What's stopping job creation? Too much regulation

I'd have to conclude that if these industries have so many regulations, it just might be at least in part the result of, not in spite of, all that lobbying activity. It's certainly possible to end up choking in your own efforts to choke the competition. But I doubt it's worth asking you to consider if there might be any truth in that.

OK- I'm going to answer your question.

Yes. Some regulations are initiated by the corporations themselves. You're right. Which is also yet another reason to remove power from Government. The majority of regulations are generated by other sources- but in the end where these regulations are coming from is not the issue- there's too damn many of them- and we need far fewer of them.

I hate um no matter where they come from- they are killing this country. Of course the only solution is to dis-mantle the federal power structure. A government without a budget for anything more than the core functions is a government without the power to control us- that goes for both left and right politial causes. We all win when the government loses.

FYI- my company has a team of lobbyists- their offices literally overlook the white house! I know what I speak about.

I love the way you incessently blame "da Gub'mint" as the reason for all these problems... As if the FEDERAL Government was to blame for all of the regulations...(usually passed at the behest of the corporations who are more intent on using the regs to protect their turf than consumer safety or quality...)

Here is an excellent example of the local well-connected transportation/cab companies using their political influence to stifle competition--at the city level...

Drive to Freedom:
Nashville’s Sedan Drivers Fight City Effort To Run Them Off the Road

Can government force transportation businesses to charge a minimum price to protect politically connected companies from competition?

That is the question the Institute for Justice (IJ) and its clients seek to answer in federal court with a challenge to Nashville’s new limousine and sedan regulations.

Until 2010, sedan and independent limo services were an affordable alternative to taxicabs. A trip to the airport only cost $25. But in June 2010, the Metropolitan County Council passed a series of anti-competitive regulations requested by the Tennessee Livery Association—a trade group formed by expensive limousine companies. These regulations force sedan and independent limo companies to increase their fares to $45 minimum.

The regulations also prohibit limo and sedan companies from using leased vehicles, require them to dispatch only from their place of business, require them to wait a minimum of 15 minutes before picking up a customer and forbid them from parking or waiting for customers at hotels or bars. And, in January 2012, companies will have to take all vehicles off the road if they are more than seven years old for a sedan or SUV or more than ten years old for a limousine.

These regulations have nothing to do with public safety. Nashville could have limited its requirements to those regulations that are designed to genuinely protect the public’s health and safety, such as requiring insured and inspected vehicles, and driver background checks, but instead, Nashville is stooping to economic protectionism to put affordable car services out of business in favor of more expensive services that happen to have more political power.

http://www.ij.org/about/3769

1) This is just in Nashville, but like the phony voter-suppression laws that are showing up (thanks to "American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)"), this same kind of legislation is showing up in various cities and counties all over the U.S.
2) You can look in virtually every city & county in the country and find examples where entrenched businesses use twisted regulations to stop competition, and give themselves favorable advantage.
3) The GOP, (see: Congressman Jim Wright of Texas, and the "Wright Amendment"), that party of "free enterprise" and "getting government out of business" went crazy when a bunch of well-healed bankers (and friends) decided to build the DFW airport back in the 70's. They tried to force EVERY airline to move there, and thus pay the gate & landing fees that DFW was going to jack up and hold monopoly over. Southwest Airlines refused, and continued to fly out of Dallas Love Field. The DFW group sued--and lost. So, they got Jim Wright to pass a law, (that doesn't expire until September of 2014):

* Passenger service on regular mid-sized and large aircraft could be provided from Love Field only to locations within Texas and the four neighboring states: Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. At the time, all of Southwest's destinations were within this zone, so the law had no immediate effect on Southwest's operations.
* Long-haul service to other states was permissible, but only on commuter aircraft with no more capacity than 56 passengers.

While the law deterred other major airlines from starting service out of Love Field, Southwest continued to expand as it used multiple short-haul flights to build its Love Field operation. This had the effect of increasing local traffic to non-Wright-Amendment-impacted airports such as Houston/Hobby Airport, the New Orleans Airport, and the El Paso and Albuquerque airports.

Some people managed to "work the system" and get around the Wright Amendment's restrictions. For example, a person could fly from Dallas to Houston or New Orleans, change planes, and then fly to any city Southwest served — although he or she had to do so on two tickets in each direction, as the Wright Amendment specifically barred airlines from issuing tickets that violated the law's provisions, or from informing customers that they could purchase multiple tickets that would enable this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_amendment

Boys and girls, this is called "protectionism"... And it appears to be "a good thing" only when the conservatives use it to protect their well-heeled contributors and constituents....

Cab companies; airlines; (there are a million examples)...

You want to bitch about "da Gub'mint" regulation?... It's all around you; and charging blindly at the Feds only makes you look ignorant and uninformed.

Boys and girls, this is called "protectionism"... And it appears to be "a good thing" only when the conservatives use it to protect their well-heeled contributors and constituents....

Cab companies; airlines; (there are a million examples)...

Yes LJ- those regulations are killing jobs too- you won't get an argument from me. And this conservative would get rid of them all.

Yes there are some regs that are corporate sponsered- the taxi cab ones- I would never go along with those- they are just road blocks for new business and new jobs. They all need to be gone- I agree.

But there are also hundreds of them that are government sponsored- and they need gone too.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

Boys and girls, this is called "protectionism"... And it appears to be "a good thing" only when the conservatives use it to protect their well-heeled contributors and constituents....

Cab companies; airlines; (there are a million examples)...

Yes LJ- those regulations are killing jobs too- you won't get an argument from me. And this conservative would get rid of them all.

Yes there are some regs that are corporate sponsered- the taxi cab ones- I would never go along with those- they are just road blocks for new business and new jobs. They all need to be gone- I agree.

But there are also hundreds of them that are government sponsored- and they need gone too.

Most of the "government sponsored" regulations are for our own good, and designed to stop rich people and special interest from taking advantage of us and our country. Without these regulations, this country would be rampant with corporations running and controlling the politicians, getting special considerations from Washington and and generally stealing the financial resources of our country. If you do a little research, you will see that these regulations have enabled unions to organize, protecting the workers and keeping the workplace free of corruption and graft. Regulations are job creators, not job busters. First off, the workforce in the public sector has increased, due to the need to have more workers in the various agencies that are maintaining these regulations. Unions have help immensely too. Where it only took one person to complete a task at a company, unions have managed to place three workers in that same position, each handling a share of that task, making that task both easier for the workers and assuring that the task receives the utmost attention.

I could go on and on about regulations and unions and all the benefits thereof, but even this cursory look at the subject should easily convince you that you are totally wrong in your opinion.

Funny, but after trying to find one of the people (i.e., "small business owners") that the GOP says they're trying to protect, (the ones making over $1million), advertising on Facebook, putting out requests ... they couldn't find ONE who would say that the tax increase would keep them from hiring... However, after talking to a bunch of business owners who fall into the income category, who had the following to say:

Of course, this gets you to the broad argument that you hear Democrats making, as they push for the government to be the spender of last resort in an effort to stimulate the economy at a time when interest rates are low. If you're NPR, you have the same requirement: Can you find people willing to testify to the phenomenon of insufficient aggregate demand or the lack of access to credit, or who pooh-pooh the notion that paying additional taxes inhibits their ability to hire? As it turns out, it's a lot easier:

-- Jody Gorran, chairman of Aquatherm Industries: "This mantra that every dollar in tax increases is a dollar away from job creation -- give me a break. ... It's not taxes that affects job creation, it's demand."

-- Kelly Conklin, owner of Foley-Waite Associates: "I don't decide to hire or buy equipment based on tax policy. ... We know how to make sh*t out of wood."

-- Debra Ruh, owner of TecAccess: "We need to hire people, but we don't have the cash or the credit to do it. ... I don't mind paying taxes. ... I like living in the United States and having the opportunities here. I don't understand why running a business has to be about avoiding paying taxes."

-- Michael Teahan, owner of Espresso Resource: "What we do in business, how we spend our money, how we allocate our resources -- that has very little to do with tax policy. ... I map my business based on my customers and what my customers want to buy and what they can afford to buy."

-- Rick Poore, owner of Designwear Inc.: "If you drive more people to my business, I will hire more people. It's as simple as that. If you give me a tax break, I'll just take the wife to the Bahamas."

-- Lew Prince, owner of Vintage Vinyl: "The economic premise that people won't hire because they might have to pay more taxes if they make more money is beyond laughable. ... You hire when you think there's a way you can make more money with that hire. The percentage the government takes out of it has almost nothing to do with it."

Do The Small-Business Owners The GOP Claims To Listen To Even Exist?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... 40467.html

Hmmm... It's not about taxes... It's about customers and demand... (Which is what closed my friend's music store....)

"If you drive more people to my business, I will hire more people. It's as simple as that. If you give me a tax break, I'll just take the wife to the Bahamas."

That's it in a nutshell...