Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Construction Gateway

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:29:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Texas has this program called Construction Gateway which aims to train about 100 people a year (it's small-scale for now) in the construction business. It's government funded by city and county taxes, and run by this guy who specifically picks up students in places like homeless shelters or accepts those who have dropped out of school, have spent time in jail, etc. Basically it's for people who have given up on ever finding a 'real' job and the video clip I saw featured a minority majority (hehe that sounds oxymoronic). Anyway the program has a 90% success rate; 9 out of 10 people who graduate from the program which I think lasts for 5 weeks are employed within days. This seems like a great second chance which benefits not only the individuals but society as well. Many of them have given up lives of crime for lives of hard work. Not to mention that the government doesn't have to support them, and they will be the ones to physically rebuild America in places of need. So what do you guys think of this program? I think it demonstrates how taxes can be used in a productive way and wish this could be the direction that welfare goes in (among other reform if not elimination).
President of DDO
collegekitchen3
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:33:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm always a fan for using tax dollars in situations that subsidize a positive externality.

In this case that positive externality would be the reduction in the unemployment taxes, the reduction in welfare taxes, the reduction in the crime rate, the increase in the work force (discouraged workers become less).

I couldn't give an opinion until I had hard numbers such as Crime rate fell by % due to program, Taxes were reduced X% due to program, etc. Then I would have to see if there was a dollar benefit to the taxpayer.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:36:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's government funded by city and county taxes

A company not responsible for funding itself is successful? Amazing!

Every so-called trainee trained by this program results in a lost job in the private sector. The taxes come from companies that succeed or fail by themselves, and those companies are forced to cut jobs or not hire because of the taxes they pay to another company.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:41:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It sounds good to me.
If the state can afford it, than more power to them.

If virginia did it, i would first look to see if my taxes are crazy high before they used it in that manner.
If my taxes are low and the budget is balanced than heck yeah.
This does sound like a great idea and does not seem like it would be expensive. Especially if they are being taught by building for members of the community for a low rate. Than you can take that money and help with the funding while providing good low cost results that the people can benefit from.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:42:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:36:56 PM, Nags wrote:
Every so-called trainee trained by this program results in a lost job in the private sector.

By mexicans that are not citizens.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:42:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If it's really such a great idea here's how you can prove it.

Get rid of this program, fire the bureaucrat who made it, have them seek private investment for the same essential program except operated on the basis of loans against the future income of the 90 percent who become employed rather than taxes from those who have nothing to do with the program (which leaves one with absolutely no way to calculate the value of the program), and watch them profit.

And "Not getting unemployment" is no more a positive externality than "not blowing up your neighbor" is a form of foreign aid.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:44:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:42:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/28/2010 1:36:56 PM, Nags wrote:
Every so-called trainee trained by this program results in a lost job in the private sector.

By mexicans that are not citizens.

Who gives a flying **** at a donut? How does being born somewhere else give you the right to, essentially, rob them (let alone rob the people who are citizens who find it more valuable to hire them than a local)?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
collegekitchen3
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:44:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:36:56 PM, Nags wrote:
A company not responsible for funding itself is successful? Amazing!

Nags, its not a company so much as it is a retraining program. The more pool of workforce you have the more efficient workers you have. The more efficient workers you have, the more efficient and profitable companies you have.

Don't discount retraining benefits in an economy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:46:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:44:14 PM, collegekitchen3 wrote:
At 2/28/2010 1:36:56 PM, Nags wrote:
A company not responsible for funding itself is successful? Amazing!

Nags, its not a company so much as it is a retraining program. The more pool of workforce you have the more efficient workers you have. The more efficient workers you have, the more efficient and profitable companies you have.

Don't discount retraining benefits in an economy.

Then prove them by subjecting them to, you know, economic calculation-- i.e. directly measuring the costs against the benefits, by seeing whether the program is profitable when operated without a subsidy.

As long as it's done in a context where "unemployment benefits" etc are eliminated there aren't even any real externalities to distort it. Even if there were, the answer is to do one's best to internalize them, not to exchange a distorted calculation for no calculation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:47:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:41:08 PM, comoncents wrote:
It sounds good to me.
If the state can afford it, than more power to them.


If virginia did it, i would first look to see if my taxes are crazy high before they used it in that manner.
If my taxes are low and the budget is balanced than heck yeah.
This does sound like a great idea and does not seem like it would be expensive. Especially if they are being taught by building for members of the community for a low rate. Than you can take that money and help with the funding while providing good low cost results that the people can benefit from.

Just to add that I would be ok if have the state funded it for a year and re-evaluate to see if they can become self sufficient, look for renewal after a year, if they can not sell their work for cheap than extend another year but with less funding but still compensating for inflation.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:47:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:44:14 PM, collegekitchen3 wrote:
Nags, its not a company so much as it is a retraining program. The more pool of workforce you have the more efficient workers you have. The more efficient workers you have, the more efficient and profitable companies you have.

Don't discount retraining benefits in an economy.

A few hundred people get trained at the expense of everyone else. Even the unemployed pay for the unemployed to get trained. It's silly. If a private construction company wanted pre-trained workers, they would simply pay Construction Gateway to train workers for them.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:48:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:44:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/28/2010 1:42:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/28/2010 1:36:56 PM, Nags wrote:
Every so-called trainee trained by this program results in a lost job in the private sector.

By mexicans that are not citizens.

Who gives a flying **** at a donut? How does being born somewhere else give you the right to, essentially, rob them (let alone rob the people who are citizens who find it more valuable to hire them than a local)?

I am just saying.
collegekitchen3
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:53:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:46:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Then prove them by subjecting them to, you know, economic calculation-- i.e. directly measuring the costs against the benefits, by seeing whether the program is profitable when operated without a subsidy.

Your problem with this is that you fail to put any economic benefits onto positive externalities. As I said, positive externalities generate dollar amounts which aren't directly translated as profit.

As long as it's done in a context where "unemployment benefits" etc are eliminated there aren't even any real externalities to distort it. Even if there were, the answer is to do one's best to internalize them, not to exchange a distorted calculation for no calculation.

I agree, I think the company should do the the analysis of the benefit its creating and report it to the government. However not every benefit can be directly translated, such as a deduction in the crime rate etc.
collegekitchen3
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:55:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:47:57 PM, Nags wrote:
A few hundred people get trained at the expense of everyone else.
They would be an expense to everyone else if they were in jail, causing disruption and violence, and receiving welfare benefits. I for one would rather have them working than lounging.

If a private construction company wanted pre-trained workers, they would simply pay Construction Gateway to train workers for them.

Obviously there are/should be restrictions on who can be admitted to the program (people who haven't been employed for X number of years etc.)
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 2:03:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:55:28 PM, collegekitchen3 wrote:
They would be an expense to everyone else if they were in jail, causing disruption and violence, and receiving welfare benefits. I for one would rather have them working than lounging.

False dichotomy. Why must the choice be between employment or jail/welfare?

If a private construction company wanted pre-trained workers, they would simply pay Construction Gateway to train workers for them.

Obviously there are/should be restrictions on who can be admitted to the program (people who haven't been employed for X number of years etc.)

I don't see how that refutes anything that you just quoted.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 2:40:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:53:25 PM, collegekitchen3 wrote:
At 2/28/2010 1:46:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Then prove them by subjecting them to, you know, economic calculation-- i.e. directly measuring the costs against the benefits, by seeing whether the program is profitable when operated without a subsidy.

Your problem with this is that you fail to put any economic benefits onto positive externalities
because they are by definition impossible to "put any onto" i.e. calculate. It's like going to the grocery store and getting a brown bag without seeing what's inside it.


As long as it's done in a context where "unemployment benefits" etc are eliminated there aren't even any real externalities to distort it. Even if there were, the answer is to do one's best to internalize them, not to exchange a distorted calculation for no calculation.

I agree, I think the company should do the the analysis of the benefit its creating and report it to the government. However not every benefit can be directly translated, such as a deduction in the crime rate
Considering such a thing is called "tribute" and is an incentive to be a criminal in the first place.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 3:13:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:42:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If it's really such a great idea here's how you can prove it.

Get rid of this program, fire the bureaucrat who made it, have them seek private investment for the same essential program except operated on the basis of loans against the future income of the 90 percent who become employed rather than taxes from those who have nothing to do with the program (which leaves one with absolutely no way to calculate the value of the program), and watch them profit.

And "Not getting unemployment" is no more a positive externality than "not blowing up your neighbor" is a form of foreign aid.

Like it or not, Unemployment exists and so this program makes sense. Perhaps your analogy would work if things like welfare and such weren't a reality, but they are, so basically this is just a useless rant. Even without exact monetary figures, obviously these people would have been receiving some sort of government funds (so not paying into the system at the same time) AND most likely they would have perpetuated their life of crime, thus stealing from society and adding to the monetary damage. Now clearly private investors have no incentive to invest in a program like this because profit isn't the goal/result.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 3:23:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 3:13:32 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/28/2010 1:42:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If it's really such a great idea here's how you can prove it.

Get rid of this program, fire the bureaucrat who made it, have them seek private investment for the same essential program except operated on the basis of loans against the future income of the 90 percent who become employed rather than taxes from those who have nothing to do with the program (which leaves one with absolutely no way to calculate the value of the program), and watch them profit.

And "Not getting unemployment" is no more a positive externality than "not blowing up your neighbor" is a form of foreign aid.

Like it or not, Unemployment exists
And this helps keep it that way.

and so this program makes sense.
If you want to keep things the way they oughtn't be. I prefer to, you know, attempt to get rid of evils, rather than accommodate them.

AND most likely they would have perpetuated their life of crime
Tribute! Appeasement!

Now clearly private investors have no incentive to invest in a program like this because profit isn't the goal/result.
I thought the point was to make them productive laborers, i.e., get them making profits? :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
collegekitchen3
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 5:01:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 2:40:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Considering such a thing is called "tribute" and is an incentive to be a criminal in the first place.

These criminals aren't Attila the Hun, Ragnar, they are humans like everyone else.

No one is going to say, crap now I'm gonna drop out of highschool, steal stuff, get caught, go to jail for 5 years, get out then work with other inmates at a construction company where they can train me for free!

LOL
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 5:05:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 5:01:55 PM, collegekitchen3 wrote:
At 2/28/2010 2:40:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Considering such a thing is called "tribute" and is an incentive to be a criminal in the first place.

These criminals aren't Attila the Hun, Ragnar, they are humans like everyone else
So was Attila the Hun, what's your point?

No one is going to say, crap now I'm gonna drop out of highschool, steal stuff, get caught, go to jail for 5 years, get out then work with other inmates at a construction company where they can train me for free!
Sure they are. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point to the program in the first place now would there?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 6:54:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 3:23:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If you want to keep things the way they oughtn't be. I prefer to, you know, attempt to get rid of evils, rather than accommodate them.

So you're saying you never use anything that's government funded when you have another choice (ie. college)?

AND most likely they would have perpetuated their life of crime
Tribute! Appeasement!

...?

Now clearly private investors have no incentive to invest in a program like this because profit isn't the goal/result.
I thought the point was to make them productive laborers, i.e., get them making profits? :P

Yes, they would make profits. This idea is profitable to society (including individuals) but the goal wouldn't be for investors to profit. That system is called a bank and they're all failing.
President of DDO