How to bring back jobs to USA (owner, salary, 100,000)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cutting taxes and reducing regulations is not "giving up some freedom." In fact, it's actually restoring some lost freedom.
I meant with pay and EPA regulations. Without the EPA, companies could pollute rivers, create cities covered in smog, bad crops from polluted soil, etc. How is not having clean air, clean water or non-polluted food, not losing a freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrviking
Bush inherited a recession just like your man obozo. The rate went down after the tax cuts went ito effect.
It was the Housing Bust that caused the job losses in 2008. Fact remains that during the bush 8 years he averaged less then 5% unemployment. How about your man Obozo?. Is that crickets I hear?
The 2001 recession was starting under Clinton, that is true. Obama inherited the clean-up of the 2008 recession, that too is true. Bush wasn't the first. One can argue that Reagan inherited the 1981 recession from Carter. One can also claim that Coolidge lead to the Great Depression that ultimately happened under Hoover and FDR tried to clean up that mess (one that happened under Truman after the post WWII recession.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrviking
Just before the summer of 2008, before the Housing Bubble Burst it was below 4.5%. If you want to believe that tax cuts caused the housing crash, good luck with that. Now your man obozo raised taxes and look how this economy has been crawling ever since.
The unemployment rate stabilized in the 4.0's under Bush with 2003/4 being a spike. Unemployment didn't drop beyond the 4.0 spot with Bush in office. Granted, Obama is vallied at 6.0 but it shows that the labor market under a president can be a limit break at some point (meaning they cannot get beyond that point.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
As for the tax cuts consider a few things.
JFK was the first tax cutter in the 1960's then taxes were cut twice by Reagan and then by Bush II.
to argue that lowering taxes doesn't help or at least regulations is foolish.
When Carter deregulated the airline industry, trucking and rail it created a boom in transportation. Prior to that those industries could compete on service....not price. As a result tens of millions could not afford to travel. Now we have southwest and jet blue and the old traditional carriers of American, United and US Airways have largely declined.
Unions are a mixed bag at best. Some are very professional and will go to the table and negotiate in good faith. Others might rant and rave and act as if they are the ONLY choice. Unions only really work in a closed environment but today there is choice in all industries for the most part.
As for neo cons frankly Obama isn't that much different then bush other then that he allowed DOMA to dissolve. We still have troops around the world. We still have a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, FISA, NSA spying etc. He hasn't changed anything.
As for Bush frankly he didn't do that much stuff different then Clinton. Continued a war on Iraq expanded PRISM from FBI's Carnivore. Supported DOMA etc.
Like it or not on the smaller level towns/cities and states compete for business. Always have and always will so to suggest that taxes and regulations play no part just does not make any sense. There are countless mill towns in the northeast of industries that left generations ago so hearing someone from down south saying "They took our jobs" is ironic since the south took them from the northeast way back when. Federal taxes are just one part of it. There are state taxes in income taxes, licenses by local governments, property taxes by local governments, regulation changes with hours etc. It wasn't until 1990 that retailer in Mass could even open on a Sunday and today there are still plenty of streets that do not allow trucks on Sundays. Plumbing laws here only allow licensed plumbers to work in walls, ceilings and floors..even if you own your home. That props up plumbers labor costs at an expense to everyone else. There's even towns where you cannot pump your own gas and as a result it is easily 10-15 cents more a gallon on average.
Tax cuts a hard thing to say if they work or don't. They arguably worked under Reagan until the 92 recession and the Bush tax cuts didn't really boost the economy at all.
The lessened regulations are a mixed bag. The Airline industry went from a highly competitive market with many players (Delta, United, Continental, American, US, TWA, Pan Am) and now there's just Delta, United, and American with regionals like Jet Blue, Northwest and Southwest (I say this because to fly to Vegas or California on Jet Blue from Arizona, you have to goto JFK.) The industry had a rough decade economically which led to many bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions; nickel and dimming; poor service and high costs. Arguably, people may want the airlines to be regulated again.
I have no problem with deregulation, the issue is the first that people point to is the EPA which for the costs actually provide a net gain when you consider that while it increases costs, it limits healthcare costs from pollutants.
Clearly the post mentioning "outsourcing" was referring to "offshoring" which is commonly called "outsourcing" in America. Are you guys just not familiar with American English and vernacular? Do you not watch the news?
We just know what we're talking about. There's actually people in these forums that work for a living and are familiar with standard business terminology. Many of use have several years of experience and study.
