SV reX said:In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
The owners of these large heavy equipment companies don't go out and hire a few new guys when they get a new project. They shift some of their existing labor force from other projects as needed. There are lots of delays in construction infrastructure projects. It's not hard for an equipment operator to shift from one project to another and cover several projects as needed. That's not job creation, it's schedule management.
The other problem is that construction jobs are not permanent. If a contractor "creates" a new "job" for a construction worker for a 4 month project, then uses the same worker on the next project for 5 months, then on the next project for 3 months, that's 3 jobs created, right? Of course not. It's 1 employee who worked on 3 different projects. And it's not job creation at all unless a new employee was hired (and hopefully became a permanent position).
Oh, and since infrastructure projects are all completed by large companies, the owners are often already wealthy, and the contracts are often awarded via cronyism. It's not job creation, it's giving profits to friends.
This is probably why it seems like infrastructure projects take twice as long as residential/commercial projects. They aren't spending the money on more people, they are just riding those profits.
I wish these infrastructure bills had more specific language about where the money can go. For example, 50% of the contract must be spent on wages and payroll for salaries at or below prevailing wage. And no scheduling of projects. Work must be started by a specific time and contract will not be fully paid unless the project is completed within a certain amount of time.
Create jobs, not profits. I'm perfectly cool with an equipment operator making bank on government money, I'm less cool with the owner of the company making banks on government money while he underpays his staff and drags his feet on project timelines.
