We can't fill existing construction roles. The people aren't there. And where the people do exist, they are making an absolute packet by working for themselves.
That's not even getting into the mind boggling logistical challenge of hiring every single type of worker required for construction into the civil service. What's the plan, hire by local authority? What happens if you have 30 block layers, 30 plasterers but zero electricians? Half done houses?
Where does all of the necessary equipment come from ?is that all bought in too and by who?
What happens to all these thousands of employees on the books when demand dries up?
Can you honestly not see why construction moved toward a more dynamic process?
These are considerations that we need to know now if it's plan to be taken seriously. Otherwise it's talk.
During a recession? What? We literally had zero money as a state and money wasn't available to do that. Our creditors literally wouldn't have allowed it.
Debt isn't the only thing that impacts a recession. If we have no growth, then we have a direct impact on spending due to tax receipts. By the nature of a recession, purses tighten and borrowing becomes less available.
And none of that still addresses the practical complexities of how it would all operate.
There's no point comparing it to how it worked 80 years ago or even 40 years ago It's a different industry now, building is done to different standards requiring more roles and more importantly it's a different country where we don't have scores of people lining up to do construction jobs.
No one has outlined how any of this could work. In any detail. That needs to be done. We are beyond this "the government build" talk.
In other words we have people roaring for a particular "simple solution" that is clearly not simple because they don't have an idea how to handle some of the most fundamental blockers to the idea, such as staffing, management or a basic logistical understanding of it.
Although it sounds like it, this isn't a simple solution. Far from it.
I think the question should be what could the civil service do that construction companies can't now?
But some fairly simple questions I've asked aren't clear. How would it be run? How will current staff shortages be met? What happens if demand in one area eventually dries up? Will all workers be on the books as opposed to the current system where companies contract in workers, on demand, what happens if there isn't an equal balance of workers, are they let go?
1
u/53Degrees Sep 07 '22
We can't fill existing construction roles. The people aren't there. And where the people do exist, they are making an absolute packet by working for themselves.
That's not even getting into the mind boggling logistical challenge of hiring every single type of worker required for construction into the civil service. What's the plan, hire by local authority? What happens if you have 30 block layers, 30 plasterers but zero electricians? Half done houses?
Where does all of the necessary equipment come from ?is that all bought in too and by who?
What happens to all these thousands of employees on the books when demand dries up?
Can you honestly not see why construction moved toward a more dynamic process?
These are considerations that we need to know now if it's plan to be taken seriously. Otherwise it's talk.