Comments on: A Stimulating Topic, Part II http://deanesmay.com/2008/12/09/a-stimuluating-topic-part-ii/ Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy. Wed, 23 May 2012 12:36:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: J.A. Eddy http://deanesmay.com/2008/12/09/a-stimuluating-topic-part-ii/#comment-166443 J.A. Eddy Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:42:47 +0000 http://deanesmay.com/2008/12/09/a-stimuluating-topic-part-ii/#comment-166443 I'm not certain I agree with you there, Dave. Construction requires a wide range of supporting services, which is why it is often leaned upon in situations such as this. That dependence on supporting services has grown in the modern era as construction companies leaned out and outsourced or sub-contracted jobs formerly done in-house, just like everyone else. I still prefer a plan that puts money in everyone's pocket over an extended period via suspension of the payroll tax. Take the monetary pressure off both workers AND employers makes more sense to me. I’m not certain I agree with you there, Dave. Construction requires a wide range of supporting services, which is why it is often leaned upon in situations such as this. That dependence on supporting services has grown in the modern era as construction companies leaned out and outsourced or sub-contracted jobs formerly done in-house, just like everyone else.

I still prefer a plan that puts money in everyone’s pocket over an extended period via suspension of the payroll tax. Take the monetary pressure off both workers AND employers makes more sense to me.

]]> By: Dave Schuler http://deanesmay.com/2008/12/09/a-stimuluating-topic-part-ii/#comment-166438 Dave Schuler Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:52:57 +0000 http://deanesmay.com/2008/12/09/a-stimuluating-topic-part-ii/#comment-166438 A key problem with the federal spending/build infrastructure (defined as roads and bridges) approach to fiscal stimulus is that it's a political minefield.  It provides jobs for men at the expense of women, workers in the construction trades at the expense of service workers, etc.  As I've said in my posts on the subject, I think it's too reliant on a dated image of the economy. But I'm also not sure how to cope with structural unemployment in a service economy.  This is really new territory. A key problem with the federal spending/build infrastructure (defined as roads and bridges) approach to fiscal stimulus is that it’s a political minefield.  It provides jobs for men at the expense of women, workers in the construction trades at the expense of service workers, etc.  As I’ve said in my posts on the subject, I think it’s too reliant on a dated image of the economy.

But I’m also not sure how to cope with structural unemployment in a service economy.  This is really new territory.

]]>