• 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%

j-mac,Unions jobs are a minority of jobs in the US. It's hard to demonize unions as the culprit when they make up such a small minority of private sector jobs.

They make up a much larger part of the education system, which is the single largest determinent of how educated our current work force is, and how educated our future work force will be. And education of course being important factors in crime rate, whether they will go on to be productive and pay taxes, or criminals and suck taxes, or welfare junkies who have 5 kids and suck taxes, it affects birth rate, it affacts their probability of saving and having a self-funded retirement, it determines our global competitiveness, and helps move domestic industry to higher skilled labor, etc. etc.

You do know the political power that teachers unions wield right? And how they are the largest(?) political donor organizations?

No, it's not very hard is it. One traffic accident can block a freeway for miles and impact far more than just the accident participants.
 
Last edited:
Oh well if NEWT GINGRICH SAYS IT!

Don't worry iliveonramen you don't have to take him seriously.

He once used Conservapedia as a source. Shows you how deep down the rabbit hole of right wing partisanship he's gone.

I couldn't care less weather you like what I post or not, and I have never claimed that I wasn't partisan. Are you saying you're not? hahaha....But, the glaring thing is that rather than address what I posted from Newt, you chose to attack me personally, that says alot. You've got nothing.

j-mac
 
If your going to make an accusation like that why not be a little more specific. Please point out how liberalism has made the US uncompetitive.

Others already have provided some more specific data. But I have already mentioned agencies such as the EPA and NLRB. I have mentioned 3 years of UI. But most importatnly, if you were concerned, you would do some research yourself.

So...lets say we got rid of every regulation on the book (the most extreme case) you think that an American worker would be able to compete with the labor costs of China?

Not necessarily, but we would come closer to leveling the playing field if we did take a hard look at many regulations and other government encumberances that are as anchors around capitalism stateside.

Unions jobs are a minority of jobs in the US. It's hard to demonize unions as the culprit when they make up such a small minority of private sector jobs.

Government union jobs are not the minority of tax-payer funded jobs. Especially at the state and local levels. It could also be said that Unions ruined our competitive advantage in the auto industry. It is clear as day that virtually all the new auto plants (almost all building foreign models, btw) built in the last two decades in the US are in right-to-work states. Got an explanation for that ?
 
I couldn't care less weather you like what I post or not, and I have never claimed that I wasn't partisan. Are you saying you're not? hahaha....But, the glaring thing is that rather than address what I posted from Newt, you chose to attack me personally, that says alot. You've got nothing.

j-mac

Hey you want to make an argument, then back it up with credible sources.
 
Or decided to become a stay-at-home parent or became disabled or moved to another country or died or possibly other things that would take them out of those looking for work.

Except that those factors are relatively constant in any time-frame. What we have with our LFPR these last four years is an Acapulco cliff dive.
 
Oh well if NEWT GINGRICH SAYS IT!

Don't worry iliveonramen you don't have to take him seriously.

He once used Conservapedia as a source. Shows you how deep down the rabbit hole of right wing partisanship he's gone.

Lame ......

Hey you want to make an argument, then back it up with credible sources.

....... and Lamer. I can't see anyone wanting to waste time with such nonsense from you. If you can't debate, then maybe just go away from the thread, eh ?
 
j-mac,

Unions jobs are a minority of jobs in the US. It's hard to demonize unions as the culprit when they make up such a small minority of private sector jobs.

True that Private sector unions make up only about 7% of jobs in the US, it is not due to a lack of power of unions in this country, nor policies like card check that only by the attentiveness of the people keeping this from becoming law in this country, thank God!

Also, that public sector Unions hold such sway today, and should really be abolished en total, is also a corrosive plague on our system.

Driving regulation that makes this country burdensome, and uncompetitive is at the heart of the deficit. There is no argument to that.

j-mac
 
Except that those factors are relatively constant in any time-frame. What we have with our LFPR these last four years is an Acapulco cliff dive.

Are they constant right now? Where is the information for this? It seems that some things are going to change, especially if people are trying to adapt to a change in times.
 
Hey you want to make an argument, then back it up with credible sources.

When you become the arbiter of what is credible and what isn't, that'll be the day. Now, either discuss what I posted, or move on....You're not adding anything to the conversation other than diversion.

j-mac
 
So...lets say we got rid of every regulation on the book (the most extreme case) you think that an American worker would be able to compete with the labor costs of China?

I think that if you make America competitive with comparable regulation, and taxation, we would out produce anyone in the world with a superior product, head to head. It really has little to do with what you pay the line worker.

j-mac
 
Others already have provided some more specific data. But I have already mentioned agencies such as the EPA and NLRB. I have mentioned 3 years of UI. But most importatnly, if you were concerned, you would do some research yourself.

