The Davis-Bacon act.

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One contract type "Actual Cost plus Fixed Fee" is actually beneficial to the Government.
Sure they pay the Prevailing wage but that gets pumped back into the economy and returns tax revenue to the coffers... Funding projects when targeted to an area is part of what the government is suppose to do... everyone benefits when the government lets work out..

IMO...

So the govt overpays for labor and gets a % back through taxes? That isnt a good deal.

Are you sure? Before that dollar gets back to the government it changes hands and is taxed so many times it yield 2 dollard for every dollar the government print's no?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One contract type "Actual Cost plus Fixed Fee" is actually beneficial to the Government.
Sure they pay the Prevailing wage but that gets pumped back into the economy and returns tax revenue to the coffers... Funding projects when targeted to an area is part of what the government is suppose to do... everyone benefits when the government lets work out..

IMO...

So the govt overpays for labor and gets a % back through taxes? That isnt a good deal.

Well it is.. cuz it also stimulates the economy.. trickle down theory.. and all that.. multiple of the dollar...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One contract type "Actual Cost plus Fixed Fee" is actually beneficial to the Government.
Sure they pay the Prevailing wage but that gets pumped back into the economy and returns tax revenue to the coffers... Funding projects when targeted to an area is part of what the government is suppose to do... everyone benefits when the government lets work out..

IMO...

So the govt overpays for labor and gets a % back through taxes? That isnt a good deal.

Are you sure? Before that dollar gets back to the government it changes hands and is taxed so many times it yield 2 dollard for every dollar the government print's no?

Yes.. it is the multiplyer effect.. it is even better if the various goods and services that are trickled to are in profit cuz then they are all returning tax... I think one model I remember said that if the Government spent 1$ in the right place it would yield 2$ in revenue.. that is about as good as i've seen but at least a break even.. on the tax payer.. who paid the 1$ to start with.. heheheh

edit... I think I recalled that if they employed a few via that strategic spending who are drawing welfare or unemployment the return is greater or savings is greater.. any way you see what I'm saying.. hehe

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One contract type "Actual Cost plus Fixed Fee" is actually beneficial to the Government.
Sure they pay the Prevailing wage but that gets pumped back into the economy and returns tax revenue to the coffers... Funding projects when targeted to an area is part of what the government is suppose to do... everyone benefits when the government lets work out..

IMO...

So the govt overpays for labor and gets a % back through taxes? That isnt a good deal.

Well it is.. cuz it also stimulates the economy.. trickle down theory.. and all that.. multiple of the dollar...

How has that been working out? All I hear about is how people cant afford to live in their homes and drive cars and of course feed thier kids.

There is another way to stimulate the economy, dont rape peter to pay paul. Overpaying for work and claiming a % gets back through taxes is a good deal explains why our govt's federal budget explodes with deficits.

Lets expand the budget by 100x, that should surely trickle down to the avg joe. Nevermind we just taxed him 110% of his earning to pay for it.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One contract type "Actual Cost plus Fixed Fee" is actually beneficial to the Government.
Sure they pay the Prevailing wage but that gets pumped back into the economy and returns tax revenue to the coffers... Funding projects when targeted to an area is part of what the government is suppose to do... everyone benefits when the government lets work out..

IMO...

So the govt overpays for labor and gets a % back through taxes? That isnt a good deal.

Well it is.. cuz it also stimulates the economy.. trickle down theory.. and all that.. multiple of the dollar...

How has that been working out? All I hear about is how people cant afford to live in their homes and drive cars and of course feed thier kids.

There is another way to stimulate the economy, dont rape peter to pay paul. Overpaying for work and claiming a % gets back through taxes is a good deal explains why our govt's federal budget explodes with deficits.

Lets expand the budget by 100x, that should surely trickle down to the avg joe. Nevermind we just taxed him 110% of his earning to pay for it.

government controls fiscal policy.. create work helps everyone.. and provides the means to fund the work.. but even if it don't initially do that .. going into debt to employ folks who draw funds to live is a savings in that program...
It is the role of government to stimulate the economy when and where needed...
FDR's dam building was a good idea.. so is war sometimes.. cuz someone has to make the bombs.. but the asset is destroyed.. hehehe but the tanks.. well they are made somewhere and employ people.. that is what we need... more and bigger wars... (kidding)

Bush folks are supply thinking mostly... so they target via taxation.. assuming the trickle down... spending is no different.. just the dynamic involved.. and the asset created is needed usually... like a road or a ummmmmmmmmm fence.. what ever..

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
Guess who gave Haliburton no bid contracts in the 90s?

You? :roll:

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino



Because the big rich and already well-established construction companies sit back and say "Yup, we'll get all the government project bids while all the other companies can sit back and fight amongst themselves. Yay for making us, the richest construction company around, even richer!"

Can you translate this into something meaningful? After that, please compare and cantrast it to other other end of the spectrum like Haliburton and KBR in Iraq...

Guess who gave Haliburton no bid contracts in the 90s?

Whoever did did so because sometimes sole source contracts make sense. Ya gotta be able to do the job to get a contract and most Contractors can't do what Haliburton can do... Expertise plays a roll as does financial strength and on and on.. I'd assume that you know about the Protest provisions in every contract let... If there was another contractor who felt they could do the job then they'd have protested the sole source letting..
DOD mostly lets sole source contracts so.. I'd guess them..

Edit.. I should have said.. DOD lets the most Sole Source Contracts..

 

[rahvin]

Since when is paying the average local wage a bad thing? Since when is it bad that when working on a government project the taxpayers have demanded that you pay an average wage instead of hiring 150 illegals and having them do it for $3 an hour? Davis-Bacon helps ensure that government construction projects use the highest percentage of actual citizens over any other construction work. Rich people don't support davis-bacon, they support abolishing Davis-Bacon so that blue collar wages can be lowered to the rate that only illegal migrants could afford to take the job.

Davis-Bacon doesn't exclude competition, it only requires that you pay your workers a competative wage, if you aren't competative in doing so your overhead is too HIGH (or you charge too much). Deal with it and learn how to operate a business.

Although WIKI can be a good source of information, it frequently isn't, and anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't rely on it form an opinion on anything, especially anything that relates at all to government.

 

[Ferocious]

Remember Katrina?

the set prevailing wage in that area was like $8 an hour and businesses still ordered Bush to suspend it!

Only totally obvious greed finally made Bush reluctantly back off.

 

[techs]

The Davis-Bacon act was a result of contractors using sub-qualified employees to complete government contracts where the contractor has a huge incentive to cut corners on labor costs since the contractor pockets anything he saves on employee wages.
The real life situation was that the government found itself forcing down wages in the construction industry due to its contracting. The Davis-Bacon act was supposed to correct this by paying the prevailing wage and giving contrtactors the incentive to perform work more efficiently to make larger profits, not cut worker salaries to make a larger profit.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
It helps in a couple of ways:
1. It helps tradesmen to get a fair wage for the work they do. Otherwise unscrupulous contractors would pay as little as possible and pocket large profits themselves.
2. Paying a decent wage means you get decent workers.
3. It levels the playing field for union and non-union contractors when they bid on the jobs as the labor costs are roughly the same. It's interesting to note that in most cases the union rates are the same as Davis Bacon rates.

1. The rest of the money won't be going toward profit. It would be going back to the taxpayers.
2. The free markets already pay a decent wage, we don't need regulation on that.
3. This is exactly my point.

Pwnd.

the fact that you said "pwnd" proves you are wrong.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
If the government is paying Union-based companies to do all the work, even the simplest jobs, they are wasting money.

Where's the room for the starting out companies? What about the inital workers? Nobody is going to hire beginning construction workers if they are forced by beaurocrats to pay them over $20 an hour.

Speaking as someone who actually works construction, yes, they will, and do, often.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One contract type "Actual Cost plus Fixed Fee" is actually beneficial to the Government.
Sure they pay the Prevailing wage but that gets pumped back into the economy and returns tax revenue to the coffers... Funding projects when targeted to an area is part of what the government is suppose to do... everyone benefits when the government lets work out..

IMO...

So the govt overpays for labor and gets a % back through taxes? That isnt a good deal.

Well it is.. cuz it also stimulates the economy.. trickle down theory.. and all that.. multiple of the dollar...

How has that been working out? All I hear about is how people cant afford to live in their homes and drive cars and of course feed thier kids.

There is another way to stimulate the economy, dont rape peter to pay paul. Overpaying for work and claiming a % gets back through taxes is a good deal explains why our govt's federal budget explodes with deficits.

Lets expand the budget by 100x, that should surely trickle down to the avg joe. Nevermind we just taxed him 110% of his earning to pay for it.

Can you imagine the benefits the government could provide if it taxed people 110%? We could have socialism up the ass, as they say in some places.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Since when is paying the average local wage a bad thing? Since when is it bad that when working on a government project the taxpayers have demanded that you pay an average wage instead of hiring 150 illegals and having them do it for $3 an hour? Davis-Bacon helps ensure that government construction projects use the highest percentage of actual citizens over any other construction work. Rich people don't support davis-bacon, they support abolishing Davis-Bacon so that blue collar wages can be lowered to the rate that only illegal migrants could afford to take the job.

Davis-Bacon doesn't exclude competition, it only requires that you pay your workers a competative wage, if you aren't competative in doing so your overhead is too HIGH (or you charge too much). Deal with it and learn how to operate a business.

Although WIKI can be a good source of information, it frequently isn't, and anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't rely on it form an opinion on anything, especially anything that relates at all to government.

Well basically that pretty much proves my point. Immigrants are poor people, and you would like to deny them work.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
If the government is paying Union-based companies to do all the work, even the simplest jobs, they are wasting money.

Where's the room for the starting out companies? What about the inital workers? Nobody is going to hire beginning construction workers if they are forced by beaurocrats to pay them over $20 an hour.

Speaking as someone who actually works construction, yes, they will, and do, often.

Really? A starting construction job at $20+ an hour? Sign me up, right now. I'm able bodied. Seriously, call your boss, call anyone you know and sign me up.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Vic
Actually, all the proof one needs that excessive government benefits the rich can be found in the drug war. Think for a moment, how many rich people ever get busted for doing drugs? All those rich movie stars, ball players, rock stars, and business execs with drug problems, yet you never see them in prison, do you? Strange, isn't that? And yet who does go to prison for drugs? Almost exclusively poor people. Hmmm.... ah fsck it, let's outlaw tobacco! It's for your own good!

And yeah, Davis-Bacon is a joke. The "prevailing" wage the government pays is usually twice the actual prevailing wage. Something about government always seems to invite corruption and inefficiency. I think this is because the public treasury is always other people's money, everyone feels it okay to steal using the classic "two wrongs make a right" mentality. If the corps do it, then the unions should be allowed to do it, and if the unions do it, then should the corps should be allowed to do it, etc. ad naseum.

Exactly. The government supposedly sets the prevailing wage based on the free market. The problem is that the free markets are always 100,000 steps ahead of the government and are constantly changing.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Remember Katrina?

the set prevailing wage in that area was like $8 an hour and businesses still ordered Bush to suspend it!

Only totally obvious greed finally made Bush reluctantly back off.

I recall seeing illegals on tv telling how they had not been paid for 3-4 weeks their LOW wages.

Davis Bacon is good for employees, legitimate contractors, and tax payers. Sucks for the fly by night guys that come in do a poor job and dont pay their help.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: bctbct
I recall seeing illegals on tv telling how they had not been paid for 3-4 weeks their LOW wages.

Davis Bacon is good for rich employees, rich legitimate contractors, and wastes tax dollar. Sucks for the gung-ho just starting out entrepeneurs that are tight on money but need to start competing for business so that one big construction company doesn't have a monopoly on all state projects and then gets lazy and starts doing poor jobs because they have no competition for it.

FIXED

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: bctbct
I recall seeing illegals on tv telling how they had not been paid for 3-4 weeks their LOW wages.

Davis Bacon is good for rich employees, rich legitimate contractors, and wastes tax dollar. Sucks for the gung-ho just starting out entrepeneurs that are tight on money but need to start competing for business so that one big construction company doesn't have a monopoly on all state projects and then gets lazy and starts doing poor jobs because they have no competition for it.

FIXED

I think if you had a better idea of the construction industry you may change you mind on this.

Bacon Davis is about bringing able contractors to do projects for the gov't. If you ever saw a sets of drawing or a spec book on a fed. job you would realize it is not for the inexperienced beginner.

