We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Depends on location and whether they are union or not. If you look at the red states where a lot of unions have been busted, infrastructure jobs can include a lot of pretty marginal ones.

We desperately need investment in infrastructure, but the economic impact of that spending has been heading downward for some time.

Why would $100 million of infrastructure spending have more or less effect on the economy depending on whether the jobs created are union jobs? It's still $100 million of spending on infrastructure, yes? Seems like the difference would be pretty subtle.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

HC is a massive beast with every kind of element in it. In a world where bricks and mortar retail is dying, the pharmacies and urgent care facilities are one of the few growth sectors. HC finance ranges from tax exempt bonds for nursing homes and hospitals to venture investment for biotech to medical office building REITs and bank financing for all the manufacturers and service providers.

Sebby's just being a dumbass.

I’ve been involved in a good deal of robotic surgery inventions- maybe sebster just means automation will eliminate the field? How long before RT can retire?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

HC is a massive beast with every kind of element in it. In a world where bricks and mortar retail is dying, the pharmacies and urgent care facilities are one of the few growth sectors. HC finance ranges from tax exempt bonds for nursing homes and hospitals to venture investment for biotech to medical office building REITs and bank financing for all the manufacturers and service providers.

Sebby's just being a dumbass.

Let's go through this:

1. It is a beast. That was exactly my point. A giant parasitic beast that diverts money from other expenditures to itself like no other.

2. What made you think I was talking about retail exclusively? Do you think the only development that occurs around infrastructure is retail? That's an unlearned assumption.

You know what might go hand in hand with infrastructure development? Maybe, perhaps, HC facilities? Yeah, that happens. Sometimes when big infrastructure projects deliver traffic, utilities, etc. to an area, like magic -- HC development occurs along with it. I know... It's crazy, right? Who'd have thought?

3. Ah yes, let's have more bonds floated for HC. Increase local taxes, draining property owners, then flood the market with care centers that increase HC consumption in the area of symptom treatment, pain management, therapies, etc.

Yes, this results in $$$$ for HC management, $$ for mid-level admin, $ for nurses, and a load of lower pay gigs for aides. And Adder is correct that it results in purchase of all sorts of supplies and equipment. This drives money to manufacturers, true (how many of those are abroad or far away from the locale?). And it drives dollars into the hands of financing entities (somebody holds the lease or paper on the MRI machines -- again, likely someone far away).

This is all a positive, I agree. But it drives almost all dollars into HC, like a giant black hole. Sure, it creates temporary dollars for some developers and workers here and there. But its never - ever - going to attract the kind of growth you'll get from creating, say, a logistical hub, or a corporate office destination. Just for instance, the northern tier of Jersey is covered in corporate campuses. The place is awash in good jobs, and development has remained solid throughout the downturn to today. You are never going to be able to do that with mere HC development. It's not broad enough to attract myriad industries needed to create across-the-board (all labor sectors) gains for residents. Is HC a great way to create jobs and economic activity? Absolutely. Is it better than what's created when infrastructure is done right? No. Should it be viewed not as a competitor with infrastructure but as one of many industries that are enhanced by infrastructure? Yes. (Which renders this whole argument a bit silly... as most are here.)

Prediction/Example:

95 is a fucking mess. The corridor between NY and DC, which I travel frequently, is a clogged disaster in countless areas. It's a logistical challenge for transport. We're already seeing efforts by large corporations to build a parallel system using less trafficked highways that are inland 100 or more miles but also link DC to NY and Boston. What that's causing is a chicken pox of million+ sq ft big boxes all over the landscape near those inland highways. These have been lost opportunities, as they've scattered the jobs in strange small towns here and there. But communities are getting a bit smarter. They are starting to combine to pitch to companies looking to build warehousing hubs, and the pitch involves putting several in one location, with an eye toward expanding communities in the same area. Sure, a lot of it is chain restaurants, retail, theaters/parks, and I'm skeptical of the multiplier there. But along with it are HC facilities, improved schools, university satellites, and with those things, housing development. HC cannot expand in an area that is not easily accessed by traffic or utilities. In this regard, infrastructure and HC go hand in hand.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why would $100 million of infrastructure spending have more or less effect on the economy depending on whether the jobs created are union jobs? It's still $100 million of spending on infrastructure, yes? Seems like the difference would be pretty subtle.

I won't speak for GGG, but if you allow non-union, you get a more transient workforce. When the project is union, the local or at least nearby union contractors get the work. The money stays within or near the community and a more significant amount if it gets spent there.

Also, when you use union, more dollars go to labor, which spends them, rather than management, who tend to be affluent and just bank it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

A good hunk of the infrastructure jobs down here are taken by the people in the caravan. https://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/17677...les-doesnt-pay

That is not the case in the Mid-Atlantic. (Unless you want your work site regularly vandalized, to get black balled on bids everywhere a union steward is on the selection committee [meaning, almost everywhere], and have a giant inflatable rat out front for the duration of the project.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Let's go through this:

1. It is a beast. That was exactly my point. A giant parasitic beast that diverts money from other expenditures to itself like no other.

