Story Not Found

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

RIBCO Supply

Check out our great lineup of Boss Plows, and spreaders. 2 Locations Clarksburg & Pittsfield!

ribcosupply.com

Summer Sizzle!

0% APR for new card holders. Apply today at Greylock! Subject to credit approval. Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Your Comments

iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.

Spend more my butt! Stimulus only put people to work for a "short" time, nothing that comes out of it is permanant. We need steady jobs people can count on, not temporary crap. Keep spending, go ahead and see where we end up, all I see is a downward spiral! How about give the people the money to bail themselves out of debt and pay off mortgages, car payments, credit cards (they should have not allowed balances to get too high but did anyways). But if we the people could pay off our debts we will spend more....makes sense?? And all politicians should stop thier ridiculus spending and take a damn pay cut! Maybe even down size the governement, I think that is a brillant idea! Too many of these over paid, money hungry, lying b----. Wake up America!! Editor: First, no foul language, thank you. Second, I agree the country needs permanent jobs, not temporary. But how do we bring that about? Is it possible to do it without an influx of government spending?
from: sick of it!	on: 09-10-2010 07:23AM I Agree (7) - I Disagree (6)

Most of the jobs are government jobs - They don't produce anything. Our economy is based on PRODUCTION! Government get out of the way of the free market and look out - we will be the prosperous nation we once were. Olver is out of touch he must go! Vote for Bill Gunn to represent the 1st district of Massachusetts. www.billgunnforcongress.com Editor: The jobs tracked in the graph were private sector only.
from:	on: 09-10-2010 08:09AM I Agree (6) - I Disagree (5)

With as much respect as I can muster, I disagree with a lot of what Mr. Olver suggests. However, his main assertion (that stimulus spending put people to work) is irrefutable. Certainly we can argue about the quality of those jobs, both they were jobs. Mark Zandi (Sen. McCain's economic adviser during his recent presidential campaign) and Alan Blinder, on July 27, 2010 published their intelligent and non-partisan 23-page report "How the Great Recession was Brought to an End". That report does a better job supporting the job creation assertion than Mr. Olver seemingly did (or I can, for that matter). Are there painful costs to the stimulus spending and arguments regarding the quality/permanency of the jobs? Absolutely (Democrats & Republicans agree on this). But the nuance of that debate may be beyond our friendly "Add Your Comment" choice of medium. (But I'm willing to try if you are....).
from: Allen Harris	on: 09-10-2010 08:37AM I Agree (12) - I Disagree (1)

"You don't hire people to get a tax credit..." - Mr. Olver. While that statement is clinically true, it ignores that a tax credit reduces the cost of a potential hire which any smart employer will consider relative to the expected output of said hire (as always, there's lots of nuance left open for debate). If anyone does not believe that making the labor force cheaper is a cause for hiring, then please consider the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars spent by U.S. companies to build factories and service centers so as to outsource toward cheaper labor outside of the US (India, Malaysia, and China come to mind). Do you believe that is too hyperbolic an example? Allow me to be more straight forward - as an employer I may be willing to hire new employee for $75,000, but not $100,000. A tax-credit subsidizes my payroll expenditures. At what cost? Let's consider a cost that the Democrats are fully supportive of - raise taxes on folks making more than $250,000 per year (I don't necessarily support that cost/idea, but it would have to be paid for somehow).
from: Allen Harris	on: 09-10-2010 08:58AM I Agree (9) - I Disagree (1)

Demand drives the economy. Not tax cuts. Not lower spending. If people and businesses are not spending (i.e. creating demand) then either we slip farther into recession, risking deflation and long term stagnation, or the Government steps in a spends a ton to grease the wheels (ever hear of WWII ending the Great Depression?). Google the phrase "paradox of thrift" if you think that tightening the national belt is the solution. It is in fact on of the worst possible actions.
from: G	on: 09-10-2010 09:35AM I Agree (3) - I Disagree (5)

I certainly have to agree with "G" that it is demand drives the economy. The difficulty, of course, is idenitfying what drives said demand which, in turn, drives the economy "G"'s coments regarding tax cuts being ineffective in stimulating demand is difficult to digest given the recent success of "cash for clunkers" and the home-buyer's tax-credit (both Democratic ideas mind you, so please don't think me a Republica shill - when it comes to politics, I favor good ideas, not party lines). But if I may be so bold as to make make an assumption regaring "G's" comment so as to be partially supportive, tax cuts - while they can be extremely stimulative in the short-term - empirically are difficult to measure because there is no way to control the experiment. In the longer-term as demand increases (due to increased population, innovation, the advent of new technologies, improved consumer confidence, etc) the efficacy of tax cuts cannot be properly measured because other elements simply cannot be simultaneously held equal. (Regardign the paradox of thrift, that paradox is only bad news in the short-term, it is wonderful for the longer-term - hence the paradox.)
from: Allen Harris	on: 09-10-2010 07:40PM I Agree (7) - I Disagree (1)

Roll over John Olver on November 2nd! The time of the progressive democrat is over. You've placed in excessive debt that our children, grandchildren and their children will be straddled with. You've got a "F-" voting record and it's time for you to retire! How come Mr. Olver you don't spend anytime elsewhere in the district other than North Adams?
from: Juan Gonzalez	on: 09-10-2010 08:03PM I Agree (3) - I Disagree (2)

Olver's graph clearly shows the improving private sector employment picture as a result of actions in the Obama administration. It will take years to recover from the ineffective approaches in 2008 under Bush. We must be very patient, which is against our nature. Paul Krugman's recent article relative to 1938 should be required reading before further comments are made:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html
from: NorthAdamsGuy	on: 09-10-2010 08:43PM I Agree (1) - I Disagree (3)

North Adams Guy's "required" reading of Krugman is clearly labeled "opinion", and that should be kept in mind because it is decidedly ant-Democrat. --Mr. Krugman says that overall the Obama stimulus plan was "limited" and "too cautious." --Mr. Krugman reminds us that unemployment remains "disastrously high" and as a consequence "the public has soured on government activism, and seems poised to deal Democrats a severe defeat in mid-term elections." --Mr. Krugman suggests that what will work is to ignore the aforementioned public and instead to increase government spending to levels spurred by WWII spending ("the equivalent of nearly $30 trillion today"). TO SUM: Mr. Krugman argues that Mr. Obama did not do a good job in stimulating the economy, that as a result of Mr. Obama's lack of success that the Republicans will reclaim more control in November's elections, and that whatever party is in control should spend not $787 billion on stimulus, but rather $30 trillion. (This post offers no opinion other than Mr. Krugmans; it is merely a thorough and accurate summary of North Adams Guys' required reading.)
from: Williamstown lady	on: 09-11-2010 06:58AM I Agree (1) - I Disagree (0)

The study of various stimuli on the economy is not rocket science. Certain types of spending create far more "bang for your buck" than others. It is not difficult to quantify, either. http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20081022/ Properly aimed government stimulus works, and works well. And the paradox in the the paradox of thrift is not long term benefits to the economy, but rather the benefits to the individual or entity who is saving, while at the same time doing harm to the large economic playing field. Helps micro - hurts macro.
from: G	on: 09-11-2010 11:27AM I Agree (1) - I Disagree (1)

Why even bring up "paradox of thrift"? It has nothing to do with the conversation....(unless you want to make some radical and absurd leap, which you obviously want to).
from: Williamstown lady	on: 09-11-2010 03:07PM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

"williamstown lady" offers a good summary of Mr. Krugman's points, yet she calls them "anti-Democrat". I believe a solution for unemployed people should be what matters, irrespective of politics. As the 2008(!) link from "G" and the graph from Olver both show, stimulus (by whatever name) works and tax cuts don't - like 1938 and 2008! Let's encourage what works!
from: NorthAdamsGuy	on: 09-11-2010 03:14PM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Dear North Adams Guy, Instead of listing a series of tax cut packages that have worked to stimulate the economy (as you seemigly cling to your countra-belief as if it were some sort of pagan religion), allow me to post some rhetorical consideration: 1) According the the CBO, why has it that federal tax rates have been allowed to drop like a waterfall for the last century? 2) Why did Reagan (R) allow for a massive tax cut? 3) Why did Obama (D) allow for this $787 billion stimuls plan to include $288 billion of tax cuts? 4) Why did Bush Jr. (R) pass the 2001 & 2003 Growth & Reconciliation Acts (aka "The Bush Tax Cuts")? 5) Why has Obama (D) argued to maintain essentially all of the Bush Tax Cuts for those earning under $250,000? Perhaps, NAG, you will argue that these tax cuts have occurred over the last century (while still allowing the US to become the #1 global economic superpower) due to the lack of business/financial education held by politicians. But the truth is, especially at the presidential/law-signing level, decision makers are surrounded by high-level business/financial types. P.S. Olver's chart proved nothing. Olver was guilty of using what is refered to in the statistical circles as "data mining" where he selected only data that supported his argument, and ignored everything else. It is tantamount to lying. To sum: Olver lied.
from: Ph.D In Econ	on: 09-12-2010 07:21AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (1)

"Ph.D in Econ" is talking about the overall economy, and I am talking about unemployed people. Tax cuts may help the economy in some esoteric way, known only to those in academe, but they don't create jobs, and neither do economists. I would welcome any proof, without data mining, that tax cuts reduce the percentage of unemployed people.
from: NorthAdamsGuy	on: 09-12-2010 05:14PM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

North Adams Guy says that tax cuts stimulate the economy, but that tax cuts do not create jobs. There is not an intelligent soul that would disagree with the following statement: "Jobs are created by a growing economy." So let's go back to 9th grade logic class: 1) Tax cuts stimulate the economy. 2) "Jobs are created by a growing economy." 3) Therefore it is irrefutable that THAT CUTS CREATE JOBS. 9th grade logic class was a long time ago. What am I missing?
from: huh?	on: 09-13-2010 07:27AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Per North Adams Guy's suggestion, I tried to seek out evidence that (beyond that logic flow) tax cuts do not create jobs. What you find (at least via an internet search) is that this is a discussion that seems to have a lot of opinions, but no facts (some folks opine they don't work, others swear by them). Instead what I find is that there is not profit that tax cuts don't work. So, not as a challenge but as a hope for education, please someone (North Adams Guy?) find me proof (not partisan opinion) that tax cuts do NOT work.
from: huh?	on: 09-13-2010 07:36AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (1)

Has anyone studied history? Do you remember the Depression in 1920? It's not mentioned much because it was short lived and not prolonged. Harding and Coolidge dramatically cut government spending and lowered taxes - and what did we end up with? Ever hear of the ROARING TWENTIES? Olver is out of touch. Bill Gunn believes that the federal government needs to get back to the limited powers in the Constitution. Le thte state and local communities have most of the authority. Keep our money in own towns/states. It's more effecient and effective.
from: RIP CommonSense	on: 09-13-2010 07:44AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (1)

To "rip common sense", actually US GDP in 1920 grew 1.58%. US GDP in 1921 did fall 4.2% (less than the 5.7% of the most recent correction). A depression is defined as a ten percent decline of GDP, so while 1921 (not 1920) was a stiff recession, it wasn't a depression. Anyhow, your point is well taken. (I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I thought I'd share some geeky details - sorry.)
from: BLS	on: 09-13-2010 09:41AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

"huh" misquotes me. I did not say, nor do I agree, that "tax cuts stimulate the economy". By that reasoning, the Bush tax cuts would have given us a robust economy today, but I hear no-one making that claim. What I do hear is that we "small people" use the cuts to pay down our outrageous debts, or (gasp) save!. That does not create employment. I do agree that when we have a robust and growing economy, jobs are created. Unfortunately, we don't have that case today, and that's why we need special programs to raise employment. By the way, "RIP", didn't the Roaring Twenties end in breadlines and people jumping from skyscrapers? At least we're not there...yet. Unemployed people do not pay taxes. Taxes fund our country's entitlement programs, wars, and debt service. They might even contribute to reducing our deficit! On a purely fiscal level, that's why we need to have more people employed. None of these very costly items could be effectively handled by increasing local control.
from: NorthAdamsGuy	on: 09-13-2010 01:11PM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

"Tax cuts may help the economy in some esoteric way, known only to those in academe..." - North Adams Guy "those in academe" = smart people with education. But you don't need to be a member of higher education to understand how "tax cuts may help the economy" - just 'Google' "how do tax cuts help the economy" and read one of the 10.6 million results.
from: huh?	on: 09-13-2010 05:04PM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (1)

Affordable Housing Advocates Look to Ballot Initiatives, State Legislation

By John TownesSpecial to iBerkshires
06:28PM / Monday, June 01, 2026

This five-part series looks at the challenges in building affordable housing and at some solutions in Berkshire County. Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5.

Regulatory reform is widely considered an important key in the overall effort to increase the supply and affordability of housing.

It's estimated that building a modest house can cost as much as $500,000 today.

While the rising price of materials and services are also responsible for this, a significant factor is the expense and delays that are required to meet stringent requirements and regulations. This impacts projects ranging from large developments to renovations by individual homeowners.

Despite differences and some controversies over specifics, there is widespread consensus on the need to streamline bureaucratic hurdles and red tape for new housing and rehabilitation of existing properties.

Reforms are intended to address excessive or unnecessary regulations and procedures in zoning, building codes and other requirements that proponents say stifle affordable construction and more efficient land-use.

One statewide advocacy group is Abundant Housing Massachusetts, a coalition of local community groups and others who

support pro-housing policies.

View Full Story