intuitively yes I agree with you, however, the problem is that the building of infrastructure or worker training is done in the abscence of market signals. Hence the likelihood of a bridge to nowhere or an army of trained workers in a useless field is high.
Certainly projects like the Hoover dam or interstate system have many positive externalities that last a long time - but it's not always easy to come up with these projects, and the labour involved is only a small percentage.
When you divert productive capacity of the economy to unproductive use (such as building an unnecessary bridge) then society as a whole pays because of the diversion of resources (including labour and capital). The problem becomes more acute, because the 'shovel ready' projects are generally uneconomic ones - in many cases, if there was a positive return to be made from undertaking a certain activity, then the private sector will already have undertaken it.
I think the best use for the paid-unemployed is in things that are labour intensive and help with society. Helping clean houses for new mothers with small children and old people would be one thing, because these activities are economically unviable and you wouldn't be putting anyone else out of work.
In my opinion most in the US are far too concerned about running public infrastructure plans at a profit. The example that comes to my mind most readily is mass transit.
Living in Taiwan, I've seen absolutely amazing changes over a relatively short amount of time. In 1997, Taipei city was hellish. literally millions of people drove their scooters to and from work every day, traffic was terrible, commutes were slow and air was so bad that it was common to see people walking on the sidewalk wearing facemasks.
Now, there's a fairly extensive subway system that links to both a traditional rail system and a high-speed rail (top speed 300km/h) that goes to every major city on the island. In Taipei, commute times from one side of the city to the other dropped from 3 hours to less than one. People don't wear masks to walk on the sidewalks anymore, either. The system has been a major improvement economically, environmentally and in terms of quality of life. In fact, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that subway system saved the city.
However, it was an investment. Nobody expected fares to pay the costs of constructing the subway directly. The government spent the equivalent of over 30 billion US dollars on it and while it was undoubtedly a good investment, it was one that only the public sector would undertake.
When you divert productive capacity of the economy to unproductive use (such as building an unnecessary bridge) then society as a whole pays because of the diversion of resources (including labour and capital).
Do you really think the average unemployed American is doing something any more productive than building an unnecessary bridge?
Also, these projects happen anyways, since in the absence of a US-level program to allocate underutilized human capital our representatives fight like hell to get funding for ridiculous projects in their states, for the sole purpose of providing employment. I'd personally prefer if these projects were devised and approved out in the open by a group responsible for their choices, rather than slipped into important budget bills at the last minute and rammed through Congress because nobody can do anything about it.
Useless bridges are of NEGATIVE value. They use resources (which raises the market price of resources for actual, useful projects), take up funding which comes from tax dollars of firms doing useful work, they need to be maintained, and they eventually need to be decommissioned.
So yes, the average unemployed American watching the grass grow is doing something more productive.
No. That's simply not true by any macroeconomic definition of "value". You're making the classic (and wrong) assumption taht there is only a certain amount of "stuff" available, and spending it in one place means that you can't use it elsewhere. That works for checkbooks. It doesn't work for economies.
There is a finite amount of funding in the federal "checkbook"/budget for a given year. Spending that money means that it can't be used on projects that will pay much better dividends in the future, even if it just means paying off a debt, reducing future interest payments.
A useless bridge will be a drain on the budget in subsequent years for little economic payoff in terms of improved productivity. It's an extremely inefficient allocation of resources, to the point that it's very likely that it's worse than almost all alternatives that don't involve building something.
So what happens to those dollars you pay the bridge builders? Do they just turn into nothing? Or do they use them to pay their mortgages, and shop, and eat? What happens when those bridge builders are not paid for that bridge? That's right, their banks and local stores see less revenue.
Look, just read a textbook or two on macroeconomics. This isn't a new idea. You're just uninformed, sorry.
Yes, I'm well aware of trickle down effects and how it would feed money from the federal budget back into the economy. Yes I've read a couple macro textbooks and even taken more than a few college macro courses in my time, you can cut the condescension and stop appealing to authority, thanks.
There are just always better things to do with that money than making something useless. There are lots of projects that could actually make business more efficient and attractive to conduct in the US.
But failing finding something useful to do with it, they could produce nothing and we'd still be better off. What you're talking about with building a useless bridge is a terribly inefficient form of welfare.
Think about it this way: By having those bridge builders watch the grass grow and sending them the money you would have paid them as welfare, sending the suppliers the money you would have paid them, you get the trickle-down effects you mentioned without the future cost obligations that come with actually producing a bridge to the middle of a lake.
So my original point stands. It's worse to produce something completely useless than it is to not produce anything at all.
The value of unemployment is in the desperation it creates in people. That desperation inspires them to try new, risky things that they would never have the guts to do otherwise.
Would T.J. Watson have had the motivation to found IBM had he not been fired from NCR and indicted by the government for blatant anti-trust schemes? Would Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard have founded HP if it hadn't been the midst of the Great Depression with few jobs to be found? How about Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak - HP nearly killed Apple Computer in the cradle, because Woz didn't want to leave his employer.
The opportunity cost of employment isn't just a bunch of people sitting on their ass. It's a bunch of people sitting on their asses getting increasingly worried about where their next meal is going to come from. Eventually, some of them do something about it. Big risks are usually scary - it often takes some equally scary big shifts in your life to push you into taking them.
None of the people you site were in anything resembling a desperate situation. HP was founded by 2 college fellowship students. TJ Watson was the frontman for NCR before moving to lead IBM. And Woz was so comfortable at HP that he was reluctant to leave to start a company. All these people were financially well-heeled. They all took risks starting a company, but not out of financial desperation.
The one person you didn't mention that even remotely fits the profile of desperate entrepreneur is Steve Jobs, which you failed to include.
Certainly projects like the Hoover dam or interstate system have many positive externalities that last a long time - but it's not always easy to come up with these projects, and the labour involved is only a small percentage.
When you divert productive capacity of the economy to unproductive use (such as building an unnecessary bridge) then society as a whole pays because of the diversion of resources (including labour and capital). The problem becomes more acute, because the 'shovel ready' projects are generally uneconomic ones - in many cases, if there was a positive return to be made from undertaking a certain activity, then the private sector will already have undertaken it.
I think the best use for the paid-unemployed is in things that are labour intensive and help with society. Helping clean houses for new mothers with small children and old people would be one thing, because these activities are economically unviable and you wouldn't be putting anyone else out of work.