The very act of building infrastructure stimulates local economy as well.
Not necessarily. It’s going to take away from other local industries, and that’s bad if they would have been more useful or valuable. Otherwise, by that logic, digging a hole and then filling it in is a great jobs program. Wikipedia has an article on this line of reasoning.
Crazy PP’s broken ass clock is making a valid point about the TFW program.
As far as I can tell, it’s just “immigrants taking our jerbs” again. And Eby’s jumping on board with it.
BTW, I think I should delete this post, because apparently it’s a duplicate. I’ll wait until we’re done though. I copied your recap over there.
A jobs program is not the same as stimulating the economy.
What is, then? I feel like the more work = more economy approach is exactly what you’re using here. And it’s not an uncommon way of thinking.
Let’s make it definitely infrastructure, while still impractical. A solid gold bridge that we mine for ourselves. It will employ lots of people to make, it will create all kinds of business demand to supply those workers, and maybe we put a toll booth on it for future employment, which is the three things you put forward.
How many real world problems a project solves is actually what determines it’s value, economically and in general. But, that’s all a bit of a digression, since public transit does solve some problems, or even many. It just doesn’t solve every single one. Short-term emission reductions, for example, again with the possible exception of busses that can use already built roads.
Quite often, it seems like Lemmy starts with the (valid) conclusion we need more public transit, and then works backwards to the reasons why.
Not necessarily. It’s going to take away from other local industries, and that’s bad if they would have been more useful or valuable. Otherwise, by that logic, digging a hole and then filling it in is a great jobs program. Wikipedia has an article on this line of reasoning.
As far as I can tell, it’s just “immigrants taking our jerbs” again. And Eby’s jumping on board with it.
BTW, I think I should delete this post, because apparently it’s a duplicate. I’ll wait until we’re done though. I copied your recap over there.
how?
That is not infrastructure though. A jobs program is not the same as stimulating the economy.
Building a train creates work for workers, business demand for locals, and long term jobs when the project is completed.
It also catalyzes the economy by making longer distance commutes cheaper and more viable.
What is, then? I feel like the more work = more economy approach is exactly what you’re using here. And it’s not an uncommon way of thinking.
Let’s make it definitely infrastructure, while still impractical. A solid gold bridge that we mine for ourselves. It will employ lots of people to make, it will create all kinds of business demand to supply those workers, and maybe we put a toll booth on it for future employment, which is the three things you put forward.
How many real world problems a project solves is actually what determines it’s value, economically and in general. But, that’s all a bit of a digression, since public transit does solve some problems, or even many. It just doesn’t solve every single one. Short-term emission reductions, for example, again with the possible exception of busses that can use already built roads.
Quite often, it seems like Lemmy starts with the (valid) conclusion we need more public transit, and then works backwards to the reasons why.