It was a nice idea. Today the unemployment rate is hovering above 9 percent—better than it would have been without the stimulus, most experts agree, but still painfully high. Why didn’t we get more for our money?

While liberals and conservatives alike blame the stimulus itself—It wasn’t big enough! It was never going to work!—the problem may have more to do with how the money was spent. It’s not enough just to inject money into infrastructure, because not all transportation funding is created equal—or at least, it doesn’t create jobs at an equal rate. As any infrastructure policy wonk can tell you, money spent on fixing up existing systems or building mass transit delivers more jobs, and faster, than building new highways. With their wallets bulging with their federal allowance, the states were allowed to spend $26.6 billion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money however they saw fit.

A new study shows that most states didn’t end up making the most of the windfall. The report by the transportation research group Smart Growth America found that states spent more than a third of the money on building new roads—rather than working on public transportation and fixing up existing roads and bridges. The result of the indiscriminate spending? States missed out on potentially thousands of new jobs—and bridges, roads, and overpasses around the country are still crumbling. Meanwhile, the states that did put dollars toward public transportation were richly rewarded: Each dollar used on transit was 75 percent more effective at putting people to work than a dollar used for highway work.

The government meant to get the biggest bang for its buck, with “shovel-ready projects.” But building miles of new roads requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.

Mandel Ngan / Getty Images

The government, of course, meant to get the biggest bang for its buck. The stimulus bill forced states to spend their allocated cash quickly, which was intended to get them to fund maintenance needs—“shovel-ready projects”—that had already been identified. Building miles of new roads, on the other hand, requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.

Some states did that. Sue Minter, Vermont’s deputy transportation secretary, says a longstanding “fix-it-first” policy for infrastructure and bipartisan collaboration shaped Vermont’s decisions about how to use the funds. The state spent all of its highway money on system maintenance, with a small amount going to mass transit. (Minter, a Democrat, was a member of the state legislature at the time.) “This shot of money into our economy was very, very significant. It’s part of the reason we have a relatively low unemployment rate,” she says. Only 5.8 percent of Vermont residents are out of work, one of the nation’s lowest rates. State research shows that ARRA funding employed 11,000 people—a small number overall, but a significant one in a small state. Minter says the maintenance was important for keeping economic growth, particularly in tourism, strong.

Other states, however, took a different tack. Arkansas used 81 percent of its money for new projects and none on transit; it also has a higher unemployment rate than Vermont. And unlike other states near the bottom of the list, just 38 percent of its roads are in good condition, according to a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a trade organization.

Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money

from the you-made-the-choice dept

We didn't mention the whole AOL buying Huffington Post story earlier this week, because there just didn't seem to be that much to say about it. It was an interesting deal, to be sure, and I'll be curious to watch what AOL does with the property, but, beyond that, it seemed like just another content acquisition deal. However, almost immediately after the deal went through, I started seeing some rumblings on Twitter, picking at the scab that has always annoyed a certain group of people about The Huffington Post: that it doesn't pay most of its writers. Sure enough, it didn't take long for this issue to start to spread, with the inevitable summary line of: "Hey, HuffPo became famous because all these people worked for free, and yet, they don't get a cut of the sale."

That story is now snowballing. Dan Gilmor wrote a blog post arguing that it was the "ethical" thing to do to start paying bloggers. Douglas Ruskoff said that he'd no longer blog on the site for free. And, of course, a bunch of cranky HuffPo contributors have created a whole campaign arguing that Arianna Huffington had no right to sell the site, since it was built off of their free labor.

They're all wrong.

Of course, we've been through this before. Five years ago, Nick Carr tried to argue that all the various big Web 2.0 sites like (at the time) Digg, YouTube and MySpace were really digital sharecroppers exploiting labor. As we argued at the time, this was hogwash. People were using those sites because they provided a valuable service. The reason they provided labor was because they got something of value in return -- whether it was attention or hosting or distribution or reputation.

Three years ago, we saw an almost identical controversy after AOL bought Bebo and musician Billy Bragg demanded some of the $850 million AOL paid (in retrospect, a massively bad decision). Bragg argued that Bebo made this money based on all of the "free labor" of musicians who used the site. But that ignored the fact that those musicians got tremendous value in using the Bebo platform to connect with fans and distribute their music... all for free. The folks who got to keep the money were the ones who took the actual risk. The ones who had to cover the expenses to keep the site and the service running, even when it wasn't making enough revenue. They took the risk, they should get the reward. The people who used the site did so of their own free will knowing quite well that the benefit they got from using the service was worth it to them at the time. Along those lines, if Bebo had struggled and faced bankruptcy instead of a massive buyout, would Bragg have felt obligated to give them money to keep it going? Similarly, if HuffPo had been running out of money, and Arianna had gone back and demanded that those who used the platform pay up retroactively, how would these people have reacted?

There are more ways to "get paid" than with money.

The reason that people chose to blog for free at the Huffington Post was because it's a fantastic platform for exposure. It brings traffic like no one else out there, and if you want to present something in a way that's likely to get more attention than on your own blog that no one visits, posting at HuffPo can be quite a good way to go.

And that's the point: the people who chose -- of their own free will -- to post at the Huffington Post for free did so because they clearly got value out of doing so. Otherwise, why would they have done so in the first place? To then say that the only proper thing is to pay them is completely missing the point. It's an attempt to retroactively go back and change the terms of a deal. If you wanted to get paid directly for what you write, fine, don't write for the Huffington Post. It's that simple. Go out and pitch your stories to publishers who pay freelancers. But don't go back and complain afterwards when the folks who actually did take the risk of putting together the site, financing it, organizing it, hiring the staff, buying the servers, paying for the bandwidth, and building it up so that it was such a successful platform, then get paid for their efforts.

69 Comments | Leave a Comment..

bench craft company scam

Kiss and tell

Thursday, February 17, 2011

How to Making Money

Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money

from the you-made-the-choice dept

NYT's Fed reporter to become deputy op-ed editor « Talking Biz <b>News</b>

Fox <b>News</b> Ron Paul CPAC Video | Ron Paul Straw Poll | Fox <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

NBC Nightly <b>News</b> Report on Toomer's Poisoning - Track Em Tigers

NYT's Fed reporter to become deputy op-ed editor « Talking Biz <b>News</b>

Fox <b>News</b> Ron Paul CPAC Video | Ron Paul Straw Poll | Fox <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

NBC Nightly <b>News</b> Report on Toomer's Poisoning - Track Em Tigers

NYT's Fed reporter to become deputy op-ed editor « Talking Biz <b>News</b>

Fox <b>News</b> Ron Paul CPAC Video | Ron Paul Straw Poll | Fox <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

NBC Nightly <b>News</b> Report on Toomer's Poisoning - Track Em Tigers

NYT's Fed reporter to become deputy op-ed editor « Talking Biz <b>News</b>

Fox <b>News</b> Ron Paul CPAC Video | Ron Paul Straw Poll | Fox <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

NBC Nightly <b>News</b> Report on Toomer's Poisoning - Track Em Tigers

NYT's Fed reporter to become deputy op-ed editor « Talking Biz <b>News</b>

Fox <b>News</b> Ron Paul CPAC Video | Ron Paul Straw Poll | Fox <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

NBC Nightly <b>News</b> Report on Toomer's Poisoning - Track Em Tigers

NYT's Fed reporter to become deputy op-ed editor « Talking Biz <b>News</b>

Fox <b>News</b> Ron Paul CPAC Video | Ron Paul Straw Poll | Fox <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

NBC Nightly <b>News</b> Report on Toomer's Poisoning - Track Em Tigers

NYT's Fed reporter to become deputy op-ed editor « Talking Biz <b>News</b>

Fox <b>News</b> Ron Paul CPAC Video | Ron Paul Straw Poll | Fox <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

NBC Nightly <b>News</b> Report on Toomer's Poisoning - Track Em Tigers

NYT's Fed reporter to become deputy op-ed editor « Talking Biz <b>News</b>

Fox <b>News</b> Ron Paul CPAC Video | Ron Paul Straw Poll | Fox <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

NBC Nightly <b>News</b> Report on Toomer's Poisoning - Track Em Tigers

NYT's Fed reporter to become deputy op-ed editor « Talking Biz <b>News</b>

Fox <b>News</b> Ron Paul CPAC Video | Ron Paul Straw Poll | Fox <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

NBC Nightly <b>News</b> Report on Toomer's Poisoning - Track Em Tigers

No comments:

Post a Comment