The Keystone pipeline will create just 35 permanent jobs. Don't believe the lies

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/25/keystone-pipeline-permanent-jobs-trump-claims

Since apparently I am obligated by rule 11 to give you an opinion on the matter, I will state the obvious fact that this article clearly demonstrates the futility of counting on the Keystone Pipeline as a source of job creation. I am also bound by rule 11 to ask you to prove otherwise. For some reason.

Have at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Check it out...

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...obs-temporary.htmlPipeline Jobs are Temporary

 

Then why does the left use "construction job economic benefits" to justify the cost of California's high speed rail project? I suspect the pipeline will help create many indirect jobs too. (a major selling point for the train)

The temporary jobs are nice. But I'm more interested in lowering the price of fuel which can help create millions of jobs. I'm not sure California's toy train can say the same.

 

the keystone pipeline brings oil from the canadians to help pay for their socialism, instead of importing oil all the way from the middle east where wars for oil are caused.

this will make the oil market stronger, and that is how many high wage jobs will be created. in other words the pipeline itself won't create many jobs, but the entire oil market that it helps to fix from unnecessary wars will.

 

You would be better served asking that question directly to an individual who thinks such things than characterizing an entire group of people as holding the belief. I'm likely a part of what you call "the left" and I don't hold this opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Moot. This is another in-your-face, suck-it-leftists move...and a Trump triumph.

And yes, he's still a mega-Dbag IMHO.

.

 

The gist of the argument made in this thread is that the pipeline supports industry, and therefore it could be associated with any job growth in those industries.

It's a bit of a weak argument for a few reasons.

1) Comparisons were made to the highway system. But highways support ALL industry. Any industry anywhere that transports goods will benefit. This pipeline supports just ONE industry. Arguments about the environmental impact don't have the same parallels; it is harder to justify something that benefits just one industry than it is to justify something that supports literally everything in the economy.

2) A better argument to be made is that it helps the economy as a whole grow larger. Jobs could be created in the oil and gas industry due to its success. However, as was pointed out in the thread, these are high paying jobs that require specialized skills. We don't even have enough skilled workers to fill the 300k open manufacturing jobs, so I have just as little, if not even less, confidence that creation of job openings will make an impact on employing the people we want to employ.

3) It propagates this false belief that we can become completely energy independent. There is no greater lie in American politics than the belief that we can support our oil consumption with 100% internal resources. Wipe this ridiculous thought from your head forever. The only possible way we can achieve this is by reducing consumption which means our money is better spent on alternatives to oil, not on ways that convince us to consume more of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Lower fuel prices would help virtually every industry:
Airlines could charge lower prices.
Heating a home will be less expensive.
UPS & FedEx could charge less.
Food in the stores will cost less.
the list is virtually endless.

Unless we live in a world where heating homes is done with firewood, transportation of goods and services is conducted by mule train, and factories are powered by fairy dust, lower fuel costs benefit every single man woman and child in America.

 

First off, you have to understand how the pipeline industry works. None of the pipeliner jobs are permanent. People that work on pipelines are hired as "sub-contractors" to build, repair, or provide maintenance work on the pipeline. Those "employees" are mostly considered self employed and travel around the country to perform the job they are hired for.

Keystone pipeline has to be built, which will take thousands of people. Then it has to be maintained and used. It will not be built in a day. Nothing is. It has more positives than negatives and will be good for our country in the short and long term.

 

The whole point of this discussion is the long term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Please go into detail on any construction job that has ever created a "permanent" job for those doing construction.

 

The last thing the industry wants is lower gas prices.... That would be disastrous for Domestic producers.

 

Do you realize we could live in a world where heating homes is done with solar energy, transportation of goods and services is conducted by electric vehicles, and factories are powered by nuclear energy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The OPEC basket price is $52.17 today......

 

When?

Is that technology here yet and economically viable for us to use in place of fossil fuels?

No?

"Til it is, we will continue to use (and expand) our oil and gas to do the things it has done for us for a lot of years.

 

And my point is there is no such thing as long term pipeline jobs anywhere. Those that work pipeline never stay in one location long term. Do all new jobs have to be permanent/forever?

 

The Democratic Party continues its campaign tactic of incessant lying.

No, the pipeline is not to provide oil to China. That is total lie - deliberate lie.

All oil goes on the world market. Jobs and profits for refining will go to the USA with the pipeline. Consumers will not have to pay markups for transporting oil/fuel from outside the USA for oil refined in the USA.

In addition to jobs directly related to the pipeline, there are the PERMANENT refinery jobs, jobs for transporting the oil and jobs from reduced costs to industry and companies.

Many Democrats are pure hypocrites, claiming that fuel just somehow magically appears in their fuel tanks and have the stance that other countries are on another planet and therefore environmental damage done anywhere but in the USA does not affect earth, only the other planets other countries are on.

 

They won't need to hire more refinery workers.

At $52 a barrel are you sure TransCanada still wants to build it?

 

Maybe you don't understand construction jobs. They aren't permanent. But it is another project for them until they move on to their next job. Which won't be permanent either.

 

Why. Do. You. Care. If. Any. Oil. Company. Makes. Money. On. The. Pipeline. Or. Not.?

Why do you not answer that question that has been asked of you so, SO many times?

 

I agree, the next big thing will take more energy not less. I can see magnetic levitation grids for roads in place of pavement and rolling wheels, just long stretches of grass. I can see all electric vehicles rapidly charging at stations every few miles along the nation's roads and byways. But that will take exponentially more power than we produce today. In my opinion Nuclear Power is the answer.

Until then we will continue to rely on hydrocarbons to propel vehicles.

Cheers

 

If Trump talked about employment in terms of hours instead of numbers of jobs, then I'd think differently about this. If he created these 28,000 jobs, and then he created 22,000 permanent positions in other industries, do you think he's going to tell the public that he created 50,000 jobs and not differentiate between them?

If you don't, you need to wake up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So tell me. When do those technologies become viable?

I can get on board with "continue to use". But not "expand".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yeah. Tommorowland was a good movie.

But it was a movie. This is reality.