As students of history may be aware of, Franklin D. Roosevelt put millions of Americans back to work during the Great Depression by using labor-intensive public works programs (http://www.fdrheritage.org/new_deal.). He put them to work doing the following:

-Building and repairing public roads, schools, parks, airports, etc. (Civil Works Administration, Works Progress Administration)
-Maintaining and restoring forests, beaches, and parks. (Civilian Conservation Corps)
-Painting murals (htmhttp://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html) on buildings.

Now, given the following facts:

-We're spending $920 million on the budget (http://www.okc.gov/finance/Proposed%20FY%2011-12%20Budget%20Book-Final%20Version.pdf) for 2011-2012.
-According to the Homeless Alliance's 2010 "Point In Time (http://www.homelessalliance.org/docs/2010PIT.pdf)" study, there were 1415 homeless persons in OKC in 2008, 1475 in 2009, and 1081 in 2010. I would guess we are back up near 1500 once more, from what I'm seeing in the city.
-Oklahoma City had a 6.6% unemployment rate (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/07/28/city-unemployment-rates-for-june-vegas-worst-washington-best/) in 2010, one of the best rates in the nation at the time. This makes for 37,524 unemployed people (http://www.greateroklahomacity.com/index.php?submenu=msalaborforceavailability&src=gendocs&ref=laborforceavailability&category=MSAData) as of 2010 in the city.

My thinking is that we could utterly eliminate homelessness and unemployment in the city with roughly 40,000 jobs. If you figure the jobs would be cheap, costing $10,000 each, then that is $400 million required for a public works program to remove unemployment altogether. If you figure administrative and maintenance costs would add another 10% to this overall cost, that is $440 million overall. Still, my point is that if using labor-intensive jobs where the only expenses are primarily personnel expenditures, it's possible to employ the whole of the city's unemployed for less than half of the budget. Obviously if the jobs were to pay only $5,000 each instead of $10,000, the works program would cost just $200-220 million.

Right now I'm just experimenting with the statistics to figure out what would be needed. The problem with the Stimulus is that it did not create labor-intensive jobs like these, but simply threw money around blindly. For example, you could pay 5 scientists to use pricey technology in research, or hire dozens (if not hundreds) of people to dig ditches for the same cost. Which is more effective for cumulative job creation?

The idea is to employ people at minimal extraneous cost, where materials, property, utilities, and transportation costs are minimized. Examples include cleaning up/repairing public buildings, community service, murals, census work, and conservation. Simply supply some shovels and gloves, and get people to work. A stimulus like this, the kind FDR used (as opposed to Obama's) would be highly effective for job creation. I for one would like to see us spend some money putting people back to work, rather than just on these high-tech projects for the city's wealthy minority, that serve as galas for the rich elite rather than the average citizen *cough* convention center *cough*.

As I have said in other threads I can support this as long as the legislation at local, state and federal levels is written to my approval and as a last resort. Since most of the infrastructure is 50 to 100 years old and so much of it is deteriorated to a great extent, they need to be brought up to speed by SOMEone. But, boy howdy, would everything need to be written out very carefully to make sure it evaporates as the work is winding down and to assure that no pockets of businesses or politicians are lined, or that there are no ghost employees, or that people are paid if they are not working. Let's discuss some of those details.

As students of history may be aware of, Franklin D. Roosevelt put millions of Americans back to work during the Great Depression by using labor-intensive public works programs (http://www.fdrheritage.org/new_deal.). He put them to work doing the following:

-Building and repairing public roads, schools, parks, airports, etc. (Civil Works Administration, Works Progress Administration)
-Maintaining and restoring forests, beaches, and parks. (Civilian Conservation Corps)
-Painting murals (htmhttp://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html) on buildings.

Now, given the following facts:

-We're spending $920 million on the http://www.okc.gov/finance/Proposed%20FY%2011-12%20Budget%20Book-Final%20Version.pdf for 2011-2012.
-According to the Homeless Alliance's 2010 "Point In Time (http://www.homelessalliance.org/docs/2010PIT.pdf)" study, there were 1415 homeless persons in OKC in 2008, 1475 in 2009, and 1081 in 2010. I would guess we are back up near 1500 once more, from what I'm seeing in the city.
-Oklahoma City had a 6.6% unemployment rate (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/07/28/city-unemployment-rates-for-june-vegas-worst-washington-best/) in 2010, one of the best rates in the nation at the time. This makes for 37,524 unemployed people (http://www.greateroklahomacity.com/index.php?submenu=msalaborforceavailability&src=gendocs&ref=laborforceavailability&category=MSAData) as of 2010 in the city.

