Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
If we can find evidence for the differential impact on state economic activity of various expenditures at the federal level it provides another basis on which to decide on what the money should be spent. At a minimum the multiplier should be one, as someone who is unemployed is highly likely to spend all they earn, and, taken together, that spending should support one other person at the same income level.

It has long been known that government, construction and manufacturing jobs, which typically pay significantly more than the minimum, can provide the additional local spending to support retail, transport and service jobs. Construction jobs are typically paid from loan proceeds. State and local government are paid from state and local taxes. But, from a state and local perspective, manufacturing jobs are more like jobs producing for export. They bring money to the local economy from the larger world.

But government spending to create manufacturing jobs is the more problematic than for service and infrastructure. It is one thing to rescue the automobile industry, which had a long history of profitabile operation and a known market, but there would be fierce opposition to the government choosing a particular kind of manufacturing in which to invest, and Solyndra is a case in point. It looked like a winner in 2009 but is now bankrupt after having received >$500 billion in government loan guarantees. The market changed. So that leaves infrastructure.

Well, of course there is military spending, always popular with RW types. But, as the purpose of manufacturing for military purposes is to blow things up and as that product is 'consumed' by hapless Pakistani and Afghani villiagers, it doesn't produce much knock-on employment, especially as we ignore the need for prosthetics, etc for foreign nationals who were the recipients of that 'spending'. So military Keynesianism has a low multiplier, probably less than 1.5 - roughly one additional person for every two military people employed.

The condition of infrastructure in the USA is abysmal. We don't know which bridge will collapse next but, at currently budgeted replacement rates, more collapses are likely. Here in Arkansas a 20 mile section of Interstate 40, a major trucking route, floods in wet years and needs to be rebuilt. asdf posted a link about the need for improvements to electrical distribution, highlighted by the problems left in the wake of Superstorm Sandy.

So it is a good thing if you know that you will get the equivalent of over two people employed by spending on highway infrastructure, even if that turns out to be one person with a higher wage. Those are the kinds of jobs that support local economies, including dentists. It would be even better if we knew that, by building renewable based power generation and distribution and upgraded, electrified rail infrastructure we would be creating the equivalent of two additional jobs for every direct job created.

And, if/when that created inflation, raise taxes on the wealthy and impose luxury taxes. We would be putting the country on a path to economic and environmental sustainability while creating prosperity and greater equality. But we could also slow down that process and spend more on other areas of need with lower multipliers. It would be nice to have that choice.

The losers would be the rent extractors in the fossil fuel industry, but even that would not really be a hardship, as their reserves will only be increasing in value with time. They are more valuable as feed stocks for the petrochemical industry, etc. than as fuel for vehicles.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Nov 29th, 2012 at 11:36:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series