richardhutnik said:
* I did NOT discuss raising tariffs to create jobs. I said you raise taxes on income taxes, and structure the tax code to make it more advantageous to employ workers. If also, take another example, workers got their training paid for through free college education, and didn't carry debt. Employers would then be able to pay the workers less money, because they don't have the debt load. Also, if the tax dollars raised fund basic scientific research, and it leads to breakthroughs in innovation that can employ others, then raising taxes can create jobs. You saw far more job creation under the Clinton administration, than the Bush administration. The economy grew better also also, and the deficit went down. The reality is that you can't just say you slash taxes and miracles happen. It didn't happen under the Bush administration at all. I never said you argued for tariffs. I merely explained that you may want to read up on massive government intrusions into business, and their resulting effect. I don't think that raising taxes on businesses would have a net positive effect. * There are other factors into why Texas is more favorable than Ohio for business. Texas has had revenues from oil production, which drives costs down for oil, and gives them extra revenue (a bit why Alaska also pays its citizens kickbacks, rather than tax them). It also has a lot of land. You can also argue that it has a large influx of illegal immigrants who work under the table to keep wages down. You can see similar in Las Vegas, when it is a tourism mecca. When you have this, you can afford to keep tax rates low, and things go well enough that you don't need to regulate as much. Do you really think that oil is driving 600,000 new jobs? I never mentioned revenue, only net jobs. You can argue that its illegal immigrants, but I don't believe that they would show up on official payrolls...Would they? When Forbes did their analysis, I believe they only took legitimate jobs as opposed to under-the-table jobs as you suggest. * Why have jobs gone to Mexico originally? Well NAFTA put a third-world nation like Mexico into the same footing as the United States. It also has poorer environmental regulations than the United States, so business are free to dump their polution in rivers, kill off the ecosystem, and basically make the air far less breathable than in the United States. Also, the workers are generally uneducated and have poorer standards of living. I guess if you are in favor of driving down the quality of life for Americans, in a race towards the bottom, that is awesome. Well, guess what? Apparently China, which is even in worse conditions than Mexico appeared to be a better deal, so business went there. Yes, you can get job creation, if you feel it is excellent that Americans should be able to do manufacturing jobs for less than $2/hr, while living where the water is garbage, and the air will shorten your life expetency by at least 5 years. So how do you suggest making sure that a nation of 300,000,000 people has employment? I am arguing that some people in this nation may not have skills for $20/hr jobs. I wasn't advising that $2 jobs would work, but that you could have a large number of $8-12/hr jobs if the regulations were in place that ensured that businesses could reinvest their capital properly, and that the govenrment stayed largely out of businesses. Again, I cite Korea and Ireland...Both have had massive economic growth to far greater standards of living than China or Mexico, yet have had low taxes, and a rather educated workforce. In all this, if the lack of regulations and taxes is such a big deal for doing business, why don't business relocate to Alaska in large numbers, or set up shop on oceans, or in Antartica? There is FAR more reasons why businesses go places than regulations and tax rates. Business WILL set up shop in NYC, for example, because it has natural advantages over other areas, particularly if you are in the financial industry. I agree that there are other factors, outside of regulations and tax rates, but they are big things. I will give you an example: An ethanol factory was wanting to place a new plant that was within 50 miles of Columbus, Ohio and was near a major interstate. There were 2 prime locations - my city, and a neighboring city. The research group came to my town, and investigated the requirements of zoning, planning and costs for the factory. They found out it'd take ~6 months before it could go to comitte, there'd be a huge number of regulations imposed, and that it'd cost roughly $1 million to comply with the rulings. They then went to the neighboring town. When they went to the courthouse, to research laws, the clerk called the city council, and they met with the researchers. They advised them of a plot of land that would be good for their factory, and voted to ensure that there'd be no major roadblocks to ensure that the plant could come online ASAP. In fact, that very day, they got all their required permits, whereas my town would take 6-9 months. Today, there are 500 employed people at this factory in the neighboring county.. That is an example of poor government planning on a microeconomic level. But the fact is, we can see it happen in larger ways. You argue that NY has great economic conditions, but the truth is that NY as awhole ranks incredibly low...Do you not think that factors in to your town's mess? Where I am, near