• 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!

CAN the GOP bring back jobs to the depressed red states?

DVSentinel said:
You own a small business? What kind? Is it a manufacturing business?

I never said that a business couldn't be successful. But what are your labor costs? Do you even have to deal with federal agencies?
Click to expand...


I own a multi-department printing company, so yes, I suppose you could say that it's a manufacturing company, but we are also a retailer and a service company - we handle all aspects of business.

So are you suggesting that only manufacturing companies have to deal with government regulations? So what percent of all businesses are manufacturing companies? Maybe 5%? Is it fair to infer from that the regulations are only holding back at most 5% of businesses? Wow, we just disposed of 95% of the argument against regulations.

And of course we have to deal with federal agencies. Not often, it's fairly mundane paperwork. We have to comply with regulations on our air quality, on the way we dispose of waste materials, on having a safe work environment and a safe environment for our customers also. We keep MDS's on over 50 chemicals that we purchase. Because of the nature of some of the solvents we use, we have to have an eye wash station and an approved general first aid station. We also had to conform to UBC when we constructed our current location, had to build a berm and install about 30 trees, we have to have handicapped parking spaces, we have to have battery powered backup lighting and emergency lighting, lighted exist lights, at least two methods of egress from each room over X sf, etc. None of that was that big of a deal, we just did it. Back then I had to go to the library to look a lot of this stuff up, our general contractor was also trained in regulations, but these days, you can just look it up on the internet.

And "labor cost" is the money that you have to pay out to employ labor, including all employee benefits and the cost of processing payroll. Seems like you would have known that already, but I'm glad I could educate you.

Or maybe you are emplying that if my labor cost was lower, that I could afford to expand or to be more profitable. No, that's not the way it works. If my labor cost was lower (due to less regulation or no minimum wage or whateever), then my competitors would also have a lower labor cost, and they would have the exact same relative competitive advantage that I do. So we would just continue to compete based upon price and quality, and it would make no difference to either of us. Prices might would be a little lower due to costs being lower and competition being fierce in my industry, but my bottom line would likely end up being just the same because the lower revenue would offset any costs savings. And of course if worker compensation was lower, consumers would have less money in their pocket, so it's not like demand would increase - lower wages would offset lower prices and there would be no net benefit to consumers. All we would end up with is a less safe working environment and a dirtier eco-environment for everyone without those regulations.

Yes, repeal and restructure everything you mentioned. Get rid of the clean air act and other enviro-stupidity. get rid of stupid "job safety" laws and the mountain of paperwork necessary to document it. Yes, get rid of anti-discrimination laws. Get rid of mandated "benefits".

Even Child labor laws need to be redone.
Click to expand...

How's that working out for Somolia?
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
We should not be leaving these hard workers out in the cold.
Click to expand...

Economy doesn't give a **** how hard you work, only what you can provide. They should pick themselves up by the bootstraps and adapt, learn a new skills, and quit being whiny ****s.
 
Fruityfact said:
Economy doesn't give a **** how hard you work, only what you can provide. They should pick themselves up by the bootstraps and adapt, learn a new skills, and quit being whiny ****s.
Click to expand...

I hope you're being sarcastic.
 
imagep said:
How's that working out for Somolia?
Click to expand...

You are making the false assumption that I would want everything removed, not reduced or replaced. Also, Somolia is a bad comparison since it has not had the internal resources that the US has.

The EPA does do some good, however it is a corrupted dismal organization that is built upon bad foundations. It need torn down and rebuilt. It should also not have broad discretionary powers to introduce policy and regulation without checks and balances.

Businesses have to do environmental impact studies, when was that last time anything or anyone associated with the EPA or environmental groups had to do an economic impact study?

OSHA is similar, it has it's good and it's bad, we need to cut out the bad.
 
MaggieD said:
If what you say is true, still enact tariffs dedicating THAT income stream to helping those blue collar workers who lost great jobs in foundries etc al. We owe these people something as a nation.

The attitude that a $9 an hour job is better than not working at all is cavalier to say the least. Homes are foreclosed. Lives are ruined. Self-esteem is destroyed. Families dessimated. You wear those shoes a moment. You just lost your $40 an hour job that included health benefits, vacations, sick days, disability, pension benefits...and now, thru no fault of your own, you're a greeter at WalMart. IF you even have the people skills to do THAT.

