I like what he says in this video. He is actually laying out some ideas.

"Congress has a spending problem, it doesn't matter what political party" - great line IMO

Still need to do more research on him. He isn't flashy and dynamic, but he doesn't have that "nutjob wacko" look to him

He's not earning my vote with that speech. It was created entirely to appeal to conservatives. Trickle down economics is a failed idea, and the massive widening gap between the rich and the poor over the last 25 years backs this up.

Blaming the President for everything bad in the world is not new ideas. His magical Christmas-land world of "lower corporate taxes and all of a sudden we will be at 5% growth" described in the first several minutes is silly. The idea that the President is "happy with 2%" is simply a lie that can be demonstrated by looking at any speech on the economy that the President has made over the last two years.

I get really tired of the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too mentality of "lower taxes and still get rid of the deficit." When the deficit is at 1.3 trillion dollars a year and your entire budget is at 3.78 trillion (these are 2011 numbers), it is impossible-- impossible! -- to make that up entirely through budget cuts when your tax rates are already lower than they ever were since the 1930s. The solution has to be a balanced approach that leaves cutting the budget AND raising taxes on the table. He says he will be "honest with the American people" but he's being a pussy when it comes to admitting this.

Listening while I'm typing... when will he talk about how he's going to keep the economy from stumbling when he cuts thousands of jobs from the government when he tries to cut government programs. It's got to happen in my opinion, but if he wants to be "honest" then let's hear him address it.

The idea that healthcare was fine before "Obamacare" and only NOW it's messed up is ridiculous.

Free trade is fine with me, but I do not want to support companies overseas that work people at near slave labor prices and make it impossible for companies with fairly paid workers to compete. There should be some regulation here... some sense of "fair trade" policies.

When he says the President's policies have prevented exports from growing, he needs to back it up with specifics.

He makes me laugh when he says "we've tried it Obama's way and it didn't work." We haven't tried it Obama's way.

I'm sorry, but there were no ideas in that video that I could see that were new. It was the Republican mantra, said all over again.

I was hopeful that Pawlenty would be the adult candidate amongst the Republicans but he has seriously disappointed me. Fribur's comments are absolutely correct about trickle-down economic policies and before anyone cries "but look at the growth in the 80s", look at the growth of the deficit in the 80s and that was without 2-4 (depending on how you count) ongoing, expensive military actions. Where Fribur is short-sighted is in thinking or failing to comment on the "we can keep and increase spending and bring the deficit down simply by taxing the 'rich' " mentality of both Congressional Democrats & a fairly significant part of the public.

We need a candidate who is going to step up & be honest about what we face. Defining the problems realistically is the only way to start resolving them.

He did comment on it though.



I haven't heard many (any) people in Congress or in the public that have advocated not cutting spending. They may argue about where to make the cuts, but the fact that cutting is necessary seems to be more accepted than evolution.

Actually, I did. I pointed out that we needed to both raise taxes AND cut spending. I said we need to keep it all on the table. I said that cutting government programs did need to happen. Please read my post carefully .



I agree. However, I do not think such a candidate could ever get elected. And that is why we're screwed.

We haven't? After 3 years of governing? I'm not sure what you mean, maybe there's some other policies you're referring to that he hasn't been able to implement?

Re: Tax and Spend, perhaps we could start by withdrawing from Afghanistan and dropping bombs on Libya.

Listening to this guy again right now and I am trying to be open minded but he is refusing to answer questions about specifics on how he is going to pull off these plans. Interesting things coming out of this interview:

His plan assumes 5% growth for 10 consecutive years beginning the moment it is passed. This has never happened before in the history of the US. After pressure he admitted it was an aspiration yet his plan depends on at least 4 % to work. He called any nonpartisan group pointing out deficencies in the plan "liberal think tanks."

He refused to give specific cuts. Wall Street journal points out that his plan is the equivalent of 1 trillion per year in cuts but he wouldn't say where these cuts are comimg from. He also wouldn't say how the loss of 100s of thousands of jobs from the government would somehow not be a drag on the economy. Finally it was pointed out that the cuts he mentioned in the speech only total about 2 billion dollars. This is a big deal to me- a trillion dollar cut is massive and you cant do it without
creating a huge drag on the economy. Let's cut...maybe even that much! But admit that this is going to hurt us for a long time. Stop pretending that everything will be awesome after it is done.

There is nothing new with this guy....I'm sorry

That and his reduction in taxes for the rich. That shit doesn't work. It's time for the right to quit pretending it does.

Personally I give him some credit for taking a stand on not taxing the rich. While the rich obviously have power to make things happen and move pawns in directions that will favor them, as a group of people they're in a tiny minority and aren't very popular at all right now. He may get some serious contributions out of it, but politically I'm not particularly convinced how helpful it is for someone running for prez in this economic environment.

