[ghein]

There are political choices behind the decline in infrastructure.

It costs NYC $2.1B per mile to build the Second Ave subway while in Europe it costs $200-500M per mile. There's California High Speed Rail, and then there's just the cost to build a condo in San Francisco (see the "historic" laundromat in The Mission).

You have interlocking legislation, many reasons and opportunities to sue, esoteric work rules. Regardless of the validity of each element the structure as a whole is patently absurd and abhorrent.

Then you have government spending. A university does not need much beyond some blackboards and some professors to teach most everything from Philosophy to French to Advanced Data Structures to Topology. Certain PhDs need more equipment but essentially all the expensive equipment should be paid for by research grants or contracts.

Over the past decades more and more classes are taught by adjuncts at Starbucks level wages. Meanwhile the percentage of staff and spending on administrative functions has climbed dramatically. Adjusting for inflation, from 1947 to 1995, overall university spending increased 148 percent. Administrative spending, though, increased by a whopping 235 percent. Instructional spending, by contrast, increased only 128 percent, 20 points less than the overall rate of spending increase.

Obama promised to invest in "shovel ready jobs". There was a backlash because so much money was being spent on construction and thus, due to the current makeup of construction workers, the vast majority of money would go to men. Spending was adjusted to include other projects so that the gender balance of spending would be more palatable.

So to get $1 in new infrastructure spending you need an additional $1 in net new other government services. Or possibly much more than $1, depending on the various worker populations. This in an environment where you're getting only 25% to 10% of your initial money's worth.

So $1 in net new infrastructure costs $20 or more.