NATION WITH CRUMBLING BRIDGES AND ROADS EXCITED TO BUILD GIANT WALL

[*bfine32*]

If folks don't want to have private companies kick in they simply pool from citizens drawing welfare. Draw your 26 weeks of "entitlements".

[Belsnickel]

(08-30-2016, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If folks don't want to have private companies kick in they simply pool from citizens drawing welfare. Draw your 26 weeks of "entitlements".

Or, we could call it what it is, and fund it as a project on the federal budget. Just call me crazy.

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2016, 03:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It would absolutely have an effect. Unemployment insurance rates can be increased depending on the number of people drawing and the time they are drawing on it. If you are continuing to count laborers employed by the government as unemployed, it is unfairly impacting the calculation used for those employers in those states that do this.

So you're saying it might motivate employers to find ways to keep their employees? Good point.

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2016, 03:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Or, we could call it what it is, and fund it as a project on the federal budget. Just call me crazy.

Sure we just differ over who gets the allocated funds.

You're crazy.

[GMDino]

(08-30-2016, 03:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Or, we could call it what it is, and fund it as a project on the federal budget. Just call me crazy.

which would actually be built by private companies.

But we shouldn't have to pay the workers so why pay the companies?

Wait...this IS starting to sound like a Trump plan! 

[Belsnickel]

(08-30-2016, 03:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure we just differ over who gets the allocated funds.

You're crazy.

No, we differ on where the funds come from. I have no problems with training a workforce from the unemployed and under employed that are capable of doing the work. I like the CCC idea. What I don't like is the idea of pulling money from an already overburdened and underfunded account to pay for the labor for a brobdingnagian barrier.

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2016, 03:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, we differ on where the funds come from. I have no problems with training a workforce from the unemployed and under employed that are capable of doing the work. I like the CCC idea. What I don't like is the idea of pulling money from an already overburdened and underfunded account to pay for the labor for a brobdingnagian barrier.

Welp the money has to come from somewhere if the Nation decides to build it. I get that those opposed to such a wall and a candidate that proposes such a thing will look at every hurdle possible and make it appear to be an unobtainable tasks. Some may even give the wall funny names.

We haven't even touched on Mexico's payment. I wonder if they would have anything to contribute if we threatened to break from NAFTA. My suggestion was to employ a workforce already being paid. This was predictably met with "forcing someone to work".

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-30-2016, 02:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The discussion is not if the wall is a good or bad idea. That can has been kicked down the road plenty. The discussion is IF (I capalized it again) a wall is to be built; who could it be funded to save they tax payer a few bucks.

Easy, If the Mexican are going to pay for it, have them build it as well.
Have the illegals build it as a form of amnesty.

Say you have a family of 5 illegal immigrants, 1 person needs to work a total of 5 months or divided up between multiple people) on the wall to make everyone legal in your immediate household.

Of course their entire family would need to be vetted and cleared before serving any time on the wall.

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2016, 03:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Easy, If the Mexican are going to pay for it, have them build it as well.
Have the illegals build it as a form of amnesty.

Say you have a family of 5 illegal immigrants, 1 person needs to work a total of 5 months or divided up between multiple people) on the wall to make everyone legal in your immediate household.

Of course their entire family would need to be vetted and cleared before serving any time on the wall.

But this would be "forcing" them to work.

I do understand what you are saying and there is a myriad of ways such a project could be funded. It's just much easier to suggest why something cannot be done.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

[Belsnickel]

(08-30-2016, 03:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp the money has to come from somewhere if the Nation decides to build it. I get that those opposed to such a wall and a candidate that proposes such a thing will look at every hurdle possible and make it appear to be an unobtainable tasks. Some may even give the wall funny names.

Agreed, the money has to come from somewhere. But redirecting funds out of unemployment isn't going to work. The biggest reason is that vast majority of money in unemployment insurance trusts lies with the states. The federal UI account is at a net loss. So there is no money for the federal government to pull from for the program. If they were pulling money to use for the project it would have to come from general funds either way, so it would make the most sense to fund it within the project.

I'm responding to this based on the assumption that the wall is going to be built. I'm not trying to create hurdles, only applying what actually would happen.

(08-30-2016, 03:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We haven't even touched on Mexico's payment. I wonder if they would have anything to contribute if we threatened to break from NAFTA. My suggestion was to employ a workforce already being paid. This was predictably met with "forcing someone to work".

Mexico isn't paying for it, there is no way that is going to happen. If Trump were to become POTUS they have no reason to cave in to that threat because they will be under the assumption he will be working to pull out of NAFTA anyway.

[McC]

(08-30-2016, 03:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is more than just rewriting code, though. We're talking about employing people to do the job, which means they are no longer unemployed. It's a very dishonest thing to do and would set a precedent that would destroy an already leaking unemployment system.

Part of the unemployment system, at least in the state of Ohio, is the employment section.  Anyone receiving benefits is required to look for work.  Obviously, they don't check everyone but they do engage in random checks and if you get caught not following the rules, you are subject to loss of benefits.

In the application process, you are required to list jobs you can do or would be willing to train to do.  Therefore, if you are offered a job in your chosen field or one closely related, you have to take the job or lose your benefits.

If the gov't came calling with thousands of new jobs in the construction industry, ten times more people than the jobs available would show up to apply and they wouldn't care if it was in the desert or not.

Also, these would not be minimum wage jobs.  Anyone who thinks that is clueless about the construction business.  Nobody in construction works for anywhere near minimum wage.  Unskilled labor on day one is making over $10/hr.

But this is all silly anyway.  No one is ever building a wall in front of Mexico.  Get real.

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2016, 04:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Mexico isn't paying for it, there is no way that is going to happen. If Trump were to become POTUS they have no reason to cave in to that threat because they will be under the assumption he will be working to pull out of NAFTA anyway.

Well assumptions are not always a good thing.

Would Mexico have motivation to contribute if we drew an pagreement stating we would remain in NAFTA?

[Belsnickel]

(08-30-2016, 04:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well assumptions are not always a good thing.

Would Mexico have motivation to contribute if we drew an pagreement stating we would remain in NAFTA?

Not sure. Depends on potential economic impacts. A lot more figuring than anyone on this board would be able to do.

[Belsnickel]

(08-30-2016, 04:22 PM)McC Wrote: Part of the unemployment system, at least in the state of Ohio, is the employment section.  Anyone receiving benefits is required to look for work.  Obviously, they don't check everyone but they do engage in random checks and if you get caught not following the rules, you are subject to loss of benefits.

In the application process, you are required to list jobs you can do or would be willing to train to do.  Therefore, if you are offered a job in your chosen field or one closely related, you have to take the job or lose your benefits.

If the gov't came calling with thousands of new jobs in the construction industry, ten times more people than the jobs available would show up to apply and they wouldn't care if it was in the desert or not.

Agreed.

(08-30-2016, 04:22 PM)McC Wrote: Also, these would not be minimum wage jobs.  Anyone who thinks that is clueless about the construction business.  Nobody in construction works for anywhere near minimum wage.  Unskilled labor on day one is making over $10/hr.

Also agreed. I hadn't gotten into that point but it was on my list of things to use further on.

(08-30-2016, 04:22 PM)McC Wrote: But this is all silly anyway.  No one is ever building a wall in front of Mexico.  Get real.

Maybe you missed this:

(08-30-2016, 02:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The discussion is not if the wall is a good or bad idea. That can has been kicked down the road plenty. The discussion is IF (I capalized it again) a wall is to be built; who could it be funded to save they tax payer a few bucks.

I don't think this is ever going to happen, but we're having the discussion with the assumption that it is going to happen. Hypothetical situation. It's also something that I can guarantee you with a 99.99999999999999999% certainty is happening in DC right now. When ideas are thrown out there like this, on the scale that Trump has done, even if it has zero chance of happening, there are people that take a look at the feasibility and figure out costs and where it would come from.

[McC]

(08-30-2016, 04:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agreed.


Also agreed. I hadn't gotten into that point but it was on my list of things to use further on.


Maybe you missed this:

I don't think this is ever going to happen, but we're having the discussion with the assumption that it is going to happen. Hypothetical situation. It's also something that I can guarantee you with a 99.99999999999999999% certainty is happening in DC right now. When ideas are thrown out there like this, on the scale that Trump has done, even if it has zero chance of happening, there are people that take a look at the feasibility and figure out costs and where it would come from.

There wouldn't really be that many jobs created anyway.  You have to have skilled craftsmen to do the majority of the job.  Unskilled labor usually is no more than 20%.  

Now, if there are a ton of unemployed able bodied craftsmen out there, that's potentially a different story.  Believe me, there aren't.  Skilled people are hard to find because they are already working for somebody.

This would be done by hundreds or thousands of sub contractors who will bring in their own people.

In essence, if you're looking to save money on a project, don't expect to save it on the labor side.

And I would fully expect the battle for this gov't contract to be truly intense.

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2016, 05:07 PM)McC Wrote: There wouldn't really be that many jobs created anyway.  You have to have skilled craftsmen to do the majority of the job.  Unskilled labor usually is no more than 20%.  

Now, if there are a ton of unemployed able bodied craftsmen out there, that's potentially a different story.  Believe me, there aren't.  Skilled people are hard to find because they are already working for somebody.

This would be done by hundreds or thousands of sub contractors who will bring in their own people.

In essence, if you're looking to save money on a project, don't expect to save it on the labor side.

And I would fully expect the battle for this gov't contract to be truly intense.

Wouldn't the fact that these types of workers are in high demand be a good reason for a training program?

How do we know that this would not be a project headed up by the Corp or Engineers?

How much would we be required to pay Mexican Nationals if a contract were made?

Just throwing these questions out there, not expecting an answer (really I'm not). We cannot always be bound by the way it has been especially given a project that has never been undertaken.

[*Nately120*]

(08-30-2016, 01:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would say the ability to build structures has a future in America. Not really sure we need a "wall builders program" perhaps the can learn on the job and earn a certification.

Who knows it could be offered at the basic education level for folks that don't want to take Chemistry.

Anymore questions?

Yes, can we drug test these lazy bums first?

[McC]

One thing to remember about a project like this is whatever the initial figure to do it might be, you can probably double it by the time you get it done.

[*Nately120*]

(08-30-2016, 05:25 PM)McC Wrote: One thing to remember about a project like this is whatever the initial figure to do it might be, you can probable double it by the time you get it done.

That's ok, we can just declare bankruptcy and leave the investors on the hook for the sunk costs.