Poughkeepsie, NY, they have tried everything from enterprise zone taxation, to not having a lot of regulation. Well, businesses don't come up here. You have a number of low salary jobs working fast food and the service industry. You also have part time work. There is really NO reason to set up shop here, and suffers due to IBM offshoring its IT work (I got downsized as a result of this). It was actually heavily IBM territory, and GM thought of even setting up a Saturn plant in the area, but found the unemployment rate was too loow at the time, and were concerned they couldn't find sufficient labor. So, they didn't set up shop here. Outside of a nice range of weather, and the leave being pretty, the area doesn't offer much at all. There is a bit of a push for green jobs in the area, and if it ever comes through, and the area creates a center for green manufacturing, do you think this would do less than mindlessly cutting tax rates? And you would argue, as other, "Well, we need to just slash tax rates, and all will be fine". Look at business for a second. Exactly what happens to businesses when their only option is to cut costs? Does the cutting costs alone make its balance sheet healthier? The same goes for regions where businesses can set up shop. If the idea is to cut costs alone, how does it end up having better features? You twist my words. Read what I've been saying, please...I've been reading what you are saying. I never said tax reductions are the be-all end-all (I've said they aren't many many times). And you said you want to slash welfare payments by 25%. So, you are in favor of dumping a large number out on the streets to become homeless and live in shacks? You want America to set up Obamavilles made of shanties and look like some third-world nations? Are you even close to the welfare system? I have had to deal with it. I was at a situation where I could of lost my car, and Internet access, and phone, and had any chance to find work, outside of maybe something I could walk to from a shelter area... if they had any. If I didn't have family I could stay with, I would be there. So, you want to drop payments by an additional 25%. And that would result in more people without medical coverage. In my case, I haven't had a chance to see an eye doctor or dentist in years, because I can't afford to. I have over $1000 needing to be done with my teeth, and I can't afford it. Same with my likely needing new glasses. But I don't have coverage. And you want to slash this by 25%. I guess causing people to live in shanty towns would be a fine. Anyhow, that will likely be coming anyhow. Actually, I've lived in poverty my whole life, so I know. I've worked at food pantries and homeless shelters for much of my life, too. According to this recent report, 25% of welfare goes to illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County, CA. That'd be a start on reducing welfare payments, while not throwing Americans out on the street: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2468487/posts Having worked at shelters and food pantries, I can tell you that the way the government operates them is horrible. I worked at a pantry that opperated on a fraction (about 1/10th) of the money, and fed more people. Having seen it first hand, I really have to question how the government deals with the welfare system. By the way, do you know what the total deficits being run by states and governments are now? Try over $500 billion. So, have anything else you want to cut out? How about installing some death panels that can decide which of the elderly should live and die, so they don't tax the system? Actually drive them all to hate life so much they want to die, and then implement it. I am sure, for a fraction of the costs, we can execute those who are a burden on society, including the poor. And shoot, we could also harvest their body parts and solve the needs of those looking for viable organs. Big medicine could actually make a profit off this. $500 billion would be a start. Given that a bit of the deficit is due to temporary spending - the bank bailouts, TARP and the stimulus...I would think that cutting the $500 billion in addition to ending the temporary programs would be enough to at least start on getting the problems fixed. The problem with your sensationalist crap (death panels) is that the government even has the authority in the first place to administer health care to those without. Since they have that ability (via Medicare), they can determine far more than they should. The same can be said for Social Security, which barely earns people money above inflation, and is a pay-as-you-go system which takes my money, and gives it to those currently on the system...That is incredibly stupid, IMO, because they jailed Madoff for doing something very similar. * As far as slothful workers go, America has had the top GNP productivity, in part due to workers working extra long hours. The policy of business is to fire people and make their workers work longer. They also like to consolidate work conditions, and close places down, like IBM has done. A prior contract position I was working got eliminated and the helpdesk happened to move to Colorado. This happened months after they cut headcount to the desk. The manager of the helpdesk took his life, by the way, after spending years at IBM, and not sure he could find anything else to do.
|
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
