BLS stats show little improvement under Obama and some losses

[Dittohead not!]

A high speed train will result in huge productivity gains, as businesses are able to draw on people up and down the state for expertise, and as tourism between the North and South increases. Faster means of travel has always been at the heart of productivity gains. Just ask Afghanistan.

Every continent except Antarctica has a bullet train -- well Antarctica and North America. A scandal.

A high speed train between LA and San Francisco might speed up travel. One between Madera and Bakersfield won't. Who is going to ride it? Who outside of California has even heard of Madera and Bakersfield?

 

[head of joaquin]

A high speed train between LA and San Francisco might speed up travel. One between Madera and Bakersfield won't. Who is going to ride it? Who outside of California has even heard of Madera and Bakersfield?

That's just the first build out. The purpose is to link LA and SF. I'm not sure about the merits of the build out (haven't followed it carefully but there are two sides to the issue from what I've heard), but are we discussing that or the ultimate issue: a bullet train between LA and SF?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Funny you cite no source for your opinion. We have pipe manufacturing plants already, though I think making the pipe for Keystone will 'save' jobs in China, not here. Same for the electronic controls. Grading, welding, concrete work- all the companies that do that sort of work are in place so I doubt there will be many if any new hires and any will be at the shovel handle side of the equation. Shot in the arm for local economies? Just how big a shot in the arm were the bridge and road construction jobs that were loudly panned by the 'drill baby drill' crowd? If we consult the employment rates of the very narrow band that is the pipeline reach from side to side across the heartland, if we look at the history of these areas and long term forecasts on 'growth' you will see first unemployment is far lower than the national average and the history/forecast is for a continued slide even lower economically as it lacks any sort of 'draw' for long term employment so the 'boost' will be like pouring a cup of water in the desert.

The crap in the railroad cars/pipelines isn't crude, it is sludge, tar sand ooze with a toxic thinner to make it at least appear to be a liquid. Like I said it makes far more sense to let the Canadians face the environmental nightmare of a spill in their nation than somewhere across the heartland of ours. I hope you are not trying to say pipelines don't have spills- the folks in Mayflower Ark, would disagree. At the MOST optimistic flow rates the sludge will provide 4% of the daily refinery capacity- not a big step toward energy independence. :roll:

All in all a lose lose for us and a huge win for Canada... not that I have a thing against smart Canadians...

By your reply, a little economic growth, some families getting jobs, a little more economic stability, another step..albeit a small one.. further towards energy independence isnt worth the effort because it isnt a one stop solution?

How many man hours will the pipeline save every year over the traditional truck driver driving it from point A to point B?
How much fuel would that save every year?
That would free up truck drivers to transport other loads. More competition means better pricing to the customer. A good example of this is that I can ship a 800 lb dining room table up to 500 miles for $420. 10 years ago that same shipment would run me $800-900. That savings I can pass along to my potential customers and be more competitive with my competition.

Not only would you get the direct effects of the pipeline you would also get the ripple effects.

There is no one size fits all solution to the mess we are in economically. A little growth in any portion of the country is good...we have to start somewhere and a little somewhere is better than nothing everywhere.
The decisions this administration is making only seem to be making things worse...or stagnating at the very best.

Getting back on topic...the decisions this administration is making...as been our conversation the past few posts...is hobbling any economic growth we might have. If it were not for people leaving the workforce since 2009, this administration would be facing an over 11% unemployment rate right now. And no one besides those of us on these types of boards are even aware of that. We are nothing more than a dummied down bunch of lemmings.

Bridge & construction jobs were Republican ideas when? The Porkulus Bill?

 

[Dittohead not!]

That's just the first build out. The purpose is to link LA and SF. I'm not sure about the merits of the build out (haven't followed it carefully but there are two sides to the issue from what I've heard), but are we discussing that or the ultimate issue: a bullet train between LA and SF?

The link from Madera to Bakersfield is supposed to be the first link. So far, the price tag has soared to a hundred billion, just for that section, and yet it is first because it is relatively cheap due to land prices and the absence of geographical barriers. Going over the Tehapis is bound to be more costly. It will be decades before anyone will be able to get on a high speed train in LA and go all the way to SF, if ever.

