What's stopping job creation? Too much regulation

Soulshiner wrote: Consumers are the true job creators. When demand goes up, so does employment. You could start any kind of company that you wanted, but without the demand, it would fold pretty quick. If the demand was there, companies would hire no matter what regulations there were.

Consumers - are people who have jobs and create wealth for profit driven individuals and corporations. If you don't think regulations are a major factor- you simply don't understand the breath and scope of our economy and how business hires and fires depending upon profit potential - and that potential is highly susceptible to taxes, rules and regulations.
Also- just the threat of a new regulation will keep business from investing in an industry- if they hear foe example - that the EPA is working on regulating dust on farms- the bankers will stop loaning money to businesses that will be affected- or they will re-calculate the profit/risk curves to add in the cost of a proposed regulation. After they do this - in many cases the profit does not appear to exist- so the banks will not loan money for that purpose. Understanding what's going on out there is the first step to understanding why business will not invest or expand right now. The atmosphere is anti-business!
[youtube:28xp25hm][/youtube:28xp25hm]

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/8820-obamas-seven-new-regulations-would-cost-us-economy-billions

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, conducted its own study on regulations in the United States and identified 339 "economically significant" rules (i.e., those costing at least $100 million) during the last two years under Bush, compared to 408 such rules in the first two years under Obama. Hundreds of more rules will be streaming through the pipeline, as a flood of new regulatory burdens stem from the EPA, ObamaCare, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and the Department of Labor. A rule to regulate ozone levels is projected to cost nearly $1 trillion, which according to Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.), is the "single most expensive environmental regulation in history."

Sorry, but anything that uses Glenn Beck as "proof" of anything, (other than the failure of selective breeding), or uses data from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" will get about as much attention and/or credence from me as the HuffPo does for you...

Sorry but the truth can come from anyone who has the balls to bring it foward.

But thanks for playing.

It's a good thing that it's not the truth, then...

I guess you think this report is not true as well ha LJ?
It's a regulation nation!
[youtube:1zlrekqe][/youtube:1zlrekqe]

[youtube:1zlrekqe][/youtube:1zlrekqe]

One of my buddies designs bridges and when he started 20 years ago, he could design and handle all the rules and regulations on a bridge job. Nowdays he has to hire a firm of five people to make sure no rules are being broken. I wonder what percentage of the American labor force is composed of these "internal auditors".

Why don't you ask the people of Minneapolis/St.Paul if they had enough inspectors on the bridge that collapsed and killed 6 people...

Sorry... There may be a couple of anecdotal instances where it's possible... But businesses are not being killed by over-taxation or over-regulation. But you keep spewing the party-line. I'm sure it makes you feel better.

LadyJazzer wrote: No... It isn't... Regulations account for a minute percentage of job-creation. What is stopping job-creation is that businesses are sitting on TRILLIONS of dollars and hoarding it instead of using it to create jobs.

But rave on...

Just cause HuffPo says it, does not make it true. LJ everyone is keeping more money on hand if they have it because they are uncertain of the future.

I can tell you that I fired my entire crew due to regs and increased my profits 10% the next year. I wanted to keep folks employed, but the state just kept telling me to fire them with all the regs and time I had to spend complying with them and filling out their forms with the same info over and over.

Remember, you already get to debate all the money taken for taxes, do you really feel you get to debate how companies spend their money if it is not to do direct harm? You realize those companies were started to make money. They are not hoarding money for the fun of it. The climate and their view of it says that hiring people WILL NOT MAKE THEM MORE MONEY. Since that is what the company is there for, it is the only thing they can really be judged on.

Your concept of regulating everything so that everything has to be done by big firms and then telling those firms how to run their companies for your alternatives goals overlooks why they were there. I respect that you want more socialistic responsibility in society, but you are going to have to get it by socializing the process...by taking away the company from the owner and running it for the benefit of society, cause that is not what it is here for now, so why pretend it is?

Keep arguing for more regs and you will get less jobs, I can tell you that as a job creator....and I did have enough incentive recently to hire, but more regs and the old one's put that job at risk every time I have to write the check or do the Fed witholding for income, or the fed witholding for SS and the SS match and then the Fed witholding for MC and then the MC match and then the payment for the wcomp and then the payment for the State unemployment insurance where I report everything about the employee and then the state wage reporting unit because they don't speak to the DOR's or the Unemployment folks. Then I have the audits based on my payroll for liability, then I have to take responsibility for everything they do, even if I told them not to do it, then I have to pay for them to have kids and then I cannot judge them or fire them based on many of the things that people naturally evaluate people with. Then if they do ever go on unemployment, I have to slow down my increases in pay for others. Don't forget the FED has an unemployment program too. And then on my retail businesses, whenever one of you screwballs come in, I also calculate YOUR sales tax burden and collect that, oh and it is co, so if I deliver in many places, which I do, there are three different sales taxes I collect and send to the state for YOU. And this is just in a micro business and I overlooked many requirements...that is just what is associated with paying them one or two paychecks and deal with the taxes YOU owe for buying something...Oh wait am I in Conifer, do I have PIP too. Oh do I use a payroll service because it is too confusing...or how about lawyer so I don't break the law and then an accountant because I cannot figure out these taxes (well I can, but it takes days)...and then don't forget it better be a CPA or you will be audited. Now let's say I do what you think is right and what will likely be mandated soon and talk about health insurance, retirement plans and all the other crap that if I am nice enough to get into, makes more and more and more homework and potentially broken laws.

Never mind, you were right, that all sounds easy and won't take much time. Anyone looking for a job?

LJ you had a company, when you hired, you did not find all of the above to be a little bit of a burden vs. just giving the employee some money for his or her time. All of the above did not slow you down or discourage you from hiring...or lower their pay (which is actually is the biggest effect of the regs)? Were you ever worried that not having enough money on hand could hurt the company...which puts everyone at the company's job at risk or did you just hire till you went under.

And even if you ignore all of the above, since you know how things should be. How much money is too much to keep on hand for a firm, how does a moral person like you decide on that number. If you had a formula, we could use that to judge which companies are being moral. Oh wait I have a formula...the companies that are run primarily on morals are the one's that don't exist or are SMALL enough to look their customers and employees in the eye. Another Argument for small businesses and the way to get there is to not work for or shop with large one's. Oh wait, I just keep forgetting you can fix all these issues with more rules.

Any chance you could make a list of some regs. that encourage hiring, I just cannot think of any?

LadyJazzer wrote: Why don't you ask the people of Minneapolis/St.Paul if they had enough inspectors on the bridge that collapsed and killed 6 people...

Sorry... There may be a couple of anecdotal instances where it's possible... But businesses are not being killed by over-taxation or over-regulation. But you keep spewing the party-line. I'm sure it makes you feel better.

Everyone is saying that if one keep hitting my hand with a hammer that one going to keep breaking bones...you are saying that it doesn't even hurt and other people are spewing the party-line. If these regs made business go better, then the businesses would have made them without the gov. and since they don't go better due to regs, they perform worse.

If you have 100 people in a company and a new regulation says that there is a new 10% tax on pay, do you lower pay to cover the cost of the new reg or what, how do you deal with it? You cannot create more demand or raise your prices, if you could do that you would have done it last week, so what part of the stone do you extract your blood from?

When us business owners sit down at night and look at our spreadsheets, they can seem quite complex. Our goal is to increase profits or even just survive. Ask most business owners when they look at that large spreadsheet for ways to reduce costs...there is really only one line that you can play with very easily...that is employee pay and number of employees and the way to reduce costs is to lower either one of those. And we do...we find ways to lower that cost with a lesser impact on the bottom line. You regs are also the reason that jobs are lost to China and the biggest consumer of jobs, technology. The regs even drive us to drive technology faster which makes us figure out ways to not hire faster. In fact we did everything we could to get as big as we could without hiring at all. You really seem to have trouble being able to put the business owner hat back on, remembering what it was like. If you are not still in business, then you may have failed...which only means all of this should ring louder to you...the regs drove you back into the employment world....or otherwise, why are you not still in business, lack of demand...or was it just not enough demand to cover the regs?

Again, what regs encourage people to hire in net?

Yes, I suppose I should learn to be immoral like the teabaggers... But I refuse to stoop that low.