Quote:
Originally Posted by tkflames
I hate the temporary construction jobs arguement. Environmentalists trot this out all the time as well. It's just ignorance of the fact that there is necessary work that does not fall into the traditional 9-5 mindset. 1000 people working for one year is the same as 100 people working for 10 years as far as the economy is concerned (ignoring time value of money).
It would also be smart for the city to target a larger project now vs in 5 years from now when construction competition and salaries could be through the roof again...
|
yeah, i mean I am not necessarily 'pro arena'; i think that there's a fair contribution that the City and taxpayers should make... 33%... more than that needs a solid argument for the 'public good' for me, though i am not against it.
as for the temporary nature of the jobs, in working in a related field, i think people should understand that this is a misnomer... the jobs is temporary only in the sense that ANY construction project is temporary because there is a construction timetable.
For the people working at these jobs, its not temporary - it just the next project on the docket... Every general contractor and sub trade carry over a team of workers and in order to keep that group gainfully employed, they require a steady stream of projects lined up. This is not really that different from oil companies whose departments need a steady stream of work otherwise they get laid off...Once a construction project is completed, the workers simply move onto the next project...
its 'temporary' only in the sense that the construction job itself if predicated on an end date. But for the folks that work in industries like construction or related professions, there is a steady stream of projects; the hope is that there is always the next job in order to ensure you are able to keep good people working.