• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So what regulations do we ditch?

Dessi said:
Seems like an odd inclusion. Do anti-discrimination laws kill jobs?
Click to expand...
They impose costs, which has the same effect as a fine. Less directly, since federal policy bars some tests with disparate impact, anti-discrimination laws make employment more cumbersome, and so impede workforce expansion.

I'll agree with repeal drug prohibition, except antibiotics. Legalize heroin, I say. Patent and copyright protection deserves attention. Handel did not have copyright protection.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
They impose costs, which has the same effect as a fine. Less directly, since federal policy bars some tests with disparate impact, anti-discrimination laws make employment more cumbersome, and so impede workforce expansion.
Click to expand...

Somebody doesn't know how to run a business, then. You're making excuses to discriminate.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Handel did not have copyright protection.
Click to expand...

So you think we should go back to a system of patronage so that only the very wealthy have access to the fruits of genius? (And doubtless a lot of genius was never given the opportunity to be productive.)

ETA: And that's not even considering the thematic restrictions put on creativity by the patronage system.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
This will work if the government funds the research. Good luck getting the Republicans to agree to it though.
Click to expand...

Yep--I was being sardonic, trying to point out that there are regulations that benefit business and encourage innovation (even if it sometimes encourages the wrong sort of innovation, like slight variations on high-price luxury drugs).
 
Chaos said:
Fine... there´s too many workers anyway. Nobody will miss a million or two of them if they get killed. They´d probably vote Democrat anyway, so why drag along that economic deadwood?

(yup... sarcasm)
Click to expand...

You may not be aware that a lot of people who work don't vote Democrat.

<SNIP>

Edited, breach of rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
leftysergeant said:
Somebody doesn't know how to run a business, then. You're making excuses to discriminate.
Click to expand...
Advocates for anti-discrimination laws overestimate the contribution which organized violence (the State) can make to social welfare. What two or more consenting adults agree to do in the privacy of their own home, office, factory, or the great outdoors is their business, so long as no non-consenting third party is harmed (and "harm" has to be construed narrowly or you license unlimited State intrusion). If some home improvement contractor prefers to hire only gay vegetarian left-handed Chinese Methodists, that is, quite literally, his business. Not mine. Enforcement has costs. Like "Equal Opportunity Compliance Officer".
 
leftysergeant said:
Somebody doesn't know how to run a business, then. You're making excuses to discriminate.
Click to expand...

Friedman argued that if you force employers to pay men and women the same wage then a sexist boss can just employ men without any additional burden to themselves.
 
Darth Rotor said:
You may not be aware that a lot of people who work don't vote Democrat.

<SNIP>
Edited by Locknar: 
Moderated content <SNIP>'ed.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to offer, other than racist crap?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Advocates for anti-discrimination laws overestimate the contribution which organized violence (the State) can make to social welfare. What two or more consenting adults agree to do in the privacy of their own home, office, factory, or the great outdoors is their business, so long as no non-consenting third party is harmed (and "harm" has to be construed narrowly or you license unlimited State intrusion). If some home improvement contractor prefers to hire only gay vegetarian left-handed Chinese Methodists, that is, quite literally, his business. Not mine. Enforcement has costs. Like "Equal Opportunity Compliance Officer".
Click to expand...

This falls down at the "consent" part. You are assuming equal footing between employer and employee.
 
Darth Rotor said:
You may not be aware that a lot of people who work don't vote Democrat.

<SNIP>
Edited by Locknar: 
Moderated content <SNIP>'ed.
Click to expand...

Did you just accuse the whole german nation of being liars?

I hope you didn't, but it really looks like you just outed yourself as a massive racist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darth Rotor said:
You may not be aware that a lot of people who work don't vote Democrat.

<SNIP>
Edited by Locknar: 
Moderated content <SNIP>'ed.
Click to expand...

Yeah...what the hell?

That said, it is true many people who work are republican. A ton are independents too. Overall though, Republicans seem to be betting on the idea that if government is made to function badly, they'll get voted into office since they are the "anti-government" party. Hence they want to get rid of anything good the government does, including sensible regulation. If tactics to make government function badly harm the American people, they don't seem to care, as the last year(s) clearly demonstrates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've listened to a variety of economics pundits and even buisness types over the last few months, and the consensus is that it's lack of demand that's limiting hiring.
Lack of demand is influenced by stagnant wages for the employed, and the large number of unemployed.
Americans are more than willing to spend money if they have it, but increasingly they don't.
Vicious circle...
Wages (inflation adjusted) have been stagnant since the 70s and prices for everything have risen. Not really difficult to figure out why we're not selling millions more widgets.
The idea that removing those "job-destroying" regulations would cause a massive hiring boom is ludicrous.
Again, most of the pundits I've listened to indicate that the much-hated "stimulus" measures are in fact the best thing to do.
 
Virus said:
They create jobs in the bureaucracies required to oversee them. But that's not the sort of job that adds wealth to society.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that clean air and water add to the wealth of the nation?

You don't think that worker safety doesn't benefit us all in the long run?

You don't think that rules against insider trading and other financial frauds and hijinks add any value to the common wealth?
 
Travis said:
We so often hear the lament that government regulations kill jobs. Someone even said that the EPA should be renamed the job killing agency.

So what exactly are the regulations that we should get rid of? What is the trade off to the rest of society? What is the EPA doing in particular that makes it so hated?

It would be nice to finally have some specifics.
Click to expand...
In a system as large as the US Govt it is very likely that there are regulations that cause more harm than good. The problem is identifying them and getting rid of them. You've hit the nail on the head. Campaigning to simply deregulate is just propaganda. Most responsible/reasonable politicians will admit that we need some level of regulation. So, what to cut? We need to audit the regulations by non-partisan sources. We should demand that politicians who campaign for deregulation should cite the regulations and the trade offs of changing or getting rid of those regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom