I’m at the JPACT retreat this morning, where among other things the regional legislative strategy for the 2009 Oregon Legislative session is being discussed.
The Port of Portland lobbyist is inculcating a mantra of “job creation” as the top line message for the Columbia River Crossing.
I was muttering under my breath: “environmental destruction.”
19 responses to “CRC Mantra: Job Creation”
When I hear “job creation,” I question what type of jobs they’re creating. Such as, short-term construction jobs where the out-of-state contractor brings in out-of-state subcontractors, all of whom employ those who will leave the region when the project is done? Are the “permanent” jobs they’re talking about going to be in low-wage call centers located miles away from transit routes, with no provisions for bike riders? Will all of them be considered underemployed by humanitarian and other social service agencies/organizations?
This is just the way I think of things when I hear “job creation.” Yeah, it might be true that someone who was laid off of a job making $25 an hour makes $0 afterwards, but making $10 an hour in their next job (if this is their only job offer, and their only other option is homelessness) isn’t going to do for the economy what those touting “job creation” say it will.
I can’t argue with job creation and don’t agree that much environmental destruction can be attributed to the CRC project.
My position has always been to build the light rail bridge, which I gather has some channel to ready federal funds, and either build half the new bridge at the same time or eventually replace both old I-5 bridges. Light rail would certainly bring jobs to Vancouver.
The Port of Portland is again considering the development of West Hayden Island, some say for motor vehicle imports, paving a huge area. But more likely for a grain elevator operation. Why not build parking structures in North Portland docks to increase space there for auto off-loading and storage? Keeps them dry. Some job creation will occur with developing West Hayden Island, but not that many. There’s a lot of opposition to rezoning West Hayden Island for industrial purposes of any kind.
CRC advocates keep hanging that dog on a new hook…first it was projected congestion, but then those numbers began to sag as fuel prices increased. Then it was safety after initially denying that 50% of current congestion is due to incidents, but then studies showed that the old bridges can be retrofited and the incidents are due to outdated on/off ramps, not the bridges. So now its job creation…fine, but lets create jobs doing things that build the community we have, not threaten it. Fast track light rail to Milwaukie, Vancouver and Tigard…these will put people to work, reduce VMT and compete the regional rail network all the sooner.
Isn’t doing a construction project for job creation a means to an ends–doing something for the sake of doing it? If so, I think there might be better things those workers could do.
Chris Smith wrote: The Port of Portland lobbyist is inculcating a mantra of “job creation” as the top line message for the Columbia River Crossing.
Didn’t the light rail advocates also trump “job creation” for the construction of each light rail and Streetcar project just as well?
I agree, you don’t use a short-term benefit to sell a long-term project, but don’t assume that this concept is limited only to the CRC. TriMet and Metro used it each and every time – yet I never heard anyone call out those agencies for making those claims. They are just as guilty as the CRC proponents are – with, or without, light rail (or Interstate 5, or the bike lanes, for that matter) attached to it.
We could create jobs in clean energy. We could create jobs in education. We could create jobs in rail infrastructure improvements. We could create jobs in health care. We could create jobs in all sorts of places.
Why should we focus on a project which creates jobs, yet has very few other redeeming qualities?
And wouldn’t some of the more sensible options that we all have seen discussed many times – also create jobs? Why are jobs tied only to the massive freeway option?
Jobs and the Economy cannot trump everything else. They just cant, we have to change as a society to recognize that so many things are tied together. Healthy economies require healthy people and healthy ecosystems.
Jobs are good, but not at any cost…
If jobs are so important, than all of those congress people who want projects like the CRC for job creation should also get rid of NAFTA/CAFTA.
Job creation, vs what?
If Portland or the state, or the fed pays for the CRC, we can probably assume that that is money they aren’t going to put into maintenance of existing roads, which is people they aren’t going to hire to do that. I don’t know if the CRC or maintenance is more labor intensive, (although if I had to guess, I’d bet maintenance is,) but really it looks like we’re not so much as creating jobs, as just moving them from on place to another…
You can also create jobs by opening the transit market to competition, but that idea is foreign to those in politics.
MHW
Michael H. Wilson Says:
You can also create jobs by opening the transit market to competition, but that idea is foreign to those in politics.
Could you flesh that out a little bit? How would you create jobs and what would that look like?
Other ways that a road project can create jobs is by making areas more attractive to employers. The areas around the project (and most directly impacted areas) are basically Downtown Vancouver and the Vancouver waterfront, Jantzen Beach/Hayden Island, and the industrial parts of N Portland. Those areas all have a lot of space for higher job densities, but getting to and from them is not as attractive as other areas in Portland.