You're talking real estate here, not healthcare. Makes every other business more expensive while contributing nothing itself.

2. What made you think I was talking about retail exclusively? Do you think the only development that occurs around infrastructure is retail? That's an unlearned assumption.

You know what might go hand in hand with infrastructure development? Maybe, perhaps, HC facilities? Yeah, that happens. Sometimes when big infrastructure projects deliver traffic, utilities, etc. to an area, like magic -- HC development occurs along with it. I know... It's crazy, right? Who'd have thought?

Note at all, my point just was that the average HC spend has as many secondary impacts of others kind of spend.

3. Ah yes, let's have more bonds floated for HC. Increase local taxes, draining property owners, then flood the market with care centers that increase HC consumption in the area of symptom treatment, pain management, therapies, etc.

Yes, this results in $$$$ for HC management, $$ for mid-level admin, $ for nurses, and a load of lower pay gigs for aides. And Adder is correct that it results in purchase of all sorts of supplies and equipment. This drives money to manufacturers, true (how many of those are abroad or far away from the locale?). And it drives dollars into the hands of financing entities (somebody holds the lease or paper on the MRI machines -- again, likely someone far away).

This is all a positive, I agree. But it drives almost all dollars into HC, like a giant black hole. Sure, it creates temporary dollars for some developers and workers here and there. But its never - ever - going to attract the kind of growth you'll get from creating, say, a logistical hub, or a corporate office destination. Just for instance, the northern tier of Jersey is covered in corporate campuses. The place is awash in good jobs, and development has remained solid throughout the downturn to today. You are never going to be able to do that with mere HC development. It's not broad enough to attract myriad industries needed to create across-the-board (all labor sectors) gains for residents. Is HC a great way to create jobs and economic activity? Absolutely. Is it better than what's created when infrastructure is done right? No. Should it be viewed not as a competitor with infrastructure but as one of many industries that are enhanced by infrastructure? Yes. (Which renders this whole argument a bit silly... as most are here.)

I think we both acknowledge this is a matter of degree in everything. Argument does indeed have silly elements. But I think there is plenty of HC spending that is more effective at economic stimulus than a lot of infrastructure spending.

You do acknowledge that much of what is driving Northern NJ is the pharma industry, though? Huge part of those corporate campuses. You seem to think setting up corporate campuses is a supply side exercise - build them and they'll come. I grew up in upstate NY, where there are a lot of empty facilities that used to be housed by IBM, Xerox, etc.

Prediction/Example:

95 is a fucking mess. The corridor between NY and DC, which I travel frequently, is a clogged disaster in countless areas. It's a logistical challenge for transport. We're already seeing efforts by large corporations to build a parallel system using less trafficked highways that are inland 100 or more miles but also link DC to NY and Boston. What that's causing is a chicken pox of million+ sq ft big boxes all over the landscape near those inland highways. These have been lost opportunities, as they've scattered the jobs in strange small towns here and there. But communities are getting a bit smarter. They are starting to combine to pitch to companies looking to build warehousing hubs, and the pitch involves putting several in one location, with an eye toward expanding communities in the same area. Sure, a lot of it is chain restaurants, retail, theaters/parks, and I'm skeptical of the multiplier there. But along with it are HC facilities, improved schools, university satellites, and with those things, housing development. HC cannot expand in an area that is not easily accessed by traffic or utilities. In this regard, infrastructure and HC go hand in hand.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That is not the case in the Mid-Atlantic. (Unless you want your work site regularly vandalized, to get black balled on bids everywhere a union steward is on the selection committee [meaning, almost everywhere], and have a giant inflatable rat out front for the duration of the project.)

Around here, a lot of workers come down from Canada for construction projects.

And a number of Republican governors have worked very hard to increase the amount of non-union contracts that go to their friends for public works projects. Charlie Baker here in Mass. among them.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why would $100 million of infrastructure spending have more or less effect on the economy depending on whether the jobs created are union jobs? It's still $100 million of spending on infrastructure, yes? Seems like the difference would be pretty subtle.

It's a question of whether you want an economy where people make enough to live on.

And whether you are even offering jobs anyone wants.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Around here, a lot of workers come down from Canada for construction projects.

And a number of Republican governors have worked very hard to increase the amount of non-union contracts that go to their friends for public works projects. Charlie Baker here in Mass. among them.

I can't give an exact figure, but I'd guess going non-union decreases the spending of wages in the local economy by 10-15%.

Tariffs will probably make unions less popular. Steel cost increases alone provide a basis to argue that union wages aren't affordable. (Hence my confusion regarding the increase in development... My guess is these developments already had costs locked in before Trump put in tariffs.)

Here, however, its not really a question. Both as a matter of local law and politically, going non-union is increasingly not an option.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can't give an exact figure, but I'd guess going non-union decreases the spending of wages in the local economy by 10-15%.

Tariffs will probably make unions less popular. Steel cost increases alone provide a basis to argue that union wages aren't affordable. (Hence my confusion regarding the increase in development... My guess is these developments already had costs locked in before Trump put in tariffs.)

Here, however, its not really a question. Both as a matter of local law and politically, going non-union is increasingly not an option.

It's important to note that NAFTA 2 (aka whatever) basically put into the NAFTA treaty most of the things we'd already gotten from Mexico and Canada as part of the TPP negotiations, but one thing it didn't get was the provisions designed to encourage unions in emerging market countries like Mexico. That's potentially a very big deal when it comes to building the Mexican economy to the point where people prefer to stay there or, when from Central America in particular, go there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I think we both acknowledge this is a matter of degree in everything. Argument does indeed have silly elements. But I think there is plenty of HC spending that is more effective at economic stimulus than a lot of infrastructure spending.

I think longer term you are correct. Over 20 year stretch, HC has better multiplier. I am more focused on 1-10 year stretch, to build up the communities. I think infra does this, acts as a catalyst, and then industries like HC roll in and take up the baton.

I do think we're making complimentary things into competitors here.

You do acknowledge that much of what is driving Northern NJ is the pharma industry, though? Huge part of those corporate campuses. You seem to think setting up corporate campuses is a supply side exercise - build them and they'll come. I grew up in upstate NY, where there are a lot of empty facilities that used to be housed by IBM, Xerox, etc.

Oh, absolutely I acknowledge that. I'm not thinking build it and they'll come. I'm thinking consolidate facilities corporations are developing. This creates a dense workforce in a small area which helps to build a self-sustaining community. I'm thinking about something exactly like pharma's push through NJ.

I wasn't counting pharma as HC, but if you are, I see your argument that HC is the driver for this development in NJ. But I think it can be done any one of a mix of industries. To start the whole thing off, however, you need to have the infra project that makes access and development around that accessed area easier.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. It is a beast. That was exactly my point. A giant parasitic beast that diverts money from other expenditures to itself like no other.

If you stop for a second and assume that people spend money on the margin on health care rather than on other things because they want to, then things look a little different.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's important to note that NAFTA 2 (aka whatever) basically put into the NAFTA treaty most of the things we'd already gotten from Mexico and Canada as part of the TPP negotiations, but one thing it didn't get was the provisions designed to encourage unions in emerging market countries like Mexico. That's potentially a very big deal when it comes to building the Mexican economy to the point where people prefer to stay there or, when from Central America in particular, go there.

I get why management detests unions, but it's quite short-sighted if one wants to build a middle class. And a capitalist thinking long term should want to build a middle class.

Also, can we please stop using the artificial categories of "labor" and capital." These are outdated and truly uncreative concepts. Pooled labor in the form you'll find in unions is a form of capital. Just as capital aggregators pool resources together to engage in commerce for profit, labor aggregators pool resources together to engage in commerce for profit. Swinging a hammer for a paycheck is engaging in commerce - you are trading something for something else. If you and 100 similar situated individuals get together and pool the thing you are trading in exchange for the best profit margin you can extract from a payer, you are doing nothing different than a bank. You are, in a manner of speaking, a "labor bank."

Adder will quibble with this as it defies Econ 101. But this silly notion we have of labor being a problem, a cost, a negative, while capital is a great and pure thing (despite the interest and rents it extracts, which are indistinguishable from a labor cost [except in accounting terms]) is a big part of the problem we see with middle class wages.

I'm a capitalist. I think if a bunch of union workers can band together and force the holder of capital to pay them more than they'd otherwise get, they are operating as capitalists, no different than the holders of the capital who seek to get the very best return on their investment or loan. If we think of unions in this way - on parity with the "capitalists" we admire - we might see they're an essential part of capitalism.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I won't speak for GGG, but if you allow non-union, you get a more transient workforce. When the project is union, the local or at least nearby union contractors get the work. The money stays within or near the community and a more significant amount if it gets spent there.

I thought we were talking about the national economy, so transience within the country is not really an issue.

Also, when you use union, more dollars go to labor, which spends them, rather than management, who tend to be affluent and just bank it.

You're onto something here, but it seems like a fairly small effect at the margin. Affluent people spend money too.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I wasn't counting pharma as HC, but if you are, I see your argument that HC is the driver for this development in NJ. But I think it can be done any one of a mix of industries. To start the whole thing off, however, you need to have the infra project that makes access and development around that accessed area easier.

Pharma and device are massive parts of the HC dollar.

The device industry has the potential to fill in where we're losing a lot of jobs in the car part industry, a place where traditionally there was a very dispersed manufacturing base in a lot of small cities all over the country. Some areas, like radiology devices, need big plants, but a lot of other devices are built in relatively small facilities that gravitate to places where costs are moderate and employees available.

Pharma tends to need very highly educated workers, so it goes to northern NJ, North Carolina, places like that.