- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
LOL.
0.3% Lost their job because of government regulation but 25% lost their job because of a drop in business demand. LOL. Without connecting the dots, that may be a true statement. Most people would be able to connect them though.
Wow, so because this study says the loss of jobs due to regulations is small that is ok to you whereas anyone who really cares about jobs wouldn't want anything to kill jobs. Further Obamacare is a regulation that isn't factored in at all but your statement that you aren't interested says it all. It has been shown that you have no clue how to run a business or the items that drive up business costs thus are part of the financial statement. Unfortunately for many neither does Obama who is a walking advertisement for the death of liberalism when it comes to economic policies.
LOL.
0.3% Lost their job because of government regulation but 25% lost their job because of a drop in business demand. LOL. Without connecting the dots, that may be a true statement. Most people would be able to connect them though.
Well.....first, that only covers mass layoffs (at least 50 people laid off in 5 weeks and at least 50 laid off more than 30 days). So a person here and a person there won't show up.You can't prove your claims, so I'm not interested. But you should read closer what I gave you. They spoke to business tax as well.
As for regulations, let me start with this:
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules.
Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts.
In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.
Does government regulation really kill jobs? Economists say overall effect minimal. - Washington Post
As I said, it had minimal effect. Again, I have support and you really don't. Understand, this is how it works. you're the one running around make claims unsupported. And I can do this all day, one after another. Not opinons, but factual historical evidence.
Well.....first, that only covers mass layoffs (at least 50 people laid off in 5 weeks and at least 50 laid off more than 30 days). So a person here and a person there won't show up.
Second, excessive regulation could easily lead to many of the issues listed.
Basically, there's no simple way to support either conclusion.
Oh, and the mass layoff statistics program has been eliminated due to sequestration.
There is no factual evidence, just a study made up mostly of opinions. You really have no idea how private business works and are totally clueless as to the monthly operating expenses. Sorry but you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of facts. Until you understand business operating expenses for all business then the accuracy of your opinion is questionable at best.
NO, it measures objective variables, as did the tax studies.
The burden is on you. Put up, or shut up?
Not playing your game, there is no credible survey as to the effects of taxes, regulations, and other govt. programs on private business, just opinions. The sample is way too small in a private sector economy to come up with a meaningful accurate result. Just like typical liberal responses to the tough problems facing this country you come up with a study based upon non verifiable information and no details of the sample used to provide an opinion that you want. Nothing you have offered addresses actual reality which is a business financial statement, profit demand, debt service, and interviews with actual private business owners in all classifications.
Again, I've given you objective evidence. You've just rambled.
Here's some more support:
Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much
(snip)
But is the claim that regulation kills jobs true?
We asked experts, and most told us that while there is relatively little scholarship on the issue, the evidence so far is that the overall effect on jobs is minimal. Regulations do destroy some jobs, but they also create others. Mostly, they just shift jobs within the economy.
“The effects on jobs are negligible. They’re not job-creating or job-destroying on average,” said Richard Morgenstern, who served in the EPA from the Reagan to Clinton years and is now at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank.
Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much - ProPublica
Well, there you have it, a lot of politicians and political appointees making a claim that their work doesn't affect jobs. We have a serious problem in this country, I say regulations and higher business costs resulting from regulations, higher taxes, and things like Obamacare affect hiring more than the intellectuals, politicians, and political appointees. I base my statement on actually running a business, actually seeing hundreds of monthly financial statements, understanding business budgets, investment costs, and hiring expenses.
Obama's job performance is a disaster. Your claims are your opinion backed by others just like you none of which come up with any solution to increase jobs. You don't think they affect job performance then eliminate them to find out?
You missed the word scholarship. This means the research says this.
If you want an opinion, here's one for you:
How much impact does regulation actually have on jobs?
Experts say government regulation has a minimal impact on jobs numbers. If the costs in terms of jobs is a wash, and the benefits side is even slightly positive, then the conservative talking point for aggressive deregulation should largely be ignored.
How much impact does regulation actually have on jobs? - CSMonitor.com
BTW, I still haven't seen one objective piece of evidence from you. Hell, I even used BLS for you.
We have a hiring problem in this country, if regulations don't cause part of the problem then there is one way to find out, eliminate them and see if there is any change. If you read the article you would see that regulations do increase costs but for some reason that fact escapes you just as the current economic situation and job creation stagnation.
I have history to inform me on what has
happened, so we can predict
based on history what will happen. it's not against the rules to read up on it. :coffeepap
We did deregulate. Things got worse. Don't you remember?
But, you make the affirmative claim. You have an obligation to support your claim. I've shown solid, measurable, fact based evidence that neither taxes nor regulations strangle business, but instead have minimal effect. You've offer nothing like it.
Just for you:
Small business owners actually support an array of recently proposed EPA regulations. And by wide margins, too. Small Business Majority's most recent polling, released on June 7, found the vast majority of small businesses in Ohio -- a major manufacturing state -- support EPA clean air standards, and two-thirds of those polled also feel government investments in clean energy can stimulate the economy and create jobs now.
Specifically, 7 in 10 small business owners support the EPA's federal standard requiring new power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide -- even though 6 in 10 of them believe it will directly impact their business.
(snip)
It's unfortunate when small businesses are used as a vehicle for pushing ideological agendas. This isn't to say that small businesses support all regulations all the time. But as Todd Stegman noted, small businesses are most worried about consumer demand and the rising cost of doing business, along with making payroll, healthcare costs and credit availability. That's all according to a wide body of research including our own and the very survey Lincoln cites.
John Arensmeyer: Fact Check: EPA Regulations Are Not Small Business's Kryptonite
We have a hiring problem in this country, if regulations don't cause part of the problem then there is one way to find out, eliminate them and see if there is any change. If you read the article you would see that regulations do increase costs but for some reason that fact escapes you just as the current economic situation and job creation stagnation.
Just a bit more before I leave:
Impact of Estate Tax on Small Businesses and Farms Is Minimal
Almost No Small Business and Farm Estates Owe the Tax; Those That Do Owe Only Modest Amounts
Impact of Estate Tax on Small Businesses and Farms Is Minimal — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
There is simply no consensus whatsoever that cutting taxes is a good strategy to boost state economic growth and create jobs.
Academic Research Lacks Consensus on the Impact of State Tax Cuts on Economic Growth — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The National Association for Business Economics survey asks how higher taxes and lower government spending effected businesses in the first three months of 2013.
Ninety-three percent of respondents say the political developments had no effect on employment levels in the first quarter, and 95 percent say they had no impact on capital spending plans.
Fiscal Cliff Had No Effect On Employment, U.S. Businesses Say
So the answer is as I posted, since you claim that regulations don't cause hiring problems and I disagree then the answer would be to eliminate regulations to see if employment changes. I totally agree.
Do you have a solution to the employment problem we have in this country?
Your support of increased govt. intervention in the private sector is noted but the question is why?
Guess it depends on who you ask
EPA
and whether or not you are directly involved in paying for those regulations and higher taxes.
Again, we did deregulate. Some claim that got us into our trouble.
Investors Beware: Securities Deregulation is Here Again, and It Will Hurt
Investors Beware: Securities Deregulation is Here Again, and It Will Hurt - Forbes
But, I'm asking you to support your claims. i don't think you can. I think that is why you're foundering here.
:coffeepap
History apparently is awfully subjective, and thats really unfortunate.
What historical snap shot has you convinced you that greater regulation, larger government and arbitrary cost increases on American Bussineses and individuals leads to strong economic growth ?
Please, be specific.
What does any of this have to do with businesses hiring new employees and growing the labor force? You are so pro regulation that you really don't care if the regulations are relevant or not to hiring and job creation
I could give a rats what you do as far as reporting any thing, your argument is beyond stupid, the point has always been the level of manufacturing employment, not the number of buildings we call "factories". This debate is about people....not bricks.You know, I find it interesting how often you incorporate perjoritive inflamatory words in your replies to me.
Do you want me to report you, because I have no problem doing that?
My statement was neither stupid, nor out of context.
How could it be?
It was simply a statement of fact. You're attempt to pervert it into something different is just your attempt to continue to attack without merit.
I think you need to refrain from continuing to do this. I believe the TOS here are designed to keep people like you from attacking others.
I'm sure the moderators would appreciate you trying to do that.
I could give a rats what you do as far as reporting any thing, your argument is beyond stupid, the point has always been the level of manufacturing employment, not the number of buildings we call "factories". This debate is about people....not bricks.
Often when people lose an argument, the look for any excuse to distract away from this loss.
I could give a rats what you do as far as reporting any thing, your argument is beyond stupid, the point has always been the level of manufacturing employment, not the number of buildings we call "factories". This debate is about people....not bricks.
Often when people lose an argument, the look for any excuse to distract away from this loss.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?