We should not be leaving these hard workers out in the cold.

America first.

As to statistics, what you point out is a distinction without a difference. As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. They often times are all the same.
Click to expand...

To the extent that tariffs would be effective, they would increase the cost of goods.

I have a GREAT deal of sympathy for Americans who have been left behind by the economy. Trying to pull some $10/day jobs back into our borders just isn't the solution i like the most. Making goods more expensive generally makes business more expensive and could slow the economy. Personally, i think healthcare needs to be separated from employment. Right now, if you get healthcare through employment, it's a huge disruption to quit your job. That limits freedom and competition.

I take issue with the fact that you imply i don't care. I care a great deal. I know what it's like to not have any money. And i absolutely think that we should take care of Americans. We could provide a basic income that keeps everybody out of poverty.
 
Absentglare said:
To the extent that tariffs would be effective, they would increase the cost of goods.

I have a GREAT deal of sympathy for Americans who have been left behind by the economy. Trying to pull some $10/day jobs back into our borders just isn't the solution i like the most. Making goods more expensive generally makes business more expensive and could slow the economy. Personally, i think healthcare needs to be separated from employment. Right now, if you get healthcare through employment, it's a huge disruption to quit your job. That limits freedom and competition.

I take issue with the fact that you imply i don't care. I care a great deal. I know what it's like to not have any money. And i absolutely think that we should take care of Americans. We could provide a basic income that keeps everybody out of poverty.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to imply that. I often use "you" as a collective, not referring to a poster. Perhaps that caused the confusion. My bad.
 
MaggieD said:
Trump can keep his promise of renegotiating trade agreements, ease regulation, increase tariffs and discourage thru punitive measures, manufacturing from moving south of the border and overseas.

He can champion legislation that would alter how the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (a Fed program) insures the collapsed pension benefits of bankrupt companies.

He can acknowledge that stats lie and that the unemployment numbers don't reflect the middle income jobs lost in favor of WalMart greeters.

He can ease these people's burden through offering education, job retraining, tax breaks, early Medicare, etc. These expensive programs in place of helping refugees and illegal immigrants.

USA first.

My Tom lost three great manufacturing jobs. Ball Bros! Glass plant, closed and moved south away from unions; Anchor Hocking same thing. Outboard Marine filed bankruptcy. Pension earned minimized thru take-over by PBGC. Hard working man all his life.
Click to expand...

Pretty good post Maggie ;)
 
imagep said:
I own a multi-department printing company, so yes, I suppose you could say that it's a manufacturing company, but we are also a retailer and a service company - we handle all aspects of business.

So are you suggesting that only manufacturing companies have to deal with government regulations? So what percent of all businesses are manufacturing companies? Maybe 5%? Is it fair to infer from that the regulations are only holding back at most 5% of businesses? Wow, we just disposed of 95% of the argument against regulations.

And of course we have to deal with federal agencies. Not often, it's fairly mundane paperwork. We have to comply with regulations on our air quality, on the way we dispose of waste materials, on having a safe work environment and a safe environment for our customers also. We keep MDS's on over 50 chemicals that we purchase. Because of the nature of some of the solvents we use, we have to have an eye wash station and an approved general first aid station. We also had to conform to UBC when we constructed our current location, had to build a berm and install about 30 trees, we have to have handicapped parking spaces, we have to have battery powered backup lighting and emergency lighting, lighted exist lights, at least two methods of egress from each room over X sf, etc. None of that was that big of a deal, we just did it. Back then I had to go to the library to look a lot of this stuff up, our general contractor was also trained in regulations, but these days, you can just look it up on the internet.

And "labor cost" is the money that you have to pay out to employ labor, including all employee benefits and the cost of processing payroll. Seems like you would have known that already, but I'm glad I could educate you.

Or maybe you are emplying that if my labor cost was lower, that I could afford to expand or to be more profitable. No, that's not the way it works. If my labor cost was lower (due to less regulation or no minimum wage or whateever), then my competitors would also have a lower labor cost, and they would have the exact same relative competitive advantage that I do. So we would just continue to compete based upon price and quality, and it would make no difference to either of us. Prices might would be a little lower due to costs being lower and competition being fierce in my industry, but my bottom line would likely end up being just the same because the lower revenue would offset any costs savings. And of course if worker compensation was lower, consumers would have less money in their pocket, so it's not like demand would increase - lower wages would offset lower prices and there would be no net benefit to consumers. All we would end up with is a less safe working environment and a dirtier eco-environment for everyone without those regulations.



