After 4 Bil. where's the jobs?

[Topaz]

The Harper government has spent 4 Billion for the infrastructure stimlus, and there are no jobs, long term. Page has a report coming out and the job scene is flat. Oh, well new jobs but new highways so those unemployed can drive themselves to the unemployment bureau! http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/899473--billions-in-federal-spending-falls-flat-on-jobs

[Michael Hardner]

We're hearing the same complaints from the US too.

Maybe it's time to reduce the work week, hmm ? We're still working the same amount or more that we did two generations ago. What happened ?

[Shady]

The Harper government has spent 4 Billion for the infrastructure stimlus, and there are no jobs, long term. Page has a report coming out and the job scene is flat. Oh, well new jobs but new highways so those unemployed can drive themselves to the unemployment bureau! http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/899473--billions-in-federal-spending-falls-flat-on-jobs

Another example of why so-called stimulus is a bad idea. Also, unless you're properly trained in construction, infrastructure jobs aren't accessible for the majority of the public. And they also don't provide long term jobs.

[Sir Bandelot]

We're hearing the same complaints from the US too.

Maybe it's time to reduce the work week, hmm ? We're still working the same amount or more that we did two generations ago. What happened ?

They would be happy to reduce your work week. And your paycheck, accordingly. However even if they do that, more employees means more benefits payout so overall still a deficit for the employer. Good luck with that concept.

The 4 billions may not have created any long term jobs, that's true. But it sure did elp the bankers to buy themselves some primo waterfront properties in cottage country, for taking "well earned" vacations.

[Smallc]

It isn't only about jobs created, but jobs saved. Imagine how many jobs would have been lost without that $4B.

[Evening Star]

Another example of why so-called stimulus is a bad idea. Also, unless you're properly trained in construction, infrastructure jobs aren't accessible for the majority of the public. And they also don't provide long term jobs.

It is possible for government investment to create more sustainable long-term jobs though. I'm not sure if it did in this case.

[Smallc]

And they also don't provide long term jobs.

Well, since that isn't the purpose of stimulus, that isn't a problem.

[Sir Bandelot]

Imagine how many jobs would have been lost without that $4B.

"We had to pay off the bankers, so that they can continue to get rich at the same pace they are accustomed to. Otherwise, it would be very bad for YOU people. You'd ave to get poorer. So shut up and take it, and pay your tithes. Don't forget, tax time is coming soon. You better have the money."

[Wild Bill]

The Harper government has spent 4 Billion for the infrastructure stimlus, and there are no jobs, long term. Page has a report coming out and the job scene is flat. Oh, well new jobs but new highways so those unemployed can drive themselves to the unemployment bureau! http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/899473--billions-in-federal-spending-falls-flat-on-jobs

Anyone who paid attention should well remember the Liberals and the NDP forcing Harper to spend that 4 billion! The Tories were being called all sorts of names for not dumping money into the recession, the mildest of which were words like 'callous', 'uncaring' and cruel.

Of course, once Harper gave the money the same Liberals and NDP starting in on how Harper had put us deeper into debt! Talk about your no-win scenarios!

Now they're complaining that the 4 billion didn't create any jobs. Go figure.

It would then make sense for Harper to refuse to listen to the Liberals or NDP at all. Why should he? They make no sense but just attack him no matter what he does, even if he does what they said he should!

However, then they would accuse him of being "unlistening" and "undemocratic". They would say that he runs Parliament like a dictator.

I don't know who deserves less respect, the Liberals and the NDP or their supporters who are too dim to see the ridiculousness of the situation.

[Smallc]

"We had to pay off the bankers,

It had nothing to do with bankers in this country.

[Evening Star]

Wild Bill, it's possible to advocate economic stimulus and also question the way stimulus funds were allocated. It's also possible to think that, even with stimulus spending, the deficit might not have been so high without the tax breaks/tax cuts the government implemented or with some of their other choices.

Also, a minority government that never listened to the Opposition would be a short-lived government indeed.

That said, I agree that the opposition, especially the Liberals, have not been performing spectacularly.

[Evening Star]

Wild Bill, it's possible to advocate economic stimulus and also question the way stimulus funds were allocated. It's also possible to think that, even with stimulus spending, the deficit might not have been so high without the tax breaks/tax cuts the government implemented or with some of their other choices.

"... without some of their other spending choices", sorry. I mean, pretty much every Canadian govt that governed in difficult times has responded to recessions with stimulus spending, hasn't it? But this is the worst deficit on record, even though the govt was left with a surplus.

[Wild Bill]

"... without some of their other spending choices", sorry. I mean, pretty much every Canadian govt that governed in difficult times has responded to recessions with stimulus spending, hasn't it? But this is the worst deficit on record, even though the govt was left with a surplus.

Of course it is the worst deficit on record. We've never had to bail out the auto industry before!

This has probably been the worst global depression in half a century. We're still not out of it. There are countries like Portugal, Ireland and Spain that will likely go under at any time. Everybody thought they could just join a group like the EU where somebody ELSE would pay for their inefficiencies!

Now the chickens have come home to roost. Margaret Thatcher has been proven quite right. Joining the EU and adopting a common Euro currency has proved to be a disaster!

Meanwhile, the French still riot when the government tries to raise their retirement age to something more reasonable. As Jay Leno said, you can understand why they are so upset. The age used to be 37!

[Evening Star]

I didn't think it was the worst recession in half a decade for Canada? I imagine the 73/74 crash must have been worse? This confirms my suspicion that this was milder than the early-80s and early-90s recessions: http://www.thestar.com/business/recession/article/795766--canada-s-great-recession-not-according-to-statscan

You're right about bailing out the auto industry. I wasn't a fan of the way that was done at all tbh. The government should not bail out private corporations (especially American corporations!) without at the least placing severe conditions in the public interest. At least Jack Layton and Carole James did want the bailout to be tied to the development of greener technology. I kind of think those funds should have been redirected towards public transportation development.

[Wild Bill]

I kind of think those funds should have been redirected towards public transportation development.

Public transportation? I've been hearing calls for that all my life, it seems. It also seems like it never, ever works!

Maybe it's just where I live. Here in Hamilton the buses never seem to go where you need them. You end up taking so many transfers and you walk more than you ride.

My wife works for the City and one day her crew were called to a meeting where some cheerful folks gave them a lecture about taking public transportation. It was felt that civic employees should set an example to the citizenry at large.

So it being a warm summer day the following morning, my wife gave it a try. She had to walk a total of about 9 blocks, 3 transfers and just over 90 minutes to get to work.

That's compared to her usual 10 minute drive!

Obviously, she never did that again.

Having your own car means you can leave at the drop of a hat and drive directly to your destination. Unless the traffic congestion gets so heavy that you are stalled in traffic for an hour or so, no one is going to consider giving up their car. If traffic gets that bad, odds are that a bus won't be any faster either.

Elevated/Light Rail Transit can help somewhat but it has the problem of fixed routes even worse than buses. If you live away from a starting point and your destination is also not close to a stop point on the rail line your car is still going to be more attractive.

And what about the problem of trips with a handful of kids, or a week's worth of groceries?

The biggest problem with public systems is that they really only cater to a common denominator. If the residential part of the city is at one stop and all the jobs are at another then a common bus or train can ferry folks back and forth. However, what city is designed like that, or even could be? It's like two islands with one ferry line between them. Urban communities are always much more complicated than that. A car has no problem with such complications. A bus or a train cannot cope with them at all.

Politicians always promise to throw money at public transit but they know that it can only be a limited part of a city's transportation mix. It helps but it can only do so much. Meanwhile, at least it looks like they're doing something! Only people who actually try to use public transit will find out about its failings. Those who actually find it useful will be happy. Most folks will still use their cars but they'll be happy thinking OTHER people are taking public transportation!

[blueblood]

It isn't only about jobs created, but jobs saved. Imagine how many jobs would have been lost without that $4B.

That is up for debate. That 4B would have done far more in tax cuts or infrastructure improvements than bailing out the auto industry which could have been very well bought out by foreigners.

This has probably been the worst global depression in half a century. We're still not out of it. There are countries like Portugal, Ireland and Spain that will likely go under at any time. Everybody thought they could just join a group like the EU where somebody ELSE would pay for their inefficiencies!

Now the chickens have come home to roost. Margaret Thatcher has been proven quite right. Joining the EU and adopting a common Euro currency has proved to be a disaster!

Greece should never have been let in, they cooked their books so they could get in and spent like drunken sailors and ran up their debt.

Portugal, Ireland, and Spain are different; they suffered from the same asset bubble the US did, and the cost to bail out their banks essentially put these countries in trouble. Not only that, these countries can't devalue their currency to buy some time because of the Euro. To Ireland's credit they have slashed spending by 20 billion dollars yet kept their 12.5% corporate tax rate in tact (Much to Germany and France's Ire). Ireland has only 4 million people. For Canada to go through something like that it would be a spending cut of about 160 billion dollars.

[Smallc]

That is up for debate. That 4B would have done far more in tax cuts or infrastructure improvements than bailing out the auto industry which could have been very well bought out by foreigners.

Over the last decade we've gotten massive tax breaks...including permanent ones in the stimulus package. Tax cuts don't generally save jobs anyway, since the companies laying off aren't making money. Infrastructure spending is necessary and desirable. Without good public infrastructure your tax cuts are useless.

[charter.rights]

The stimulus jobs did nothing to create new jobs, or to save those destined for the bin. Instead, I know for a fact that most of the stimulus went to already wealthy construction companies who were the preferred selections for projects. All that did was inflate the cost of many infrastructure jobs and line the pockets of Conservative supporters.

In one place I know of the stimulus paid $80,000 for energy audits for about 100 homes, and the energy contractor made recommendations for the replacement of windows and doors to the tune over $500,000 for the 100 houses. The net savings will be about $40 per year per house in energy savings. Tell me that was a good use of the fund.

[Evening Star]

Public transportation? I've been hearing calls for that all my life, it seems. It also seems like it never, ever works!

Maybe it's just where I live. Here in Hamilton the buses never seem to go where you need them. You end up taking so many transfers and you walk more than you ride.

My wife works for the City and one day her crew were called to a meeting where some cheerful folks gave them a lecture about taking public transportation. It was felt that civic employees should set an example to the citizenry at large.

So it being a warm summer day the following morning, my wife gave it a try. She had to walk a total of about 9 blocks, 3 transfers and just over 90 minutes to get to work.

That's compared to her usual 10 minute drive!

These are reasons why there should be more investment in public transportation (as opposed to failed auto companies or suburban rec centres), not less. I don't use public transportation in Windsor either for similar reasons but I would if we had a better system. When I lived in Montreal, I never felt the need for a car, unless I actually needed to transport a number of heavy items. Many cities in the world do have effective public transit systems that are used by a large number of people. I'm not saying public transit would replace cars entirely but it would make a big difference for many people.

Ultimately, I just think that deficit-driven public spending should go towards projects that are under public control with a public interest in mind, rather than bailing out for-profit private corporations with few strings attached. If public funds are used to salvage industries, I would tend to favour at least temporarily nationalizing them.

[Evening Star]

I didn't think it was the worst recession in half a decade for Canada?

That should be "...half a century", sorry.

[maple_leafs182]

The Harper government has spent 4 Billion for the infrastructure stimlus, and there are no jobs, long term. Page has a report coming out and the job scene is flat. Oh, well new jobs but new highways so those unemployed can drive themselves to the unemployment bureau! http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/899473--billions-in-federal-spending-falls-flat-on-jobs

Because pumping money into the economy is a way to temporarily prop up the economy, it is not a way of creating jobs, the private sector has to create jobs, not the government.

[Evening Star]

Both the public and private sectors can create jobs.

[Bonam]

Public transportation? I've been hearing calls for that all my life, it seems. It also seems like it never, ever works!

Maybe it's just where I live. Here in Hamilton the buses never seem to go where you need them. You end up taking so many transfers and you walk more than you ride.

My wife works for the City and one day her crew were called to a meeting where some cheerful folks gave them a lecture about taking public transportation. It was felt that civic employees should set an example to the citizenry at large.

So it being a warm summer day the following morning, my wife gave it a try. She had to walk a total of about 9 blocks, 3 transfers and just over 90 minutes to get to work.

That's compared to her usual 10 minute drive!

Obviously, she never did that again.

Having your own car means you can leave at the drop of a hat and drive directly to your destination. Unless the traffic congestion gets so heavy that you are stalled in traffic for an hour or so, no one is going to consider giving up their car. If traffic gets that bad, odds are that a bus won't be any faster either.

Elevated/Light Rail Transit can help somewhat but it has the problem of fixed routes even worse than buses. If you live away from a starting point and your destination is also not close to a stop point on the rail line your car is still going to be more attractive.

And what about the problem of trips with a handful of kids, or a week's worth of groceries?

The biggest problem with public systems is that they really only cater to a common denominator. If the residential part of the city is at one stop and all the jobs are at another then a common bus or train can ferry folks back and forth. However, what city is designed like that, or even could be? It's like two islands with one ferry line between them. Urban communities are always much more complicated than that. A car has no problem with such complications. A bus or a train cannot cope with them at all.

Politicians always promise to throw money at public transit but they know that it can only be a limited part of a city's transportation mix. It helps but it can only do so much. Meanwhile, at least it looks like they're doing something! Only people who actually try to use public transit will find out about its failings. Those who actually find it useful will be happy. Most folks will still use their cars but they'll be happy thinking OTHER people are taking public transportation!

Bravo. I always have thoughts along the same lines whenever some zealot is trying to push public transportation down everyone's throats.

Reality is, even in cities with better designed transportation, it is almost always significantly faster to drive. Even if you can take a bus directly from your house to your destination, still, the bus travels much slower than your private vehicle, since it makes many stops on the way. The only time that public transportation is actually faster is if you live within a few blocks of a rapid transit station (subway, skytrain, monorail, etc) and your destination is also within a few blocks of another station on the same line.

The biggest reason everyone seems to be pushing more public transit these days now seems to be environmental concerns rather than congestion concerns. And, in my opinion, that is short sighted. I would bet that within a decade or two, the majority of new vehicles being sold for use within cities will be electric powered or fuel cell powered or otherwise produce no greenhouse emissions. Environmental concerns will be a nonfactor, people will want to drive their clean cars all over the place, but our road system will still be drastically insufficient since all the money went to public transit instead of road improvement.

I think the best use of transportation money would be to continue to improve and expand the road networks. In the short term, better roads means better commute times for bikes and buses as well, and in the longer term, everyone will be driving their ZEVs on those roads.

[Sir Bandelot]

It had nothing to do with bankers in this country.

Yes it did. In the economic action plan, hundreds of billions was made available to the banks, to "encourage lending". This paltry 4 billion was a mere drop in the bucket. And now appears it did not live up to the hype, surprise surprise. But it's all good, right Arguss? Double plus good.

[Smallc]

Yes it did. In the economic action plan, hundreds of billions was made available to the banks, to "encourage lending".

That's completely different in pretty much every way.