Awfully late in the thread to say something this inane.

BS, your article started this inane.

(Kinda glad I missed this thread.)

So my schoolteacher mom doesn't really have a job

Awfully late in the thread to say something this inane. Yes, she has a job. Someone hired to paint the school for two weeks, not so much.

As a self-employed engineer, I have recently had to seek work, even from government sources. While this work pays my bills, it is not my job. Every time the work is done, I have to seek new work. Bear in mind that this work that I seek is increasingly outside the realm of the job which I spent 8 years training for. I do not hire employees for this work, it is acutely finite and inherently fickle.

Because I am forced to seek work, I can not do my job. Because I can not do my job, I can not grow my company.

And because I can not grow my company, I can not create new jobs...

...I can only do work.

Then you are blind. See Kennedy/Johnson 63/64, Reagan in the 80's and Bush in 2003.

By the way. How's that "only Republicans hire lobbyists" assertion workin' out fer ya???

tom p,

Another quick question.
Given the current economic situation if you found employment where you could use your skills that held out some hope of being "permanent--i.e. indefinite" and paid similar to what you are used to being paid, would you go for it or hold out for more contract work?

A clarification: I don't do "contract" work. I am an employee with all my taxes taken out, as well as health and pension etc.

To the question Steve: I am unsure. I have been a carpenter for 30 yrs. I like what I do and I am good at it. I get to be outside all the time. The guys I work with are some of the best and it is never boring (there is a feeling one gets when working on high steel that is unlike any other). At the same point, I am getting old and the wear and tear has definitely taken it's toll (arthritis, bursitis, tendonitis and more)

I guess I would probably go for it, but it would not be an easy choice and would depend in no small part on what kind of work I would be doing.

What are your views on private companies doing the right thing, rather than the cheap or expedient thing? (I have a list of examples if you want. Here's one near the top: knowingly shipping out salmonella-contaminated peanut butter.)

I think doing the right thing for a company is generally not what they should be doing. However, I do think a firm should be trying to maximize profits while remaining within the bounds of legal behavior. Knowingly shipping salmonella obviously falls outside of that bound in both ways in that

1. It is almost surely illegal,
2. Is a great way to destroy your cusomer base.

Tax cuts are stimulative? Not that I've seen.

Permanent tax cuts? Yes. Temporary tax cuts? Not so much.

The issue isn't whether a factory job is "permanent," or not. Or if a construction trades job is really a "job." Posters leaning on those distinctions are just being silly.

Steve Verdon hit the relevant point. This issue revolves around "permanent income" expectations.

If you are a construction tradesman, then it would be realistic for you to gage your long term employment prospects, and then your savings and spending habits based upon long term demand for residential and commercial construction. So unless you think the "stimulus" bill will become a permanent spending bill, you shouldn't count on more than a year or two, and will set your spending habits accordingly. Its an artificial and temporary pop. So much for multipliers and such. And two years from now you'll be gassed.

On the flip side. Discrediting efforts to spawn sustainable employment growth by noting that "no job is permanent" is just high school level analysis. Long term employment growth must be the goal, and therefore it must be based upon sustainable demand for goods and services. Those things generally come from genuine market demand (the consumer, really) and from innovation and investment. A recent commentary by Barro noted that tax cuts are the better mechanism not just because they put money in people's pockets, but they alter incentives, and therefore long term investment and work behavior.

Look guys, the intersection of politicians showering dollars for bogus and temporary construction projects on their buds (not to mention political gifts, like ACORN funding) and sustainable long term growth is just about the null set.

Another quick question.

Given the current economic situation if you found employment where you could use your skills that held out some hope of being "permanent--i.e. indefinite" and paid similar to what you are used to being paid, would you go for it or hold out for more contract work?

Just curious, your answer could provide some anecdotal evidence to support my initial explanation...or not.

I think the conversation has moved away from the notion of permanent about 7 or so comments back.

Also the notion of value isn't always in question, the question is was that the best use of the resources? Government doesn't have to concern itself so much with that question and often does what is politically expedient. Politically expedient and what provides the most value are not always the same.

It sounds like you don't actually have a "job." Rather, you're an independent contractor.

I am a union carpenter, James, doing mostly commercial work, working for various contractors. At various times on any job there is a varying need for carpenters, but always the job comes to an end because the building is built. Might be a yr, might be 2, but they all end. Then we move on.

tom p,
It was a poor choice of words, but I wouldn't be surprised if your savings rate is higher than the average person's.

Absolutely right Steve, about 15% over and above my pension contributions. Any overtime I get goes straight into the savings as well.