I won’t link to Paul Krugman’s column in which he pitches the idea of an updated Works Projects Administration. Again. I won’t link to it because of the NYT’s tallying and paywall, not due to any antipathy to linking to him. If you want to read the original article you can swing by there yourselves.
In the article Dr. Krugman repeats something he’s written before, namely that we should create jobs for the unemployed fixing and building roads, bridges, etc. While that might increase aggregate demand I have serious doubts that it would result in better roads or bridges. We no longer build roads by rounding up a couple of hundred men and giving them shovels. We use a few workers and a lot of machines, the machines require at least semi-skilled labor, and I doubt that the International Union of Operating Engineers will look kindly on the activity. Add to that the laborers’ union, Davis-Bacon wages, and a host of other considerations and the net result is no more roads built or repaired than are being repaired right now.
Unless you restrict these jobs to the hard-core unemployed (somehow), won’t the higher wages they’re paying attract workers who already have jobs and reduce private sector employment?
These jobs also won’t give the presently unemployed workers skills useful in future jobs (unless you believe that the jobs of the future will involve operating heavy machinery).
My modest proposal is to give the unemployed jobs as economists or New York Times columnists.
Seriously, however, why would the proposed updated WPA be better than extending unemployment benefits? Than just writing checks?
I completely agree that with you about the problems, but …
If Dr. Krugman could work up an original thought, he might reply that they could be employed as Information workers, and this would provide job training as well. The possibilities are endless – IRS, CDC, DARPA, NASA, CBO, etc. They could also do manual jobs in various Government Agencies – cleaning, yard work, etc.
On the other hand, you could double up on the number of workers standing around doing nothing.
I do NOT endorse any of this. The problems you noted will not go away by changing the jobs.
The good Doctor has decided that the WPA is the answer, and he will not let reality or logic dissuade him.
1) Clear brush from trails, choked streams, etc.. in national parks.
2) Send the workers out to local government for similar work on beaches, parks, etc…
3) Those with the skills who can pass background checks could be used as student tutors, or in supervising school playgrounds, etc…
4) Clean graffiti, clear out junk from urban alleyways, slap a coat of paint over abandoned storefronts in struggling neighborhoods.
There are a lot of things that don’t get done — especially in poorer communities, which would be of real benefit, and which would not run afoul of the already employed. These may not be great skills to learn, but neither is staying home watching daytime TV at taxpayer expense.
My point is not that there are no make-work jobs or even things that desperately need doing that could be accomplished with a federal jobs program. My post is limited in scope to the specific issue of what’s being called “infrastructure” these days: roads and bridges.
Dr. Krugman has repeatedly made the claim that we could institute a WPA project for roads and bridges. It’s a lie.
Similarly, could people be put to work cleaning graffiti? Sure. Worth doing? Maybe. Will it teach them vital jobs skills that will enable them to go out and get a good civilian economy job? I really doubt it.
I might add that I think that projects of the sort that you’re outlining are vastly better executed by giving block grants than with a WPA.
Dave:
Yeah, I think block grants would be better, too. And you’re right that we don’t build bridges like we used to. In fact I wonder if the engineering skills that would match up with that kind of labor-intensive construction even exist anymore?
The road/bridge spending to date has been at least partly compromised by reliance on state and local governments to supervise the work and many of those governments are broke. So we have some states rejecting fed money as too costly or risky in the long-term. We have states like Illinois which try to spend it all, but simply can’t.
Implicitly, I believe Krugman wants a radical expansion of the size of the federal government.
I doubt it. Heck, I doubt that the management and accounting skills exist except, just barely possibly, within the military.
Wasn’t there a post here about how most of the jobs created in the past couple of years are government jobs? And how such a process is ultimately not sustainable? And that how government money, even block grants, are basically fungible?
If there wasn’t there should be such a post.
“In fact I wonder if the engineering skills that would match up with that kind of labor-intensive construction even exist anymore?”
Surely this was said in jest.