"Public investment in infrastructure sits at its lowest level since records have been kept because of underfunding across all levels of government."
And the lead into the second graph, which shows real-terms per-capita public investment is:
"On a per capita basis, real government spending on structures is the lowest it has been since at least 1950."
Given statements like that, I don't see how you can make the leap from "Spending on infrastructure is going up." to "The issue is not lack of investment, it's out of control costs."
That is the mood affiliation of the post - it is in fact the only position on infrastructure that is within the overton window.
But I'm citing the graphs, not the mood affiliation. The graphs show a large increase in spending on transit/water infrastructure and a large increase in costs.
There is also relatively flat per-capita government investment in structures (a broader category which includes buildings/similar things, and is not the typical power/transit/water cited by the parent).
Since 1992, federal spending (in real terms) on transportation/water infrastructure has doubled. State spending has increased by 2.5x. Population has increased 25%.
Maybe it's a red herring, but I always wonder how much infrastructure spending that would have gone into surface building (roads and bridges) has instead gone into subsurface building (deep underground military bases and the tunnels connecting them). Spending for the latter is buried in the black budget so actual numbers aren't available but it has to be huge and it's been going on for decades.
Getting educated in what? Corporate law, advertising and marketing, journalism, HR, French literature...
If most of these jobs are replaced by proper blue-collar occupations, we would see far more tangible results – most importantly, cheaper construction and housing.
It's difficult to make construction in the USA cheaper without greater acceptance of prefabrication and panelization in the residential sector and lowering of permitting costs.
Not to mention breaking public sector unions, eliminating "Buy American" provisions, and just generally removing all the unique things that no one else in the world does.
Delhi built phase 2 of her metro for $2.9B in 3 years (85 stations, 77 miles of track). NYC build Hudson Yards in 9 years for $2.5B (1 station, 1 mile of track).
Various tricks: Delhi didn't wildly overhire and overpay workers, they bought standard train cars/other equipment from Japanese and German corporations that have a proven record in supplying such things, and eliminated a bunch of red tape. It's almost as if Delhi built a metro with the goal of having a metro rather than with the goal of funneling money to MTA workers.
"Public investment in infrastructure sits at its lowest level since records have been kept because of underfunding across all levels of government."
And the lead into the second graph, which shows real-terms per-capita public investment is:
"On a per capita basis, real government spending on structures is the lowest it has been since at least 1950."
Given statements like that, I don't see how you can make the leap from "Spending on infrastructure is going up." to "The issue is not lack of investment, it's out of control costs."