MikeB
Member
Now wait a minute I never said it had to be firearms related. My objective was to use an example that would resonate with the audience.
Labor Department offers tips on avoiding overtime pay
- Thread starter w4rma
- Start date
- Status
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
This argument applies to any product or service. The indirect costs of the dead hand of government are more than significant.
There are those that believe that government regulation, and the attendant costs, only bring the "true" value of the product to bear. Well, you better let the chinese know this, because they are not playing the same game. I talked to a manufacturer that has a plant in china. The cost of labor is not even considered when bidding jobs.
Yep, the cost of labor is so cheap that it is inconsequential. How do we compete with that situation with our regulatory burden? We can not. However, we can become more competitive in the skilled/professional market, which is how India and other benefactors are hurting us.
There are those that believe that government regulation, and the attendant costs, only bring the "true" value of the product to bear. Well, you better let the chinese know this, because they are not playing the same game. I talked to a manufacturer that has a plant in china. The cost of labor is not even considered when bidding jobs.
Yep, the cost of labor is so cheap that it is inconsequential. How do we compete with that situation with our regulatory burden? We can not. However, we can become more competitive in the skilled/professional market, which is how India and other benefactors are hurting us.dustind
Member
BountyHunter: The solution is to not get insurance through your employer. Employee insurance is horrible because it assumes you will only be with them for a while so it does not look out for long term care, just immediate savings. Guess how that mess started? WWII .gov regulations prohibiting free market wage increases. Employers had to give benefits in order to compete.
Employers will not try to screw people when they are in simple fair contracts, laws mess things up. If someone is only paid X dollars an hour they will get that, it is so easy that there is no way to cheat them. Plus then they can buy the insurance that they want, and get the retirement plan they want. No one can touch their retirement plan because they will own it separately, benefits that do not exist can not be cut, etc.
Your analogy to Mexico or India does not work either, America became a great country long before regulations set in. Those countries are not where they are due to regulations, or lack of them.
You also can not create wealth by laws, you can only move it around, and you inevitably loose some to inefficiency. Dealing with the gov regs costs more than the wages themselves in many corporations. (that is all regs, not just employment regs)
Another point is that I know what is best for me, not the government, or my boss. I do not need my dear .gov to set money up for retirement at 1/6th what I could conservatively invest it for. I can also read and figure out my own contracts, and may not like what some politician thinks I will like, or what is in his or her best interests to make law.
Minimum wage laws sacrifice large volumes of jobs and only help a few people a little bit. There are large markets denied existence that people would be happy to be in if it was only legal.
Employers will not try to screw people when they are in simple fair contracts, laws mess things up. If someone is only paid X dollars an hour they will get that, it is so easy that there is no way to cheat them. Plus then they can buy the insurance that they want, and get the retirement plan they want. No one can touch their retirement plan because they will own it separately, benefits that do not exist can not be cut, etc.
Your analogy to Mexico or India does not work either, America became a great country long before regulations set in. Those countries are not where they are due to regulations, or lack of them.
You also can not create wealth by laws, you can only move it around, and you inevitably loose some to inefficiency. Dealing with the gov regs costs more than the wages themselves in many corporations. (that is all regs, not just employment regs)
Another point is that I know what is best for me, not the government, or my boss. I do not need my dear .gov to set money up for retirement at 1/6th what I could conservatively invest it for. I can also read and figure out my own contracts, and may not like what some politician thinks I will like, or what is in his or her best interests to make law.
Minimum wage laws sacrifice large volumes of jobs and only help a few people a little bit. There are large markets denied existence that people would be happy to be in if it was only legal.
The government has as much constitutional authority to tell my employer how many hours I can work or how much my daughter gets paid for flippin' burgers as it does telling me what guns I can own.... that would be, no constitutional authority at all.
Rick
Rick
bountyhunter
member
Are you saying it is more economical for a single individual to go to Kaiser or Blue Cross and buy insurance as compared to a county with 50,000 employess who can force a much lower cost?
I know something of what medical plans cost, and your equation is upside down. BTW: if you want to know why 150 million Americans have no health coverage, it's because their employers don't offer any and they can not afford to pay $600 per month out of pocket.
Or if they are paid 25 cents per soccer ball sewn, that makes it even simpler.
Your cart is again trying to pull the horse. This government was founded on laissez faire to business (no governmental control) and that brought us the benefits of the 100 hour work week and six year olds working on assembly lines. The protection laws were spawned from outrage over acts so egregious that people could not stand it any more, not from some misguided notion that the government should be in the management business.
Do you think this is only a problem from long ago?
Right now a law suit is being driven against IBM for what they did at their Cottle Road plant back in the 1980's. Two things: workers were exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals during their routine work and IBM also discharged much of the toxic chemicals into the ground water. Why? They knew if they got caught, the fines would be 100X less than the cost of safe disposal. That's a carry over lagacy from when (then ) Governor Reagan gutted the teeth from Cal-OSHA and took away any enforcement bite.
IBM is refusing to settle the suit even though it is clear cut: a brain cancer so rare it shows up about one in ten million: about eight people from that work area died from it. Massive and gruesome birth dfects, liver cancer, skin cancers, it's like a chamber of horrors for a medical journal.