There aren't many people that give a damn about the fact that government is taxing a massively unfair percentage of a small minority of peoples' wealth, based solely on the fact that they're successful and have worked hard to get where they are. It's an unfortunate situation because the rich are simply going to continue outsourcing more and more and the pressure builds on them to sustain an economy that was ruined by the middle class living well beyond their means and asking everyone else to support them. People want employment, they want money/jobs to stay in this country, they want more production here - yet they cut their nose to spite their face in simultaneously blaming everything on the rich and then asking them for everything they have.

And I'm still curious how overtaxing the rich is going to even make a DENT. It's serious money for the average person, but it's pittance in terms of our country's budget.

the problem is that every time they "tax the rich" they add another loophole where they can shelter more of their money. If we are going to keep the income tax, it should be lowered across the board, but remove the loopholes.

According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. Even if Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for about 1/4th of the year. Then you would have the problem of the following year because after the first year of 100% tax no one would claim an income over $250K.

We are in a massive hole for many reasons. One item won't magically fix the problem. We have to get people working again. With a reported 9.X% unemployment rate, that only counts people who are getting unemployment benefits, if you were to add all the people who have run out of unemployment benefits then that figure would be over 15%. If you could get those 15% (or a good portion) back to paying taxes then there would be improvement across the board.

Small and mid-sized businesses are the life-blood of the American economy. Right now they are not hiring, not making large investments, and not creating new businesses because they don't know how the new government regulations will impact them (Obamacare, possibility of cap and trade, new tax laws, continually higher expenses due to high fuel costs, etc) remove these barriers and you will start to see more movement. In April-May, McDonald's hired some 20-30,000 people but that was only AFTER they received an Obamacare waiver.

Since we are also talking about solutions, I am becoming a fan of the Fair Tax and elimination of the income and payroll tax.

I am so close to agreeing with you here-- if you had not put "lowered across the board" in there. Take that out, and I'll agree with you. With the deficit where it is, I think it's irresponsible to lower taxes until we have things balanced. Removing loopholes is a great start, however, and I'm with you there.



We agree here.

[/quote]With a reported 9.X% unemployment rate, that only counts people who are getting unemployment benefits, if you were to add all the people who have run out of unemployment benefits then that figure would be over 15%. If you could get those 15% (or a good portion) back to paying taxes then there would be improvement across the board.[/quote]

This is actually factually incorrect. Take a look here for information on how the unemployment rate is calculated:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Unemployment rate is a figure derived from a survey of approximately 110,000 individuals each month. It is not derived from the unemployment benefit numbers at all.



But... new businesses ARE starting, every day. I talked to one of the new businesses in my town (his kid is in my band-- they are opening a pizza place this summer) and he didn't once mention being worried about Obamacare, cap and trader, or "new tax laws."



It's funny that you use McDonald's as an example of a "small - medium sized business." :p



I don't have much to say here but I quoted the rest of your posts, so I figured I should quote this too! What is a "Fair Tax" in your opinion? There are multiple definitions to that term, and I can't comment when I don't know which you are referring to.

One more question: are you against insurance in general? The entire principal of insurance is a redistribution of wealth from people who don't get into situations where they need insurance have to pay for those that do. This is true of all kinds of insurance-- I'm not necessarily talking about health care here. Is redistribution of wealth wrong only when the government does it, and not when a company does it while extracting a profit for themselves on top of it?

first, from the BLS:
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force. That rate is currently 15.8%

I wasn't using McD's as an example as a small to mid-sized company, but one of the reasons why they were able to add jobs is because of the waiver.

Now on the the Fair Tax. From fairtax.org


The Fair Tax would mean that all employed persons would have ZERO tax deductions (including FICA) taken out of their check and that companies would no longer have to pay payroll taxes (people would have more take home pay and companies would reduce the cost of hiring people)

There would be no income tax. Yes, that probably would mean a lot of IRS people and tax accountants/lawyers would have to change professions. The income tax would be replaced with a national 23% sales tax. Each person/household would receive a "prebate" so that no one would pay taxes up to the poverty level. This would mean that the more one purchases the more their effective tax rate would be. If a person/family is at the lower end of the income spectrum, they could see an effective zero tax rate as the prebate would "cover" the taxes up to the poverty level. Since take home pay would be greater, spending should increase, getting more money in the economy, businesses would have more income to make goods/hire people effectively improving the economy.

Also there would be no tax on business to business purchases (so that the raw cost of goods does not increase).

Beacon Hill Institute and Dr. Kotlikoff estimate the FairTax base for 2007 to be $11.244 trillion. Implementing the FairTax rate of 23 percent on this base would generate federal tax revenues equal to $2.586 trillion – $358 billion more than the $2.228 trillion in tax revenues generated by the taxes it repeals.

And with that in mind,



That one item won't even put a dent in the budget. It's worse than a bandaid. Don't avoid/dodge it - ask yourselves why businesses are hiring overseas, and then ask if more taxes will improve that situation. It will always cost a little more to hire here, but think about it logically. There's a crucial point where a business can look at the situation and say "You know, it's going to cost a bit more to do it here, but we may as well do the right thing for the people living here." If the cost is low enough, they'll do it, even if it's more than elsewhere. In a number of cases, it also saves time and is more efficient despite upfront costs.

Time to throw away the rainbow bunny flags with the platitude "let's do a little of everything!" imprinted on them. The most important thing is to cut spending, period. Personally, I'd be in favor of cutting everything - defense, social security, medicare - with the exception of education.

I'm usually a big proponent of balanced solutions, which suggests a little cutting and a little taxing.. But I'm convinced we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

Corporations hire overease for numerous reasons, and it's not solely or even primarily due to the corporate tax rate. Even if we lowered our corporate tax rate to match the lowest rate available, manufacturing would most likely not come back.

Our workers demand higher compensation and more safety, and our populace (tries to) demand less environmental impact. The only way manufacturing is coming back is to lower our standard of living and allow corporations to essentially regulate themselves. Even then, that would depend on the ready access to resources that the company requires.

You're right that it won't come back in the way it used to. Maybe I'm lamenting a little bit - The damage is effectively done from whatever higher taxes already did to bigger businesses. Once they outsourced, they realized the benefits, and it would take a miracle to bring them back to the old ways. Not to mention post-industrialization in general not lending much of a hand to non-service industries.

But there are still businesses that haven't crossed the rubicon yet. I'd prefer to keep them here and do whatever we can to encourage businesses(that have already) to keep as many jobs here as possible, and more taxes doesn't provide either enough benefit for us and the potential for more money/jobs going straight out of the US is too much of a risk IMO.

Ask yourself if less taxes will really improve that situation.



Yes. I'm all for lowering taxes, AFTER we reign in the spending.

He could be the god of Economic Answers himself (he's not) and I wouldn't vote for someone that has more than demonstrated he's an enemy of my family.



Given the way the republican party has been leaning for a while now, is pretty much going to ensure I won't be voting for a republican for a while. Where the fuck are the socially liberal/fiscally conservative members of the party? Has it truly been abandoned to the Religious Right?

I do have to say, there's been some movement on this front in the republican party in the last year, but it's unlikely to make its way to the presidential candidates any time soon.

_________________

Krby.... in that earlier post you said this:



The Bureau of Labor Statistics says this:



And they say this:



That is the inaccuracy in your words I was pointing out.

Anyway, thanks for the website fairtax.org . I'm checking it out.

Krby, would you be willing to talk a little about the concerns raised in this article?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Ta ... yFair.aspx

I will look at that page when I get home

OK, so that article wasn't as long as I thought...

First the article was written in 2008 as they keep calling the plan "Huckabee's plan". Mike did support the Fair Tax when he was trying to get the nom in 2008, but the Fair Tax plan is more than just Mike Huckabee. Currently Herman Cain is supporting the Fair Tax.

Looking at their "issues"

On housing, most homes bought and sold in the US are pre-owned homes. under the Fair Tax plan there is zero tax on the purchase of used goods (homes, cars, appliances, etc). The 23% increase is only on the purchase of new goods. Currently we have a glut of vacant pre-owned housing. The price on those are falling and under the Fair Tax, there would not be a tax on them. Also, the Fair Tax would remove the Capital Gains tax. If a person was selling a home prior to buying a new home then they would not be tax on any gains from the previous sale.

The thing that many people don't really understand about the Fair Tax is the prebate. The prebate provides a monthly, universal prebate to ensure that all households can consume tax-free at or just beyond the poverty level. For example, a couple with no children would have a monthly prebate of $417 ($5,009 annually) to "cover" their tax on spending up to the poverty level (~$27,000 year). So the first ~$27,000 in spending is basically tax free.


and people go to jail when caught selling or buying "black market" goods. Will this stop them? Probably not. Is there a "black market" for goods today? Yes. I don't see this as a big issue. I see a bigger issue in the current tax code where the wealthy have the means an opportunity to shelter more and more of their income from taxation. With the complexity of the current system, a portion of the elite can shelter a great deal of income. The Fair Tax, by not taxing income but consumption and removing the loopholes, would eliminate the complexity and have a greater rate of compliance.


The Fair Tax has no exemptions on services or new goods for consumption. If there are any then yes, that opens the door for lobbyists to continue the system we currently have. A large portion of the lobbying today is for tax breaks or special consideration under the tax code. Having no exemptions would reduce the influence of lobbyist in DC.


The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.


This argument is referencing Bruce Bartlett's criticism of the Fair Tax plan in 2007. (this is from FairTax.org:)
Bartlett’s first significant economic critique of the FairTax appears five pages into his article, where he states “… there would be an enormous shift in the tax burden from the wealthy to those with lower and middle incomes.” As proof of this proposition he reproduces a table generated by the Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis entitled “Distribution of the Federal Tax Burden Under the FairTax.”

Notwithstanding its source, there are two major problems with the Treasury’s analysis of the FairTax’s progressivity. First, the Treasury produced this table in response to a request from President Bush’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform. The Tax Reform Panel was charged with considering reform of the personal and corporate income taxes. Its purview did not extend to reforming the payroll tax. As a consequence, although the Treasury referenced the FairTax in the table, the Treasury completely ignores one of the most progressive elements of the FairTax, namely the elimination of the highly regressive FICA tax. Bartlett mentions that the table considers replacing only the income tax. But he fails to mention that were the table to include replacing the payroll tax, the FairTax would look much more progressive.

The second problem is the static/current-income framework used to examine progressivity. Economists have long recognized that current income is not a reliable measure of remaining lifetime economic resources and that it provides highly misleading assessments of tax fairness. (5) Lifetime economic resources refers to the sum of a household’s current net worth plus the present value of its future labor earnings its so-called human wealth. It is the real measure of the household’s intertemporal spending power.

Remaining lifetime resources need bear no relationship whatsoever to current income. Take Bill Gates. His resources run into the tens of billions of dollars, but his current income could well be zero (even negative) because of poor performance of Microsoft stock or his other financial holdings. The Treasury would, nonetheless, classify Bill Gates together with the homeless as among the poorest households in America. Were one to divide Gates’ putative FairTax payments by his income of zero, the implied average tax rate would be infinite; i.e., one of the nation’s richest men, if not its richest, would be viewed, in this hypothetical, as among its poorest and judged as being taxed at an astronomical rate.

This is just one of many problems associated with using current income as a proxy for lifetime resources. A second problem is that current labor income may be temporarily low although lifetime resources is quite high. Doctors doing residencies come to mind. So do lawyers and other professionals at the early stages of their careers. The flip side of this coin is that current labor income can be temporarily high, which is the case for almost all Americans right before they retire. Since households make spending decisions based on their assets and their lifetime labor income, young doctors who spend in anticipation of the future earnings will be measured by the Treasury as paying high FairTaxes on low incomes and pre-retirees will be measured as paying low FairTaxes on high income. I.e., the analysis will discover tax regressivity where none exists.

As Bartlett knows, consumption taxation (ignoring any rebate and assuming a single, fixed rate) is neither progressive nor regressive when properly measured relative to remaining lifetime resources. Instead, it’s proportional. It’s proportional for the simple reason that remaining lifetime consumption, C, equals remaining lifetime income, R, so taxing consumption at a fixed rate is the same as taxing lifetime resources at that rate.

The FairTax is obviously progressive when properly measured relative to lifetime resources, Bartlett’s statement requires the current tax system to be even more progressive when measured relative to lifetime resources. Showing this to be the case requires actually comparing remaining lifetime net tax rates for households with different levels of lifetime resources. And it requires doing this analysis on a cohort-by-cohort basis. The reason is that a given amount of lifetime resources means less to a younger household than it does to an older one because the younger one has to spread those same resources over many more years of life.

Unfortunately, Bartlett doesn’t present his own cohort-specific remaining lifetime tax progressivity comparisons. Nor does he cite the other studies that either perform this analysis directly or provide indirect evidence on the results of such an analysis.


States currently collect sales taxes now. I don't see how this could be unenforceable. Look at Texas now. Texas don't have state income taxes and higher sales taxes (than states with income taxes) and is the leader in job growth in the nation.


Again an answer directly from FairTax.org:
The FairTax rate of $0.23 out of every retail dollar spent on new goods or services works. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and Laurence Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics and noted public finance expert at Boston University, recently teamed up to provide a sound methodology for estimating the FairTax base and computing the FairTax rate.1 Their report:
• Demonstrates that the 23 percent rate (as compared to current rate terminology for the taxes the FairTax replaces) specified by the Fair Tax Act (HR 25) is eminently feasible.
• Suggests what led Gale2 and the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform3 to reach the opposite – and incorrect – conclusion.
Beacon Hill Institute and Dr. Kotlikoff estimate the FairTax base for 2007 to be $11.244 trillion. Implementing the FairTax rate of 23 percent on this base would generate federal tax revenues equal to $2.586 trillion – $358 billion more than the $2.228 trillion in tax revenues generated by the taxes it repeals. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2007 spending (assuming current levels) is projected to be $3.285 trillion. Revenues from the FairTax at a 23 percent tax rate ($2.586 trillion) plus other federal revenues not repealed by the FairTax are estimated to yield $3.209 trillion – an amount $76 billion less than the CBO projection. The $76 billion figure is remarkably small when set against the more than 30 percent increase in the real value of discretionary spending since 2004.4 At 23 percent, non-Social Security spending in 2007 would be $2.102 trillion compared to $2.113 trillion in 2006, a difference of only $12 billion or less than one percent.
The report goes on to prove that implementation of the FairTax, including the
requirement that state and local governments pay the tax on their purchases, entails no reduction in state and local real spending, provided that these governments adjust their tax structure to maintain the same state/local tax burden on taxpayers under the current system.
(now my comment)
We still need to cut spending, regardless of what tax plan we have. The government is spending way too much.

The article also makes an argument saying that investors of "tax-free muni bonds" would suffer as they are no longer getting the tax free benefits. They are missing the point. The income would be tax free. This is why people invest in muni bonds so that the interest income is not taxed. The fair tax plan would make all investments "tax free" as people would be using "pre-tax" dollars to invest in them.

I know I used a lot of information directly from FairTax.org. I hope that they answered your questions.

Without having time to post a long post, I would like to say that I am generally open to this. I could live with this.


I do think, though, that some of the pictures that website paints are rather rosy. Nothing is perfect.

Here is some good reading on the subject:

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspin ... e-fairtax/

I think it is a much better system than we have now.

This country needs more jobs. This type of tax plan will reduce the cost of hiring people for companies.

The people need to save more. This type of tax plan will increase the take home pay of every worker and make saving money more appealing than spending it (in many cases)

The government needs to cut spending. This is true with whatever system we have.

The current tax system is full of loopholes, favors, and benefits to the politically connected. The Fair Tax system would greatly reduce them.

How, exactly, are these related?

We keep saying this and giving things to companies who gladly take it and continue to hire overseas. They simply see it as double savings and great for their bottom line.

_________________

So let's say by some miracle the fair tax gets implemented.

What carrot will the Republicans have to dangle in front of their base without lower taxes? Will they then promise to lower the fair tax rate until we're right back in the same situation?

The way I see it, once the fair tax is implemented it would be easy to see if the government it bringing in more revenues than needed and only then could the rate be lowered.

It would seem that a fair tax would take a lot of the politics out of the situation. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Rugen, thinking about your comments, why do unions make it so hard for businesses to do business? Let's export the unions to the countries where the businesses are moving the jobs and level the playing field. When the National Labor Relations Board can tell Boeing or any company where they can and can not locate within the US just because a state has right to work laws is a board that is far over-reaching its authority. Look at where the population shifts are going in our country. People are leaving the states that are not right to work and going to the states that are. This is because the jobs are moving there too. Unions served a purpose 50-100 years ago, but now they have grown too big and are part of the problem. Public sector unions are helping to drive states and municipalities into bankruptcy.

Businesses are in business to make a profit. They make a profit by making things less expensive and better. If there is no profit motive, why go into business? We didn't advance from the horse drawn wagon to the train because government said so. We didn't go from trains to automobiles for the same reason. Businesses saw an opportunity to make a profit by improving the standard by offering a better product. There are too many limitations on businesses to keep jobs here and there are no actions that can effectively move those jobs back under the current laws.

You have a lot of faith in corporate America doing things that will help anyone but themselves, faith that flies in the face of years of proof. And I'm sorry, but the idea that the current tax structure keeps them from making a profit is beyond ludicrous.



And they still are. Apple just innovates away, for example. Meanwhile, ipads are driving chinese factory workers to suicide all in the name of the bottom line.



Yeah. We clearly want more of that here.

And this is all without going into the fact that somehow, despite a much higher tax rate than here and an entire nation of workers that have more rights than the corporations WITHOUT unions, UK businesses turn a profit just fine.

_________________

Also:



You're actually wrong about this. The driving force behind almost all of our technological advances has been the military. Which is....dun dun dun! The government.

_________________

I have zero faith that corporations (American or otherwise) will do anything to help anyone but themselves. We have a system that is full of special treatment of certain companies by the government. Corporations work to take advantage of those special agreements

There is, what I like to call an equilateral triangle relationship between the business, the government and the people.
The people provide labor to the business and purchase the business' product
The business provide income to the labor and products to all portions of the triangle
The government receives tax income from the employed people and regulates the conditions for the other two points of the triangle.

Right now the triangle is not equal. Government is demanding too many regulations on business and businesses are exploiting loopholes where they have been granted special favor. The people are getting the short end on all of this. The people are being asked to pay higher taxes to the government.

Now, there are many corporations that are much more fair than others due to political connections. Look at GE. They are a huge ally to this administration and they are given a lot of breaks and benefits for that relationship. I am not singling out GE as the only company that does this or that this administration is the only one that does this. Haliburton was a huge ally of the previous administration and they rec'd many breaks and benefits as well. Part of that is because the US Tax Code is so complex and what seems to the politicians to be a small favor turns out to be a huge windfall to one business and a hindrance to others. We have to change the tax code where it applies to all businesses equally. We have to remove the loopholes where a multi-billion dollar corporation with "record revenues" can claim zero tax liability.

Now on the other hand, you have small business America. here is a huge gap in how large corporations are being treated by the government and how small businesses are treated. It is like they forgot that major corporations like Apple, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, GE, Fed-Ex, Texaco, and most businesses were once small start up businesses.

Small businesses are where our economic engine is stalled. New business start ups have declined dramatically since the most recent peak in 2007 (according to WSJ statistics new business start ups were growing in regards to overall businesses from 2001 through 2007). In 2007 the rate was near 11%, now it is less than 8% and it continues a sharp downward track.
From WSJ.com:



That is not going on here, because there are some common-sense laws that protect the workers. We don't need the unions here to "protect" the workers anymore.

I do not know about the UK business environment. If they are working great without unions, then that is a model that should be applied here.

Rugen, one thing that appeals to me about the idea of the Fair Tax, if it could actually somehow get passed, is if it can be passed without exceptions... without loopholes for any corporation or individual aside from those in poverty. They way krby put it, "taking politics out of those decisions."

From krby:



Those laws are here because of the unions!

I do think krby is wrong about unions not being necessary anymore. We already happily export near slave labor to other countries without batting an eyelash. It would take time, but without restraints on safety, working conditions, and more, we would revert to those practices in the name of making more money. I am sure of it. We're not somehow naturally more moral than those countries. Unions are one of the factors helping to keep us from going down that road.

I also do not know what "excessive regulation" krby is talking about either. He needs to be specific. Which rules, exactly, should we get rid of? It was the lack of regulation in the housing market, for example, that got us into this mess in the first place.

The same could be accomplished by closing loopholes and exceptions and then adjusting our rates accordingly in our already existing taxation method without putting more of the burden on everyone who isn't exceptionally poor or well above middle income.

Ideally though we'd close the loopholes and exceptions and leave the tax rate where it is now; using the increase in income to upgrade our infrastructure and education system, providing an abundance of private sector jobs and possibly spurring more innovation in energy production and conservation.

This is true, too.

When Unions can tell companies where then can or can not locate, they have gone too far. When Unions are in the back pocket (and pocketbook) of nearly every Democrat politician, then something is wrong. Unions are another arm of the politics in this country. If unions are to protect the workers from unfair labor practices from management then why do we need public sector unions? Who is that union protecting the workers from, the people? The public sector union leaders partner with the supportive candidates for office (most often Democrats) who promise ever increasing wages for the public sector unions to secure more votes. It doesn't matter that the money for the promises is not there. I am not saying to outlaw unions. However, you must admit that they are not needed now. Unfair or oppressive working conditions are greatly reduced when the businesses have to compete for labor. Companies that have better working conditions attract the better people. In an environment where businesses are hiring, the marketplace (this one being the market for labor) will help to police the unfair practices. That is an additional reason why we need to get the businesses hiring again.



I don't want to get in the housing regulation debate again, but part of the blame is on the Clinton administration requiring banks to approve loans for people to buy houses that they could not afford. Then the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 removed the separation of banks and investment companies put the bad credit risks on the public dole.

As for other regulations, the biggest one that is impacting business hiring practices is Obamacare. It imposes new compliance regulations, employer mandate taxes, taxes on business “flow-through” and investment income, and numerous indirect costs on small- and medium-size companies. Altogether, these constraints dramatically affect companies’ per-employee costs, firm-level allocation of labor, desire to take on health coverage, and motivation to grow both in terms of income and employment.

It is the "Uncertainty Principle" which is increased government regulation creates uncertainty about the future, which deters small business owners from investing and hiring.

From the American Enterprise Institute:


Add government regulations on where we can and can not produce oil/gas have helped to drive costs higher (the more gas and oil costs, the more everything costs). Fear from possible cap and trade laws (which will further drive up the cost of goods, services, and living) are contributing to the uncertainty as well.

Most of that doesn't sound particularly unreasonable, with the exception of the final line. Generally I think giving people one day off during a work week is reasonable, but if you're trying to push deadlines 13 days isn't outside the realm of reason. The humiliation sounds like an awesome idea to me, especially when I think about the political correctness run rampant in our country today. It's truly amazing how thin people's skin is these days. Humiliation can be an extremely effective tool in getting people to perform at their peaks, and it's harmless provided the person isn't a baby. The person on the receiving in should give it a small chuckle, and then get right back to work, determined to do better.

In some ways I envy these Chinese workers. They're learning true work ethic in a world devoid of it. They're like the machine workers in the Animatrix before they gained true sentience. Give China 10 or 20 years, and they'll realize their superiority through effort, determination and dedication and simply take over.

People here want their paychecks AND their perks, benefits, unnullifiable contracts, worker compensation, unions, full notices and reasonings for all firings, completely sterilized work environments, environmental calls that actually have no good effect on the environment. Sure, some of that is good, but it's amazing how much we demand for our employers, and how many fools out there take no pride in what they do, nor do they have any passion to become better. Very sickening situation.

Too obvious of a troll. I give it a half clap.

_________________

Given Venen's past history and his diatribes pointed towards "lazy people"I'm only 90% sure that it's a troll.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Heh, thanks Vanamar =p I'll take that 10 percent.

My viewpoints are occasionally out there, no doubt about it. Just because they're different doesn't make it trolling.

To be clear - I don't envy HOW these Chinese workers are treated - especially in a way that works against their will. I would far prefer people learn how to work hard without being forced to, because it's more rewarding if they find it on their own. However, you take a person after having been through all that, give them education and training and put them in front of a computer, and watch miracles happen as that ethic gets put to full use.

You guys are gamers(or have gamed in the past), so you've probably heard some of the stories about developers and long hours. If you haven't, look up some of the stories by Blizzard and Valve employees that worked on serious deadline shifts, as there are a few out there. That's not to compare jobs at all, just to suggest that my point regarding long hours and companies pushing their employees to serious limits isn't unheard of, even if it's rare for the average worker. It's those stories and stuff I've witnessed myself that makes me look at "13 days no day off!" and "98 hours overtime in a month!", and think "Yea, and?". You fuck a physics engine up, and you're going to be facing more than a little "humiliation" by colleagues.

Sorry for having a differing opinion =p

You forgot the "leaping off the roof and committing" suicide part. Truly enviable work! You should apply today. Clearly those people were just whiners who couldn't hack a real job.

_________________

I don't have time to respond to everything (work in a few minutes), I'll start with your critique of unions.



If you are referring to the Boeing issue in the news the last few days, the issue isn't necessarily "where"... it is "why." If the choice to put their factory where they did is deemed a retalitory act by the courts, then it is indeed illegal. Companies are not allowed to retaliate legal union actions as this union claims. The truth is, however, I happen to agree that this may be going too far. Only time will tell; the courts will decide.



Yes; what is wrong is conservatives tend to think that unions are evil. Why would a union support someone that believes they are evil? Want their support? Earn it. It is less monolithic than you apparently believe, anyway. I know our union has supported Republicans in the past here locally...



As a member of a public sector union, I can tell you that my union protects me from unfair contracts for work from my school administration and school board. This would be the management.



This is just laughable, at least in my union. "Ever increasing wages?" Seriously? For the education and difficulty of my job, I should be making at least 75k. I never will. Our raises generally don't even keep up with inflation. And why can't any organization choose to support candidates that support policies which favor them? This is called "free speech" and is done by thousands of organizations including companies, unions, clubs, and neighborhood associations.



There are a lot of things here that are incorrect. It is not a free market for labor. There are barriers to switching jobs that keep people in the jobs they are in, even if the working conditions are poor. Life situations, having to move, etc. work to keep people where they are. Companies don't have to provide good working conditions... only good enough to keep you from moving on. It's a minimum effort necessary game, and it creates situations where it is very difficult for a worker to simply switch if they don't like where they are. Someone currently working in a factory here in my rural town at near poverty rates with only a high school diploma, for example, has little or no options. They cannot come up with enough money for a security deposit on a different apartment. They walk to work. There are only two factories in town and the owners know each other. They can provide a fairly dismal working situation without fear, because they know their workers have huge barriers to leaving for other jobs.

In more professional situations such as my own, unions are definitely necessary for slightly different reasons. We have to put up with the whims of elected lawmakers who don't know shit about educating students. Unions work to minimize stupidity in legislation for me. The union here is comprised entirely of teachers who... well... teach for a living. We have professional training in education, certainly more than most of our elective representatives, and we work hard to try to provide the best education possible for our students. Even so, we have to try to maintain a good educational environment despite having to put up with political legislative bullshit that changes every few years when new people get elected.

We definitely needed a union last year, when our school board tried to remove some teachers while keeping for themselves health care benefits far beyond what anyone else in the school district receives (such as retaining full health care benefits for the rest of their lives after they are done with their job as school board members). They wanted to sacrifice the jobs and lives of those teachers, as well as drop an entire department removing educational opportunities for students, but keep their free health care for life? Yeah, the union fought that, and the union won because of threats of action. The public couldn't do anything about it, and honestly the public is generally apathetic anyway and just assume everyone is doing their job. When the board says, "it's all we can do!" most of the public shrugs their shoulders and goes back to their lives.

Unions are still a very necessary part of many professions. The recent weakening of union laws in Indiana has caused many teachers in my school to start looking for jobs in other states. This is the "free" market of labor working in reverse--- good teachers leaving the state because of the loss of union power.

In other news, Venen you're nuts.

Everyone has certain limits, but most of them are perceived limits that are malleable in some way. You can't jog for 2 days and then compete in the Olympics. I would venture to guess that a number of such suicides happened after severe bouts of overtime and overloads of stress that they just weren't capable of handling mentally at the time. That, and different people have various thresholds, or generally deal with things differently. Most people have to take time off, no question, but a standard 8 hours for 5 days a week is just silly.

I heard someone died while climbing Mount Everest. Clearly this is an indicator that no one should ever attempt this dangerous climb again.

This stuff just reminds of me of stories I heard about the hours/stress(16-18 hour days IIRC) Bill Gates pulled back during the growing pains of Microsoft's formative years. Enviable work, indeed =)

Yes, because "put screw G into hole F3" for 16 hour days is exactly the same as creating a computer company.

Venen doesn't seem to understand that American workers generally work longer hours and have less time off than most industrialized nations.

I just spent a week in Ireland and pretty much all of the other internationals I talked to had at least a month off for vacation in addition to what we consider to be "regular" time off. They were shocked that we weren't going to be able to take another day off until our wedding in four months after taking ONLY a week's vacation.

_________________

I know, right? The second I heard about the suicides, I was like: "OMG I remember when Microsoft went through that! And look at where they are now!"

_________________

When I moved/lived in the UK, the one thing all of my co-workers continually bugged me about was sick time and how it worked over here in the states. They couldn't even start to understand a system where your sick time came out of your vacation time (as it does for most people these days in the states). "How do you plan for how sick you're going to be?" they would always ask. Likewise, it was really odd to adjust to a system where you could be out of work sick for a week before you needed a doctor's note and none of that time docked your vacation time. It was really, really, REALLY hard to use up all the time I was given when I was there due to how much of it and all the bank holidays. I got to Decemeber with a full month of it still.

_________________

Without mentioning China, of course. And Japan. And South Korea. And Singapore. And India.

The very last place I would think to look for it would be old Europe, buried in socialism. Thanks for the heads up, folks.

I said the word "here" referring to America once, and it was in reference to what we want with our jobs - the type of things we demand in exchange for working. Weren't we just talking about how we could never get outsourced jobs to come back over here precisely because of these reasons?

The one reference to America has nothing to do with work hours or time off. As I've said in previous posts about the subject, my concern has always been about productivity levels here... often revolving around "Oh yes, I work 12 hours per day... in between 10 20-minute shifts standing at the water cooler!", which brings into question the number of hours in the first place. People say productivity levels are higher, but there aren't really any solid figures on it that are accurately measured(mostly because it's a hard thing to quantize, as wealth created isn't an indicator per se, either).



Thus,

Who even says something like "Oh yes, I work 12 hours per day... in between 10 20-minute shifts standing at the water cooler!", seriously? Almost everyone I know in any field is too scared to call in sick for fear of being fired, much less not perform at their job.

You sound suspiciously like a manager bitter he can't do certain things and blaming his own failures on "lazy employees".

_________________

You will notice I said nothing about the internationals being European. The many people I had this conversation with, ave one, were not European. They were Venezuelan, Peruvian, Australian, Moroccan, and one Swede.

_________________

/shrug. I'd be interested to hear what the Venezuelan has to offer up =p

But no, I'm not in a management position. However, if I was, I would take responsibility for any errors, and also suggest that any successes I had were part of a team effort rather than individual. More importantly, I would suggest that any fault as a result of my team's effort because of mistakes or lack of dedication or something else would be my fault as a poor manager, and I would look to correct it.

Passion is still very hard to induce into people, though. It's something that usually has to come from within. I'm not bitter about that fact, but I find it sad.

No matter how stupid other people or the world is, I have no intention of backing down on my own determination. That in and of itself is its own reward, for me at least. I love what I do, and I'm doing my best, and even IF someone was dragging me down by holding up whatever I was working on, I would know I was doing my part and pushing for my dream. I mean sure, if someone is holding you up for an extended period of time, you find a workaround rather than sit around doing nothing about it. But in either scenario, I find little reason to be bitter. There are many paths to success and happiness.

Wow, I grew up to be Fribur.