When your employees are going to get stuck in traffic one way, and might the other, and the MAX barely serves the area (after North Portland), it makes looking elsewhere a good idea. There are also deliveries, freight, and visitors that are impacted by that traffic.
That other area could be somewhere else in the Portland area, or depending on the business it could be in Washington, California or elsewhere.
Is the CRC the best answer to this problem though? That’s probably a better question than if it will cause “job creation” in one way or another.
Opening transit to competition does not create livable wage jobs.
Competition will DECREASE livable wage jobs!
Why don’t you try competition with the police force, or the fire department, same difference messing around with the public transit system.
BAD IDEA! You get Greyhound, you get the Blue Line of India, which is the best example of how bad the private sector can really be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCGkT2LvOnE
Al M. wrote: Opening transit to competition does not create livable wage jobs.
Competition will DECREASE livable wage jobs!
I’m not exactly the most pro-union folk (I’m not anti-union, either) but I agree – privatizing transit – although it has certain benefits, will not have the benefit of increasing good paying jobs.
However the Portland metro area has a long history of not creating good paying jobs; unless those jobs are for people who immigrate to Portland. How many of those “clean energy” jobs are held by Portlanders who lived here long before the company moved to Portland? How many OHSU jobs are being held by Portlanders?
There is no net benefit if “new jobs” are created, yet 100% (or close to it) are all filled by people who move into Portland – thus increase our population, the demands upon the infrastructure and so on. In general, the more money you have, the more you consume, and the more infrastructure required. (Whereas someone with low wealth may not be able to afford a car, and thus uses a TriMet bus or train and doesn’t have as much need for streets, parking garages, stormwater runoff systems, etc.)
Meanwhile, many of the new jobs created in those “transit-oriented” neighborhoods are your typical service sector jobs – Starbucks baristas and small retail clerks. Part-time, little/no benefits. Not sustainable.
We all know that transportation (of both the people, and the freight, kinds) is essential towards job growth – and good job growth. Is the CRC project going to help promote industry to the Portland metro area? Is stopping the CRC project going to have a negative benefit towards job growth? If companies refuse to locate in our area because they can’t get materials in and out, that IS a problem.
In the news over the last few days was a giant solar cell factory opening in Hillsboro. This plant has no rail access, so its goods MUST be shipped in and out by truck. (Smart move!!) Further it is not located near any type of MAX service, it requires at a minimum a feeder bus route from MAX. (Smart move!!) If the Sunset gets backed up, this business is going to have a problem filling orders. Unless, of course, someone suggests running all of those trucks out to Forest Grove, then south on 47 to McMinnville, then down 99W to Rickreall or Corvallis or Junction City… In which case, we’re just shoving our traffic problems onto someone else, just like Portland shoves its electric generation problem onto the good folks of Boardman and Portland’s trash problem onto Arlington.
Al M. wrote: Opening transit to competition does not create livable wage jobs.
Competition will DECREASE livable wage jobs!
I’m not exactly the most pro-union folk (I’m not anti-union, either) but I agree – privatizing transit – although it has certain benefits, will not have the benefit of increasing good paying jobs.
However the Portland metro area has a long history of not creating good paying jobs; unless those jobs are for people who immigrate to Portland. How many of those “clean energy” jobs are held by Portlanders who lived here long before the company moved to Portland? How many OHSU jobs are being held by Portlanders?
There is no net benefit if “new jobs” are created, yet 100% (or close to it) are all filled by people who move into Portland – thus increase our population, the demands upon the infrastructure and so on. In general, the more money you have, the more you consume, and the more infrastructure required. (Whereas someone with low wealth may not be able to afford a car, and thus uses a TriMet bus or train and doesn’t have as much need for streets, parking garages, stormwater runoff systems, etc.)
Meanwhile, many of the new jobs created in those “transit-oriented” neighborhoods are your typical service sector jobs – Starbucks baristas and small retail clerks. Part-time, little/no benefits. Not sustainable.
We all know that transportation (of both the people, and the freight, kinds) is essential towards job growth – and good job growth. Is the CRC project going to help promote industry to the Portland metro area? Is stopping the CRC project going to have a negative benefit towards job growth? If companies refuse to locate in our area because they can’t get materials in and out, that IS a problem.
In the news over the last few days was a giant solar cell factory opening in Hillsboro. This plant has no rail access, so its goods MUST be shipped in and out by truck. (Smart move!!) Further it is not located near any type of MAX service, it requires at a minimum a feeder bus route from MAX. (Smart move!!) If the Sunset gets backed up, this business is going to have a problem filling orders. Unless, of course, someone suggests running all of those trucks out to Forest Grove, then south on 47 to McMinnville, then down 99W to Rickreall or Corvallis or Junction City… In which case, we’re just shoving our traffic problems onto someone else, just like Portland shoves its electric generation problem onto the good folks of Boardman and Portland’s trash problem onto Arlington.
There is no net benefit if “new jobs” are created, yet 100% (or close to it) are all filled by people who move into Portland – thus increase our population, the demands upon the infrastructure and so on.
So the argument is that Oregon doesn’t tax people enough to pay for the services they use? Or that employers should hire unqualified people based on where they are from? Or is it that people who move here don’t spend their money here (which seems fairly difficult)?
I’ve heard the same complaint in California (that the people from OR and WA are destroying the state by taking all the good jobs), and it still doesn’t make it valid.
I don’t really get the argument at all. Are you saying that Portland employers would be better off hiring under qualified employees, or that people born here are better than those that moved here because of the decisions of their parents or grandparents?
If I took someone’s job by moving here, sorry. That person should have been more qualified. Employers don’t generally want to spend money moving people if they can hire locally.
One more point on this “privatization” baloney,
Sure Government is wasteful and inefficient, but I’ll take wasteful and inefficient over downright thievery any day of the week!
IE: the current economic crisis which was created entirely by the “free” market, or the likes of Enron,Arthur Anderson, Worldcom, etc etc etc…
All great examples of how the “free” ‘competitive’ market really works.
“There is no net benefit if “new jobs” are created, yet 100% (or close to it) are all filled by people who move into Portland – thus increase our population, the demands upon the infrastructure and so on.”
While I disagree that all those jobs are filled by people that moved here to take those jobs, there is a benefit to that: those people spend their money in Portland, they buy food and houses and so on, and that does help the “locals.”
If you ask me, “Competition will DECREASE livable wage jobs!” is not true by empirical evidence over history…
…BUT… it is only “not true” in an open and free market. Transportation is NOT an open market , a free market, nor a fair market. It is NOT MARKET BASED. The subsidy levels are FAR TOO HIGH to be considered a market based economy. It is, by far, a Government controlled socially run industry. Period, end of story.
So with that said, when you allow competition in a Government controlled and manipulated economy were the economics of scale barely work, the supply and demand curves are shot to hell, and there is no push for meritocracy, only mediocrity and maintenance of the status quo – you will get no increased pay or standard of living from these jobs. The only way to increase pay and standards at these jobs is to unionize and force the local Governments to make the rates a standard. I find it detestable, and morally reprehensible to force the population into such a thing, but without an open to all market place, were honest competition can thrive, there is no hope of better and higher standard jobs!
As for the Interstate Jobs Those jobs are notoriously absurd. A bunch of people, as mentioned often from out of state, come in and make higher than average Government mandated union controlled wages. Nobody locally can compete with this with an honest business. So many people try to go work on the project, which will last probably a half decade, maybe a little longer.
As mentioned, all of a sudden, the local taxes and federal taxes that got sucked into the black hole of the Interstate Project are now gone, and so are the jobs. These types of jobs are bull, they were when FDR started em’ and they were when Eisenhower extended this type of work. By the will of the people of this country Government projects like this are temporary, unsustainable, and exorbitantly expensive. They do very little in the long term for our economy.
In the end we’re left, with an unsustainable, unmaintainable bridge, that the local city and state can ill afford without more direct injections of cash from the Federal Government.
It’s all a big sham. The infrastructure needs built, but not like this. We need infrastructure that can and will eventually pay for itself in some way. Subsidizing Vancouver with this bridge really isn’t gonna help Portland one damn bit. Especially if and when gas prices shoot back up.
Billy’s better jobs program:
Pay people $50/hr to dig a big, long trench.
Pay more people to follow about 500 feet behind filling in the trench.
This is a far better way to waste government money than building light rail, because when this project is done, the wast of money stops. Unlike light rail, where the waste of money continues as long the line is operated.
Investing in infrastructure is important for jobs and long term prosperity — and not just for construction. There are very few jobs today that would be possible without our existing public infrastructure of roads, rail, and bridges.
Almost all our infrastructure was the result of sacrifice from previous generations who were not as wealthy as ours. Improving infrastructure is a long term a gift give to our children and grandchildren.