The bottom line is: companies need a conscience enforced on them sometimes and the government is the only one big enough to do it. Minimum wage, safe working conditions, and fair treatment are all in that boat.
Glock Glockler
Member
Are you saying it is more economical for a single individual to go to Kaiser or Blue Cross and buy insurance as compared to a county with 50,000 employess who can force a much lower cost?
What is to stop 50k people from grouping on their own to barter for a certain plan?
BTW: if you want to know why 150 million Americans have no health coverage, it's because their employers don't offer any and they can not afford to pay $600 per month out of pocket.
1 - The cost of healthcare in America is exponentially higher than it should be due to govt nonsense, if they removed the handcuffs from our industry the cost would be a fraction of what it is now.
2 - So people cannot afford healthcare for themselves but you somehow think that businesses will magically be able to bare those costs? What you're going to do is shut down many businesses that cannot afford those costs. I know of many companies that let all their employees go and are now owner/operator setups because the owner cannot afford to pay for health insurance, Social Security, workman's comp, etc.
So instead of people being employed without health insurance you'd have them unemployed without health insurance. Bravo!
Or if they are paid 25 cents per soccer ball sewn, that makes it even simpler.
Yes, it does. The reason why is because someone is being comped due to their output, which is what generates revenue, as opposed to being comped for their time, which doesnt necessarily generate revenue. You've probably seen this before in a job where people are being paid by the hour and some definately work harder than others. If you could figure out a way to comp them on their output you'd create a far more efficiant and fair system, rather akin to working for a commission.
Your cart is again trying to pull the horse. This government was founded on laissez faire to business (no governmental control) and that brought us the benefits of the 100 hour work week and six year olds working on assembly lines
Wrong again, those conditions were brought about simply due to market forces. People left their farms and moved to the cities voluntarily because it was a better deal for them to work like that than to stay on their farm.
You also dont seem to know that many sweatshops had razor thin profit margins due to market competition, with going out of business for a textile company to be very common. Sure, people were working extremely hard hours in those places but the result was mass produced clothing that was affordable to the masses. New clothing could be bought inexpensively for poor people, who no longer had to rely on used clothing, which often carried germs and diseases. The end result was a big increase in the health and standard of living for a lot of people.
Two things: workers were exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals during their routine work and IBM also discharged much of the toxic chemicals into the ground water. Why? They knew if they got caught, the fines would be 100X less than the cost of safe disposal.
There's a very simple solution to this: remove the liability caps from favored companies so that they may be sued for the full amount of damage they cause, both with the employees and with the owners of the water. If they're faced with spending 100 million by properly disposing of the waste and 750 million in lawsuits if they dont clean thier mess, they'll choose the former.
What is to stop 50k people from grouping on their own to barter for a certain plan?
BTW: if you want to know why 150 million Americans have no health coverage, it's because their employers don't offer any and they can not afford to pay $600 per month out of pocket.
1 - The cost of healthcare in America is exponentially higher than it should be due to govt nonsense, if they removed the handcuffs from our industry the cost would be a fraction of what it is now.
2 - So people cannot afford healthcare for themselves but you somehow think that businesses will magically be able to bare those costs? What you're going to do is shut down many businesses that cannot afford those costs. I know of many companies that let all their employees go and are now owner/operator setups because the owner cannot afford to pay for health insurance, Social Security, workman's comp, etc.
So instead of people being employed without health insurance you'd have them unemployed without health insurance. Bravo!
Or if they are paid 25 cents per soccer ball sewn, that makes it even simpler.
Yes, it does. The reason why is because someone is being comped due to their output, which is what generates revenue, as opposed to being comped for their time, which doesnt necessarily generate revenue. You've probably seen this before in a job where people are being paid by the hour and some definately work harder than others. If you could figure out a way to comp them on their output you'd create a far more efficiant and fair system, rather akin to working for a commission.
Your cart is again trying to pull the horse. This government was founded on laissez faire to business (no governmental control) and that brought us the benefits of the 100 hour work week and six year olds working on assembly lines
Wrong again, those conditions were brought about simply due to market forces. People left their farms and moved to the cities voluntarily because it was a better deal for them to work like that than to stay on their farm.
You also dont seem to know that many sweatshops had razor thin profit margins due to market competition, with going out of business for a textile company to be very common. Sure, people were working extremely hard hours in those places but the result was mass produced clothing that was affordable to the masses. New clothing could be bought inexpensively for poor people, who no longer had to rely on used clothing, which often carried germs and diseases. The end result was a big increase in the health and standard of living for a lot of people.
Two things: workers were exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals during their routine work and IBM also discharged much of the toxic chemicals into the ground water. Why? They knew if they got caught, the fines would be 100X less than the cost of safe disposal.
There's a very simple solution to this: remove the liability caps from favored companies so that they may be sued for the full amount of damage they cause, both with the employees and with the owners of the water. If they're faced with spending 100 million by properly disposing of the waste and 750 million in lawsuits if they dont clean thier mess, they'll choose the former.
- Status
