Cowen and Smith debate government role in boosting growth

They call it a "debate," but there really wasn't much debating going on (link). After reading it, I was disappointed how little substance there was to the whole thing. Many of the responses felt like they were talking past the other side, not even engaging the ideas. If I could sum it up, it would be:

Cowen: We have pretty much reached full employment, so increasing demand through government spending doesn't make much sense.

Smith: Maybe, but there might be some room left for government spending, and I would rather spend money on infrastructure that we need anyway, even if it turns out there isn't really any demand gap. Besides, wages are still flat so we probably have at least a little slack.

Cowen: Government spending should pass a supply-side test - if we go beyond that, we are likely misallocating resources. Even if wages are flat, it might be that employers value labor less, and maybe human labor is actually less valuable. Video games and porn might be more enjoyable for workers, so they don't care to work hard for more pay.

Smith: But if some workers are valuing leisure time over productivity and work, then shouldn't we see wages going up? That would be a negative supply shock to labor.

Cowen: Not if labor quality is lower. You have fewer workers but they aren't as valuable.

Smith: But women are staying home too... are women staying home and playing video games/watching porn?

Cowen: Maybe we just hit a bubble in the labor market and this is more of an equilibrium level of women in the workforce.

Smith: Even if there really isn't any demand gap, more stimulus! More infrastructure!

Cowen: Sure, more infrastructure is fine. But only in cases where it is really necessary.

I had a lot of questions reading through their exchange that I would have hoped they would have addressed. My thoughts -

• What types of infrastructure does Noah propose? Another bridge to nowhere (what I call "Krugmanian stimulus") doesn't seem like a worthwhile investment, even if there is a demand gap. I agree that some spending might be justified even if unemployment is essentially 0.
• There is a lot to be said about the value of leisure. It has become extremely inexpensive to maintain a comfortable lifestyle with more and more consumer goods available at ever cheaper prices. Anecdotally, I see many of my peers happy to accept less disposable income for more disposable time. Turns out that a comfortable life is easy to afford. Is this a problem? And if so, what are potential solutions? I don't know if it is a problem yet, but if more people trade in work for leisure, there is probably a tipping point where things get bad.
• Why aren't wages increasing with labor participation getting back toward historical levels and unemployment below 5%? Tyler says it's because of a lack of skills among those workers who are playing games in their spare time. But Noah has a good point, if the labor pool is shrinking for skilled workers, why aren't we seeing more wage growth? I would guess that substitutes for labor are improving, and not just for unskilled workers. As the perceived value of human labor has declined, companies would be more willing to invest in technology which picks up the slack in labor markets.
• What is happening with women in the labor force? Are we seeing any sign that women are leaving the work because of family responsibilities? Are industries dominated by women (service, education, etc) shrinking?