What's concerning is that people throw around terms without knowing what they mean. And your excuse is that because everyone does it, it's okay. Not really. It just means that you have no idea what you're talking about and as a result, don't have much of anything meaningful to contribute due to your lack of knowledge in the area.
We just know what we're talking about. There's actually people in these forums that work for a living and are familiar with standard business terminology. Many of use have several years of experience and study.
What's concerning is that people like you throw around terms without knowing what they mean. And your excuse is that because everyone does it, it's okay. Not really. It just means that you have no idea what you're talking about and as a result, don't have much of anything meaningful to contribute due to your lack of knowledge in the area.
Judging by your comments, I think you quoted the wrong posters post.
Bush inherited a recession just like your man obozo. The rate went down after the tax cuts went ito effect.
It was the Housing Bust that caused the job losses in 2008. Fact remains that during the bush 8 years he averaged less then 5% unemployment. How about your man Obozo?. Is that crickets I hear?
Bush inherited a recession with 4% unemployment rate and 50k jobs lost in January 2009. By the time he was done, America had a new recession with 8% unemployment in January 2009 and 900k job lost in a month. Great job on those tax cuts.
Obama was a failure, because he couldn't grow 900k jobs in February or any other month. No other president has either. Bush's damage of 900k/month was insane.
You can even check out the damage from a republican blogger's graph. All that blue is the job losses flipping from -900k to 200k from February 2009 onwards. Crickets...
Bush inherited a recession with 4% unemployment rate and 50k jobs lost in January 2009. By the time he was done, America had a new recession with 8% unemployment in January 2009 and 900k job lost in a month. Great job on those tax cuts.
Obama was a failure, because he couldn't grow 900k jobs in February or any other month. No other president has either. Bush's damage of 900k/month was insane.
You can even check out the damage from a republican blogger's graph. All that blue is the job losses flipping from -900k to 200k from February 2009 onwards. Crickets...
Obama's job gains aren't the problem, it's what jobs are the gain that is the problem. Remember of the jobs lost under the end of Bush's second term and the beginning of Obama's first term most were actually middle and high wage jobs. The jobs created under Obama's two terms, mostly are in fact low paying and NOT middle and high wage jobs we lost. If we look numbers to numbers, you're right but it's just on the surface level of the numbers and not the full story.
Bush inherited a recession with 4% unemployment rate and 50k jobs lost in January 2009. By the time he was done, America had a new recession with 8% unemployment in January 2009 and 900k job lost in a month. Great job on those tax cuts.
Obama was a failure, because he couldn't grow 900k jobs in February or any other month. No other president has either. Bush's damage of 900k/month was insane.
You can even check out the damage from a republican blogger's graph. All that blue is the job losses flipping from -900k to 200k from February 2009 onwards. Crickets...
The us economy does not start and stop on a dime. Bush ran for president and mentioned the coming recession while campaigning. The media and everyone laughed. His tax cuts did not take effect till well into his second year in office. The man was in office for eight years but everyone likes to talk about his last month in office. Ask yourself if the housing bubble happened in obozos third month in office would you blame him? No I don't think so, neither had anything to do with the housing bubble. We can thank pres carter for that.
The big reason for the housing bubble and burst, was Barney Frank. Remember him. He got bills passed, that required lenders to make loans to people that did not previously qualify for loans. He said it was making it possible for poor people to buy homes.
The only way those loans could be made, was to make loans that the poor could qualify for. They had to design loans to make it possible. No down payment loans. No qualifying for loans. Loans that for the first 5 years, they did not even pay the entire interest let alone any on the principal and then they had to be refinanced or paid off. They were making loans to people that could never be able to afford the homes.
This caused a huge demand and low supply to fill the demand. Home prices jumped through the roof. I know of one major builder, that raised the prices after selling 5 homes. In one of the hot markets, his company was raising prices 3 and 4 times some days raising every time they sold 5 homes. In those markets home prices were driven through the roof. At the end of 5 years and a lot of those homes needed refinanced, and due to the bubble bursting lending regulations were tightened and they could not refinance. We are still suffering in some markets from lenders holding homes. Prices dropped down to the point they should have been at, without the bubble. This caused more foreclosures, because homes that needed refinanced were not appraising for anywhere near the amount of the mortgage.
Bush saw the crash coming and tried to get regulations changed 2 years before the end of his reign, including one that required 20+% of all homes having to be sold to poor people to just name one. Yes if you were a housing lender, you had to make loans to people that could not qualify for loans and it was over 20% at the end. If you did not, you were forced to close down. That is how stupid it got. Housing speculation was out of control in parts of the country. But the Democrats now controlled both houses of Congress, and he could do nothing due to the Barney Frank led group that opposed tightening regulations to try to head off the big housing crash. No changes and it crashed just as he said it would. The bursting of the housing bubble, was one of the big causes of the recession, and is holding down construction in the country even today. Of course that means a lot of jobs, do not exist due to the housing crash. Not only in construction, but in a lot of other support businesses to the industry.
Some people in this thread, keep saying that regulations and taxes make no difference in business.
Then if that is true, why is Texas Booming, and California Lagging as one example.
Regulations in California have caused there to be 54 bureaus that require a sign off, to open a business or to expand a business. This takes an average of 2 1/2 years, and can cost in excess of $ 1,000,000 a year to get the required permits.
It many other states, it can take as little as a few day. Instead of 54 bureaus each fighting for more power, there may be 5 or 6, with each bureau handling what would take several in California.
Nevada is where Tesla is building it's battery plant. The president of the company, said the major reason they are building in Nevada instead of California, is it takes way too long to go though all the bureaus to get the needed permits. They are building the same plant they would have built in California if they could afford to spend an extra two years, to get up and operating. It is going to take about 1 1/2 years to be up and operating in Nevada, and they did not have the 4 years needed as a minimum to open it in California.
Many companies are moving out of California and moving to Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and other states, to get away from the insane business taxes and regulations that take so much time to get all the sign offs, when they want to expand.
Again, these are the things, that took Toyota out of California.
These reasons are why Apple is building it's big computer manufacturing facility in Texas rather than in the Silicon Valley.
There are lots of jobs being created in much of the country. They are being created in the states that are business friendly, reasonable taxes, and where the cost to do business can be as much as 40% less than in the high cost to do business areas of the country.
Then if that is true, why is Texas Booming, and California Lagging as one example.
Oh please, and where do you suppose Apple's HQ is located? Google? Twitter? eBay? Juniper?
California is still miles ahead of Texas in high tech. Those businesses that are further in the life cycle, and therefore depend on lower costs, are the ones moving to Texas.
Apple's HQ certainly is in California but apple also dropped itself from most US manufacturing. Google certainly is large. Twitter is pretty small actually all things being said. Ebay was large at one point but Amazon overtook them long ago.
These days it can be hard to say what is high tech when the business model is basically advertising. Facebook doesn't sell any physical product and much of its ads can be avoided by using browser plugins. It is basically AOL with ads that happens to be free (chat, im, message boards etc).
Texas still has Dell for what it is worth and AT&T,Texas Instruments,Metro PC and part of HP.
California is nice don't get me wrong but the high cost of production generally becomes a deterrence. Prop 13 did not help and frankly there is only so far SF and LA can go. I'm near Boston and frankly there is no real reason for a company to locate there. I worked in the past for the largest environmental service company in the country. It's based in Mass but the HQ moved from a town close to Boston to one much further out (a half hour). Why? The space for starters and also the traffic.
Some of this discussion when it comes down to it boils down to standards. Texas does have less controls then other states especially with zoning. The book Average is Over discusses this. Yes you can have lower unemployment if you want to go down that road but it does come with a price (smog, traffic, higher drop out rates etc).
In New England NH has the lowest unemployment rates in the region and pretty much has for quite some time. But it comes with a price as some of the areas are pretty much box stores and strip malls with little else. Meanwhile you go to Vermont and it is beautiful but yet the taxes are higher and hardly anyone makes more then $12/hr! There will always be arguments of economic growth and quality of life. California and Nevada are similar in that Nevada grew by allowing things that other states did not: no fault divorce, prostitution in some counties and of course casino gambling.
There are some things you cannot exactly put a price on. I live near a pond. At night I can the lights reflecting on it. I can swim and maybe fish. At the same point some of the ponds in the area are used for water supplies. One of which was nearly depleted in the 1960's. If that were to occur to the one near me property values would drop. At the same point I live somewhat on a hill and sounds can reverberate. When I hear usually at any given day gun shots from the rifle range, high school football games and/or ice rink traffic. Shutting this down obviously would hurt the economy just as when this development was made there was noise for easily two years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fact remains that during the bush 8 years he averaged less then 5% unemployment. How about your man Obozo?. Is that crickets I hear?
Now your man obozo raised taxes and look how this economy has been crawling ever since.
