• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Payrolls Gain More-Than-Expected 200,000; Jobless Rate Falls to 8.5%

iliveonramen said:
As for the statutory rate, yeah, we're higher, when including total taxation and what companies really pay in taxes....we're pretty low.

As for "because I say so"....not it's not. You pick the weakest European countries and say "see....look what labor unions and regulation does". You ignore countries with higher per capita income or higher per capita GDP's.
Click to expand...

Nope. You praised Europe, to the point of saying that they were collectively doing better than the US, and challenged me to explain how their "burden" was not a hindrance while I claimed that ours was. Fact is that collective Europe is currently doing worse. Their Euro has dropped in more value in the last 3 months than has our dollar. Our markets still hinge on the "latest our of Europe". France faces downgrade. As bad of an investment as the US may be, we are doing OK because Europe is currently worse.

That Germany is far better off, and is in fact a net exporter, would be to look to the premier economic role model in Europe. I guarantee you that they have a superior government model when it comes to economic interface.


No...I said Labor Unions were not going to make us competitive with China not that it's not a factor in business decisions. The problem is people like Rick Perry or conservatives that are anti-Union are trying to sell this idea that Labor Unions are the reason factories are going to China....that's not the case. Breaking Labor Unions will not create this massive economic boom.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely a reason. It is the main reason that the US Big 3 ain't so big anymore. You already noted labor cost as the usual highest cost of production. When you compare unuion anything to non-union anything, you will see the labor differentials. To claim that is not a factor is to ifnore what is on the plate, IMMHO

Further, no one says Unions are THE problem. Many say that they are one of the problems though.
 
j-mac said:
I can agree with this, in so far as Labor Union deterrent by itself is not a sole reason for a business to decline a specific state for consideration, however, when you consider, taxation in the form of repatriation of profit from off shore to an on shore establishment, burdensome regulation coming from every, and any direction make it so though.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Everything is comparative. Starting a company in China is a mess. There is the corruption to deal with...and they do have massive amounts of permits to fill out. As for unions...they do have the largest trade union in the world. At the end of the day, the people who are winning manufactorers (in my view) are not due to the perfect business envinroment but borderline unlivable wages.

I don't think overreacting and declaring war on labor unions or tearing up regulations is what is called for. Our future won't be competiting with China for low wage jobs. We can't...unless we're willing to really create 2 Americas (even more so than now).
 
iliveonramen said:
Everything is comparative. Starting a company in China is a mess. There is the corruption to deal with...and they do have massive amounts of permits to fill out. As for unions...they do have the largest trade union in the world. At the end of the day, the people who are winning manufactorers (in my view) are not due to the perfect business envinroment but borderline unlivable wages.

I don't think overreacting and declaring war on labor unions or tearing up regulations is what is called for. Our future won't be competiting with China for low wage jobs. We can't...unless we're willing to really create 2 Americas (even more so than now).
Click to expand...


Did you bother to watch the video I posted earlier?

j-mac
 
Goldenboy219 said:
In 1981-1982, household net wealth steadily increased year-over-year.

fredgraph.png


Between 2007 and 2011, this was not the case (as citizens net wealth was decreasing).

fredgraph.png


Which is why citing the misery index is naive.
Click to expand...
Does this include the value of homes?
 
j-mac said:
Did you bother to watch the video I posted earlier?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I watched and I have to say I agree in parts and disagree in parts. I'm pretty sure that compliance and regulation are a large part of his costs. I know that regulation in the financial field is crazy. At the same time capital markets are the linchpin of a capitalists system. You need to have transparency and trust in them.

I dunno, maybe there are regulations that can be stripped away but at the same time....we may be opening ourselves up to fraud.
 
iliveonramen said:
I watched and I have to say I agree in parts and disagree in parts. I'm pretty sure that compliance and regulation are a large part of his costs. I know that regulation in the financial field is crazy. At the same time capital markets are the linchpin of a capitalists system. You need to have transparency and trust in them.

I dunno, maybe there are regulations that can be stripped away but at the same time....we may be opening ourselves up to fraud.
Click to expand...

I agree, and am in no way advocating the elimination of all regulation. But, in the same breath, the regulation have to be designed to aid Americans, and not hamper business with uncertainty...

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I agree, and am in no way advocating the elimination of all regulation. But, in the same breath, the regulation have to be designed to aid Americans, and not hamper business with uncertainty...

j-mac
Click to expand...

That is very true. There always should be some cost vs benefit considered for any regulation. Government seems to tend to layer regulation. Someone makes a mistake...and they create some new beuracracy or some new regulation that is really just waste. I have no problem of going through with a hatchet and cutting out regulations on the books that were created from one time instances like someone didn't do their job so they created another regulation.

My main issue is the demonization of regulation. . I think any Liberal person (great article by David Brooks in NYT (Where Are the Liberals? - NYTimes.com) where he mentions that Liberals should be the first to go through slashing regulations and making government better. If you think government can do good...you have to give people a reason to have faith.
 
iliveonramen said:
That is very true. There always should be some cost vs benefit considered for any regulation. Government seems to tend to layer regulation. Someone makes a mistake...and they create some new beuracracy or some new regulation that is really just waste. I have no problem of going through with a hatchet and cutting out regulations on the books that were created from one time instances like someone didn't do their job so they created another regulation.

My main issue is the demonization of regulation. . I think any Liberal person (great article by David Brooks in NYT (Where Are the Liberals? - NYTimes.com) where he mentions that Liberals should be the first to go through slashing regulations and making government better. If you think government can do good...you have to give people a reason to have faith.
Click to expand...


Not a fan of Brooks, but he has a point. Why is it that you think that instead of doing what Obama said he was going to do in the form of going through things line by line, he has only made them more onerous, more restrictive, and created new agencies that are redundant in their mission, that lends the very uncertainty that business claims is one of the problems they face in making the decision to hire?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Peter Schiff says regulation is the biggest burden, not labor cost.

[video]http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1205577729001/peter-schiff-regulation-is-my-single-biggest-fixed-cost/[/video]

j-mac
Click to expand...

Stossel is largely kind of silly and tends to hype things far too much. You need to list specific regulations and show whihc ones are needed and which ones are not. If a regulation is really needed, saves lives, protects people, does cost mean we shouldn't do it?
 
Boo Radley said:
Stossel is largely kind of silly and tends to hype things far too much. You need to list specific regulations and show whihc ones are needed and which ones are not. If a regulation is really needed, saves lives, protects people, does cost mean we shouldn't do it?
Click to expand...


Have you seen our Checking account balance....It is racking up alot of fees. But, seriously, nah, I don't have to prove anything to you. All you need to know is that Obama is done. Approximately 1 year, and we will be swearing in a different President.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Have you seen our Checking account balance....It is racking up alot of fees. But, seriously, nah, I don't have to prove anything to you. All you need to know is that Obama is done. Approximately 1 year, and we will be swearing in a different President.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well, nice side step. I guess there's a reason Fox and you seem to want to talk in generalizations without being more specific.
 
Boo Radley said:
Stossel is largely kind of silly and tends to hype things far too much. You need to list specific regulations and show whihc ones are needed and which ones are not. If a regulation is really needed, saves lives, protects people, does cost mean we shouldn't do it?
Click to expand...

This would be the same John Stossel who did a show about the litigious nature of Americans and their eagerness to sue each other in court hoping to hit the lottery. And that same John Stossel collected several hundred thousand dollars when he was bitch-slapped across the head after he filed suit himself. But that did not stop him from roundly criticizing and condemning others who did the exact same thing he did. Damn hypocrite and pansy who cannot even take a open hand slap.

'nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Well, nice side step. I guess there's a reason Fox and you seem to want to talk in generalizations without being more specific.
Click to expand...


1 Year...That's it. The people see the failure that is Obama, and liberalism.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
1 Year...That's it. The people see the failure that is Obama, and liberalism.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Liberalism?

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

It's always fun to watch the ideaology lose himeself in the silly, but that isn't on the issue before you. But I know why you won't address it. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Liberalism?

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

It's always fun to watch the ideaology lose himeself in the silly, but that isn't on the issue before you. But I know why you won't address it. ;)
Click to expand...


It is your premise that is silly....Let's see, Asking people if they like their free stuff, then touting that as how the country loves your plan...When in reality, 69% of people want Obamacare repealed.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
It is your premise that is silly....Let's see, Asking people if they like their free stuff, then touting that as how the country loves your plan...When in reality, 69% of people want Obamacare repealed.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Again, not what waas asked. Read carefully. Put your ideaology aside and read the words.

And a large number that want it repealed state they do because it doesn't go far enough, and nto that it is too much. But, you don't really want to address that either. It is easier to be dishonest about it, right?
 
Boo Radley said:
You need to list specific regulations and show whihc ones are needed and which ones are not. If a regulation is really needed, saves lives, protects people, does cost mean we shouldn't do it?
Click to expand...

Does this help you?

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf


The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more
than $1.75 trillion in 2008. Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal
regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal
regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which
equaled $10,500 per household in 2008. While all citizens and businesses pay some
portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven. The
portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in
2008. Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the
largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual
regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory
cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees)
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you would argue, and liklely they cna argue this as well, that such isn't aviable yet. A logical approach and one that should be a winning one, provided it really isn't available yet. But each regulation should be appraoched individually, and not with a grouping that just says do away with regulations. Is this difficult to grasp?
Click to expand...

Before I attempt the impossible task of reviewing all current regulations to find ones that would be considered wasteful, let me better understand your position on the issue. Do you think the regulatory burden is too much and needs to be reduced or do you believe the country is too deregulated as it is and needs additional regulation?

Obama's recent regulatory review found $2 billion in wasteful, costly regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom