It makes sense that should government regulate one business then another business will fill in the needed demand. Thus simply transferring the demand from one business/industry to another. The net effect for most forms of regulation would not cost any loss of jobs that is unless demand of some kind was ultimately not being met, and that doesn't seem to be the case in most areas of our economy.

Pocket Ninja: This is a two-sided sword, subby, and you're artificially limiting what it means to service your point. But you know how the Japanese say that you can't see the whole sky through a bamboo tube? Quit looking up your tube, because there's a whole universe out there outside its edges. Consider the extrapolatables. Sure, regulations might only cost us .3 percent of all jobs, but how many jobs might a company create if they didn't exist at all?

Think of it like physics. I know, physics is complicated, but I can make it simple for you. You know what gravity is, right? It holds everything in the universe down. You walk around on earth and you stick to the ground and don't go sailing off into the sun because of gravity. It's sort of like a car safety seat in that way -- it protects you, keeps you safe and snug on the earth where you belong. And that's how people usually think about gravity, as this benevolent, all-powerful force that keeps us secure. It's the classic liberal/progressive view of government, actually, and there's not anything inherently wrong with that aside from being based on total ignorance of possibility.

Wonder what I mean by that? See, here's where you have to stop looking up your tube. You've got to think about the other side of the sword. The flip side, as it were. Sure, gravity holds you here on earth ... but what if you didn't *have* to be controlled by it? What if there wasn't any gravity? Why, if that was the case, you could go anywhere. Anywhere at all. Just a big leap and whoosh -- off to Mars. Or some asteroid that might be made out of pure diamonds. Or an oil planet off in some other galaxy. The possibility of infinite expansion and exploration could be at your fingertips if only gravity wasn't there as an inherent limiter.

It's exactly the same thing with regulations. Infinite expansion, subby. Think about it.

I've been away from the Politics tab for too long - I'm giving Pocket Ninja the "Not Sure If Serious" look.

But once you harmonize the statistical quirks, it's actually more like 300%.

Out of job because of government regulations.

Pocket Ninja: This is a two-sided sword, subby, and you're artificially limiting what it means to service your point. But you know how the Japanese say that you can't see the whole sky through a bamboo tube? Quit looking up your tube, because there's a whole universe out there outside its edges. Consider the extrapolatables. Sure, regulations might only cost us .3 percent of all jobs, but how many jobs might a company create if they didn't exist at all?

Think of it like physics. I know, physics is complicated, but I can make it simple for you. You know what gravity is, right? It holds everything in the universe down. You walk around on earth and you stick to the ground and don't go sailing off into the sun because of gravity. It's sort of like a car safety seat in that way -- it protects you, keeps you safe and snug on the earth where you belong. And that's how people usually think about gravity, as this benevolent, all-powerful force that keeps us secure. It's the classic liberal/progressive view of government, actually, and there's not anything inherently wrong with that aside from being based on total ignorance of possibility.

Wonder what I mean by that? See, here's where you have to stop looking up your tube. You've got to think about the other side of the sword. The flip side, as it were. Sure, gravity holds you here on earth ... but what if you didn't *have* to be controlled by it? What if there wasn't any gravity? Why, if that was the case, you could go anywhere. Anywhere at all. Just a big leap and whoosh -- off to Mars. Or some asteroid that might be made out of pure diamonds. Or an oil planet off in some other galaxy. The possibility of infinite expansion and exploration could be at your fingertips if only gravity wasn't there as an inherent limiter.

It's exactly the same thing with regulations. Infinite expansion, subby. Think about it.

Besides, everyone loves gravity until their parachute fails to deploy.

Temescal: As a Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs specialist, I am grateful for government regulations. I would argue that, while regulations may sometimes not add value to companies (and sometimes even end-users), they definitely add jobs.

As an Information Security Architect - I thank the government for regulations that force companies to ... ya know ... actually make an attempt to protect your data and keep people like me over paid.

/although some of the rules are rather silly
//more good than bad tho

Not if you use fantasyland Republican economic theory

More money in the pockets of job creators = jobs

That's why Apple has 76 billion dollars in treasury. They saving it to create a bunch of jobs all at once.

Pocket Ninja: Consider the extrapolatables

But only after you harmonize the statistical quirks.

Corvus: [www.picturehistory.com image 300x199]

Out of job because of government regulations.

It doesn't help that a few politicians in this present day actually think that kids should be put in the work force.

Still seems pretty high...

Pocket Ninja: This is a two-sided sword, subby, and you're artificially limiting what it means to service your point. But you know how the Japanese say that you can't see the whole sky through a bamboo tube? Quit looking up your tube, because there's a whole universe out there outside its edges. Consider the extrapolatables. Sure, regulations might only cost us .3 percent of all jobs, but how many jobs might a company create if they didn't exist at all?

Think of it like physics. I know, physics is complicated, but I can make it simple for you. You know what gravity is, right? It holds everything in the universe down. You walk around on earth and you stick to the ground and don't go sailing off into the sun because of gravity. It's sort of like a car safety seat in that way -- it protects you, keeps you safe and snug on the earth where you belong. And that's how people usually think about gravity, as this benevolent, all-powerful force that keeps us secure. It's the classic liberal/progressive view of government, actually, and there's not anything inherently wrong with that aside from being based on total ignorance of possibility.

Wonder what I mean by that? See, here's where you have to stop looking up your tube. You've got to think about the other side of the sword. The flip side, as it were. Sure, gravity holds you here on earth ... but what if you didn't *have* to be controlled by it? What if there wasn't any gravity? Why, if that was the case, you could go anywhere. Anywhere at all. Just a big leap and whoosh -- off to Mars. Or some asteroid that might be made out of pure diamonds. Or an oil planet off in some other galaxy. The possibility of infinite expansion and exploration could be at your fingertips if only gravity wasn't there as an inherent limiter.

It's exactly the same thing with regulations. Infinite expansion, subby. Think about it.

Gravity is just a theory, anyway. Hell, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.

Pocket Ninja: Wonder what I mean by that? See, here's where you have to stop looking up your tube. You've got to think about the other side of the sword. The flip side, as it were. Sure, gravity holds you here on earth ... but what if you didn't *have* to be controlled by it? What if there wasn't any gravity? Why, if that was the case, you could go anywhere. Anywhere at all. Just a big leap and whoosh -- off to Mars. Or some asteroid that might be made out of pure diamonds. Or an oil planet off in some other galaxy. The possibility of infinite expansion and exploration could be at your fingertips if only gravity wasn't there as an inherent limiter.

What's the big business equivalent to the entire atmosphere and all the water on Earth floating out in to space with this lack of gravity? I've got to believe that can't be good.

HighOnCraic: Pocket Ninja: This is a two-sided sword, subby, and you're artificially limiting what it means to service your point. But you know how the Japanese say that you can't see the whole sky through a bamboo tube? Quit looking up your tube, because there's a whole universe out there outside its edges. Consider the extrapolatables. Sure, regulations might only cost us .3 percent of all jobs, but how many jobs might a company create if they didn't exist at all?

Think of it like physics. I know, physics is complicated, but I can make it simple for you. You know what gravity is, right? It holds everything in the universe down. You walk around on earth and you stick to the ground and don't go sailing off into the sun because of gravity. It's sort of like a car safety seat in that way -- it protects you, keeps you safe and snug on the earth where you belong. And that's how people usually think about gravity, as this benevolent, all-powerful force that keeps us secure. It's the classic liberal/progressive view of government, actually, and there's not anything inherently wrong with that aside from being based on total ignorance of possibility.

Wonder what I mean by that? See, here's where you have to stop looking up your tube. You've got to think about the other side of the sword. The flip side, as it were. Sure, gravity holds you here on earth ... but what if you didn't *have* to be controlled by it? What if there wasn't any gravity? Why, if that was the case, you could go anywhere. Anywhere at all. Just a big leap and whoosh -- off to Mars. Or some asteroid that might be made out of pure diamonds. Or an oil planet off in some other galaxy. The possibility of infinite expansion and exploration could be at your fingertips if only gravity wasn't there as an inherent limiter.

It's exactly the same thing with regulations. Infinite expansion, subby. Think about it.

Gravity is just a theory, anyway. Hell, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.

I agree. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. Now with all these job killing regulations, all those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain...

The Cleaning Oil off Birds and Beaches industry could be hiring tens of thousands more Americans if it wasn't for those job killing regulations. I bet your fancy stiudy didn't take that into account now, did it?

Pocket Ninja: Consider the extrapolatables.

The birth of a new meme. Glorious and awesome, like the Genesis Wave.

Pocket Ninja: This is a two-sided sword, subby, and you're artificially limiting what it means to service your point. But you know how the Japanese say that you can't see the whole sky through a bamboo tube? Quit looking up your tube, because there's a whole universe out there outside its edges. Consider the extrapolatables. Sure, regulations might only cost us .3 percent of all jobs, but how many jobs might a company create if they didn't exist at all?

Think of it like physics. I know, physics is complicated, but I can make it simple for you. You know what gravity is, right? It holds everything in the universe down. You walk around on earth and you stick to the ground and don't go sailing off into the sun because of gravity. It's sort of like a car safety seat in that way -- it protects you, keeps you safe and snug on the earth where you belong. And that's how people usually think about gravity, as this benevolent, all-powerful force that keeps us secure. It's the classic liberal/progressive view of government, actually, and there's not anything inherently wrong with that aside from being based on total ignorance of possibility.

Wonder what I mean by that? See, here's where you have to stop looking up your tube. You've got to think about the other side of the sword. The flip side, as it were. Sure, gravity holds you here on earth ... but what if you didn't *have* to be controlled by it? What if there wasn't any gravity? Why, if that was the case, you could go anywhere. Anywhere at all. Just a big leap and whoosh -- off to Mars. Or some asteroid that might be made out of pure diamonds. Or an oil planet off in some other galaxy. The possibility of infinite expansion and exploration could be at your fingertips if only gravity wasn't there as an inherent limiter.

It's exactly the same thing with regulations. Infinite expansion, subby. Think about it.


But thats the fun thing about physics that I can explain for ya. On this planet, there are limits. The resources on this planet are finite. Thank God for gravity or our atmosphere wouldn't exist, or our planet wouldn't have even have formed. The thermonuclear fusion process at the core of our sun wouldn't be possible without the laws of gravity, denisty, and mass.

"Sure, gravity holds you here on earth ... but what if you didn't *have* to be controlled by it? What if there wasn't any gravity? Why, if that was the case, you could go anywhere." Thats an empty apples to oranges statement. Nothing would exist as we know it if those laws weren't in place. You're completely missing the point and the problem with the Government placing limitations on Corporations . . . .

. . . buts thats okay, this can be difficult so I'll make it easier for you.

The Government officials are passing regulations that are written by the people said regulations are meant to police.


/ your analogy sucks
/so does your blog

Pocket Ninja: It's exactly the same thing with regulations. Infinite expansion, subby. Think about it.

WTF are you babbling on about?

I prefer clean air and water to a few jobs, idf that's what it costs...

How does eliminating regulation cause infinite expansion without killing everyone else with pollution or keeping our kids out of factories?

BTW, Good luck "jumping" to the Moon dude.

CPennypacker: Not if you use fantasyland Republican economic theory

More money in the pockets of job creators = jobs

That's why Apple has 76 billion dollars in treasury. They saving it to create a bunch of jobs all at once.

Apple shrugged?

I work in a hospital. We'd be able to spend a LOT more money to hire people if we didn't have to work under a mountain of regulations. You're damned right that they're job-killing.

How the fark did Pocket Ninja get so many bites by doing the Homeless, Crazy Carl Sagan bit? Which I didn't know existed until he did it.

pudding7: Pocket Ninja:

Who ARE you?

I think Pocket Ninja has StopArrestingMe locked up in his basement.

/bravo

Tally is still out on the number of people who have lost their jobs due to insufficient regulation.

PanicMan: HighOnCraic: Pocket Ninja: This is a two-sided sword, subby, and you're artificially limiting what it means to service your point. But you know how the Japanese say that you can't see the whole sky through a bamboo tube? Quit looking up your tube, because there's a whole universe out there outside its edges. Consider the extrapolatables. Sure, regulations might only cost us .3 percent of all jobs, but how many jobs might a company create if they didn't exist at all?

Think of it like physics. I know, physics is complicated, but I can make it simple for you. You know what gravity is, right? It holds everything in the universe down. You walk around on earth and you stick to the ground and don't go sailing off into the sun because of gravity. It's sort of like a car safety seat in that way -- it protects you, keeps you safe and snug on the earth where you belong. And that's how people usually think about gravity, as this benevolent, all-powerful force that keeps us secure. It's the classic liberal/progressive view of government, actually, and there's not anything inherently wrong with that aside from being based on total ignorance of possibility.

Wonder what I mean by that? See, here's where you have to stop looking up your tube. You've got to think about the other side of the sword. The flip side, as it were. Sure, gravity holds you here on earth ... but what if you didn't *have* to be controlled by it? What if there wasn't any gravity? Why, if that was the case, you could go anywhere. Anywhere at all. Just a big leap and whoosh -- off to Mars. Or some asteroid that might be made out of pure diamonds. Or an oil planet off in some other galaxy. The possibility of infinite expansion and exploration could be at your fingertips if only gravity wasn't there as an inherent limiter.

It's exactly the same thing with regulations. Infinite expansion, subby. Think about it.

Gravity is just a theory, anyway. Hell, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.

I agree. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. Now with all these job killing regulations, all those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain...

Back in those glory days, I was very uncomfortable when they asked us to say things we didn't want to say and deny other things. Some people asked, you know, were you alone out there? We never gave the real answer, and yet we see things out there, strange things, but we know what we saw out there. And we couldn't really say anything. The bosses were really afraid of this, they were afraid of the War of the Worlds type stuff, and about panic in the streets. So, we had to keep quiet. And now we only see these things in our nightmares or maybe in the movies, and some of them are pretty close to being the truth.

Pocket Ninja: This is a two-sided sword, subby, and you're artificially limiting what it means to service your point. But you know how the Japanese say that you can't see the whole sky through a bamboo tube? Quit looking up your tube, because there's a whole universe out there outside its edges. Consider the extrapolatables. Sure, regulations might only cost us .3 percent of all jobs, but how many jobs might a company create if they didn't exist at all?

Think of it like physics. I know, physics is complicated, but I can make it simple for you. You know what gravity is, right? It holds everything in the universe down. You walk around on earth and you stick to the ground and don't go sailing off into the sun because of gravity. It's sort of like a car safety seat in that way -- it protects you, keeps you safe and snug on the earth where you belong. And that's how people usually think about gravity, as this benevolent, all-powerful force that keeps us secure. It's the classic liberal/progressive view of government, actually, and there's not anything inherently wrong with that aside from being based on total ignorance of possibility.

Wonder what I mean by that? See, here's where you have to stop looking up your tube. You've got to think about the other side of the sword. The flip side, as it were. Sure, gravity holds you here on earth ... but what if you didn't *have* to be controlled by it? What if there wasn't any gravity? Why, if that was the case, you could go anywhere. Anywhere at all. Just a big leap and whoosh -- off to Mars. Or some asteroid that might be made out of pure diamonds. Or an oil planet off in some other galaxy. The possibility of infinite expansion and exploration could be at your fingertips if only gravity wasn't there as an inherent limiter.

It's exactly the same thing with regulations. Infinite expansion, subby. Think about it.

Except if you didn't have gravity you wouldn't have an Earth to live on or a Mars to fly to since they are formed by gravitational forces. Also if they did somehow form we wouldn't have an atmosphere to breath without gravity. Also gravity doesn't hold the universe down, there is no down in the universe, it attracts large bodies together, not down.

Also you're pretty much calling for anarchy which is retarded.

This Is Bold Text: 0.3% = 1 million people.

Lets use .03% though because it seems smaller.

Edsel: I work in a hospital. We'd be able to spend a LOT more money to hire people if we didn't have to work under a mountain of regulations. You're damned right that they're job-killing.

Yeah, the hospital is exactly the place where you want to sacrifice regulations for economic benefit.

This Is Bold Text: 0.3% = 1 million people.

0.3% of people who lost their jobs in layoffs, not of all people.

Owning a business is hard :(

In this thread, I learned there are people that still think Pocket-Ninja's massive, loquacious satire posts are actually serious.

I alone am best: This Is Bold Text: 0.3% = 1 million people.

Lets use .03% though because it seems smaller.

In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of "government regulations/intervention." By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.

/Am I allowed to use quotes from the actual article?

I would like to see a report on how many jobs regulations create.
By law railroads need to be inspected regularly for flaw in the rail, road bed structure issue, and geometry. There are companies that employee hundreds of people to service that requirement.

Companies have labs to test raw materials and pollution to make sure they are within regulations. Companies hire scientist to do these test. Or they hire an outside company to do these tests.

You see all those nutrition facts on the back of your bag of cheetoes. That info is there because a regulation says it has to be and the company hires or has a lab to analyze the nutritional content.

I am will to be the farm that regulations create 100 fold more jobs than they destroy.

These labs need to have equipment that is manufacture some where, by some one. And sold by someone else. Those are all jobs dependent on regulations. The cost of these regulations do not hurt the business but are passed on to the consumer. If the consumer does not buy your product, it is probably because it sucks and not the extra 5% tacked on for compliance.

The percentage of people who lose loose their jobs due to "Job killing regulations" last year: 0.3%

FTFY subby.

DarwiOdrade: Bloody William:

My tiny fist, I shake it!

D'oh!

I never thought I'd see the day when people started earnestly arguing with Pocket Ninja's classic style of posting. Unbelievable.

Can we have a new talking point? Rather than talking about small levels of "job killing regulation" can we go after the real cause of economic collapse: "Job Killing Speculation"

Let's repeat that talking point. Credit Default Swaps were job killing. Over-leveraged banks were job killing. Betting against bad loans are job killing.

Let's move to enact Job Protecting Regulations like Glass-Steagal that prevent these Job Killing Speculations from occurring.

Philip Francis Queeg: Edsel: I work in a hospital. We'd be able to spend a LOT more money to hire people if we didn't have to work under a mountain of regulations. You're damned right that they're job-killing.

Yeah, the hospital is exactly the place where you want to sacrifice regulations for economic benefit.

If they could just make poultices using concentrated cow urine instead of band-aids and Neosporin, the CEO of MedStar Health could put a new wing on his yacht, opening up tens of jobs - TENS! - in the construction industry.

Why do you hate boats, you libtard extrapolatable socialist?

yert: I would like to see a report on how many jobs regulations create.
By law railroads need to be inspected regularly for flaw in the rail, road bed structure issue, and geometry. There are companies that employee hundreds of people to service that requirement.

Companies have labs to test raw materials and pollution to make sure they are within regulations. Companies hire scientist to do these test. Or they hire an outside company to do these tests.

You see all those nutrition facts on the back of your bag of cheetoes. That info is there because a regulation says it has to be and the company hires or has a lab to analyze the nutritional content.

I am will to be the farm that regulations create 100 fold more jobs than they destroy.

These labs need to have equipment that is manufacture some where, by some one. And sold by someone else. Those are all jobs dependent on regulations. The cost of these regulations do not hurt the business but are passed on to the consumer. If the consumer does not buy your product, it is probably because it sucks and not the extra 5% tacked on for compliance.

There probably is some sort of pseudo-Laffer curve there you can't get more jobs or safety out of regulations without compromising the business itself, but like the Laffer curve, right-wingers think it's one of those where the endpoint is at 0%, which clearly should be the goal.

Recycled misleading statistics do not improve with the recycling.

The (overarching) problem isn't that regulations get passed and then people are fired as a result. It's unsurprising that only a few tens of thousands of people are put out of work directly like that. Sucks to be one of them, but it would suck regardless of why they got pink slipped.

The (overarching) problem is that by regulating the economy, you increase the cost to do business and/or preclude avenues of doing business ab initio. The "jobs killing" nature of the regulatory state is that it forbids commerce, and thus the jobs aren't ever in existence. So 20-100k jobs go uncreated because we need to do a regulatory review of a pipeline. QED.

Astonishing that the Washington Post would be so ill-informed as to miss this rather large-ish aspect to the story, particularly given its credence of the illusory "saved or created" rubric of the Goldman Sachs administration. Or maybe not.