Bid bond requirements alone would knock out "starting out entrepeneurs" and you sure dont want to tie tax dollars up on a project that the contractor is short on funding to pay suppliers and payroll.

If I take three bids on a house project tommorrow I will look at the low ball and wonder why, the gov't is required to accept the low bidder in most cases.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: bctbct

I think if you had a better idea of the construction industry you may change you mind on this.

Bacon Davis is about bringing able contractors to do projects for the gov't. If you ever saw a sets of drawing or a spec book on a fed. job you would realize it is not for the inexperienced beginner.

Bid bond requirements alone would knock out "starting out entrepeneurs" and you sure dont want to tie tax dollars up on a project that the contractor is short on funding to pay suppliers and payroll.

If I take three bids on a house project tommorrow I will look at the low ball and wonder why, the gov't is required to accept the low bidder in most cases.

[/quote]

So basically you are saying that in a lot of cases, there is no need for the act. You get my drift? The free markets work everything out.

I have not seen a difference in public building quality vs government building quality, and often times the public will hire cheaper constructions.

Also, who says the expensive union contractors will do a better job? Isn't this coming from the same crowd who always says big companies are lazy and cut corners? If the said company has a monopoly on government contracts, what incentive do they have to not cut corners and profit the money anyway?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino


So basically you are saying that in a lot of cases, there is no need for the act. You get my drift? The free markets work everything out.

I have not seen a difference in public building quality vs government building quality, and often times the public will hire cheaper constructions.

The thing you are not considering is the Davis Bacon automatically eliminates the scum bag contractors.

They know they cant provide cheap inexperienced labor. They know they will have to show benefits being paid.

They know they cant bid against Haliburton, steal the job for 1% less, and make 40% more than a legitimate contractor.

There is no point of them bidding this job and having all the hassle.

Fed work is way over designed, thats why it cost more.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino


Also, who says the expensive union contractors will do a better job? Isn't this coming from the same crowd who always says big companies are lazy and cut corners? If the said company has a monopoly on government contracts, what incentive do they have to not cut corners and profit the money anyway?

Expensive Union companies are low bidders against non-union contractors, everyday, so there goes that arguement.

 

[BlancoNino]

So having a monopoly on government projects is good?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: bctbct
The thing you are not considering is the Davis Bacon automatically eliminates the scum bag contractors.

They know they cant provide cheap inexperienced labor. They know they will have to show benefits being paid.

They know they cant bid against Haliburton, steal the job for 1% less, and make 40% more than a legitimate contractor.

There is no point of them bidding this job and having all the hassle.

Fed work is way over designed, thats why it cost more.

No, it makes it so that poor people don't have a chance to move up on the construction ladder. It make sit so that some young guy who wants to start at the bottom won't get hired because they can't pay him $10 an hour to hammer nails or hold a sign, they have to pay him $20. Therefore, the union contractors hire the already unionized high-wage higher-ups on the ladder to do simple work (which effectively wastes our tax dollars).

If we eliminated the act, there won't be a "race to the bottom" of wages either. Nobody will work construction at $1 an hour.

If you notice, Union thugs lobby QUITE HEAVILY in support of the Bacon-Davis act.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
If the government is paying Union-based companies to do all the work, even the simplest jobs, they are wasting money.

Where's the room for the starting out companies? What about the inital workers? Nobody is going to hire beginning construction workers if they are forced by beaurocrats to pay them over $20 an hour.

Speaking as someone who actually works construction, yes, they will, and do, often.

Really? A starting construction job at $20+ an hour? Sign me up, right now. I'm able bodied. Seriously, call your boss, call anyone you know and sign me up.

Depends on the market, Blanconino... but 'starting' means to me that one has no skill and hires on a basic labor.. a laborer is also a Prevailing wage craft.. They earn over 20$ per hour and if I recall correctly $28.80 for some areas here in So. Cal.... but a helper (also a class but basically an apprentice laborer)... who can only be that for awhile would earn under $20 more like 17$ or so..
What does a laborer do... not much more than a helper... but it is a class... on non DB jobs we pay the same folks 20ish$ per hour.. and the young guys... helpers.. around 13ish$