Infrastructure Bill 2021

[Rothman]

Meanwhile, Oklahoma DOT has no bonding authority at all, and can only pay for projects with the money the Legislature gives them. (This is why, among other things, the I-235/I-44 interchange has taken 11 years to reconstruct, because only so much money is available each year for the project).

OTA is allowed to issue bonds because they have a non-tax income source to pay them off, which is why turnpike projects are completed so much faster than free road projects here.

It's a weird arrangement in NY.  I don't think NYSDOT does the bonding itself, but it is handled by the Department of Budget and then handed over to NYSDOT.  This is definitely true for personal income tax bonds (i.e., bonds that use income tax revenue as collateral).

Every year (or maybe semi-annually), NYSDOT submits a report to DOB on its bondable projects and the "bond life" of such projects for other bonds taken out against the value of the assets affected.

NY is great at taking full advantage of the legal framework and any loopholes contained therein.

[ITB]

With passage by the Senate on a bipartisan 69-30 vote, the legislation moves to the House, which will take up the bill when it reconvenes in mid-September.

The House is now planning to reconvene on Aug. 23.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/567269-its-now-pelosis-move-on-bipartisan-roads-bill

Nice catch. I wasn't aware of that.

[Avalanchez71]

We still do not know what will be spent on transportation.  It appears that there is opposition to transportation.  Not delving further with this post.

Wut.

The summary a few points above provides a lot of info that is contrary to your conclusion.

The bill has to go back to the House.  There are those in the House that do not want money spent on non-green type transportation.

[Scott5114]

The House has fewer procedural rules than the Senate does that allow a minority to block legislation they do not like, though. Once it gets put on the calendar by the Speaker, the only real way to defeat legislation in the House is to have more than half of the body vote against it. (No filibuster rules here.) And I'm pretty sure that the idea that more than half of the House "does not want money spent on non-green type transportation" enough to defeat the bill is wishful thinking.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I don't know if a California like SB-1 would fly there.

I find the public mostly ignorant of how much of transportation is supported by bonding (borrowing money) rather than taxes at the state level...

To be fair, NY is a bit odd relative to many states because we're funded entirely out of the general fund, not the gas tax (which goes to that fund and is just another tax in NY).  In many states, probably even most, the DOT is funded directly from the gas tax.

Well, no, NYSDOT is not entirely funded by taxes -- not by a long shot.  Various types of bonds -- especially personal income tax bonds -- represent a significant percentage of NYSDOT's capital program now.

And, in my personal opinion, even if a citizen looked at the types of bonds, they would mistake what those bonds are being spent on (i.e., the bonds may sound like they are for a specific initiative, but the projects really are just core projects).

Has there been any interest at all to change that?

[Rothman]

I'm really surprised NYSDOT is so strapped for cash. I don't know if a California like SB-1 would fly there.

I find the public mostly ignorant of how much of transportation is supported by bonding (borrowing money) rather than taxes at the state level...

To be fair, NY is a bit odd relative to many states because we're funded entirely out of the general fund, not the gas tax (which goes to that fund and is just another tax in NY).  In many states, probably even most, the DOT is funded directly from the gas tax.

Well, no, NYSDOT is not entirely funded by taxes -- not by a long shot.  Various types of bonds -- especially personal income tax bonds -- represent a significant percentage of NYSDOT's capital program now.

And, in my personal opinion, even if a citizen looked at the types of bonds, they would mistake what those bonds are being spent on (i.e., the bonds may sound like they are for a specific initiative, but the projects really are just core projects).

Has there been any interest at all to change that?

No.  Frankly, I don't think anyone cares enough to look at this level of detail when it comes to transportation funding.  You say "bonding" and people's eyes glaze over and the roads get paved and bridges fixed like they want as hundreds of millions a year in bonds are issued and treated as a drop in NY's debt bucket.

[triplemultiplex]

NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

[hbelkins]

NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

We have trouble keeping CDL holders, especially in our counties that are closer to central Kentucky.

[Rothman]

NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

The States need money to hire.  Capital program federal funds do not pay for salaries and wages and a basic level (i.e., right out of pocket).  That said, some activities, like in-house design are reimbursible.  Scoping and the like can be funded with Statewide Planning and Research (SPR) funding. 

Short of it:  States put up the wages and benefits cost up front out of State funds and then only some of those can be federally reimbursed.

[Rothman]

NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

We have trouble keeping CDL holders, especially in our counties that are closer to central Kentucky.

Pfft.  The higher minimum wage is not an issue for NY.

Are your CDLs going private because public salaries aren't competitive?  That's the case up here with licensed engineers and our CDL shortage, rather than people wanting to work minimum wage or collect welfare.

[Scott5114]

NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

Total bullshit. Fast food places are having trouble hiring because it's a shit job and you have to deal with customers with personalities comparable to diseased feral cats. The increased wages in food service and retail are a correction to what they always deserved to be paid in the first place.

[Dirt Roads]

Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

Total bullshit. Fast food places are having trouble hiring because it's a shit job and you have to deal with customers with personalities comparable to diseased feral cats. The increased wages in food service and retail are a correction to what they always deserved to be paid in the first place.

Kind of harsh, don't you think?  I'm hearing someone who is a KyTC employee that doesn't make enough money to fund a modest Roadgeek hobby get whacked after he tried to make a connection between one type of employment issue with another type of employment issue.  Not sure that I see the connection between the two types of employment, but I understand why he is angry.  And I understand why others on the opposite side of this argument are angry.  Unfortunately, the Infrastructure Bill isn't going to help either group unless you want to "grab a shovel" and go where the work is.  I did just that some 36 years ago, and it was a blast.  If I could, I'd love to get back in the trenches.

[Scott5114]

Not at all. The idea that the current employee shortages in the service sector are because "people won't work because they're drawing benefits" is bullshit and needs to be called out as such.

That being said, H.B. deserves a raise too.

[vdeane]

Another issue with DOT staffing is that the civil service system is slow.  By the time your typical civil engineering graduate has taken a civil service exam, gotten the results, applied for a posting, gotten an interview, and finally gotten an offer, they've probably already been employed elsewhere for a while.  This is true even if you only count from the time one gets the test results.  Hiring in the state takes a LONG time.  When I got my job, I applied in January, interviewed in mid-March, and got the offer at the end of April.

All that is moot, of course, because getting approval to post a job for anything other than a maintenance worker is hard these days for NYSDOT.  IIRC, the hiring freeze that was put into place in 2020 hasn't been fully lifted.

[Mapmikey]

One cannot quit a job to get the Covid benefits (outside narrow circumstances involving having Covid).  Also, if you were laid off and are receiving the enhanced benefits, if your former employer offers you the job back, you have to take it or lose the benefits (again, outside some narrow circumstances).

That said there will always be a way for a small group of people to figure out how to game the system.  It's difficult to not have this in a nationwide program of any kind.

But I see plenty of 'we're hiring' signs for all kinds of businesses offering well more than $600 a week (the enhanced benefit is only $300 a week now anyway, and 26 states have already stopped giving the enhanced benefits, which currently stop Sep 6 everywhere else).  There are other issues as well...is there enough child care available? 

[hbelkins]

Kentucky did away with the civil service exam a few years ago, and now applicants qualify based on experience and education, although I'm sure there are some subjective criteria in there as well, and there are veterans preference points.

That being said, it's slow getting a job posted and filled here too. Even if someone gives ample notice of retirement and the upcoming vacancy is known well in advance, they wait until the position is vacant before they hire someone to fill it, instead of having someone ready to move in the next day after the retiring employee departs.

As far as retaining employees goes, in our westernmost counties, there are better-paying jobs available in adjacent counties. And some of them are close enough to Lexington to make commuting an attractive option if the pay is good enough. And even in other, more remote counties. it's often cheaper for CDL holders to take jobs as OTR truckers because the financial gain for their families is worth being away from them for days at a time. Plus, there's the issue of being on-call 24/7/365, not just in winter for snow removal, but for rock/mudslides, fallen trees, flooding, etc.

In general, this region has gone from people looking for work and being told no one is hiring, to plenty of open jobs but people unwilling to take them. Those people are surviving somehow if they're not working for a living.

As far as what employment boosts the infrastructure bill might give, wages will be impacted by Davis-Bacon provisions and contractors will have to pay prevailing wage (union scale) on those jobs that are federally funded. No such restrictions exist for state-funded projects and they're subject only to the state's minimum wage laws.

There have been some salary adjustments for various classes, but in Kentucky, an employee who has held the same job title and classification has effectively not had a raise since 2007. Minuscule raises given during the last years of Gov. Steve Beshear's second term did not offset the negative impacts of furloughs earlier in his tenure. No raises were given during Matt Bevin's four years and none so far have been forthcoming during two years under Andy Beshear. Ernie Fletcher was the last governor who budgeted raises across the board, and Paul Patton was the last governor who budgeted for the statutorily-required 5 percent annual increments.

[Rothman]

So, yes, private sector pays more for CDLs and engineers in KY.

Still not sure what that has to do with help wanted signs for minimum wage jobs.

[HighwayStar]

NY has been hit with a wave of retirements, both in the private and public sectors.  Without contractors/consultants or governmemts (State and local) having the ability to hire, this may be a case where you have more money than ability to develop projects (i.e., get them through preliminary design).

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

Hard to do that when you have people who won't work and would rather draw whatever benefits they can than actually hit a lick at a snake. If fast-food places are having trouble hiring at $12-15 per hour, governments (that typically pay less than the private sector for the same types of work) are certainly going to have trouble.

Total bullshit. Fast food places are having trouble hiring because it's a shit job and you have to deal with customers with personalities comparable to diseased feral cats. The increased wages in food service and retail are a correction to what they always deserved to be paid in the first place.

People don't "deserve" a wage any more than than they are "entitled" to gravity or electromagnetism. Wages are, in the absence of market distortion, the market clearing price for an equilibrium where quantity supplied is equal to quantity demanded.
Fast food wages have historically been low because it is low value added work. The marginal productivity of an additional worker is low, therefore employers do not demand labor past a certain price point as it would be NPV negative to do so.
The end result is low wages. Wages are high now, not because people "deserve" anything, but because the labor supply curve has been shifted left by paying people to not work. When you are paid to sit on the couch and drink you have no incentive to go work for the same or slightly more money.
There is some demand side mixed in here as well, but by far the largest issue is a supply side problem of people not going back to work because they have too much free money to make it worth their while.
If the rule of a man not working, neither shall he eat, is reimposed, then the supply curve would shift right, resulting in wages ceasing to rise, or perhaps even falling.
And of course laid on top of all of this is a strong inflationary component, where I have doubts that real fast food wages have risen as much as  people think.

[hotdogPi]

People deserve a living wage. Why do you think that some jobs should pay so little that you can't even afford rent on your apartment?

The market equilibrium is not the optimal solution here, since it puts many people in poverty.

[HighwayStar]

People deserve a living wage. Why do you think that some jobs should pay so little that you can't even afford rent on your apartment?

The market equilibrium is not the optimal solution here, since it puts many people in poverty.

People do not "deserve" anything. What you decide one person "deserves" beyond its actual value implies you must steal from another.

What do I think of those jobs? The answer is actually obvious, that the market value of that person's labor in that job produces less wealth than it takes for them to live in their own apartment. Simple as that. The obvious implication is that they need to either A) live within their means, which might mean taking roommates, living with mom and dad for a bit, etc. or B) increase their skills and their labor market value to try and earn a higher income or C) a combination of both.

And it does NOTHING to put people in poverty, since poverty is defined as some lower tier of the current incomes.
There was a study done a few years ago, which is still applicable, on what people who were below the "poverty line" had, it found, amongst other things, that the typical household below the poverty line "has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR". On a more personal note, when I worked in the grocery store (for minimum wage mind you) I got a first hand look at how the supposedly "poor" live. By and large, people that came in to pay with food stamps were overweight indicating they had plenty of food, tattooed indicating they had disposable income for body art, and bought more junk food, booze, and cigarettes than the average customer. And yet they still needed my income taxes to be taken from me to pay for their food stamps.

The point here is that the poverty line is always a relative definition, so no amount of increasing wages will remove poverty defined that way, and if we define it in constant terms it is exceptionally rare today by any reasonable definition.

That is not to say I don't want high wages and prosperity, I do, but that cannot be produced by paying people more than their contribution actually is, nor can it be done by simply transferring it from those who produced it to those that don't. High wages and general prosperity result from macroeconomic conditions that have to be carefully developed though good policies, among them building roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. that are a public good.

[Rick Powell]

Makes me think this infusion of funds would be cause for state DOT's to staff up a little more; same for all the contractors out there who bid on these types of projects.  If they have 5 years to turn this money into action, it's all hands on deck and then some.

In Illinois, we passed a large capital improvement plan called "Rebuild Illinois" that created more work. However, the IDOT's plan to rebuild the department hasn't generated the results they wanted, and the same is pretty much true for Chicago DOT and the counties, all of who I work with, who are sometimes losing more employees to early retirement than they are gaining with new hires. Typically, state infusion of cash has yielded more work than federal funding increases, so even with the largesse of the coming federal bill, I am not sure it will translate to a hiring increase by the state and local DOTs. Consultant and contractor world, yes. Our skills are in high demand in the private sector these days (and in turn makes it harder for the DOTs to hire new or experienced employees at their pay scales). In heavily unionized states like IL, the contractors are limited by the number of available employees in the unionized labor pool, so it's either ramp up the apprenticeship program, work more OT and pay the premium (which is built into bid prices), or a combination of both.

[hotdogPi]

People deserve a living wage. Why do you think that some jobs should pay so little that you can't even afford rent on your apartment?

The market equilibrium is not the optimal solution here, since it puts many people in poverty.

People do not "deserve" anything. What you decide one person "deserves" beyond its actual value implies you must steal from another.

What do I think of those jobs? The answer is actually obvious, that the market value of that person's labor in that job produces less wealth than it takes for them to live in their own apartment. Simple as that. The obvious implication is that they need to either A) live within their means, which might mean taking roommates, living with mom and dad for a bit, etc. or B) increase their skills and their labor market value to try and earn a higher income or C) a combination of both.

And it does NOTHING to put people in poverty, since poverty is defined as some lower tier of the current incomes.
There was a study done a few years ago, which is still applicable, on what people who were below the "poverty line" had, it found, amongst other things, that the typical household below the poverty line "has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR". On a more personal note, when I worked in the grocery store (for minimum wage mind you) I got a first hand look at how the supposedly "poor" live. By and large, people that came in to pay with food stamps were overweight indicating they had plenty of food, tattooed indicating they had disposable income for body art, and bought more junk food, booze, and cigarettes than the average customer. And yet they still needed my income taxes to be taken from me to pay for their food stamps.

The point here is that the poverty line is always a relative definition, so no amount of increasing wages will remove poverty defined that way, and if we define it in constant terms it is exceptionally rare today by any reasonable definition.

That is not to say I don't want high wages and prosperity, I do, but that cannot be produced by paying people more than their contribution actually is, nor can it be done by simply transferring it from those who produced it to those that don't. High wages and general prosperity result from macroeconomic conditions that have to be carefully developed though good policies, among them building roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. that are a public good.

• Actual poverty, defined as a constant amount, still exists in significant numbers. Some people can't pay their rent.
• You need a car unless you're in an area with decent public transit, air conditioning comes with pretty much every house or apartment, and DVD players and VCRs cost maybe $50 each.
• Poor people are more likely to be overweight because healthier food costs more. That's also why they're buying junk food.
• Some people aren't working because they don't want to get COVID-19. Have you forgotten there's a pandemic? In addition, to collect unemployment benefits, you need to have looked for work within the last four weeks.
• You call taking money from high-up employers "stealing". CEOs and others high up the management chain are receiving way too much money. They can definitely afford to give their employees a living wage, but like all humans, they're greedy and abuse their power.

[Scott5114]

Free market works both ways, bub. If demand exceeds supply prices go up. Same is true of labor as it is of goods. If you don't like it, move to Venezuela or something. That's what you're supposed to say when someone complains about capitalism, right? I'm new to this.

[Rothman]

Headed towards a thread lock...

[hotdogPi]

Headed towards a thread lock...

Delete the offending posts; keep the thread open.