The Davis-Bacon wage has been in place for decades, and I never could figure it out.

I'm a pipe fitter, (Fire Sprinkler Systems,) I have never worked for a Union Company, but I make decent money.

My introduction to Davis-Bacon, was when I was a green helper, just getting into my new trade, over 20 years ago. I was making about $9.00 an hour, and found out that the Davis-Bacon wage for my job duties said I had to be paid $11.00 an hour.

Are you ready for the real kicker? The minute I climbed a ladder and started hanging pipe, by Government standards, I was at that moment considered a pipefitter, not a helper anymore, and I started making $24.00 an hour.

I jumped from $9.00 an hour to $24.00 an hour for doing the same thing I always did, but only on Government jobs.

This is where I always questioned it;

I'm there doing my job on a Government project, this tells me the Government doesn't have someone capable of doing my job. How then can the Government decide what the hourly wage for my job is worth?

It was worth $9.00 an hour to my employer, and that was good money back then. The top pipe fitters back then were making about $18.00 an hour, but they decide the job is worth $24.00 an hour, yet they can't perform the work themselves? Without hiring an outside contractor?

Just my two cents. ~Lenny

You're assuming the Mises Institute has a handle on economics? Come ON! Those were the geniuses cheering for deregulation and laissez-faire, despite the disastrous consequences.

They were also the morons pushing supply-side, which even conservative economic theoriests never took seriously. The Mises gang, like Freidman and the Chicago School, insisted that tax cuts are the single best answer to ANY economic problem or question... all evidence to the contrary.

In fact, as history has shown, tax cuts are among the weakest and LEAST effective tools in the economic toolbox.

Hazlitt's diatribe isn't about economics; it's about economic POLICY, specifically how awful it is when the government doesn't favor capital to the point of bootlicking subservience. In a way, Hazlitt was years before his time. He's a classic Reagan-style economic writer: clueless, but absolutely certain that domestic spending is a sin on the order of genocide.

I have a challenge for you in return: Read a little Paul Krugman or Jonathan Chait. They're liberal-leaning, yes, but they ADMIT their bias rather than baldly stating opinion as fact.

Lovely.

Multiple payscales for different jobs.

A complete pain in the ass.

(Oh, for the nimrod who complains about contractural rights: if it isn't in writing, you have no recourse)

I thought that all federally funded projects were covered under the Davis-Bacon act, which essentially mandates (Union)"scale" wages for workers on such projects.

What is different about it this time? sounds like same-old thing to me

Anyone who works under a contract should be classified as organized labor.

If you have a contract that gives you any kind of job security or a guaranteed wage, you are only going to cause problems.

The companies and their owners should decide how much you get paid and when they are going to fire you.

The employee has no rights and how dare they ask for any in writing!

Putting money in the pockets of the working class, who are most likely to spend it, IS the definition of economic stimulus.

The fact that you hate unions is irrelevant.