Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:I'm sorry, but how exactly does building parks and green space help the economy? Temporary construction jobs to build them sure, but beyond that. The thing is with a government employ (outside of state owned enterprise, which is a whole different kettle of fish) it makes no difference to the economy whether you pay them minimum wage for unemployment vs minimum wage for working, so for the economy, it makes difference whether you pay a person unemployment or if you pay them to be a gardener (now, of coarse, it gets more complex when taking taxes into account, and the fact that minimum wage is above that of unemployment). The only difference is which level of government pays for that person (i.e. local government, state/territory government or federal government). Saying you're going to create a bunch of government jobs in order to reduce unemployment is a bit redundant.
I was just giving ideas. I did include education and healthcare, and there'll be a lot of demand for that in future.
Why not boost those areas?
I'm not saying that we don't need more greenery, I'm saying that it doesn't generate any money for the economy. But it doesn't need to generate money in order to be a good idea. (The only exception to that is running a business, and even that's not that simple). Same applies to health and education, both of which need more money, and education at least, does provide money for the economy in the long run. Now, I will concede that maintaining gardens does provide the economic benefit of buying garden equient and things such as fertiliser, but it's negligible






