Even better is when they destroy a bunch of virgin land to make a course when courses are already overbuilt in the area, then close it.
I lived in a city that had a mayor who was elected to a few terms and was going on 10-11 years in office. An out-of-state developer wanted to turn 400 acres of old growth forest by Lake Superior into a golf course, spending about 25 million. For some reason he made this basically the only thing he tried to get to happen in his last 2 years in office. This was also at a time when a lot of courses were struggling or closing because they had built too many in the early 2000s.
Many people were opposed to it but the usual sort of people thought it was great because 'wow someone is spending money'. One fairly dim guy I knew who worked in construction said "YEAH. Do you know how many jobs that will make??". The problem is they were going to hire a bunch of people to build it, which would take about 6 months, and then the permanent positions at the course were going to be like 6 people. Finally, they didn't do it, the mayor left office, and basically nobody ever talked about it again.
had a mayor who was elected to a few terms and was going on 10-11 years in office. An out-of-state developer wanted to turn 400 acres of old growth forest by Lake Superior into a golf course, spending about 25 million. For some reason he made this basically the only thing he tried to get to happen in his last 2 years in office. This was also at a time when a lot of courses were struggling or closing because they had built too many in the early 2000s.
Many people were opposed to it but the usual sort of people thought it was great because ‘wow someone is spending money’. One fairly dim guy I knew who worked in construction said “YEAH. Do you know how many jobs that will make??”. The problem is they were going to hire a bunch of people to build it, which would take about 6 months, and then the permanent positions at the course were going to be like 6 people. Finally, they didn’t do it, the mayor left office, and basi
Thanks for putting that last line in there. I was getting progressively more irate.
Ha, yeah, I guess my intro made it sound like it went through and then was closed. I was so happy when it finally didn't happen and the obviously corrupt politician was gone.
SUCCESS
Any decision made to create or preserve jobs is inherently wasteful. You're spending money to avoid losing an economic output that the market has decided no longer needs to exist.
It's also opportunity cost. Literally anything else could also create jobs. How many jobs would building houses create? Solar or wind farm? A 24/7 orgy playground?
Capitalist economics is more complicated than that, though, since there are artificial boom-and-bust cycles. People do deserve employment.
The people really pushing the project were the developers, a few people who stood to make an outiszed portion of the money, and the apparently corrupt mayor who I'm sure was planning on lining his own pocket somehow.
People can be employed in fields where they're needed. You wouldn't argue about maintaining coal mining jobs, would you? I'm all for funding a "coal to clean energy" apprenticeship/certification program or something, but refusing to adopt fridges so the milkman doesn't have to find a new job is a sure fire way to stifle progress and waste taxpayer money on subsidies.
Sure, I agree with that. The idea that once people are making money a certain way it has to continue forever is harmful.
Would be nice if it weren't lifetime debt inducing to swap career fields, though.
It's true, the way our capitalist system is set up it's mainly the workers and less wealthy people in general who get screwed by progress and obsolescence. Wealthy people are very worried about it too of course, since something like phasing out coal could mean bankruptcy for them and they'd have to, oh no, get a job or something. Or you know, there goes the family dynasty... That's harder to feel sorry for though, and it's a lot easier for them to transition to something else, with some foresight.
Even better is when they destroy a bunch of virgin land to make a course when courses are already overbuilt in the area, then close it.
I lived in a city that had a mayor who was elected to a few terms and was going on 10-11 years in office. An out-of-state developer wanted to turn 400 acres of old growth forest by Lake Superior into a golf course, spending about 25 million. For some reason he made this basically the only thing he tried to get to happen in his last 2 years in office. This was also at a time when a lot of courses were struggling or closing because they had built too many in the early 2000s.
Many people were opposed to it but the usual sort of people thought it was great because 'wow someone is spending money'. One fairly dim guy I knew who worked in construction said "YEAH. Do you know how many jobs that will make??". The problem is they were going to hire a bunch of people to build it, which would take about 6 months, and then the permanent positions at the course were going to be like 6 people. Finally, they didn't do it, the mayor left office, and basically nobody ever talked about it again.
Thanks for putting that last line in there. I was getting progressively more irate.
Ha, yeah, I guess my intro made it sound like it went through and then was closed. I was so happy when it finally didn't happen and the obviously corrupt politician was gone.
SUCCESS
Any decision made to create or preserve jobs is inherently wasteful. You're spending money to avoid losing an economic output that the market has decided no longer needs to exist.
It's also opportunity cost. Literally anything else could also create jobs. How many jobs would building houses create? Solar or wind farm? A 24/7 orgy playground?
Capitalist economics is more complicated than that, though, since there are artificial boom-and-bust cycles. People do deserve employment.
The people really pushing the project were the developers, a few people who stood to make an outiszed portion of the money, and the apparently corrupt mayor who I'm sure was planning on lining his own pocket somehow.
People can be employed in fields where they're needed. You wouldn't argue about maintaining coal mining jobs, would you? I'm all for funding a "coal to clean energy" apprenticeship/certification program or something, but refusing to adopt fridges so the milkman doesn't have to find a new job is a sure fire way to stifle progress and waste taxpayer money on subsidies.
Sure, I agree with that. The idea that once people are making money a certain way it has to continue forever is harmful.
Would be nice if it weren't lifetime debt inducing to swap career fields, though.
It's true, the way our capitalist system is set up it's mainly the workers and less wealthy people in general who get screwed by progress and obsolescence. Wealthy people are very worried about it too of course, since something like phasing out coal could mean bankruptcy for them and they'd have to, oh no, get a job or something. Or you know, there goes the family dynasty... That's harder to feel sorry for though, and it's a lot easier for them to transition to something else, with some foresight.