Unions vs a business-friendly environment

[Sub-Husker]

One of the Republican talking points in 2012 is creating a more business-friendly environment in America.

 

Sure we all want businesses to succeed and employ people here in this country, but what does this really mean?

 

- Lower corporate taxes?

- Lower wages?

- Less regulations (safety, environmental, financial)?

 

.

 

The below story is anout China, which has conditions that are a million miles from the conditions here. But how far toward China should we go to attract business?

 

http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2012/01/19/daily-show-digs-on-foxconn-for-mistreatment-of-chinese-workers/

[rawhide]

Gee,

 

And Apple has only made 80+ billion dollars or so. So much for the 23% price increase.

[HoustonSker]

You've asked two very different questions and I will attempt to address both.

 

In response to the first question...simplifying and lowering taxes for everyone would be fantastic start. This way, every company plays by the same rules, thus ensuring a level playing field and predictability for businesses. No one company or industry receives particular benefits or is penalized. Think of the all of the 'green energy' companies who receive subsidies and/or tax breaks while other industries, oil and gas for example, are criticized for making 'windfall' profits. This directly plays into the theme of predictability.

 

One of the major complaints against the current administration from business leaders is unpredictability, what new taxes and/or regulations are coming down the pipeline? Businesses have to factor this uncertainty into their business decisions, which includes expansion and hiring. When there's a lot of uncertainty, guess what, businesses don't expand or hire. That's part of the reason why corporations are sitting on so much cash.

 

Concerning regulations...this is a tough one. I appreciate the EPA, the old EPA that cleaned up rivers and lakes. I dislike the new EPA that plays a bit of an activist role, classifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that must be regulated and the like. A balance must be established and unfortunately if regulations are too strict, cumbersome, costly etc, businesses won't invest. Balance is paramount, and I think it's difficult for the EPA to find that balance because most of whom probably don't have much private sector experience, ie any experience in cost - benefit analysis. That's an assumption I made after reviewing the bios of some EPA adminstrators.

 

Lastly, concerning your China question...none. There is little to nothing that Chinese business does that we should strive to emulate, they've built their export market on unskilled, low wage labor. I hope that's not what we want to import back into the US, unless people are willing to work for pennies. I would much prefer a manufacturing base like Germany's...highly skilled industrial workers who create meticulously engineered products.

 

All in all, lowering and simplifying taxes along with reasonable regulations that businesses can understand and build into their decisions in a timely manner would create a much more friendly business environment. We must acknowledge that we are competing against the world and have to be able to attract investment.

[zoogs]

Yes, should we be as capitalist as China?

 

I say no. There has to be more oversight, and especially more responsible oversight. I'm not sure what the answers are. Broadly, I think the goal has to be to create an environment such that companies are given incentive to move up the ladder - to expand and be more successful. And to make it easier to do so.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, the big-time companies have to be reigned in such that they don't have too much power and influence, even over the government itself. But the atmosphere should be friendly for new blood to inject itself into the arena with the big players of today.

[carlfense]

You've asked two very different questions and I will attempt to address both.

 

In response to the first question...simplifying and lowering taxes for everyone would be fantastic start. This way, every company plays by the same rules, thus ensuring a level playing field and predictability for businesses. No one company or industry receives particular benefits or is penalized. Think of the all of the 'green energy' companies who receive subsidies and/or tax breaks while other industries, oil and gas for example, are criticized for making 'windfall' profits. This directly plays into the theme of predictability.

 

One of the major complaints against the current administration from business leaders is unpredictability, what new taxes and/or regulations are coming down the pipeline? Businesses have to factor this uncertainty into their business decisions, which includes expansion and hiring. When there's a lot of uncertainty, guess what, businesses don't expand or hire. That's part of the reason why corporations are sitting on so much cash.

 

Concerning regulations...this is a tough one. I appreciate the EPA, the old EPA that cleaned up rivers and lakes. I dislike the new EPA that plays a bit of an activist role, classifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that must be regulated and the like. A balance must be established and unfortunately if regulations are too strict, cumbersome, costly etc, businesses won't invest. Balance is paramount, and I think it's difficult for the EPA to find that balance because most of whom probably don't have much private sector experience, ie any experience in cost - benefit analysis. That's an assumption I made after reviewing the bios of some EPA adminstrators.

 

Lastly, concerning your China question...none. There is little to nothing that Chinese business does that we should strive to emulate, they've built their export market on unskilled, low wage labor. I hope that's not what we want to import back into the US, unless people are willing to work for pennies. I would much prefer a manufacturing base like Germany's...highly skilled industrial workers who create meticulously engineered products.

 

All in all, lowering and simplifying taxes along with reasonable regulations that businesses can understand and build into their decisions in a timely manner would create a much more friendly business environment. We must acknowledge that we are competing against the world and have to be able to attract investment.

1. Do you care about the national debt and the deficit? If we lower taxes for everyone that debt is going to skyrocket.

 

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's not according to the EPA . . . that is according to science.

[HSKR]

What's always missing in these arguments is as an American consumer, what do you want to pay for this stuff? In the 70's you could buy a new car for $4000, a house for $30K and a TV back then could easily cost $500. Today a car is 4 times that, a house 5 times, but the latest Wally flyer had a 32" TV for $198. By 70's standards that TV should cost $2-3K, but we have chosen as consumers to let other nations manufacture that stuff wages of mere dollars a day so we can get it cheap at the cost of our own jobs. It's always noble to show concern or fight for the right of workers here and in other nations, but at the end of the day every time you buy a computer, a toaster, a smartphone or any thing manufactured with this cheap labor, you are taking a dump on the cause.

 

Posted from my smartphone that was made with $2 a day labor.

[Sub-Husker]

What's always missing in these arguments is as an American consumer, what do you want to pay for this stuff? In the 70's you could buy a new car for $4000, a house for $30K and a TV back then could easily cost $500. Today a car is 4 times that, a house 5 times, but the latest Wally flyer had a 32" TV for $198. By 70's standards that TV should cost $2-3K, but we have chosen as consumers to let other nations manufacture that stuff wages of mere dollars a day so we can get it cheap at the cost of our own jobs. It's always noble to show concern or fight for the right of workers here and in other nations, but at the end of the day every time you buy a computer, a toaster, a smartphone or any thing manufactured with this cheap labor, you are taking a dump on the cause.

 

I would pay 23% more for electronic crap that was made with North American content.

[husker_99]

What's always missing in these arguments is as an American consumer, what do you want to pay for this stuff? In the 70's you could buy a new car for $4000, a house for $30K and a TV back then could easily cost $500. Today a car is 4 times that, a house 5 times, but the latest Wally flyer had a 32" TV for $198. By 70's standards that TV should cost $2-3K, but we have chosen as consumers to let other nations manufacture that stuff wages of mere dollars a day so we can get it cheap at the cost of our own jobs. It's always noble to show concern or fight for the right of workers here and in other nations, but at the end of the day every time you buy a computer, a toaster, a smartphone or any thing manufactured with this cheap labor, you are taking a dump on the cause.

 

Posted from my smartphone that was made with $2 a day labor.

 

But those products also are built much differently than in the 70's. They are way more complicated. We ask for a lot more of our homes, tvs, and cars. There was really no way we could compete with other developing nations that could do it for much less.

[HoustonSker]

You've asked two very different questions and I will attempt to address both.

 

In response to the first question...simplifying and lowering taxes for everyone would be fantastic start. This way, every company plays by the same rules, thus ensuring a level playing field and predictability for businesses. No one company or industry receives particular benefits or is penalized. Think of the all of the 'green energy' companies who receive subsidies and/or tax breaks while other industries, oil and gas for example, are criticized for making 'windfall' profits. This directly plays into the theme of predictability.

 

One of the major complaints against the current administration from business leaders is unpredictability, what new taxes and/or regulations are coming down the pipeline? Businesses have to factor this uncertainty into their business decisions, which includes expansion and hiring. When there's a lot of uncertainty, guess what, businesses don't expand or hire. That's part of the reason why corporations are sitting on so much cash.

 

Concerning regulations...this is a tough one. I appreciate the EPA, the old EPA that cleaned up rivers and lakes. I dislike the new EPA that plays a bit of an activist role, classifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that must be regulated and the like. A balance must be established and unfortunately if regulations are too strict, cumbersome, costly etc, businesses won't invest. Balance is paramount, and I think it's difficult for the EPA to find that balance because most of whom probably don't have much private sector experience, ie any experience in cost - benefit analysis. That's an assumption I made after reviewing the bios of some EPA adminstrators.

 

Lastly, concerning your China question...none. There is little to nothing that Chinese business does that we should strive to emulate, they've built their export market on unskilled, low wage labor. I hope that's not what we want to import back into the US, unless people are willing to work for pennies. I would much prefer a manufacturing base like Germany's...highly skilled industrial workers who create meticulously engineered products.

 

All in all, lowering and simplifying taxes along with reasonable regulations that businesses can understand and build into their decisions in a timely manner would create a much more friendly business environment. We must acknowledge that we are competing against the world and have to be able to attract investment.

1. Do you care about the national debt and the deficit? If we lower taxes for everyone that debt is going to skyrocket.

 

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's not according to the EPA . . . that is according to science.

 

The topic in question is how the country can create an environment that is more conducive to business start-up/expansion, not the national debt. However, I will respond.

 

1. Yes, however I think your assertion does not hold much merit. Currently, we have an extremely complex and convoluted corporate tax structure. It is full of subsidies and tax breaks for various industries based on political interference/favoritism/cronyism etc. Thus, we have completely different industries and companies paying different tax rates, largely based on these subsidies and breaks. One company may pay a 35% rate and another, GE for example, pays little to nothing. This creates an uneven playing field and adds costs for every business. If the tax code were to be simplified and all subsidies/tax breaks were eliminated (phased in as to not shock the system), this would streamline business decision making and remove a lot of uncertainty aka attractive and sexy to potential businesses.

 

With that, companies paying above our very high tax rate (35% at the high end) would see their taxes lowered and those companies who benefitted from politically induced subsidies/tax breaks would likely see there taxes rise, thus the overall effect being a wash in terms of federal government tax revenue, hopefully. This also promotes the fabled '"fairness" that particular pols are always pining for. The same rules apply to everyone, at least that's how I interpret "fairness". Additionally, if lower rates attracted more businesses and resulted in increased earnings, higher government revenues could result. Lastly, concerning the debt...we have a major spending problem, not a revenue problem.

 

2. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. My issue is the EPA's desire to regulate it as a pollutant, thus inflating costs for businesses and consumers. I could have stated that better, my apologies.

[HSKR]

What's always missing in these arguments is as an American consumer, what do you want to pay for this stuff? In the 70's you could buy a new car for $4000, a house for $30K and a TV back then could easily cost $500. Today a car is 4 times that, a house 5 times, but the latest Wally flyer had a 32" TV for $198. By 70's standards that TV should cost $2-3K, but we have chosen as consumers to let other nations manufacture that stuff wages of mere dollars a day so we can get it cheap at the cost of our own jobs. It's always noble to show concern or fight for the right of workers here and in other nations, but at the end of the day every time you buy a computer, a toaster, a smartphone or any thing manufactured with this cheap labor, you are taking a dump on the cause.

 

I would pat 23% more for electronic crap that was made with North American content.

I would as well be willing to pay more for American products and try when I can but the problem is you need a massive number of people to all agree to do the same for a company to actually try to manufacture it here and that isn't going to happen. I'm curious about your 23%. If American manufacturers could do it for that, I think a lot of people would get on board but my fear is if the US even tried to compete we would be talking in the 200% range on a lot of stuff. It's simply amazing to go into any retail store and see how much of it comes from anywhere but the US. I was in Menards looking at oak and noticed even wood products come from China now!

[carlfense]

You've asked two very different questions and I will attempt to address both.

 

In response to the first question...simplifying and lowering taxes for everyone would be fantastic start. This way, every company plays by the same rules, thus ensuring a level playing field and predictability for businesses. No one company or industry receives particular benefits or is penalized. Think of the all of the 'green energy' companies who receive subsidies and/or tax breaks while other industries, oil and gas for example, are criticized for making 'windfall' profits. This directly plays into the theme of predictability.

 

One of the major complaints against the current administration from business leaders is unpredictability, what new taxes and/or regulations are coming down the pipeline? Businesses have to factor this uncertainty into their business decisions, which includes expansion and hiring. When there's a lot of uncertainty, guess what, businesses don't expand or hire. That's part of the reason why corporations are sitting on so much cash.

 

Concerning regulations...this is a tough one. I appreciate the EPA, the old EPA that cleaned up rivers and lakes. I dislike the new EPA that plays a bit of an activist role, classifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that must be regulated and the like. A balance must be established and unfortunately if regulations are too strict, cumbersome, costly etc, businesses won't invest. Balance is paramount, and I think it's difficult for the EPA to find that balance because most of whom probably don't have much private sector experience, ie any experience in cost - benefit analysis. That's an assumption I made after reviewing the bios of some EPA adminstrators.

 

Lastly, concerning your China question...none. There is little to nothing that Chinese business does that we should strive to emulate, they've built their export market on unskilled, low wage labor. I hope that's not what we want to import back into the US, unless people are willing to work for pennies. I would much prefer a manufacturing base like Germany's...highly skilled industrial workers who create meticulously engineered products.

 

All in all, lowering and simplifying taxes along with reasonable regulations that businesses can understand and build into their decisions in a timely manner would create a much more friendly business environment. We must acknowledge that we are competing against the world and have to be able to attract investment.

1. Do you care about the national debt and the deficit? If we lower taxes for everyone that debt is going to skyrocket.

 

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's not according to the EPA . . . that is according to science.

 

The topic in question is how the country can create an environment that is more conducive to business start-up/expansion, not the national debt. However, I will respond.

 

1. Yes, however I think your assertion does not hold much merit. Currently, we have an extremely complex and convoluted corporate tax structure. It is full of subsidies and tax breaks for various industries based on political interference/favoritism/cronyism etc. Thus, we have completely different industries and companies paying different tax rates, largely based on these subsidies and breaks. One company may pay a 35% rate and another, GE for example, pays little to nothing. This creates an uneven playing field and adds costs for every business. If the tax code were to be simplified and all subsidies/tax breaks were eliminated (phased in as to not shock the system), this would streamline business decision making and remove a lot of uncertainty aka attractive and sexy to potential businesses.

 

With that, companies paying above our very high tax rate (35% at the high end) would see their taxes lowered and those companies who benefitted from politically induced subsidies/tax breaks would likely see there taxes rise, thus the overall effect being a wash in terms of federal government tax revenue, hopefully. This also promotes the fabled '"fairness" that particular pols are always pining for. The same rules apply to everyone, at least that's how I interpret "fairness". Additionally, if lower rates attracted more businesses and resulted in increased earnings, higher government revenues could result. Lastly, concerning the debt...we have a major spending problem, not a revenue problem.

 

2. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. My issue is the EPA's desire to regulate it as a pollutant, thus inflating costs for businesses and consumers. I could have stated that better, my apologies.

1. I apologize for addressing an effect of lowering taxes on the deficit when the original topic was encouraging business-friendly practices. Unfortunately, these issues are all linked. "Uncertainty" regarding regulations is a canard and the average effective corporate tax rate on Fortune 500 countries is around 18.5%. Considering the record profits that have been made with that taxation level it is difficult to argue that the rate is unduly burdensome.

 

3. Do you think that co2 isn't a pollutant?

[JJ Husker]

Very few consumers will ever freely choose to purchase higher priced domestic goods rather than cheaper goods produced elsewhere. We used to be a manufacturing based society. Now we are service based because quite frankly too many of our citizensdo not want to work that hard. Manufacturing jobs have left our shores in droves and it seems we're more concerned about extending unemployment benefits than returning to a more balanced economy that actually expects a little hardwork in exchange for a paycheck. I feel this is our very biggest problem. People wonder why all these illegal immigrants flock into our country. It's because they know with a little effort they can provide the necessities of life for themselves and their families. Very few kids even consider the trades nowadays. Of course there are fewer of these jobs because they can be done much cheaper and with less regulation in other parts of the world. Of the few jobs like this that remain, way too many would prefer to collect that UE check than learn a skill that could give them a paycheck. We cannot have free trade with countries that don't have to abide by the same rules we do. It's not working now nor will it ever work.

[strigori]

Very few consumers will ever freely choose to purchase higher priced domestic goods rather than cheaper goods produced elsewhere. We used to be a manufacturing based society. Now we are service based because quite frankly too many of our citizensdo not want to work that hard. Manufacturing jobs have left our shores in droves and it seems we're more concerned about extending unemployment benefits than returning to a more balanced economy that actually expects a little hardwork in exchange for a paycheck. I feel this is our very biggest problem. People wonder why all these illegal immigrants flock into our country. It's because they know with a little effort they can provide the necessities of life for themselves and their families. Very few kids even consider the trades nowadays. Of course there are fewer of these jobs because they can be done much cheaper and with less regulation in other parts of the world. Of the few jobs like this that remain, way too many would prefer to collect that UE check than learn a skill that could give them a paycheck. We cannot have free trade with countries that don't have to abide by the same rules we do. It's not working now nor will it ever work.

It is not a problem with 'don't want to work hard' its a problem with 'don't want to be paid like crap for hard work.' Big difference there. The kick from buisinesses over the last couple decades is to keep workers wages as low as possible for better percentages and try to boost the stock price. The days of pay the best for the best workers is long forgotten in most fields. The demise of the unions has sent us so far backwards its not even funny.

 

Kids do not consider the trades because the school system does not show it as an option, and in many cases will consider a kid becoming a tradesman a failure. Another drone with a buisiness management degree is so much better...

[JJ Husker]

The wages for most of these jobs are lower out of necessity. How can a US company increase their input cost when they have to compete against labor from other countries that is often multiple times less? I agree that our schools do not stress the trades but there has been a decline in the work ethic. I see it every day. Many people would prefer to collect UE instead of making two to three times as much by actually working for it. To some degree I think our safety net has turned into more of a comfortable blanket.

[VectorVictor]

The answer(?): Germany (courtesy the LA Times).

 

Of note:

 

That has given them job security and good medical care as well as well-maintained roads, trains and bike paths. Both of their adult children are out on their own, thanks in part to Germany's job-training system and heavy subsidies for university education.

 

For instance, Volkmar's out-of-pocket costs for stomach surgery and 10 days in a hospital totaled just $13 a day. College tuition for their son runs about $260 a semester.

 

Germany, with its manufacturing base and export prowess, is the America of yesteryear, an economic power unlike any of its European neighbors. As the world's fourth-largest economy, it has thrived on principles that the United States seems to have gradually lost.

 

It has tightly managed its budget and adopted reforms — such as raising the retirement age — that some other Eurozone nations are just now being forced to undertake. And few countries can match Germany's capabilities for producing and exporting machinery and other equipment, or its infrastructure for research, apprenticeships and financing that support manufacturing.

 

Also, Germany recognizes that all kids don't need to go down the college preparatory course--so they've set up a state-sponsored apprenticeship program which is successful.