Democratic Admins on Average create more private sector jobs

[punked]

But don't take my word for it look at the raw data

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Story from Kos. Don't you hate when Republicans ruin the private sector for everyone and don't create jobs in it? I know I do.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/4/810892/-Socialist-thugs-are-better-at-creating-private-sector-jobs

[M.Dancer]

Governments don't create private sector jobs.

End of Story

[BubberMiley]

Governments don't create private sector jobs.

End of Story

So with all those roads government built, not one private sector job resulted from them?

After the U.S. government created this Internet we're talking on, there wasn't any private sector activity as a result?

I think the Story has just begun...

[M.Dancer]

So with all those roads government built, not one private sector job resulted from them?

After the U.S. government created this Internet we're talking on, there wasn't any private sector activity as a result?

I think the Story has just begun...

They didn't create the jobs. Private sector activity based short term funding is short sighted. I have a feeling that the road workers had road working jobs even before the gov't decided we needed a new road....as for the intraweb....meh...

[BubberMiley]

I have a feeling that the road workers had road working jobs even before the gov't decided we needed a new road....as for the intraweb....meh...

Meh? But your feeling, once again, is wrong. There were dirt trails before the gov't decided we needed roads. And there wasn't even a middle class, so the would-be road workers were digging ditches along the dirt trails for next to nothing.

[M.Dancer]

Meh? But your feeling, once again, is wrong. There were dirt trails before the gov't decided we needed roads. And there wasn't even a middle class, so the would-be road workers were digging ditches along the dirt trails for next to nothing.

So once the roads were completed, does that mean the Gov't destroyed jobs?

Well, if you want the gov't to take credit for short term employment, go for it, but don't call it job creation.

[BubberMiley]

So once the roads were completed, does that mean the Gov't destroyed jobs?

No. There's a long history of government investment creating infrastructure and an environment for the private sector to flourish. That includes roads, health care, education, research, maintenance of social order, et cetera. Even the right wing understands this concept and has (at least in the past) encouraged these investments.

You just have your tin-foil hat set too high on "libertarian." You're losing touch with the reality around you.

[M.Dancer]

No. There's a long history of government investment creating infrastructure and an environment for the private sector to flourish. That includes roads, health care, education, research, maintenance of social order, et cetera. Even the right wing understands this concept and has (at least in the past) encouraged these investments.

You just have your tin-foil hat set too high on "libertarian." You're losing touch with the reality around you.

So once the roads are finised, what happens to the road workers? They become teachers? Doctors?

If anything, it is the need of commerce, funded by commerce that creates roads.

[BubberMiley]

So once the roads are finised, what happens to the road workers? They become teachers? Doctors?

You haven't noticed that the roads are never finished? The growing economy that resulted from the first ones causes demand for more roads and bigger roads. And when that's all done, it's time to start over again and replace the old ones.

It's just like you're never done schooling all the kids or curing all the sick or regulating all the trade. A prosperous environment must be maintained for industry to thrive, and government has been very successful at supplying that and will continue to do so, despite the whacko libertarians who write on their government-created internet how government never creates anything.

[Shady]

So with all those roads government built

The government built? Where did they get the money to build them? The private sector. So characterizing the government "building" roads with billions of dollars pulled from the private sector is ridiculous.

[M.Dancer]

The government built? Where did they get the money to build them? The private sector. So characterizing the government "building" roads with billions of dollars pulled from the private sector is ridiculous.

True. They no more create jobs via this than from any governemnt spending. Be like saying, since the govenment creates endless streams of paperwork, they are creatiung jobs in the pulp and paper industry.

If they want to really create jobs, they would layoff the thousands of redundant civil servants and outsource their functions to private contractors.

WHo creates the jobs in roadwork? The entrepreneurs who buy and operate the graders, the excavaters and hire the workers to operate them.

[BubberMiley]

Of course the resources come from the people government serves. And those people generate those resources in a stable, functional environment that government creates. We all work together.

There is no better, more efficient system than government for providing the services you need. The private sector didn't pick up the baton in building roads, and experiments in Ontario in this regard have been a disaster. Toll roads are simply not efficient.

As you eat your ham and eggs, confident that they have been properly regulated and inspected to ensure they don't kill you, you can take for granted the multitude of services the public sector provides you through your tax dollars that the private sector has been unwilling or unable to efficently supply. While you can't name a service you would rather do without, you will pretend that you don't need any of it.

