Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
This is confusing. A union project requires more of the money that is spent go to workers. A non-union job allows that money to be kept by the principals. Unless you're going to start arguing in favor of trickle down theory, how is there not much of a difference?
TM
|
If we're comparing a more expensive (union) job to a less expensive (non-union) job, obviously the former has more stimulus. But if we're talking about $100m of federal spending on infrastructure, whether it goes to union or non-union jobs would not seem to me to make much difference in the stimulative effect, as much as I like unions. Some non-zero difference on the margin, sure, but I think the difference will be pretty small.
