want to fight about the numbers. Discuss that with YoGSOSOTH if that is your intention.
It would be interesting to come up with a real number that would effectively cut unemployment and provide the repair the infrastructure demands. But you are not looking for that. You want to insult and squabble. That is a game I don’t like playing.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
There have been lots of posts and who said 12 million?
[/QUOTE]
The OP. Did you read it? Granted, he mentioned 12.5 million, so perhaps that’s where your confusion is coming from.
Um, I think the OP was completely serious. Why do you think he was not? He said that he wants to hire most of the 14.1 million unemployed, and that 12.5 million was a good figure for what he’s proposing. Perhaps if you READ the OP you would be on the same page as everyone else in this thread…none of who are confused by what the OP was wanting to debate in his thread.
If the thread was a joke thread then you are right…I’m missing that. Perhaps the thread needs to be reported to the mods so that they can move this joke thread to some other, more appropriate forum.
Discuss your views on the OP with, well, the OP. Or a mod if you think it’s a joke thread.
Perhaps you should discuss that with the OP?
I’m not looking for anything, since it’s not MY OP. Perhaps you are confused and should scroll back up to the top and actually read the OP and see what it is he is looking for? It’s a thought.
You should probably take that up with a mod, if you think I have insulted you in GD. If answering questions and posing new ones in a debate is considered and ‘insult’ then they probably need to rename this forum. Or, maybe you could tell the folks who run this board what they REALLY were thinking when they created this forum and the other ones, since they might be confused as well.
That’s nice. Perhaps you’d like to play ‘let’s actually debate the OP as it’s written and as the person who wrote it intended’ game? Does that sound fun?
-XT
Are you? Why are you hijacking this thread with irrelevant posts that are off topic. If you want to discuss your own brand of “whimsical” ideas, then open a new thread with a link to this one.
Otherwise, stop the hijack and stop getting personal with other posters.
Really? That is all you have done for the last several posts, making snide remarks about another poster while acting in ignorance of the actual OP.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
What percent of the current unemployed came from a construction background?