But that's just because the tin-foil hat is still too tight.

[M.Dancer]

There is no better, more efficient system than government for providing the services you need.

*chortle*

I would be very happy to see garbage collection outsourced to the private sector. For that matter, I would not be too concerned over food inspection taken over by a competant private sector firm.

This summer I watched parks (toronto) take care of the parkette my office faces. I was always amazed how they managed to turn a 1/2 day one person job into a five person all day adventure.

I idea that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide serices is simply laughable as talk of outsourcing is a shibboleth.

[Shady]

Of course the resources come from the people government serves. And those people generate those resources in a stable, functional environment that government creates.

Yes, that's the proper role of government. To uphold the law, and provide for national defense/security.

There is no better, more efficient system than government for providing the services you need.

Did you type that with a straight face?

The private sector didn't pick up the baton in building roads, and experiments in Ontario in this regard have been a disaster. Toll roads are simply not efficient.

through your tax dollars that the private sector has been unwilling or unable to efficently supply.

Not true. In many cases the government has decided long ago, without the private sector being given the chance, to take responsibility and provide for certain services.

While you can't name a service you would rather do without

You present a false choice. As if a service can only be provided by government. Just because government is doing it now, and just because government sucked up the "responsibility" of providing said service long ago, doesn't mean it can be done as efficiently (if not more) by non-government

entities.

At the end of the day, it seems that your argument consists of roads, roads, and roads. That's your response to private sector job creation by the government? Money taken by the government, out of the private sector, then given back to the private sector, to actually build the road. The government only acts as a middle-man. Nothing more.

And the demand for the creation and construction of new roads is a demand created by the expansion of the private sector, through business and/or residential enterprises.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Shady

[Shady]

Here's a perfect example of just how "efficient" government is...

Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

[BubberMiley]

Did you type that with a straight face?

Absolutely. From the floodway around Winnipeg, which has saved the city on many occasions, to the railroad through the Rockies, government has shown that it can serve the people with grand projects that are impractical for generating profit (or that would be prohibitively expensive if required to provide profits to investors), but are still extremely necessary.

Roads are a good example, but they aren't the only one I cited. In addition to the two named above, I mentioned education, health care, policing, and product inspections. There are many, many others, but listing them all would be boring. Suffice to say you're getting good value for your tax dollars.

It's a good thing that Republicans also understand the value of government---it was Bush who initiated the stimulus. They may speak of libertarianism to get votes from those who don't know any better, but when faced with the responsibility of governing, they surprisingly bucked up and did their job.

Edited December 8, 2009 by BubberMiley

[Michael Hardner]

Absolutely. From the floodway around Winnipeg, which has saved the city on many occasions, to the railroad through the Rockies, government has shown that it can serve the people with grand projects that are impractical for generating profit (or that would be prohibitively expensive if required to provide profits to investors), but are still extremely necessary.

Roads are a good example, but they aren't the only one I cited. In addition to the two named above, I mentioned education, health care, policing, and product inspections. There are many, many others, but listing them all would be boring. Suffice to say you're getting good value for your tax dollars.

It's a good thing that Republicans also understand the value of government---it was Bush who initiated the stimulus. They may speak of libertarianism to get votes from those who don't know any better, but when faced with the responsibility of governing, they surprisingly bucked up and did their job.

It's also possible to engage private industry to get work done, and desirable in fact. Such is the case with the road building example from earlier in the thread.

[BubberMiley]

This summer I watched parks (toronto) take care of the parkette my office faces. I was always amazed how they managed to turn a 1/2 day one person job into a five person all day adventure.

Are you sure they weren't contracted out? I know in Winnipeg, all those jobs are done by private contractors, and the city administrators who look after them have about 50 projects to oversee at any one time. As a result, they usually work 60-hour weeks.

So my anecdotal evidence plus your anecdotal evidence together equal absolutely no point whatsoever.

As for garbage collection, the city contracted that out to BFI. After they got the first contract and the city employees were fired, BFI raised their fees significantly on the next contract. The employees now make $10 an hour, rather than the living wage the previous employees made, and service is no better but more expensive.

Edited December 8, 2009 by BubberMiley

[M.Dancer]

Are you sure they weren't contracted out? I know in Winnipeg, all those jobs are done by private contractors, and the city administrators who look after them have about 50 projects to oversee at any one time. As a result, they usually work 60-hour weeks.

So my anecdotal evidence plus your anecdotal evidence together equal absolutely no point whatsoever.

As for garbage collection, the city contracted that out to BFI. After they got the first contract and the city employees were fired, BFI raised their fees significantly on the next contract. The employees now make $10 an hour, rather than the living wage the previous employees made, and service is no better but more expensive.

the point of government employment is not high wages.

if the contracter opts to raise their fees in a new contract the city is free to tender a new bid. that is 100% more freedom than with city employees who will hold the city hostage during astrike.

[BubberMiley]

Actually the city was required to buy BFI autobins rather than use traditional trash cans. Once the investment was made, BFI had them by the balls more than any union ever did. There is also a very limited pool in the private sector of companies able to provide such a service, due to the high set-up costs. Once the infrastructure of trucks and bins and dumping grounds is established, there's no easy way to switch course.

But in regards to your other point, by "high" wages do you mean enough for an individual to support his or herself?

Edited December 9, 2009 by BubberMiley

[M.Dancer]

Actually the city was required to buy BFI autobins rather than use traditional trash cans. Once the investment was made, BFI had them by the balls more than any union ever did. There is also a very limited pool in the private sector of companies able to provide such a service, due to the high set-up costs. Once the infrastructure of trucks and bins and dumping grounds is established, there's no easy way to switch course.

But in regards to your other point, by "high" wages do you mean enough for an individual to support his or herself?

bear with me, my wireless card fried and im doing this on the wii.

1st things 1st. high low, it doesn't matter, the purpose of government employment isn't to provide a wage. that beingsaid no argues that swivel servants are under paid.

the city negotiated a cjntract that required a certain bin. i would be surprised if the bins weren`t generic and istead proprietary to bfi. if thats the case, the fault lies with the city negotiators who sound incompetent. they probably should have outsourced their negotiator

[BubberMiley]

Sorry to hear about the wireless card.

But the reality is that certain services that require a substantial initial capital investment depend on a monopoly in order to function. There can't be 10 competing, parallel railway lines, or gas pipelines, or electricity grids, or trash collection services. In these instances, either we have a publicly owned governmental provider or we become indentured to the corporation that controls the infrastructure.

At least with governmental monopolies, we have the democratic right to control it in the future, including controlling costs.

[M.Dancer]

Sorry to hear about the wireless card.

But the reality is that certain services that require a substantial initial capital investment depend on a monopoly in order to function. There can't be 10 competing, parallel railway lines, or gas pipelines, or electricity grids, or trash collection services. In these instances, either we have a publicly owned governmental provider or we become indentured to the corporation that controls the infrastructure.

At least with governmental monopolies, we have the democratic right to control it in the future, including controlling costs.

why can.t there bemo4e]thanone rail service? we used to have 2 national lines, the us had 12s. as well, private garbage p/u already has a well established infrastructure, having 5 different firms k/u trash would not be a big deal

[BubberMiley]

You're typing with a wii-mote?

The railroad in Canada required heavy government investment. No private entity was willing to assume the total cost for the infrastructure. It was the same with the power grid and the telephone system. In Winnipeg, our city forefathers had the foresight and foreskin to build an aqueduct to move fresh water from Shoal Lake 60 miles into the city. We profit from that decision still today.

If a business can build a railroad by itself and make a profit, more power to it. But if that isn't happening, then government has traditionally stepped in and filled that void. Do you really think that once those assets are built, the government should then privatize them at cut-rate prices so that corporations can profit at the expense of the people who paid for them in the first place?

[M.Dancer]

You're typing with a wii-mote?

I'm back at my desk. The wii mote is great for everything except typing...

The railroad in Canada required heavy government investment. No private entity was willing to assume the total cost for the infrastructure.

True. It was a pre condition for confederation. It didn't develope naturally but it did have a lot of prib=vate capital and was on of Canada's first scandals.

It was the same with the power grid and the telephone system.

Bell Canada started as a private company in 1880. There have been various private a crown power companies ober the years. Hydro Quebec used to be private until it was nationalized.

Do you really think that once those assets are built, the government should then privatize them at cut-rate prices so that corporations can profit at the expense of the people who paid for them in the first place?

Privatization doesn't mean they are sold at cut rate prices. Whenthe cost of operating exceeds the cost of private enterprise operating the same service, an argument can be made for putting it on the block.