Let's talk about government spending

[ITR_champion]

@Simplicio

Eh, most of those graphs aren’t adjusted for population or even in constant dollars. They don’t really demonstrate much.

If you dispute that spending has gone up over the past 40 years in the three categories I named (or any others) I’d be happy to look at any data which suggests that it hasn’t, if you offer it.

The graph in your OP shows total gov’t spending as a fraction of GDP has been pretty flat since 1980. So obviously not everything is growing.

The economy grew quickly for most of the 80’s, 90’s, and 00’s. Government spending also grew quickly, but for a limited time tax revenues were able to keep pace with it. When the economy turned sour, revenues plunged , while spending did not, so government spending as a percentage of GDP surged to almost 50%. You seem to feel sure that it will sink back, but I’m not so sure. But in any case, the government’s shortfall is not evenly distributed across all governments. Some have already hit disaster, some soon will, and others appear to be on solid ground for now.

[ITR_champion]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You suggested, as I already quoted, that union demands were part of what pushed up costs in California. That’s a laughably ridiculous explanation, given the relative strengths of French unions to CA unions.

The relative strength of California unions and French unions is irrelevant. I said that a particular set of laws that have been forced through in the USA, guaranteeing wages for workers on public projects much higher than for any other workers, are responsible for pushing up the prices on things the government builds. The existence of such laws is not hard to prove, if you seriously want to contend that they don’t exist.

If this is just a shooting-the-shit explanation, then sure, have at it, but that’s hardly Great Debates material. I could shoot the shit by proposing that California has more major road surface than France, and it’s harder to work around their road structure; or that France has more established passenger rail structure in place on which to build, and that lowered their costs; or that France built their rail system using prison labor. I mean, if we’re shooting the shit, we don’t need to cite any of our claims, right?

I see. So you agree with the fact that government projects cost up 5 or 10 times more in other countries as in the USA, but you’re uninterested in any serious discussion of why?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ITR_champion

The relative strength of California unions and French unions is irrelevant. I said that a particular set of laws that have been forced through in the USA, guaranteeing wages for workers on public projects much higher than for any other workers, are responsible for pushing up the prices on things the government builds. The existence of such laws is not hard to prove, if you seriously want to contend that they don’t exist.

Of course it’s relevant, since your claim is that the increased cost of infrastructure in the US relative to France is due in part to union-secured deals here. If that were true, it must necessarily be because unions here secure better deals for their workers than French unions. That idea is ludicrous.

I see. So you agree with the fact that government projects cost up 5 or 10 times more in other countries as in the USA, but you’re uninterested in any serious discussion of why?

I agree that one project in France that’s decades old and apparently famous for its low costs came in at a budget much lower than a project in the US that hasn’t been built yet. You haven’t yet established that it’s an apples-to-apples comparison, much less given a scintilla of evidence as to why.

A serious discussion of why one project costs more than the other would be interesting, but I don’t have the facts necessary to start it, and you sure as hell haven’t given any facts with which to start it. If you do so, I’ll be happy to look at the evidence you offer for your claims.

[BobLibDem]

Let’s look at how much it costs governments to build things. We’ll find that by any measure, it costs more than it should. more than other countries, more than the private sector, and more than it did in the past.

With very few exceptions, governments don’t build things. They oversee the preparation of plans and specifications and take competitive bids. I honestly don’t see how something like a rail system could be built significantly cheaper if you only remove the eeeeeeeeevil eeeeeeeeevil hand of government. Maybe the figures cited were from building in a rural area of France where the right of way would be less expensive than Los Angeles. Maybe the French project was merely for replacing existing track in land already owned. There are a thousand variables that could account for huge differences in cost. To focus on the relatively trivial fact that the government is managing the project seems quite ridiculous.