Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If we're comparing a more expensive (union) job to a less expensive (non-union) job, obviously the former has more stimulus.
|
All other things being equal, union jobs are always more expensive than non-union jobs because they pay workers more. That's the entire point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
|
You have done nothing to clear up my confusion. Even if we lived in fiction land and you could spend the exact same amount of money on a union job or a non-union job, the union project would allocate a higher percentage of your spend to union salaries and that means that more money goes into the pockets of average people who will spend it (and will create a much higher stimulative effect) as opposed to the wealthy people pitching for the project, who will bank it.
TM