I know the arguments but it doesn't explain why highly regulated Eurpean countries can compete and doesn't explain how that's the reason jobs are going to China not that they are paid 250 bucks a month.

Not necessarily, but we would come closer to leveling the playing field if we did take a hard look at many regulations and other government encumberances that are as anchors around capitalism stateside.
I have no problems with getting rid of dumb regulations where the cost are not worth the benefit. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. The fact is conservative "anti-regulation" rhetoric goes from getting rid of child labor laws to getting rid of emission standards. That is what I don't agree with.

Government union jobs are not the minority of tax-payer funded jobs. Especially at the state and local levels. It could also be said that Unions ruined our competitive advantage in the auto industry. It is clear as day that virtually all the new auto plants (almost all building foreign models, btw) built in the last two decades in the US are in right-to-work states. Got an explanation for that ?

Of course corporations are going to go to a state where workers have no bargaining rights.....thats not the reason those companies come to the US. They come because they want a piece of our domestic market. All right to work states do is provide a comparative advantage within the US. Compainies are not deciding between China and Alabama and choose Alabama....the are choosing between Ohio and Alabama and choose Alabama.
 
I think that if you make America competitive with comparable regulation, and taxation, we would out produce anyone in the world with a superior product, head to head. It really has little to do with what you pay the line worker.

j-mac

I'm not arguing against head to head production or product quality. I'm arguing the fact that Chinese workers have a living standard where you can pay them 250 bucks a month and work them long hours. I find it hard to believe that in any way besides basically our standard of living completely dissapearing or the Chinese workers standard of living increasing can we compete with Chinese labor.
 
Are they constant right now? Where is the information for this? It seems that some things are going to change, especially if people are trying to adapt to a change in times.

Whoa. It was you who first raised the point that they were somehow not constant, and therefore using your unsupported point to give some perverted credibility to the drop in LFPR, other than the obvious.

If you are now claiming that it is the poor job situation at the root of it all, then we are in agreement. It also means that our unemployment rate is a farce as reported, as when we face such negative times, it does not accurately reflect what is really happening.
 
Last edited:
I know the arguments but it doesn't explain why highly regulated Eurpean countries can compete and doesn't explain how that's the reason jobs are going to China not that they are paid 250 bucks a month.

Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland are not competing. Many other European countries have higher unemployment than do we.

http://www.bls.gov/fls/chart2.gif


I have no problems with getting rid of dumb regulations where the cost are not worth the benefit. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. The fact is conservative "anti-regulation" rhetoric goes from getting rid of child labor laws to getting rid of emission standards. That is what I don't agree with.

We fundamentally agree. I am very Conservative. I do not want to pollute the skies and work kids to death, despite what witch Pelosi and that poodle Wasserman-Shultz say.

Of course corporations are going to go to a state where workers have no bargaining rights.....thats not the reason those companies come to the US. They come because they want a piece of our domestic market. All right to work states do is provide a comparative advantage within the US. Compainies are not deciding between China and Alabama and choose Alabama....the are choosing between Ohio and Alabama and choose Alabama.

But my point apparently served as a perfect response to illustrate to the negative impact of unions on comparative advantage. As you acknowledge.
 
They make up a much larger part of the education system, which is the single largest determinent of how educated our current work force is, and how educated our future work force will be. And education of course being important factors in crime rate, whether they will go on to be productive and pay taxes, or criminals and suck taxes, or welfare junkies who have 5 kids and suck taxes, it affects birth rate, it affacts their probability of saving and having a self-funded retirement, it determines our global competitiveness, and helps move domestic industry to higher skilled labor, etc. etc.

You do know the political power that teachers unions wield right? And how they are the largest(?) political donor organizations?

No, it's not very hard is it. One traffic accident can block a freeway for miles and impact far more than just the accident participants.

Personally I would say that parents are the single largest determinent of how educated our work force is. As far as teacher unions go, I don't see students from non-unionized charter schools performing better than students from unionized public schools.
 
We fundamentally agree. I am very Conservative. I do not want to pollute the skies and work kids to death, despite what witch Pelosi and that poodle Wasserman-Shultz say.

But the fact is that conservatives consistently fight to roll back environmental regulations.
 
But the fact is that conservatives consistently fight to roll back environmental regulations.

All environmental regulations, or just the ones we see as foolish or counter-productive ?

Conversely, the "fact" would then be that liberals always fight to increase environmental regulations ? To increase the powers of such as the NLRB ? To increase the power of such as municipal unions ? To increase our comparative disadvantage ?
 
But the fact is that conservatives consistently fight to roll back environmental regulations.

Sometimes the regulations are idiotic.

North Hanover deputy mayor pleads guilty in bog turtle case - phillyBurbs.com : Burlington County Times: james durr, north hanover, environment, turtle creek farm, bog turtles

Phillyburbs.com said:
“The government agrees with us that the sentence should be probationary,” Bennett said. “The boilerplate is that he chopped down some trees in the upland. It’s a low-level misdemeanor, and it’s our expectation that his right to hold office will not be affected.”

The turtle has more rights that people do - for example, since the turtle is "endangered" that land cannot be taken over by the government using Eminent Domain without working around the turtles habitat. My rights and your rights however, are not so strong as the turtles.
 
I'm not arguing against head to head production or product quality. I'm arguing the fact that Chinese workers have a living standard where you can pay them 250 bucks a month and work them long hours. I find it hard to believe that in any way besides basically our standard of living completely dissapearing or the Chinese workers standard of living increasing can we compete with Chinese labor.


Labor pay is only one aspect of a business the size of what we are talking about here. Taxation, regulation, and Unionization are far bigger concerns.

j-mac
 
Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland are not competing. Many other European countries have higher unemployment than do we.
Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and Spain have never been US competitors. They've always been some of the weaker European competing countries. Germany, UK, France, Sweden, Finland, etc are competitive countries and are easily compartive to us in Regulation or labor laws.

I would like to point out....Ireland was pointed out to show how loose banking and regulatory as well as low tax structures work. People seem to forget during the economic boom Ireland was what Conservatives used to say "see...deregulation and low taxes work". Someone they've turned into examples of big government and high regulation when that's not the case.

You cannot point to Europe and specific countries and discount the stronger economies.

But my point apparently served as a perfect response to illustrate to the negative impact of unions on comparative advantage. As you acknowledge.

Yes, comparative within the US. If Toyata is building an American plant it's because it wants American expertise, take advantage of American higher education, our infrastructure and most importantly wants to build a plant in one of it's largest exporting market.

They didn't make the choice based on labor laws. They did choose Alabama over Ohio but if all states had the same labor laws they would base it on something else. That's the issue. Companies are not making decisions to build in Texas or South Carolina over India or China. They are choosing those states over Washington or Ohio.

The faulty logic is that if everybody had the regulatory and labor envinronment of Texas we'd have this massive boom of jobs. At it would mean is that for the manufactoring we do have they would base their decisions on other things besides those two and the consumer and employee would be worse off.
 
Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and Spain have never been US competitors. They've always been some of the weaker European competing countries. Germany, UK, France, Sweden, Finland, etc are competitive countries and are easily compartive to us in Regulation or labor laws.

I would like to point out....Ireland was pointed out to show how loose banking and regulatory as well as low tax structures work. People seem to forget during the economic boom Ireland was what Conservatives used to say "see...deregulation and low taxes work". Someone they've turned into examples of big government and high regulation when that's not the case.

You cannot point to Europe and specific countries and discount the stronger economies.

Yet all of the above is "because I say so". Further, the comparison, and complaint, is not just about regulations. Name one of the European countries that YOU named that has a higher corporate tax than the US ? Just one ?

A: NONE.

Yes, comparative within the US. If Toyata is building an American plant it's because it wants American expertise, take advantage of American higher education, our infrastructure and most importantly wants to build a plant in one of it's largest exporting market.

They didn't make the choice based on labor laws. They did choose Alabama over Ohio but if all states had the same labor laws they would base it on something else. That's the issue. Companies are not making decisions to build in Texas or South Carolina over India or China. They are choosing those states over Washington or Ohio.

The faulty logic is that if everybody had the regulatory and labor envinronment of Texas we'd have this massive boom of jobs. At it would mean is that for the manufactoring we do have they would base their decisions on other things besides those two and the consumer and employee would be worse off.

But you were the one trying to mitigate the impact of unions as a comparative disadvantage. You have now come around to agreeing that Unions are a measurable factor. We see it in choices made by such as Toyota-US.

Look, Maytag isn't moving from Iowa to Alabama. GE didn't move half its production in the last 20 years from Illinois to South Carolina. It is most certainly not an issue contained within our borders.
 
Labor costs are generally the most expensive cost in almost any organization.


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
 
Yet all of the above is "because I say so". Further, the comparison, and complaint, is not just about regulations. Name one of the European countries that YOU named that has a higher corporate tax than the US ? Just one ?

A: NONE.
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.


But you were the one trying to mitigate the impact of unions as a comparative disadvantage. You have now come around to agreeing that Unions are a measurable factor. We see it in choices made by such as Toyota-US.

Look, Maytag isn't moving from Iowa to Alabama. GE didn't move half its production in the last 20 years from Illinois to South Carolina. It is most certainly not an issue contained within our borders.
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.
 
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.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom