4 ms·

I've always hated how we don't create useful jobs for people that need work. There is so much infrastructure in this country that is deteriorating, why aren't

I've always hated how we don't create useful jobs for people that need work. There is so much infrastructure in this country that is deteriorating, why aren't we doing anything about that? Instead we create jobs that inconvenience everyone and provide no real value. In fact, they're harming the airline industry, so you could argue they're a net negative on the economy.

leggomylibro 7y ago
I'm with you, it seems like it would be good for everyone if we created job programs with the simple stated purpose of employing people, instead of funneling busy-work jobs through pork-barrel spending. The people doing the work could feel more fulfilled, shared resources and services could be improved, and it could encourage social cohesion instead of discouraging it like the TSA does. Oh well.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> In fact, they're harming the airline industry TSA was created as a massive handout to the airline industry, in response to their request for relief in the wake of 9/11; they were previously responsible for security and the associated liability, but were relieved of the function and future liability by the introduction of TSA and at the same time given backward-reaching relief from liability.
- sbuttgereit 7y ago
  This is a current day narrative cast in events drawn from the past. However, and I was plenty old enough at the time to be tuned into the political reality, was not that the airlines were begging to shift the costs of airport security to the government, but rather that proponents of expansive government responsibility insisting that something as important as airport security could not be trusted to the private sector. Consider this rather later statement from Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the early proponents of creating a public airport security agency: "Regrettably, some of my colleagues in the House and Senate are resolved to undermine TSA - and therefore airport security itself - by advocating for the pre-9/11 system of screening by private contractors. My response to that is: how quickly we forget. Mr. President, we have already tried an aviation security system run by private contractors. It very tragically did not work. The 9/11 attacks did not occur because of one, two, or three specific vulnerabilities. They occurred because a number of our defenses - including our system of airport screening - were simply inadequate. [...] It became clear to many of us that aviation security was inseparable from national security, and we could not, and should not, rely on the private sector to do the job. The security of our skies would have to become a government responsibility. Americans need to be safe and secure wherever and whenever they traveled. And while I would not want to cast blame or criticism on any one contractor, we've already witnessed the results of a system utilizing private security companies which were constantly pressured to focus on costs first, and security second.", Senator Joseph Lieberman, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 [https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/majority-media/lieberman-dont-undermine_airport-security-by-privatizing-airport-screening https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/majority-media/lieberman-...] While that statement came later, it was very much in line with the argumentation in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and was broadly supported by left and right. More at stake, reading between the lines, was much less to do with any corporate interests and more with congress just wanting to appear to be "doing something" in the wake of a national tragedy. Consider this more contemporary testimony from Rep. Nancy Pelosi: "Since the attacks, steps have been taken to realign federal agencies and change responsibilities, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security -- another brainchild of the senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman -- and the Terrorism Threat Integration Center being among the most notable. These may turn out to be worthwhile actions; however, my concern has been that these entities were instinctive responses -- although Senator Lieberman had suggested his department long before September 11th -- to general perception that things were not right, rather than a result of an exhaustive inquiry across the government with specific findings and specific recommendations for change", Rep. Nancy Pelosi, May 22, 2003, [https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-22.htm https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/9-11Com...] Trying to couch what happened with the nationalization of airport security as being a handout to corporate interests after the fact is like trying to demonize health insurance companies by saying that current day efforts to nationalize the health care system is really just an effort to give hand outs to big businesses involved in health. Given how historically my friends in various progressive movements are so often advocates of precisely this sort of government assumption of responsibility; perhaps if the parent comment is correct in their assertion, then maybe we should be discussing how easily duped those same progressives are. [EDIT: added Pelosi comment]
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > This is a current day narrative cast in events drawn from the past. No, it's not. It was actually covered in the news at the time, though it didn't get much attention. > However, and I was plenty old enough at the time to be tuned into the political reality, was not that the airlines were begging to shift the costs of airport security to the government, So was I, and, yes, they were (more specifically, the potential liability for security failures more than the cost.) > but rather that proponents of expansive government responsibility insisting that something as important as airport security could not be trusted to the private sector. Yes, that was the sales pitch used to the public by politicians after they decided how to respond to the industry lobbying. > Trying to couch what happened with the nationalization of airport security as being a handout to corporate interests after the fact is like trying to demonize health insurance companies by saying that current day efforts to nationalize the health care system is really just an effort to give hand outs to big businesses involved in health. If you mean mandatory insurance schemes like the ACA when you talk about nationalization of health care, rather than Medicare for All, that's exactly what it was conceived as. Before RomneyCare in MA (which was the most immediate model for both the Obama and Clinton health plans in the 2008 campaign), the same basic outline was proposed as a potential national reform by a group of insurance industry lobbyists and Republican strategists in the aftermath of the failure of the Clinton health care reform efforts when it looked like there might be another go around and the Republicans might be served by having something with the superficial shape of health coverage package and he industry wanted to make sure that what it was was a massive subsidy to the industry. OTOH, I don't see how you could frame MFA that way (you could frame it as a relief to employers who don't want to be responsible for employee healthcare, but not to the healthcare industry, and while that's not the central purpose for most advocates, it has been cited as a positive and intended effect by many proponents, so it's not entirely wrong.)
- jjeaff 7y ago
  But imagine if we hadn't bailed them out, we would be travelling by river boat today. I'm being sarcastic of course. Politicians are so quick to bail out "critical" businesses, which, on the face of it, makes sense. But it's not like all those planes and pilots and crews disappear if an airline goes out of business. The corrupt crony companies need to be allowed to fail so that others can take their place and investors can learn from their mistakes.
clairity 7y ago
wish they were all taken to the nearest animal shelter to pick a dog to train as bomb sniffers instead. it wouldn’t be foolproof but would have higher effectiveness than now and would improve airport efficiency (you walk right through as dozens of dogs sniff you randomly). plus we’d immediately reduce/eliminate the dog euthanasia problem we have now.
- kyleee 7y ago
  I like it. Can most/all dogs be trained for bomb sniffing, and is there any age cutoff?
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    One person will inevitably get bit by a dog that wasn't trained quite well enough and then that's the only thing we see on the news for a week and then that ruins that plan for everyone.
leetcrew 7y ago
on the other hand, I'd much rather have incompetent clowns doing security theater than building critical infrastructure.
scarejunba 7y ago
It's not that we don't. It's that we can't. Most public sector jobs have a ratchet on cost to employ. i.e. cost only goes up over time. For instance, you cannot employ a janitor for BART even though you need one. Why? The rules say you have to keep him and pay him a guaranteed payout pension etc. etc. To be clear, I'm not against that or anything. Just stating how things are. It is optimal under these conditions to minimize employment from the state and where possible spread it across regions. Also, you can't really create a new job for lots of people because when you get a sufficient size they become a powerful economic lobbying force with strong allies and good rhetoric. After all "should our X be paid only Y while NFL/NBA/mayors etc. get paid Z?" is pretty convincing to lots of people. So when you create jobs you need to put them in places where there are opposing forces. If you just created construction jobs, you'd be paying them $150k each all the time, and you'd always have to expand it. The rhetoric works very well here "should the people responsible for the safety of our bridges only be paid Z?". Now, if you create jobs that people don't want people working on, you get natural limiters. No one wants a massive TSA. People will complain if there is over-sizing of the TSA and they see lots of people standing around. This isn't necessarily conscious. Just the result of the constraints and people acting locally optimally. i.e. no one needs to say "let's choose TSA jobs over bridge maintenance jobs". All you need is someone in the room to say "I can't give you that budget for the bridge maintenance because then I have to give that other guy the budget for the tunnel maintenance and I don't think I can get approval for everyone because jurisdiction Y doesn't have any bridges or tunnels" while the TSA is pretty uniformly spread and so it applies to nearly everyone evenly.
macinjosh 7y ago
I agree. My personal theory is that any job that requires physical labor is usually met with disdain. Building infrastructure is hard work that not many people are willing to do. That’s why our colleges are overrun and student debt is so high. We teach kids from an early age that if you don’t go to college you won’t get a cushy job and you’ll end up as a highway construction flagger or something. As if that is the worst thing in the world.

leggomylibro 7y ago

I'm with you, it seems like it would be good for everyone if we created job programs with the simple stated purpose of employing people, instead of funneling busy-work jobs through pork-barrel spending. The people doing the work could feel more fulfilled, shared resources and services could be improved, and it could encourage social cohesion instead of discouraging it like the TSA does. Oh well.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> In fact, they're harming the airline industry TSA was created as a massive handout to the airline industry, in response to their request for relief in the wake of 9/11; they were previously responsible for security and the associated liability, but were relieved of the function and future liability by the introduction of TSA and at the same time given backward-reaching relief from liability.

sbuttgereit 7y ago
This is a current day narrative cast in events drawn from the past. However, and I was plenty old enough at the time to be tuned into the political reality, was not that the airlines were begging to shift the costs of airport security to the government, but rather that proponents of expansive government responsibility insisting that something as important as airport security could not be trusted to the private sector. Consider this rather later statement from Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the early proponents of creating a public airport security agency: "Regrettably, some of my colleagues in the House and Senate are resolved to undermine TSA - and therefore airport security itself - by advocating for the pre-9/11 system of screening by private contractors. My response to that is: how quickly we forget. Mr. President, we have already tried an aviation security system run by private contractors. It very tragically did not work. The 9/11 attacks did not occur because of one, two, or three specific vulnerabilities. They occurred because a number of our defenses - including our system of airport screening - were simply inadequate. [...] It became clear to many of us that aviation security was inseparable from national security, and we could not, and should not, rely on the private sector to do the job. The security of our skies would have to become a government responsibility. Americans need to be safe and secure wherever and whenever they traveled. And while I would not want to cast blame or criticism on any one contractor, we've already witnessed the results of a system utilizing private security companies which were constantly pressured to focus on costs first, and security second.", Senator Joseph Lieberman, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 [https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/majority-media/lieberman-dont-undermine_airport-security-by-privatizing-airport-screening https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/majority-media/lieberman-...] While that statement came later, it was very much in line with the argumentation in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and was broadly supported by left and right. More at stake, reading between the lines, was much less to do with any corporate interests and more with congress just wanting to appear to be "doing something" in the wake of a national tragedy. Consider this more contemporary testimony from Rep. Nancy Pelosi: "Since the attacks, steps have been taken to realign federal agencies and change responsibilities, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security -- another brainchild of the senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman -- and the Terrorism Threat Integration Center being among the most notable. These may turn out to be worthwhile actions; however, my concern has been that these entities were instinctive responses -- although Senator Lieberman had suggested his department long before September 11th -- to general perception that things were not right, rather than a result of an exhaustive inquiry across the government with specific findings and specific recommendations for change", Rep. Nancy Pelosi, May 22, 2003, [https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-22.htm https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing2/9-11Com...] Trying to couch what happened with the nationalization of airport security as being a handout to corporate interests after the fact is like trying to demonize health insurance companies by saying that current day efforts to nationalize the health care system is really just an effort to give hand outs to big businesses involved in health. Given how historically my friends in various progressive movements are so often advocates of precisely this sort of government assumption of responsibility; perhaps if the parent comment is correct in their assertion, then maybe we should be discussing how easily duped those same progressives are. [EDIT: added Pelosi comment]
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > This is a current day narrative cast in events drawn from the past. No, it's not. It was actually covered in the news at the time, though it didn't get much attention. > However, and I was plenty old enough at the time to be tuned into the political reality, was not that the airlines were begging to shift the costs of airport security to the government, So was I, and, yes, they were (more specifically, the potential liability for security failures more than the cost.) > but rather that proponents of expansive government responsibility insisting that something as important as airport security could not be trusted to the private sector. Yes, that was the sales pitch used to the public by politicians after they decided how to respond to the industry lobbying. > Trying to couch what happened with the nationalization of airport security as being a handout to corporate interests after the fact is like trying to demonize health insurance companies by saying that current day efforts to nationalize the health care system is really just an effort to give hand outs to big businesses involved in health. If you mean mandatory insurance schemes like the ACA when you talk about nationalization of health care, rather than Medicare for All, that's exactly what it was conceived as. Before RomneyCare in MA (which was the most immediate model for both the Obama and Clinton health plans in the 2008 campaign), the same basic outline was proposed as a potential national reform by a group of insurance industry lobbyists and Republican strategists in the aftermath of the failure of the Clinton health care reform efforts when it looked like there might be another go around and the Republicans might be served by having something with the superficial shape of health coverage package and he industry wanted to make sure that what it was was a massive subsidy to the industry. OTOH, I don't see how you could frame MFA that way (you could frame it as a relief to employers who don't want to be responsible for employee healthcare, but not to the healthcare industry, and while that's not the central purpose for most advocates, it has been cited as a positive and intended effect by many proponents, so it's not entirely wrong.)
jjeaff 7y ago
But imagine if we hadn't bailed them out, we would be travelling by river boat today. I'm being sarcastic of course. Politicians are so quick to bail out "critical" businesses, which, on the face of it, makes sense. But it's not like all those planes and pilots and crews disappear if an airline goes out of business. The corrupt crony companies need to be allowed to fail so that others can take their place and investors can learn from their mistakes.

clairity 7y ago

wish they were all taken to the nearest animal shelter to pick a dog to train as bomb sniffers instead. it wouldn’t be foolproof but would have higher effectiveness than now and would improve airport efficiency (you walk right through as dozens of dogs sniff you randomly). plus we’d immediately reduce/eliminate the dog euthanasia problem we have now.

kyleee 7y ago
I like it. Can most/all dogs be trained for bomb sniffing, and is there any age cutoff?
- jjeaff 7y ago
  One person will inevitably get bit by a dog that wasn't trained quite well enough and then that's the only thing we see on the news for a week and then that ruins that plan for everyone.

leetcrew 7y ago

on the other hand, I'd much rather have incompetent clowns doing security theater than building critical infrastructure.

scarejunba 7y ago

It's not that we don't. It's that we can't. Most public sector jobs have a ratchet on cost to employ. i.e. cost only goes up over time. For instance, you cannot employ a janitor for BART even though you need one. Why? The rules say you have to keep him and pay him a guaranteed payout pension etc. etc. To be clear, I'm not against that or anything. Just stating how things are. It is optimal under these conditions to minimize employment from the state and where possible spread it across regions. Also, you can't really create a new job for lots of people because when you get a sufficient size they become a powerful economic lobbying force with strong allies and good rhetoric. After all "should our X be paid only Y while NFL/NBA/mayors etc. get paid Z?" is pretty convincing to lots of people. So when you create jobs you need to put them in places where there are opposing forces. If you just created construction jobs, you'd be paying them $150k each all the time, and you'd always have to expand it. The rhetoric works very well here "should the people responsible for the safety of our bridges only be paid Z?". Now, if you create jobs that people don't want people working on, you get natural limiters. No one wants a massive TSA. People will complain if there is over-sizing of the TSA and they see lots of people standing around. This isn't necessarily conscious. Just the result of the constraints and people acting locally optimally. i.e. no one needs to say "let's choose TSA jobs over bridge maintenance jobs". All you need is someone in the room to say "I can't give you that budget for the bridge maintenance because then I have to give that other guy the budget for the tunnel maintenance and I don't think I can get approval for everyone because jurisdiction Y doesn't have any bridges or tunnels" while the TSA is pretty uniformly spread and so it applies to nearly everyone evenly.

macinjosh 7y ago

I agree. My personal theory is that any job that requires physical labor is usually met with disdain. Building infrastructure is hard work that not many people are willing to do. That’s why our colleges are overrun and student debt is so high. We teach kids from an early age that if you don’t go to college you won’t get a cushy job and you’ll end up as a highway construction flagger or something. As if that is the worst thing in the world.