My thinking is that we could utterly eliminate homelessness and unemployment in the city with roughly 40,000 jobs. If you figure the jobs would be cheap, costing $10,000 each, then that is $400 million required for a public works program to remove unemployment altogether. If you figure administrative and maintenance costs would add another 10% to this overall cost, that is $440 million overall. Still, my point is that if using labor-intensive jobs where the only expenses are primarily personnel expenditures, it's possible to employ the whole of the city's unemployed for less than half of the budget. Obviously if the jobs were to pay only $5,000 each instead of $10,000, the works program would cost just $200-220 million.

Right now I'm just experimenting with the statistics to figure out what would be needed. The problem with the Stimulus is that it did not create labor-intensive jobs like these, but simply threw money around blindly. For example, you could pay 5 scientists to use pricey technology in research, or hire dozens (if not hundreds) of people to dig ditches for the same cost. Which is more effective for cumulative job creation?

The idea is to employ people at minimal extraneous cost, where materials, property, utilities, and transportation costs are minimized. Examples include cleaning up/repairing public buildings, community service, murals, census work, and conservation. Simply supply some shovels and gloves, and get people to work. A stimulus like this, the kind FDR used (as opposed to Obama's) would be highly effective for job creation. I for one would like to see us spend some money putting people back to work, rather than just on these high-tech projects for the city's wealthy minority, that serve as galas for the rich elite rather than the average citizen *cough* convention center *cough*.

As I have said in other threads I can support this as long as the legislation at local, state and federal levels is written to my approval and as a last resort. Since most of the infrastructure is 50 to 100 years old and so much of it is deteriorated to a great extent, they need to be brought up to speed by SOMEone. But, boy howdy, would everything need to be written out very carefully to make sure it evaporates as the work is winding down and to assure that no pockets of businesses or politicians are lined, or that there are no ghost employees, or that people are paid if they are not working. Let's discuss some of those details.

Yeah, I was still writing the post, but it keeps logging me out of the forum, forcing me to rewrite my posts, for some reason. Very annoying. And it made a whole new post just now instead of editing like it was supposed to. This forum needs some better programming.

When you log in, are you checking the "remember me" box under the name-part? It is hard to see against the blue background It took me a while to figure that out! I'm more used to seeing "keep me logged in."

I haven't figured out how to edit, either.

I have had the same kind of problem with another forum that uses V-bulletin but not here yet. Sorry about it.

Still, I see no big issues the way you have framed it if we keep the perameters I listed. You can expect our neo-cons to come on here screaming at us, but we might get some ideas expanded by our local liberal. I'll keep a sharp eye on them for you though. :-) OK, ya'll, what say ye?

I for one would like to see us spend some money putting people back to work, rather than just on these high-tech projects for the city's wealthy minority, that serve as galas for the rich elite rather than the average citizen *cough* convention center *cough*.

I'm not sure what "high-tech" projects you are referring to for all of our "rich elite"? LOL

If you consider a convention center to be a facility for the "rich and elite", you are sadly out of touch with what is actually involved in the use of a convention center.

And you seem to be forgetting that all ongoing projects, civic and otherwise, are providing a huge boost in employment for all of the people needing shovels and gloves that you are worried about.

The problem with keynesian economics is you eventually run out of other people's money to spend. If you're waiting on the government to solve this problem, regardless of party affiliation, you're going to be waiting a really long time.

I'm not sure what "high-tech" projects you are referring to for all of our "rich elite"? LOL

If you consider a convention center to be a facility for the "rich and elite", you are sadly out of touch with what is actually involved in the use of a convention center.

And you seem to be forgetting that all ongoing projects, civic and otherwise, are providing a huge boost in employment for all of the people needing shovels and gloves that you are worried about.

I visit the Convention Center regularly. I suppose you're defending the recent dog show, or the car show, as stuff for the average folks, huh? Or maybe their upcoming American Idol Live event? Did you attend the recent City Council meeting where they disclosed their plans to use the hundreds of millions of extra dollars they got from the city by diverting it from senior wellness centers and transit (including parks and trails projects) to set up a huge underground section that may not even be possible for the funds? Did you hear the concern by board members about how they'd portrayed it all far differently when presenting MAPS before, and how they could be doing a Bait and Switch in asking for funds they never suggested would be required before? And they said the previous amounts would be enough?