 

[code1211]

one of those 'librul' academic studies says far fewer jobs than 20,000 would be created by building the pipeline


Ogallala Aquifer

Your link says that 119,000 jobs is an overstatement.

It says nothing about the 20,000 jobs except that they will be created.

 

[notquiteright]

By your reply, a little economic growth, some families getting jobs, a little more economic stability, another step..albeit a small one.. further towards energy independence isnt worth the effort because it isnt a one stop solution? How many man hours will the pipeline save every year over the traditional truck driver driving it from point A to point B? How much fuel would that save every year? That would free up truck drivers to transport other loads. More competition means better pricing to the customer. A good example of this is that I can ship a 800 lb dining room table up to 500 miles for $420. 10 years ago that same shipment would run me $800-900. That savings I can pass along to my potential customers and be more competitive with my competition. Not only would you get the direct effects of the pipeline you would also get the ripple effects. There is no one size fits all solution to the mess we are in economically. A little growth in any portion of the country is good...we have to start somewhere and a little somewhere is better than nothing everywhere. The decisions this administration is making only seem to be making things worse...or stagnating at the very best. Getting back on topic...the decisions this administration is making...as been our conversation the past few posts...is hobbling any economic growth we might have. If it were not for people leaving the workforce since 2009, this administration would be facing an over 11% unemployment rate right now. And no one besides those of us on these types of boards are even aware of that. We are nothing more than a dummied down bunch of lemmings. Bridge & construction jobs were Republican ideas when? The Porkulus Bill?

By your refusal to be honest about the 'impact' the pipeline has on jobs vs environment vs amount of sludge being transported across the Heartland of our nation I can see how you would want to twist to discussion thusly. Your mindset makes the truck driver scenario a 'job creator' over the pipeline and the 4% of the daily refinery capacity is not a step toward energy independence. To use your dining room table example- the more dining room tables there are to ship and the fewer long term jobs available the more workers the more people will enter the exciting and rewarding field of long distance semi truck captaining. The embracers of free market would have you believing where there is a need there is a pull toward a solution.

There is a ripple effect to everything, the question has always been, be it ripple or trickle down, just how much of what actually gets past the first three layers. The 'conservatives' in congress were quick to claim the 'save jobs' programs they voted for are not effective and yet this pipeline somehow is. I'd say the Obama decisions are not the big block but the constant fight along political lines is. The 'conservatives' have taken a scorched earth mentality on anything not their think tanks, (and a few that did come from their crowd until it became a democrat program and then they hated it :roll: )

If ANY administration had to account for the no longer looking for work crowd their unemployment numbers would have been worst as well. While I agree the work force numbers are trending in a way we don't like I'd say the economy is shifting from heavy metal to paper shuffling and economic turmoil is part of the deal.

When our economy shifted from agrarian based to industrial the effect in many places and for a length of time caused great hardship and populous movements to 'fix' that. It also put a big strain on our educational system to turn semi-illiterate farm hands into factory workers able to read and write so they could learn the specs and procedures for the far more complex machines they tended compared to a team of horses.

So rather than clamor for more horse based farm jobs the nation shifted to machines and an more urban industrial base economy. We invested in the educational programs to support a shift to machines, a somewhat shaky shift to urban living, and a concentration of wealth leading to a rise of finance. (well compared to the banking industry the Founders knew)

Regressives seem intent on trying to turn back the clock, to cite our 'exceptional-ism' as a shield against progress and any sort of planning for that shift. Every man for himself while insisting the masses work hard to 'restore' our greatness....

To me it just seems very shortsighted to continue to rely on fossil fuels to the point we will ship a toxic sludge version of it completely across our heartland and DEMAND it be so as an 'economic boost' (4% of the total) rather than come up with a bipartisan path toward the next power source.

It is as if our grandfathers choose to retrench to horsepower rather than mechanization because one man with one machine could do the work of 48 horses and a dozen men- oh the horror of so many men turned out of work!!!! :shock:

 

[Somerville]

Your link says that 119,000 jobs is an overstatement.

It says nothing about the 20,000 jobs except that they will be created.

You rather obviously didn't read the report

» The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.

 

[code1211]

A high speed train will result in huge productivity gains, as businesses are able to draw on people up and down the state for expertise, and as tourism between the North and South increases. Faster means of travel has always been at the heart of productivity gains. Just ask Afghanistan.

Every continent except Antarctica has a bullet train -- well Antarctica and North America. A scandal.

I heard the high speed train planned for California was gong to be making several stops on its trip between the non population centers where it is planned to originate and terminate.

Why do we need a high speed train that stops every 3 miles?

 

[code1211]

The link from Madera to Bakersfield is supposed to be the first link. So far, the price tag has soared to a hundred billion, just for that section, and yet it is first because it is relatively cheap due to land prices and the absence of geographical barriers. Going over the Tehapis is bound to be more costly. It will be decades before anyone will be able to get on a high speed train in LA and go all the way to SF, if ever.

There is talk of building a light rail system inthe indianapolis area at some outrageous cost figure.

My question is always, "Why not build a good Bus System and see if the need exists for mass transit from the suburbs to the City?"

You can buy a whole big bunch of real nice buses for Eleventy two million dollars.

 

[code1211]

You rather obviously didn't read the report

I only read the part you posted.

 

[Moot]

I heard the high speed train planned for California was gong to be making several stops on its trip between the non population centers where it is planned to originate and terminate.

Why do we need a high speed train that stops every 3 miles?

What they really need to build is a high speed train from LA to Las Vegas. It would more than pay for itself...especially if it had a bar car.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I heard the high speed train planned for California was gong to be making several stops on its trip between the non population centers where it is planned to originate and terminate.

Why do we need a high speed train that stops every 3 miles?

None, really.
If a high speed rail existed between two major population centers, it would be great competition for the airlines. Take a plane, or take the train, the decision would be based on convenience and cost.
But HSR that stops every few miles isn't so high speed. What's the point, if it still takes longer to get to your destination than it does to drive?

 

[code1211]

What they really need to build is a high speed train from LA to Las Vegas. It would more than pay for itself...especially if it had a bar car.

Back in the Dark Ages when I was in School, I rode the train, AmTrak, to Baltimore where I made the first of many stupid decisions in my professional life.

There is an interaction on a train not possible on a plane. Like all things, this has upsides and downsides. An airplane is far less interactive.

Interestingly, at that time, at some point in my visit to Baltimore, I ended up in a Black neighborhood and, (by the by, I'm a White guy) wandered into a store and every eye in the place was on me. A mother was walking with her child, his hand stretched up to hold hers, seemingly his feet hardly brushing the ground as they walked, his eyes large and staring. There was a look of wonder on his face. I don't know that he had ever seen a white person in real life. If I had been a little green man, he could not have been more curious.

The looks on the faces of the adults were also filled with curiosity, but there was also suspicion, anger and readiness. I was not welcome in any way by any person. Even in my very cloistered existence to that point in life, I knew that I was glimpsing for a brief second what Black guys ran into daily when they left their neighborhood.

I learned much on that trip. One of those things allowed me to understand what Obama was talking about when he said that no US young Black man escaped the exact experience that I suffered in Baltimore that day. The way Obama told the story, this was inescapable and ongoing and unique to Blacks.

It might have nice if he had used the opportunity to include us all in that moment instead of just, once again, demonstrating how anything bad done by a Black person is the result of the hatred of White people.

Anyway, the train ride was a City of New Orleans kind of a growing for me.

 

[code1211]

None, really.
If a high speed rail existed between two major population centers, it would be great competition for the airlines. Take a plane, or take the train, the decision would be based on convenience and cost.
But HSR that stops every few miles isn't so high speed. What's the point, if it still takes longer to get to your destination than it does to drive?

I suppose if the two population centers are big enough, that's great. The Boston to Washington corridor has a pretty vital train system. Also a pretty dense population. From what I've observed, the denseness of the people seems to increase the closer they work to the Capital Dome.

But, seriously, what is the investment that has to be made to get this up and running? We already have planes and buses and these are funded by the private sector for the most part and already existing and already paying taxes.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

By your refusal to be honest about the 'impact' the pipeline has on jobs vs environment vs amount of sludge being transported across the Heartland of our nation I can see how you would want to twist to discussion thusly. Your mindset makes the truck driver scenario a 'job creator' over the pipeline and the 4% of the daily refinery capacity is not a step toward energy independence. To use your dining room table example- the more dining room tables there are to ship and the fewer long term jobs available the more workers the more people will enter the exciting and rewarding field of long distance semi truck captaining. The embracers of free market would have you believing where there is a need there is a pull toward a solution.

There is a ripple effect to everything, the question has always been, be it ripple or trickle down, just how much of what actually gets past the first three layers. The 'conservatives' in congress were quick to claim the 'save jobs' programs they voted for are not effective and yet this pipeline somehow is. I'd say the Obama decisions are not the big block but the constant fight along political lines is. The 'conservatives' have taken a scorched earth mentality on anything not their think tanks, (and a few that did come from their crowd until it became a democrat program and then they hated it :roll: )

If ANY administration had to account for the no longer looking for work crowd their unemployment numbers would have been worst as well. While I agree the work force numbers are trending in a way we don't like I'd say the economy is shifting from heavy metal to paper shuffling and economic turmoil is part of the deal.

When our economy shifted from agrarian based to industrial the effect in many places and for a length of time caused great hardship and populous movements to 'fix' that. It also put a big strain on our educational system to turn semi-illiterate farm hands into factory workers able to read and write so they could learn the specs and procedures for the far more complex machines they tended compared to a team of horses.

So rather than clamor for more horse based farm jobs the nation shifted to machines and an more urban industrial base economy. We invested in the educational programs to support a shift to machines, a somewhat shaky shift to urban living, and a concentration of wealth leading to a rise of finance. (well compared to the banking industry the Founders knew)

Regressives seem intent on trying to turn back the clock, to cite our 'exceptional-ism' as a shield against progress and any sort of planning for that shift. Every man for himself while insisting the masses work hard to 'restore' our greatness....

To me it just seems very shortsighted to continue to rely on fossil fuels to the point we will ship a toxic sludge version of it completely across our heartland and DEMAND it be so as an 'economic boost' (4% of the total) rather than come up with a bipartisan path toward the next power source.

It is as if our grandfathers choose to retrench to horsepower rather than mechanization because one man with one machine could do the work of 48 horses and a dozen men- oh the horror of so many men turned out of work!!!! :shock:

We are already shipping the sludge here now...on our highways & railways.
Are you insinuating that the busily traveled highways & railways is safer to transport the sludge than a pipeline?
Are you saying that it is cheaper to transport the sludge via highway & railway?
or is it that beings this project will be done by the private sector with predominately private money that it shouldnt be done because they will succeed where your beloved government fails?

There is no environmental issue on this...the sludge is already coming here on our public roadways...I would tend to believe that there are more chances that a tanker truck will be involved in an accident causing a spill than a pipeline rupturing. The odds alone tell that to be true.

As far as fossil fuels being a thing of the past and not wanting to rely on it...why not? Its here, just sitting there...why not use it? Why look past a proven fuel source? Why shun a reliable fuel source while we search for alternative sources? The alternatives we have now wont supply the needs of people here and now.

Like I said earlier, a small gain in employment, a small gain in energy independence, a small gain in getting our economy back growing again...small steps forward are much better than standing still...like we have been doing since 2009...you know..the administrations "summer of recovery".

 

[Imnukingfutz]

You rather obviously didn't read the report

» The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.

Is that temporary jobs created in Canada? How would the Canadians know how many jobs would be created or how many people it would take to build a pipeline in and across another country?
I find it hard to believe that the Canadian report is talking about jobs in the US...and if it is, I dont know what weight to put behind the report.

 

[code1211]

Is that temporary jobs created in Canada? How would the Canadians know how many jobs would be created or how many people it would take to build a pipeline in and across another country?
I find it hard to believe that the Canadian report is talking about jobs in the US...and if it is, I dont know what weight to put behind the report.

The link went to an environmentalist blog site. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly slanted to a predetermined conclusion.

 

[notquiteright]

We are already shipping the sludge here now...on our highways & railways.
Are you insinuating that the busily traveled highways & railways is safer to transport the sludge than a pipeline?
Are you saying that it is cheaper to transport the sludge via highway & railway?
or is it that beings this project will be done by the private sector with predominately private money that it shouldnt be done because they will succeed where your beloved government fails? There is no environmental issue on this...the sludge is already coming here on our public roadways...I would tend to believe that there are more chances that a tanker truck will be involved in an accident causing a spill than a pipeline rupturing. The odds alone tell that to be true. As far as fossil fuels being a thing of the past and not wanting to rely on it...why not? Its here, just sitting there...why not use it? Why look past a proven fuel source? Why shun a reliable fuel source while we search for alternative sources? The alternatives we have now wont supply the needs of people here and now. Like I said earlier, a small gain in employment, a small gain in energy independence, a small gain in getting our economy back growing again...small steps forward are much better than standing still...like we have been doing since 2009...you know..the administrations "summer of recovery".

That we are already sending the sludge across the heartland is not my point- it should not be traveling across the nation at all. It should stay in Canada and be refined there.

I insinuate nothing. The difference is a pipeline break would dump hundreds of thousands of barrels of highly toxic sludge as in the Mayflower Ark pipeline failure- May26 200,000 barrels of the Canadian sludge laced with a dozen or so cancer causing chemicals. That's roughly 1000 semi loads of sludge. And that pipeline isn't as big as the Keystone pipeline.

Many fossil fuel promoters remind me of addicts. The lengths they go to to obtain, the justifications they use for those rather extreme measures. Tar sands are not pumped but huge overburden areas are stripped bare in the ecologically fragile arboreal forests, hauled by truck to a plant that uses some extremely caustic chemicals to strip the sand of SOME of the tar and then send that ca-ca to a plant to strip those chemicals out and add other 'lubricant' chemicals such as benzine so the clotty mess will flow through a pipeline. It reminds me of a drunk searching through the house for anything, and I mean anything, to drink finally ending up in the bathroom drinking the mouthwash after having downed the vanilla extract in the kitchen. :doh

Now funny thing about those who cling to oil, they want a cheap alternative right beside them before they even think about a change. I use my wife's long running love affair with the microwave as a teachable moment. 30 years ago she bought her first microwave oven for just under 400 bucks- three buttons, a dial and just enough room inside for a TV dinner. Now we have one that is an aircraft hanger with turntable, a touch pad that does amazing things and for 100 and change.

Canadian sludge doesn't make us anymore energy independent- Canada is a separate country we pay, for that oil so the balance of trade doesn't change. It is 4% of the refinery cap and the oil those converted refinery space used to process is now being refined in Canada.

The pipeline shows just how warped our energy policy is when big oil gets to drive the process.

 

[Fisher]

None, really.
If a high speed rail existed between two major population centers, it would be great competition for the airlines. Take a plane, or take the train, the decision would be based on convenience and cost.
But HSR that stops every few miles isn't so high speed. What's the point, if it still takes longer to get to your destination than it does to drive?

Well it does compete with airlines on the east coast, especially in the DC-Philly-NY corridor where you might be sitting for endless delays on shuttle flights. The problem with rail, at least in the east is that it is North-South seaboard oriented. If you want to go east-west and don't live near a rail hub, you are kind of screwed if you want to go by train because you are going to be going all over God's creation with massive stop-overs. You'd be better off taking a plane or bus.

 

[Somerville]

Is that temporary jobs created in Canada? How would the Canadians know how many jobs would be created or how many people it would take to build a pipeline in and across another country?
I find it hard to believe that the Canadian report is talking about jobs in the US...and if it is, I dont know what weight to put behind the report.

