Unemployment Visualized

[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 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. 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, 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 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.

 

[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.