How's that working out for Somolia?
Click to expand...

the only caveat to that is that if you competed with a foreign company whose regulative costs where lower. then the reduction in regulations would and could make you more competitive.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
We already know that, even if more manufacturing comes back home, there is now so much automation that it won't come close to bringing back the same number of jobs.

So, realistically, what else can Congress and Trump do to convince these underemployed voters that Washington is actually working for them?
Click to expand...

Probably nothing, since the momentum toward greater automation isn't even close to reaching its endpoint. In fact, one could easily argue that the period between the onset of the industrial revolution and now was just warming up to the main act.

Elon Musk knows this full well which is almost certainly what motivated his idea that robots just take over and we're all paid a lump salary.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The U.S. government and the Constitution that is supposed to limit it was never intended to do anything for the people other than constructively hold the union together, promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not selected groups, and provide the common defense. It was then supposed to be silent and quiet and allow the people to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wanted to have, live their lives, and reach for however far and high their imaginations and dreams could take them.

That is the difference between what the USA was intended to be and any dictatorship, monarchy, papacy, or any other form of government.
Click to expand...

What you just described IS the model for dictatorships, monarchies, and papacies, in which you have the role of public policy czar.

Anything you favor is automatically something that "constructively holds the nation together, promotes the general welfare, and/or provides for the common defense."

Anything you dislike is automatically outside that realm, so you dictate that the government must remain silent about it.

How terribly convenient... :roll:
 
No need to get wrapped up in manufacturing jobs. Jobs, period. Preferably good playing jobs but still jobs. There is a lack of new businesses being formed. A reluctance to invest in new ideas. A millennial generation that is too much in debt to risk being entrepreneurs. All of these problems can be solved by tweaking the tax codes and tweaking regulatory requirements. More business in the US are older now and we are not starting enough new ones. The US ranks poorly in the ease of starting a business. We need to improve in that area.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
What you just described IS the model for dictatorships, monarchies, and papacies, in which you have the role of public policy czar.

Anything you favor is automatically something that "constructively holds the nation together, promotes the general welfare, and/or provides for the common defense."

Anything you dislike is automatically outside that realm, so you dictate that the government must remain silent about it.

How terribly convenient... :roll:
Click to expand...

If that is what I had said I would agree. But I didn't so. . . .
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I'm sure you meant something different, but you didn't realize what you actually said. Otherwise, you wouldn't have said it. :)
Click to expand...

I want to believe that you are neither so ignorant or so dishonest to read and understand what I said and still say that, so I suggest you read what I said again. I said exactly what I meant and I stand by it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I want to believe that you are neither so ignorant or so dishonest to read and understand what I said and still say that, so I suggest you read what I said again. I said exactly what I meant and I stand by it.
Click to expand...

There is nothing dishonest about pointing out that the same statement has more than one possible (and reasonable) interpretation.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
There is nothing dishonest about pointing out that the same statement has more than one possible (and reasonable) interpretation.
Click to expand...

It is 100% dishonest to deliberately apply a meaning to what somebody says that the person obviously did not intemd.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
We already know that, even if more manufacturing comes back home, there is now so much automation that it won't come close to bringing back the same number of jobs.

So, realistically, what else can Congress and Trump do to convince these underemployed voters that Washington is actually working for them?
Click to expand...

Let mass immigration to 1924 levels.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It is 100% dishonest to deliberately apply a meaning to what somebody says that the person obviously did not intemd.
Click to expand...

Barry Goldwater repeatedly said things he didn't mean. He had enough sense of personal responsibility to admit it. No matter that people with different agendas were calling him on it.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Barry Goldwater repeatedly said things he didn't mean. He had enough sense of personal responsibility to admit it. No matter that people with different agendas were calling him on it.
Click to expand...

Gee maybe his ghost could be summoned and he could give lessons to President Obama and Hillary Clinton and several others I could name. They said a whole bunch of stuff they didn't mean and neither one has ever admitted it so far as I know.

You see how that game is played? Unless you want to be specific instead of speaking in such broad generalities, this subject isn't helpful to move us forward from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom