4 ms·

I have no idea why you were downvoted for the obvious answer.

ghaff 4y ago
Because it makes a naive assumption that there's some magic money tree a state government can go to in order to pluck dollars from that the voters have chosen not to provide for salaries and other expenses. Yes, the voters want their potholes filled but that doesn't mean they'll approve a bond issue or whatever to pay for it.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Let these voters suffer their decisions seems like the only option? They learn eventually. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/07/11/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/07/11/the-kansa... “Voters choose to withhold funding for public services they expect” would be a better headline.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >Let these voters suffer their decisions seems like the only option? Seems perfectly fine. And maybe they decide that they don't actually want to pay for some public services or they're fine with more automated/online versions of certain things. For example, where I live you do a lot more associated with the DMV online than you used to and I assume significantly fewer people are employed. Of course there can be issues with access and those need to be dealt with. It's not clear to me that, in general, state governments are massively underfunded.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  >Because it makes a naive assumption that there's some magic money tree a state government can go to in order to pluck dollars from that the voters have chosen not to provide for salaries and other expenses. I mean there clearly is one. Ukraine got billions within two days of asking. We've sent them what, $70 billion this year alone? Funnily enough no new outlet seems to be tracking the total, just covering each one individually so it doesn't look like we're doing what we're doing: Prioritizing Ukraine over US citizens.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    That's the federal government which owns money printing presses. State governments do not and are often required by their state constitution to balance their budget.
    - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
      There's nothing legally stopping the federal government from giving that to the states though. Which makes it clear that they just don't want to.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        The federal government spends quite a bit on infrastructure at the state level. But, yes, the federal government also prioritizes certain spending related to foreign policy over other spending that's related to domestic policy (and vice versa).
  - HAL3000 4y ago
    Disclaimer: Writing this doesn't mean that I approve or agree with how the world currently works or that this is fair, right or good from moral perspective, it's only a cold analysis. In current geopolitical climate you would lose a lot more than $70 billion if Russia would win in Ukraine, there is a lot more on stake than Ukraine independence, US debt is financed by the rest of the world. US is world hegemon because of its influence granted by military and economical power. If you lose that status you lose influence, if you lose influence you also lose your country "safe heaven" status for other people money, next USD could lose status of world reserve currency, next your budget deficit is unsustainable anymore, your social contract gets broken, 2008 crisis would be nothing compared to this. Not mentioning that US was not ready to fight Russia and China same time, elimination of Russia from equation through proxy war in Ukraine will allow US to focus on China. Additional benefit to USA is Sweden and Finland joining NATO and strengthening US influence in Europe, making it a lot easier to flip Europe against China (see how NATO joint statement about China changed in Madrid summit in July 2022 compared to stance of leading EU countries before the war). $70 billion is not a high price to show the world that you are not a declining superpower (especially after that Afghanistan retreat and rise of China) and retain your status and influence, if I were a US citizen I would be glad it costs me only $70 billion knowing the alternative.
- rdtwo 4y ago
  Ok fine so hire one worker for 32 an hour instead of 0/2 for 16. It’s not rocket science, you just might have to cut hours or services.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Because it makes a naive assumption that there's some magic money tree a state government can go to in order to pluck dollars from that the voters have chosen not to provide for salaries and other expenses. Yeah there is. It's called the weekly handouts and tax cuts for the rich.
- Ericson2314 4y ago
  Yes that is also true. State and municipal governments are by and large austerity shit shows.
bpodgursky 4y ago
I wouldn't put it about the money as much as "there is only so deep a pool of competent workers, and if another 5 million of them are hired in the public sector, labor in the private sector becomes correspondingly worse." It's unfortunate that the city can't hire enough secretaries. Do I want them to poach competent workers from my ISP, Target, Amazon, or my insurance company? Not really, no.
Ericson2314 4y ago
I seem to have been upvoted.

Because it makes a naive assumption that there's some magic money tree a state government can go to in order to pluck dollars from that the voters have chosen not to provide for salaries and other expenses. Yes, the voters want their potholes filled but that doesn't mean they'll approve a bond issue or whatever to pay for it.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Let these voters suffer their decisions seems like the only option? They learn eventually. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/07/11/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/07/11/the-kansa... “Voters choose to withhold funding for public services they expect” would be a better headline.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >Let these voters suffer their decisions seems like the only option? Seems perfectly fine. And maybe they decide that they don't actually want to pay for some public services or they're fine with more automated/online versions of certain things. For example, where I live you do a lot more associated with the DMV online than you used to and I assume significantly fewer people are employed. Of course there can be issues with access and those need to be dealt with. It's not clear to me that, in general, state governments are massively underfunded.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
>Because it makes a naive assumption that there's some magic money tree a state government can go to in order to pluck dollars from that the voters have chosen not to provide for salaries and other expenses. I mean there clearly is one. Ukraine got billions within two days of asking. We've sent them what, $70 billion this year alone? Funnily enough no new outlet seems to be tracking the total, just covering each one individually so it doesn't look like we're doing what we're doing: Prioritizing Ukraine over US citizens.
- ghaff 4y ago
  That's the federal government which owns money printing presses. State governments do not and are often required by their state constitution to balance their budget.
  - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
    There's nothing legally stopping the federal government from giving that to the states though. Which makes it clear that they just don't want to.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      The federal government spends quite a bit on infrastructure at the state level. But, yes, the federal government also prioritizes certain spending related to foreign policy over other spending that's related to domestic policy (and vice versa).
- HAL3000 4y ago
  Disclaimer: Writing this doesn't mean that I approve or agree with how the world currently works or that this is fair, right or good from moral perspective, it's only a cold analysis. In current geopolitical climate you would lose a lot more than $70 billion if Russia would win in Ukraine, there is a lot more on stake than Ukraine independence, US debt is financed by the rest of the world. US is world hegemon because of its influence granted by military and economical power. If you lose that status you lose influence, if you lose influence you also lose your country "safe heaven" status for other people money, next USD could lose status of world reserve currency, next your budget deficit is unsustainable anymore, your social contract gets broken, 2008 crisis would be nothing compared to this. Not mentioning that US was not ready to fight Russia and China same time, elimination of Russia from equation through proxy war in Ukraine will allow US to focus on China. Additional benefit to USA is Sweden and Finland joining NATO and strengthening US influence in Europe, making it a lot easier to flip Europe against China (see how NATO joint statement about China changed in Madrid summit in July 2022 compared to stance of leading EU countries before the war). $70 billion is not a high price to show the world that you are not a declining superpower (especially after that Afghanistan retreat and rise of China) and retain your status and influence, if I were a US citizen I would be glad it costs me only $70 billion knowing the alternative.
rdtwo 4y ago
Ok fine so hire one worker for 32 an hour instead of 0/2 for 16. It’s not rocket science, you just might have to cut hours or services.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Because it makes a naive assumption that there's some magic money tree a state government can go to in order to pluck dollars from that the voters have chosen not to provide for salaries and other expenses. Yeah there is. It's called the weekly handouts and tax cuts for the rich.
Ericson2314 4y ago
Yes that is also true. State and municipal governments are by and large austerity shit shows.

bpodgursky 4y ago

I wouldn't put it about the money as much as "there is only so deep a pool of competent workers, and if another 5 million of them are hired in the public sector, labor in the private sector becomes correspondingly worse." It's unfortunate that the city can't hire enough secretaries. Do I want them to poach competent workers from my ISP, Target, Amazon, or my insurance company? Not really, no.

Ericson2314 4y ago

I seem to have been upvoted.