Please remove the Goggles of Truth and take a couple minutes to read the report.

The link went to an environmentalist blog site. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly slanted to a predetermined conclusion.

Cornell University is an "environmentalist blog"?

 

[code1211]

Please remove the Goggles of Truth and take a couple minutes to read the report.



Cornell University is an "environmentalist blog"?

The link went to the Ogallalla Aquifer.

 

[Somerville]

Go back to post #40 and read again. There are two links in the post - ONE of them links to the business report published by a group at Cornell Univ.

 

[tererun]

He is obama and I would have him approve immediately the Keystone Pipeline and then declare that America will be energy independent within 10 years and commit the national energy policy to achieving exactly that thorough the expedited implementation of Fracking wherever possible and conversion to Compressed Natural Gas in every wheeled vehicle possible combined with an accelerated program to create a usable and cost effective method to burn coal cleanly.

First off, let us explain the keystone pipeline to you. You see the oil from those areas already goes to america for a large part. Yes, we are already getting it. the reason they want the pipeline is to get it to texas which has ports so it can go on the world market. America is not going to be the only person getting that oil, and the people who will profit from it will be the oil companies who will not have to dump it cheaper in the midwest US when they have a global market for it. Second, the jobs will be temporary. We are not going to be building this thing forever, we will only have a couple of years. Besides, 20k jobs (which is a huge overstatement of the temporary employment it will create) is not a lot of jobs for a temporary measure which will raise prices for gas in the midwest and not make america energy independent as you say. Fracking has it's downsides too, and you do not want it in your backyard. Flammable chemical laden tap water sucks. Not to mention the sink holes and other problems associated with it.

Are you a walking advertisement for the corporate interests who run the republican party, or what?

To promote the conversion of fleets to CNG, he could offer tax credits to buy the vehicles and tax credits to gas stations to install CNG pumps to power the vehicles.

Yet again, a small but temporary improvement. I am not opposed to this idea, but it will not be a permanent fix, nor does it actually address a lot of the problems with our growing industrialization.

This would balance our trade deficit immediately and allow us to increase the exports of refined petroleum products. As a side benefit, we would no longer need to be embroiled in the Middle East and could just stand back and watch it burn.

You say immediately? Do you even have an idea of the logistics of doing so? This is not even close to being an immediate solution. It is not even permanent. Not to mention the reality that pulling out of the middle east would actually put a lot of people out of work. I may wish the military industrial complex was gone, but it does have a lot of people working for it who would be out of work and 20,000 jobs doesn't even come close to employing them.

The beauty of this is that he would not need to spend anything at all. All he needs to do is honor the commitment on the tax credits on the companies that are firing up the economy. These taxes would be more than replaced by the increased income taxes from the millions who go back to work, stopping the welfare, cut the food stamps way back and get the hell out of the way and let the economy come to life.

One man can do a whole lot. Look what he's stopped up to now.

Dude, you are woefully ignorant of the situation, and worse yet you are completely misinformed about it. What your suggesting does not work as you say it does, and certainly would not yeild any of the great results you think it would. There are some arguments for the pipeline, fracking, and natural gas conversion, but you are using complete fantasy.

 

[head of joaquin]

The link from Madera to Bakersfield is supposed to be the first link. So far, the price tag has soared to a hundred billion, just for that section, and yet it is first because it is relatively cheap due to land prices and the absence of geographical barriers. Going over the Tehapis is bound to be more costly. It will be decades before anyone will be able to get on a high speed train in LA and go all the way to SF, if ever.

Well, who said bullet trains were cheap. As to the cost/benefit analysis, it was done and determined that the benefits outweighed the cost. Whether overruns nullify that, I don't know.

I do know every major economy on the planet has high speed trains. If Japan and France can build them, so can we.

 

[head of joaquin]

I heard the high speed train planned for California was gong to be making several stops on its trip between the non population centers where it is planned to originate and terminate.

Why do we need a high speed train that stops every 3 miles?

I suspect you heard a rightwing talking point.