Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxa!wetcw
From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: More Spread the Wealth - (nf)
Message-ID: <446@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Dec-83 10:48:00 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.446
Posted: Wed Dec 14 10:48:00 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Dec-83 01:57:12 EST
References: <612@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 65

Well, that was interesting, however, the bridge analogy does not seem
to fit the focus of large projects being financed by private industry.
In the first place, why would a private corporation build their own
bridge?  What will they get back economically?  If, as you say, 500
jobs would be taken away from private industry, then I am confused.
Isn't private industry going to build the bridge?  I didn't know
that the government ran a bridge building department.  I have always been
led to understand that the government let private industry bid on
these construction projects.

In this bridge scenario, it seems to me that 500 more jobs would be
"created" in order to accomplish the building of the bridge.  Let us
say that the XYZ Bridge Company wins the bid to build said bridge.
Now there are two factors involved here with XYZ.  First, XYZ has
no current projects underway, therefore they will have the need to
hire 500 workers for the project.  Second, XYZ is currently involved
in several projects, and thus will have to increase their workforce
by 500.  Either way, 500 jobs are created.  

Perhaps, some of the 500 come from other companies; because there
is a better opportunity, more pay, or whatever.  Since we are
assuming a rising economy such as is now happening, the other
companies will be rehiring to replace those lost to XYZ.
Again, 500 jobs are created, and with the constant need to
create jobs due to the rising available workforce, the cycle
continues.

As for taxes being lowered to induce private industry to create
jobs, that was tried with no results to date.  CEO's in the larger
corporations are, according to all that I have read, only looking
at the bottom line.  They do not want to go out 3 years from now
as the guy who lowered net profits.  Many of their perks are also
based on what they put on that bottom line.  Noone is going to
upset his apple cart.  

Therefore, to expect private industry to take over the financing
of large non-profit based projects is not realistic in this day
and age.  The government took over the role of creating jobs in
the 30's and has been stuck in that mode ever since.  The jobs
are actually created in the private sector due to contracts, etc..
Whenever the government cuts back on spending(as during Carter
admin), layoffs begin to occur in the private sector.  As
government money dries up, so do jobs in other industries. 

Social spending, although absolutly necessary, does not create
jobs in the sense that new projects do.  While new schools or
hospitals may be needed ( an arguable point in most areas of
the country), they create only short lived jobs ( as does the
bridge).  We could pay teachers more, but there is only a finite
number of teachers, many of which are out of work due to dropping
school populations.  

What does it all come down to?  At this time in our history, the
government must continue to finance large projects in order to
keep economic advancement on an even keel.  To do less would
invite economic stagnation, just as we went through over the
previous two years.  My vote is for a space station.  A huge
long-term project that will require a myriad of disciplines,
creating countless jobs, and probably improving technology
by large factors.  Please don't flame about military uses,
I'm talking peaceful uses with technological benefits for
everyone, including the soviets. 

T. (spread a little more) Wheeler