The Convention Center right now looks pretty complete to me. What is it they are asking for all this extra money for?

I guess my other concern is that yes - these projects are creating jobs - but is that efficiently? Yeah, you can create 5,000 jobs, but if it costs $500 million, instead of $150 million, clearly there's a problem there if you're trying to create jobs. I'll mention the study I mentioned before the City Council (several times I cited it, actually):

The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities (http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf), by Pollin, R. and Garrett-Peltier, H. - Institute For Policy Studies (IPS), University of Massachusetts.

On page 6, this study has a great chart showing how many jobs and total wages/benefits are created on average when government spends on different sectors, per $1 billion of spending.

Defense: 8,555 jobs, $564.5 million wages/benefits
Tax Cuts For Personal Consumption: 10,779 jobs, $504.6 million wages/benefits
Health Care: 12,883 jobs, $730.1 million wages/benefits
Education: 17,687 jobs, $1,309.3 million wages/benefits
Mass Transit: 19,795 jobs, $880.1 million wages/benefits
Construction/Infrastructure: 12,804 jobs, $693.7 million wages/benefits

Now, my concern is that we are not spending in proper areas to maximize job creation and overall wages/benefits, by not utilizing labor-intensive work.

The problem with keynesian economics is you eventually run out of other people's money to spend. If you're waiting on the government to solve this problem, regardless of party affiliation, you're going to be waiting a really long time.

Not saying I agree with the original post, but Keynesian economics produced the biggest economic boom in American history. It built the middle class and our nation's infrastructure.

I'm not sure you're anti-Keynesian, but your post is crass and simplistic.

I visit the Convention Center regularly. I suppose you're defending the recent dog show, or the car show, as stuff for the average folks, huh? Or maybe their upcoming American Idol Live event? Did you attend the recent City Council meeting where they disclosed their plans to use the hundreds of millions of extra dollars they got from the city by diverting it from senior wellness centers and transit (including parks and trails projects) to set up a huge underground section that may not even be possible for the funds? Did you hear the concern by board members about how they'd portrayed it all far differently when presenting MAPS before, and how they could be doing a Bait and Switch in asking for funds they never suggested would be required before? And they said the previous amounts would be enough?

The Convention Center right now looks pretty complete to me. What is it they are asking for all this extra money for?

Lol, you've been in OKC for 2 months and you're an expert on how the convention center is used. A car show is for the elite? Right. That American Idol concert you mentioned is much more likely to attract the masses than the city's elite. Let's see about a few things coming up in the future.

2011 Oklahoma Super Trade Show (convenience store and supermarket trade show)

School Nutrition Trade Show

Devon United Way Kickoff

Historic Preservation Expo

Oklahoma Restaurant Convention & Expo

Mistletoe Market

2011 Inno Tech Oklahoma (Business and Techonology conference)

OHA (Oklahoma Hospital Association) Convention and Trade Show

I know you were here when the memorial for Clara Luper was held at the Cox. Perhaps you think she was part of the city's elite. But you probably never heard of her before you came here.

And don't forget the upscale and elite Red Andrews Dinner which is held every year. Do you even know what that is?

Get back to us when you know what you're talking about.

As students of history may be aware of, Franklin D. Roosevelt put millions of Americans back to work during the Great Depression by using labor-intensive public works programs (http://www.fdrheritage.org/new_deal.). He put them to work doing the following:

-Building and repairing public roads, schools, parks, airports, etc. (Civil Works Administration, Works Progress Administration)
-Maintaining and restoring forests, beaches, and parks. (Civilian Conservation Corps)
-Painting murals (htmhttp://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html) on buildings.

Now, given the following facts:

-We're spending $920 million on the budget (http://www.okc.gov/finance/Proposed%20FY%2011-12%20Budget%20Book-Final%20Version.pdf) for 2011-2012.
-According to the Homeless Alliance's 2010 "Point In Time (http://www.homelessalliance.org/docs/2010PIT.pdf)" study, there were 1415 homeless persons in OKC in 2008, 1475 in 2009, and 1081 in 2010. I would guess we are back up near 1500 once more, from what I'm seeing in the city.
-Oklahoma City had a 6.6% unemployment rate (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/07/28/city-unemployment-rates-for-june-vegas-worst-washington-best/) in 2010, one of the best rates in the nation at the time. This makes for 37,524 unemployed people (http://www.greateroklahomacity.com/index.php?submenu=msalaborforceavailability&src=gendocs&ref=laborforceavailability&category=MSAData) as of 2010 in the city.

My thinking is that we could utterly eliminate homelessness and unemployment in the city with roughly 40,000 jobs. If you figure the jobs would be cheap, costing $10,000 each, then that is $400 million required for a public works program to remove unemployment altogether. If you figure administrative and maintenance costs would add another 10% to this overall cost, that is $440 million overall. Still, my point is that if using labor-intensive jobs where the only expenses are primarily personnel expenditures, it's possible to employ the whole of the city's unemployed for less than half of the budget. Obviously if the jobs were to pay only $5,000 each instead of $10,000, the works program would cost just $200-220 million.

Right now I'm just experimenting with the statistics to figure out what would be needed. The problem with the Stimulus is that it did not create labor-intensive jobs like these, but simply threw money around blindly. For example, you could pay 5 scientists to use pricey technology in research, or hire dozens (if not hundreds) of people to dig ditches for the same cost. Which is more effective for cumulative job creation?

The idea is to employ people at minimal extraneous cost, where materials, property, utilities, and transportation costs are minimized. Examples include cleaning up/repairing public buildings, community service, murals, census work, and conservation. Simply supply some shovels and gloves, and get people to work. A stimulus like this, the kind FDR used (as opposed to Obama's) would be highly effective for job creation. I for one would like to see us spend some money putting people back to work, rather than just on these high-tech projects for the city's wealthy minority, that serve as galas for the rich elite rather than the average citizen *cough* convention center *cough*.

I agree that a Public Works Programs is a good way to help put people to work, anyone that is currently drawing an unemplyment should have to work on these projects or give up their unemployment benefits.

I agree that a Public Works Programs is a good way to help put people to work, anyone that is currently drawing an unemplyment should have to work on these projects or give up their unemployment benefits.

Agreed - we should provide the option to work for anyone who wants to, and then should be able to as you say, deny unemployment benefits and maybe even food stamps to anyone who refuses, with of course perhaps the rare exception for a severe disability or age. This has a Biblical basis, too:



For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.


Though the New Testament Church has been accused of socialism, it did not promote free rides either:



Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,


Acts 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Why would a non-secular govt. decision need a biblical basis for its existence? Not wanting to play tag on anyone's belief system, including my own, but there's no compelling need for such a connection.

Why would a non-secular govt. decision need a biblical basis for its existence? Not wanting to play tag on anyone's belief system, including my own, but there's no compelling need for such a connection.

I never said it needed a Biblical basis. I simply provided one as a by-the-by, since:

A) Most Americans claim to be Christians and thus to recognize the authority of the Bible.

B) The Bible includes ancient examples of governance that are interesting models for seeing how welfare and government should coincide, e.g. Deuteronomy 24:19 where the Israelites were commanded not to reap their fields a second time, leaving the excess harvest for immigrants, orphans, and widows (see also Deuteronomy 14:29, 26:12-13, 16:11-14 for more examples of ancient Biblical welfare). It is nice to have historical examples to reference when considering whether welfare should be done in exchange for work, and the Bible is not simply a book of moral commandments and teachings, but also a historical document as well. If there are other examples you know of off-hand that apply to welfare and work as relating to government then by all means mention them, I simply bring up some I know of personally.

C) In discussing whether recipients of welfare should work for it, we are discussing morality, and the Bible is the predominant authority on morality. When discussing morality, it is essential to discuss an authority for morality - as Ravi Zacharias has pointed out, a moral law cannot exist to the universe without a moral law giver. That is why people reference God when discussing morality, because we as humans alone have no power to institute such a moral code in the universe, we cannot even make ourselves one inch taller by our own determination, let alone institute such an invisible, binding law. We also all disagree with each other on what morality should be in its finer points, and none of us as sinful have inherent right to dictate to our fellow sinners what morality should be - therefore, only a greater being, i.e. God, has a right to dictate such a law. Furthermore, a law arguably cannot exist without finding its fulfilment in a being, a judge of the law, or a fulfilment of the law whom the law is based on, and that being is God. In short, to discuss morality, we inevitably defer to a source of morality.

Ultimately, I did not mention Bible verses because I said this needed a Biblical basis, simply as an interesting sidenote for the above reasons, since I thought they'd prove interesting and informative. They are relevant to the discussion as historical examples of an ancient system of government (the early Church) requiring welfare be done in exchange for work. I'm not aware off-hand of another ancient system of government that those who receive welfare or government provision also work. Therefore, I thought it a pertinent and useful factoid, and still don't see why mentioning it should be inappropriate.

Josh, just wanna say, I may not agree with you on a lot of issues, but you certainly present yourself with grace and your argument with clarity. I will continue to bite at your ankles but leave the heaving fight to the others. Carry on.

Not saying I agree with the original post, but Keynesian economics produced the biggest economic boom in American history. It built the middle class and our nation's infrastructure.



And now its time to pay for that "economic boom."

And now its time to pay for that "economic boom."

We removed a lot of the FDR implementations that created that boom after WWII. We didn't continue his public works or employment programs. We implemented free trade contrary to the tariffs we'd had non-stop since the nation's founding, so that jobs left the U.S. for China en masse. We stopped regulating prices and enforcing anti-trust laws, so that small businesses got destroyed, and monopolies once again grew, with CEOs giving themselves unprecedented salaries while defrauding homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages. We got away from FDR's tactics after WWII, and that is what's to blame for our current predicament.

We removed a lot of the FDR implementations that created that boom after WWII. We didn't continue his public works or employment programs. We implemented free trade contrary to the tariffs we'd had non-stop since the nation's founding, so that jobs left the U.S. for China en masse. We stopped regulating prices and enforcing anti-trust laws, so that small businesses got destroyed, and monopolies once again grew, with CEOs giving themselves unprecedented salaries while defrauding homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages. We got away from FDR's tactics after WWII, and that is what's to blame for our current predicament.

Well that solves that then. It's amazing that no one else has your insight into what could solve all of our current economic problems.

Cuba had 100% employment ... until last year when the State had to let go of 500,000 'employees' because they ran out of money. Of course, since it is a government run organization the layoffs are behind schedule.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12606044


Thousands of committees have been set up across the island to decide which jobs to eliminate and discuss the planned changes to the economy.


Thousands of Cubans have applied for licences to run their own businesses According to state TV, the economy minister, Marino Murillo, said some seven million Cubans had taken part in a total of nearly 130,000 such meetings.

But resistance among those supposed to implementing the cuts has clearly had an effect


Collectivism is a one-way street.

I didn't see it referenced, but for those who love WPA art, there is an awesome pre-depression on early Works Progress Art at the OKC Museum of Art.

I didn't know it, but apparently Roosevelt started the art program for public spaces before the Depression occurred and then "amped it up."

Also, I think many economists think that the WPA Program didn't go far enough with fully implementing Keynesian economics. Even then, people were afraid of fully embracing the theory. Many of those economists believe that it is the World Wars that forced spending thus fully implementing the stimulus that started with WPA and brought the theory into successful reality.

While the WPA did not survive, it established the "back bone" for belief in infrastructure building that lasted up into the early-mid 1970's. That includes the US Arm Corps of Engineers and dam building, highway system in the 1950's and do forth.

Obviously the major difference between today and yesteryear with Keynesian theories is that we run a huge deficit and unwavering dollar that FDR was not initially faced with.

I find it incredibly sad however that debates about Keynesian economics dominates the real need for competitive infrastructure. No matter whether your Democrat or Republican, government has a huge role to fill when it comes to keeping our country competitive with major infrastructure.

It is something that we have failed at terribly post Nixon. People need to leave Keynes buried, put their differences aside, and put Americans to work building things we can be proud of that all can use.

There must be a goal. NASA created jobs too, remember?

Collectivism is a one-way street.

Seems like the collective farms run by Seaboard, Tyson, Con Agra, et al. seem to be doing quite well.

Obviously the major difference between today and yesteryear with Keynesian theories is that we run a huge deficit and unwavering dollar that FDR was not initially faced with.

FDR did not have an American global empire with American military occupying hundreds of countries.

Not saying I agree with the original post, but Keynesian economics produced the biggest economic boom in American history. It built the middle class and our nation's infrastructure.

I'm not sure you're anti-Keynesian, but your post is crass and simplistic.
Except we are out of money, so did it really work, or was it a temporary stopgap measure to slow the bleeding, or expedite it depending on how you look at it.

No doubt. We export our wealth. We do it profoundly with oil imports too.

There must be a goal. NASA created jobs too, remember?

No doubt. That's exactly why I said "post Nixon" is when infrastructure spending dramatically declined proportionately. It does take goals and spirit.