• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Job killing regulations

 
 
 
ksen

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
 
I don't have specific examples but a class of them comes to mind: Cases where the established industry attempts to regulate out upstart competitors. Tesla and Uber come to mind.
 
ksen said:
Loren Pechtel said:
I don't have specific examples but a class of them comes to mind: Cases where the established industry attempts to regulate out upstart competitors. Tesla and Uber come to mind.
Click to expand...

Such as?
Click to expand...

Are you not aware of the attempts being made to keep these two companies out?

Around here we have the insane situation that the taxi companies themselves have a big say in whether more taxis are allowed--they are using the state to protect their market share.

I have my doubts on the insurance situation with Uber and I would have no problem with rules holding them to the same insurance standards as taxis. I have a big problem with them simply being banned, though, especially as this city certainly could use Uber--having a bunch of part-time taxis for when the big conventions come to town would be a good thing.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
I don't have specific examples but a class of them comes to mind: Cases where the established industry attempts to regulate out upstart competitors. Tesla and Uber come to mind.
Click to expand...

So your objection is actually about getting corporate money out of politics, rather than against government regulation in general.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
ksen said:
Loren Pechtel said:
I don't have specific examples but a class of them comes to mind: Cases where the established industry attempts to regulate out upstart competitors. Tesla and Uber come to mind.
Click to expand...

Such as?
Click to expand...

Are you not aware of the attempts being made to keep these two companies out?

Around here we have the insane situation that the taxi companies themselves have a big say in whether more taxis are allowed--they are using the state to protect their market share.

I have my doubts on the insurance situation with Uber and I would have no problem with rules holding them to the same insurance standards as taxis. I have a big problem with them simply being banned, though, especially as this city certainly could use Uber--having a bunch of part-time taxis for when the big conventions come to town would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure taxi regs are enacted locally. I meant to focus at the federal level. I should have been clearer in the op even though the links I posted had to do with federal regulations.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
 
RavenSky said:
Loren Pechtel said:
I don't have specific examples but a class of them comes to mind: Cases where the established industry attempts to regulate out upstart competitors. Tesla and Uber come to mind.
Click to expand...

So your objection is actually about getting corporate money out of politics, rather than against government regulation in general.
Click to expand...

The question was for examples of job-killing regulation, not a question of why that regulation exists.

I do think most of the obnoxious regulation has to do with pandering to entrenched interests, also we also see deliberately destructive rules in some other cases (for example, nuclear plants that are built and then not allowed to operate.)
 
RavenSky said:
Loren Pechtel said:
I don't have specific examples but a class of them comes to mind: Cases where the established industry attempts to regulate out upstart competitors. Tesla and Uber come to mind.
Click to expand...

So your objection is actually about getting corporate money out of politics, rather than against government regulation in general.
Click to expand...

There's a difference?
 
The laws against hiring hit men are examples of job-killing regulations. The federal minimum wage is a job-killing regulation. There are plenty of job-killing regulations. The real issue is whether the regulation yields a net benefit or not.
 
Uh huh....

So when the government says "Tesla, you may not sell directly to the consumer, you must use the car dealership model" that's the same as saying "murder is illegal, so is murder for hire also illegal."
 
As is the case in these kinds of discussions, someone throws out a phrase intended to excite the emotions, without any context. Why not "baby killing regulations," or "puppy killing regulations"? It would get the same result.

There are a lot of regulations which killed a lot of jobs. Does anyone know anyone who works in a chemical plant that manufactures DDT? What happened to the DDT workers? Ciba-Giegy, a big Swiss Chemical manufacturer, has a chemical plant in Louisiana. They manufacture pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. One day in 1984, they shut down one of their units. The pesticide it produced had been banned in the US. About 100 people were laid off without notice. I had a couple friends on that crew. Of course, we can't count how many lives were saved from pesticide poisoning.

Regulations don't really kill jobs. They realign and rearrange jobs. When a regulation is needed, what it really means is someone is taking advantage of someone else. This is usually the public. It's always cheaper to dump your garbage in the river, but someone is paying the price for polluted water and air.

In the end, when everything is properly defined, "job killing regulations" kill the jobs that kill people.
 
Bronzeage said:
As is the case in these kinds of discussions, someone throws out a phrase intended to excite the emotions, without any context. Why not "baby killing regulations," or "puppy killing regulations"? It would get the same result.

There are a lot of regulations which killed a lot of jobs. Does anyone know anyone who works in a chemical plant that manufactures DDT? What happened to the DDT workers? Ciba-Giegy, a big Swiss Chemical manufacturer, has a chemical plant in Louisiana. They manufacture pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. One day in 1984, they shut down one of their units. The pesticide it produced had been banned in the US. About 100 people were laid off without notice. I had a couple friends on that crew. Of course, we can't count how many lives were saved from pesticide poisoning.

Regulations don't really kill jobs. They realign and rearrange jobs. When a regulation is needed, what it really means is someone is taking advantage of someone else. This is usually the public. It's always cheaper to dump your garbage in the river, but someone is paying the price for polluted water and air.

In the end, when everything is properly defined, "job killing regulations" kill the jobs that kill people.
Click to expand...

But that's constistant with laughing's argument too. But then the argument would be what is the net gain/loss. It's the argument with minimum wage about who loses jobs and how much compared to the gain of other people. But not all the job killing regulations are that it kills people.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
I don't have specific examples but a class of them comes to mind: Cases where the established industry attempts to regulate out upstart competitors. Tesla and Uber come to mind.
Click to expand...

But surely this kind of regulation wouldn't kill jobs, but would simply shift jobs to the favored company. It would even be more likely to result in more jobs since a company would only fear competition from a more efficient competitor.

Do you have any examples of the job killing regulations?

What percentage of the total number of federal regulations kill jobs?
 
Loren Pechtel said:
ksen said:
Loren Pechtel said:
I don't have specific examples but a class of them comes to mind: Cases where the established industry attempts to regulate out upstart competitors. Tesla and Uber come to mind.
Click to expand...

Such as?
Click to expand...

Are you not aware of the attempts being made to keep these two companies out?

Around here we have the insane situation that the taxi companies themselves have a big say in whether more taxis are allowed--they are using the state to protect their market share.

I have my doubts on the insurance situation with Uber and I would have no problem with rules holding them to the same insurance standards as taxis. I have a big problem with them simply being banned, though, especially as this city certainly could use Uber--having a bunch of part-time taxis for when the big conventions come to town would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

You seem to be talking about fairness. The thread is asking for examples of the job killing regulations that we hear about all of the time.

There must be thousands of them to have an impact on the economy that you folks claim.

Is Uber a less efficient company that would hire more people than the companies that would be displaced? Can you think of any disadvantages to having part time cabs that operate when big conventions are in town?

Can you think of any disadvantages to part timers taking jobs from full time drivers?
 
laughing dog said:
The laws against hiring hit men are examples of job-killing regulations. The federal minimum wage is a job-killing regulation. There are plenty of job-killing regulations. The real issue is whether the regulation yields a net benefit or not.
Click to expand...

The minimum wage has never been shown to kill jobs. It could only theoretically kill jobs when the economy is running at full employment with a large number of workers earning the minimum wage. This is an oxymoron, it would mean that there is a shortage of labor resulting in low wages. A certain impossibility.

What an increase in the minimum wage does all of the time no matter how the economy is running is to lower profits. I think that that this is the real reason that there is so much resistance to it from the rich.

Regulations also increase the number of jobs. Regulations that pass economic external costs into the transaction, that make sure that the costs of pollution controls are paid for by the parties who benefit from the product.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Uh huh....

So when the government says "Tesla, you may not sell directly to the consumer, you must use the car dealership model" that's the same as saying "murder is illegal, so is murder for hire also illegal."
Click to expand...

I think that you are talking about fairness, not jobs. It seems that Tesla selling directly to the public would be more efficient and generate fewer jobs than adding the extra layer of having to go through a dealership. Or do you think that Tesla selling directly to the public would require more jobs and be less efficient?

Once again, the thread is asking for examples of job killing regulations. There must be thousands of them to have the impact on the economy that you claim.
 
SimpleDon said:
laughing dog said:
The laws against hiring hit men are examples of job-killing regulations. The federal minimum wage is a job-killing regulation. There are plenty of job-killing regulations. The real issue is whether the regulation yields a net benefit or not.
Click to expand...

The minimum wage has never been shown to kill jobs.
Click to expand...
That is untrue. The studies disagree with many showing job losses. Basically, any regulation that increases the costs of accomplishing something is likely to reduce specific jobs. Whether that results in a net job loss (i.e. offsetting increases in other areas) is a different question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom