If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Hebert Meyes on who "creates jobs" -- it's not the president   (nationalreview.com) divider line 190
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11265 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Mar 2004 at 5:03 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-03-30 10:10:09 AM
Excellent article! Lower taxes and less regulation for entrepreneurs who would a thunk it?
 
2004-03-30 10:26:35 AM
but wait. he can't be right! he's a conservative!

oh, but he is right.

(i'm just anticipating a post down below)
 
ESH
2004-03-30 10:35:25 AM
Great article. An additional benefit of getting government out of business is getting business out of government. The wouldn't have to bribe politicians to change policies toward business if there were no policies in the first place.

I imagine corruption via corporate monied interests would drop drastically if the government left business to compete and grow on it's own.
 
2004-03-30 10:49:40 AM
ESH

Big business has proved time and time again that it is unable to regulate itself. Given half the chance, they run rampant and engage in anti-competitive practices to ensure their dominance over a market. Then, once they've over extended themselves, they immediately demand government bailout money to continue running.

The Savings and Loans crisis was a product of lax government involvement and sterner government regulations could have prevented the twin disasters of Microsoft and Enron. Thankfully, the government has stepped in to break up Microsoft before it got too bad.
 
2004-03-30 11:10:52 AM
As an aside, I don't know why everyone's on about Enron so much. MCI/Worldcom was around three times worse.
 
2004-03-30 11:19:45 AM
Enron was a Texas (Bush) based company...WorldCom was from where? No Bushs' from there? Move along...nothing to see here...
 
2004-03-30 11:34:29 AM
Sorry Dancin, it wasn't a dig on Bush, it was just me trying to find examples for regulation and that one came to mind.
 
2004-03-30 11:43:38 AM
None inferred...Just kind of conjecturing with EatHam...I'm real curious to see what G_W_H has to say about this...seeing as he thinks that Bill Clinton was the sole reason for the 5.6% unemployment rate in the 90's...because of a bunch of student loan programs...I wonder what he did to get us the 5.6% unemployment rate we have now...
 
2004-03-30 12:53:45 PM
Who actually thought the President was THIS important to our nation's economy?

I want to see a lot of you raise your hands.
 
2004-03-30 01:03:45 PM
One big reason for lack of jobs is that the existence of the web has attracted a LOT of young people into majoring in IT. However, after a major increase in IT jobs in the 90s, they've leveled off after 2000. But there doesn't seem to be a leveling off of new people looking for work.

The worst part of it is that once you've already gotten your degree, there's no going back. It's not like a waitress job is going to cut it for living expenses AND student loan payoff.
 
2004-03-30 01:13:23 PM
Nobody has ever said that you MUST go to college...and nobody ever said that if you do you MUST take out student loans...

/Did neither
 
2004-03-30 01:29:11 PM
DIA

some of us have no choice. if you want a really good job, you need that degree. if you want that degree, you need money to pay tuition. maybe you had no problem with that, but my family is poor, and i had to get a loan.
 
2004-03-30 01:43:04 PM
some of us have no choice.

What country do you think this is? EVERYONE has a choice...
 
2004-03-30 01:48:21 PM
Great article, and very true.

bring back The Gipper!
 
2004-03-30 02:15:33 PM
As the founder, owner, and operator of two sucessful (not necessarily thriving) small businesses (one engineering consulting and the other jewelry), I can say that most of what he's talking about in the article is BS when applied to small businessess, which, he himself states, create 80% of new jobs. Sure there are a lot of laws and regulations affecting small businesses, but many (if not most) of them give the small business a break or advantage over larger businesses. If you're under 50 employees, almost =all= of the laws give the small business the advantage. The comments about FICA and other payroll taxes would only be relevant if I were competing with overseas corporations that don't pay them, since all of my local competition does pay them. Frankly, when I get so big I have to worry about Korean labor undercutting my businesses, I'll sell 'em and retire to Aruba. As a small business owner, I say bring on =more= laws that will give me a chance to compete against Bechtel and Walmart!
 
2004-03-30 02:38:13 PM
Balrog

I am in the same boat as you are- founder/owner/operator of a small business. Successful but not mega-rich, etc. etc.

I disagree with you completely. I am not even in a highly-regulated industry, but there is FAR too much- lets say- "interference" from laws. (The word "regulation" is misleading).

Its been proven over and over- laws, regulation, interference ALWAYS helps the big guy. Its just reality. They have the money and power to use these things to their advantage, as well they have the money to defray any associated costs.

Just look at the legal system. We make it easier and easier to sue for anything under the sun. We have a system where a company can sue any other company and not risk a thing other than their own legal expenses. Who does this benefit? The large company.

I don't know your business... but take your biggest competitor, assuming there is some large corporation out there competing with you. Do you know how easy it would be for them to put you out of business? One "trademark infringement" or other frivolous lawsuit- even if it got *thrown out*- could bury you. Why? Because you have to pay your lawyer whether you win or lose.

This is just one of many examples.

I don't know- maybe we have very different businesses- but personally my biggest headaches and worries all come back to something the government put in place (many times in an effort to HELP me!)

Just let me run my small business. I've never asked for a grant or any money. I just want to be left alone unless I am doing something purposely criminal.
 
2004-03-30 02:44:18 PM
SockMonkeyHolocaust:

Big business has proved time and time again that it is unable to regulate itself. Given half the chance, they run rampant and engage in anti-competitive practices to ensure their dominance over a market

Actually, you'll find its BECAUSE of regulation and laws that big businesses run rampant in anti-competitive practices (which I agree happens more often than it should).

Take away 90% of our hacked-together system, and customers will still flock to the best/cheapest/most inventive products.

No one can control the customer. Take away regulation, and small businesses can finally compete *in the market*, and not through all the bizarre hoops that have nothing to do with the market.

Will all small businesses succeed? No. Most of them won't. Most of them shouldn't. Will all big businesses fold? No. Many of them provide the best product.
 
2004-03-30 02:57:25 PM
downstairs
You are talking about how laws are applied, not the laws themselves. I agree with you in general, though you are talking about tort law and things that apply to everybody. My point is, that most of what the article is asking for would help big business squash me, rather than benefit me. If laws always benefit the big guy at the small guys expense, why are big oil, big finance, big whatever always lobbying for deregulation?
 
2004-03-30 03:27:10 PM
Dancin_In_Anson:
Nobody has ever said that you MUST go to college...

I didn't see anyone arguing otherwise. But 18 year olds are instructed by just about everyone that you either go to college or you become a crack whore, there is no in between. You can't blame them for believing it.
 
2004-03-30 03:27:12 PM
Balrog:

The "deregulation" that mega-bit companies lobby for is different than what this guy is talking about, as well what I was talking about (thats why I didn't like using that word).

This guy is talking about the massive amount of laws any company has to "follow" or, more aptly, be afraid of to hire people.

Personally, in my business, I have never and never plan to hire people. *Especially* not full or part time. Maybe sub-contracting, but rarely. And our company is big enough to hire.

I've managed a 10-20 employee business, and now work in a 2-person partnership. Everything this guy says is correct.

Every dollar spent to adhere to a law, shield yourself from frivilous use of the laws/courts, and other non-market-related things is a dollar that helps the BIG guy. Because they have cash reserves.
 
2004-03-30 04:38:53 PM
No regulation, more regulation.

Ayn Rand and Noam Chomsky may not believe it, but don't y'all think there might be a middle path on this issue?
 
2004-03-30 05:09:29 PM
I for one would like to see more of these highly entertaining links. Even though I can only understand every 3rd paragraph. I also like the name SockMonkeyHolocaust. Is it just me or this a really slow day for anything interweb-thingy related?
 
2004-03-30 05:09:41 PM
Hebert Meyes on who "creates jobs" and it's not the president

You can say that again...
 
2004-03-30 05:09:52 PM
Calmamity:

No regulation, more regulation. Ayn Rand and Noam Chomsky may not believe it, but don't y'all think there might be a middle path on this issue?

Its not so much a "number of regulations" people are debating, where you could kinda just pick a number in the middle and have everyone be happy enough.

Its an attitude. The people's attitude and the government's attitude. At least that's how I look at it.

Should we be a country where the government/laws/legal paths are the first option, or the last option? Should the government be there to police things first, or should we allow markets to decide first?

My big problem is that everyone sees the end solution to every problem (on EITHER side) as "they should make a law..." -- and that's a terrible attitude, no matter how valid one's actual point/problem is.

No, they shouldn't make a law. No, you shouldn't use the government's services (courts, lawmakers) to solve your problem. That's not what the government is there for.

Except in cases where there is purposeful criminal action, leave the government out of it.

We're going to have poor people either way. We're going to have failed businesses either way. Guess what- we currently have laws and regulations to the teeth (millions of pages of them), and WE STILL have the same damn "problems."

/end rant
 
2004-03-30 05:10:30 PM
As a small business owner myself, I have to go with the 'less regulation' camp myself. I mean really, I can't tell you how many times my ho's have been busted this month for solicitation . That bail money ain't cheap, and having to get them to court dates cuts into my profits and bling bling. With less regulations, I could put many more ho's to work.
 
2004-03-30 05:10:33 PM
 
2004-03-30 05:11:31 PM
Land of the free? Who ever told you that is your enemy!


/rage
 
2004-03-30 05:12:10 PM
good points, downstairs


And, great article!
 
2004-03-30 05:15:20 PM
I take back what I said this morning. It's skinink who must father my children. :-D
 
2004-03-30 05:15:26 PM
My big problem is that everyone sees the end solution to every problem (on EITHER side) as "they should make a law..." -- and that's a terrible attitude, no matter how valid one's actual point/problem is.

No, they shouldn't make a law. No, you shouldn't use the government's services (courts, lawmakers) to solve your problem. That's not what the government is there for.

Except in cases where there is purposeful criminal action, leave the government out of it.


That is one of the most lucid statements that I have ever read on Fark...Good work downstairs!
 
2004-03-30 05:17:12 PM
This guys point isn't that you should be more moral, but that we should roll over and accept it when some "brave entrepreneur" breaks the law or despoils the planet because he will make jobs for you if you "let" him. He is actually saying that the jobs are not being created because people fear to create them, because they'd have to break the law to do it.

I hope this is satire.
 
2004-03-30 05:17:20 PM
Didn't he play Epstein on "Welcome Back Kotter?"
 
JRB
2004-03-30 05:17:33 PM
I've got business ideas ready to develop, but I can't take a second away from the crappy freelance job that's paid me the same crappy wage for 18 months.

Meanwhile, my credit problems have barely improved, even though I stopped my reckless charging years ago. The financial institutions have widened the scope by which they can inflict penalties and raise rates, so that other late payments (within 7 years) and each others' credit checks all negatively impact my reports on an ongoing basis.

Extended unemployment benefits would have been much better security for entreprenuers. Corporate tax credits just encourages profit-taking by the wealthy, seen in up-and-down stock markets, such as the past three years since we LEFT THE RECESSION (which the article misstates).

Let's try another angle, eh?

/get back to work
 
2004-03-30 05:17:37 PM
we still need someone to lynch, and why can't it be that liar on the tv?
 
2004-03-30 05:17:40 PM
Dear farking Lord. What *more* can we do to give business owners breaks? Fellate them on a daily basis, perhaps? Would that be enough?
 
2004-03-30 05:17:51 PM
Hell...one full timer will cost a small business some serious $$$.

Not only that, but the second you hire someone the state and feds want MORE money from you...and they don't cut small business a break...
 
2004-03-30 05:19:08 PM
i fight this fight with my bro-in-law all the time.

i tell him the idea that "big business" is evil is a complete absurdity and that we would be absolutely nowhere without corporations.
he always counters with the Enron/Microsoft, etc. argument. we must put heavy regulations on big business or else they will use us to get rich and f everyone over.

you're bound to get a few rotten apples every now and then, but it doesnt mean you should cripple the entire system.
 
2004-03-30 05:19:21 PM
Balrog: Sure there are a lot of laws and regulations affecting small businesses, but many (if not most) of them give the small business a break or advantage over larger businesses. If you're under 50 employees, almost =all= of the laws give the small business the advantage.

Yes, they get an 'advantage' insofar as they're exempt from costly and/or (usually and) stupid regulations and business restrictions mandated by the government. The reason most of these exemptions exist in the first place is that if they were applied to the small businessman they'd drive him out of business in short order; the result is that you get a lot of small businesses who have to limit themselves (i.e. fail on purpose) to avoid getting slammed the instant they hire a sufficient number of employees to qualify for the big-boys government thumb.

e.g. $100,000 defending against a bogus discrimination lawsuit isn't much to, say, a McDonald's or Wal-Mart, but to someone who took out a $200,000 loan against their house to move the small business to a better location and hire some extra help, that's killer. What you get is a lot of small employers who are just below the line, and a few big ones who are far enough above it for the added costs not to mean much, and no chance of serious competition between the two. So the little guys are 'protected', as long as they don't succeed.
 
2004-03-30 05:19:29 PM
from the quote to begin the article "The cure is for somebody to buckle to and make a job for the three men [displaced by a machine.]"

therein lies the problem. you can't just create a job. you can't just invent one out of thin air. you have to create the need. workers need to make themselves indispensable.

as far as outsourcing, just as we have the right to shop for the lowest priced DVD player, so a corporation has the right to shop for the cheapest labor pool. besides, everyone is talking about the exporting of jobs, but don't realize that far more are imported.

furthermore, people must realize that wage rates per unit of time are not the same as labor costs per unit of output. when workers are paid twice as much per hour and produce three times as much per hour (as US), the labor costs per unit of output are lower. that is why high-wage countries have been exporting to low-wage countries for centuries. An international study found the avg. productivity of workers in the modern sector of the indian economy (dots not feathers) to be 15% of that of American workers. in other words, if you paid the avg. indian worker 1/5 of what you paid the avg. american worker, it would cost you more to get the job done in india.

in particular industries, such as computer software, indian workers are more comparable, thus the outsourcing. but virtually every country has a comparative advantage in something, whether high- or low-wage.
 
2004-03-30 05:19:36 PM
Alexis-- They let you cruise through FARK at the Kerry campaign headquarters? Shouldn't you be making calls to some old people trying to scare the crap out of them?
 
2004-03-30 05:20:02 PM
"We have reshaped our society to protect endangered species whose continued survival is of no discernible benefit, such as the black-footed ferret or the spotted owl."

so do animals have to benifit us in some way to stop from being wiped out now? i missed that memo
 
2004-03-30 05:21:03 PM
jfurdell: What?? You think small business gets good breaks? Have you ever tried to run a startup? Have you ever tried to figure out WHY you have to pay so much to the feds and state?

Big business gets the breaks...small business does not...
 
JRB
2004-03-30 05:21:43 PM
Okay, it's been two years since the recesssion ended, not three. But the recession only lasted three months as it was. The growth has only lined the wealthys' pockets and kept poorly run businesses afloat without encouraging improvements, investments, or jobs.
 
2004-03-30 05:23:18 PM
That is one of the best articles stating a true conservative position on business regulation. downstairs, that was beautiful. And it's already gettin slightly warm in here....

/gets a slurpee
 
2004-03-30 05:23:52 PM
There is not "Big Money" in politics...there is much bigger money in marketing dog food than in all political campaigns combined in pretty much any year...but if there is too much money in politics, it is because government has far too much range and reach over how business conducts itself...if you want money out of politics, get government out of business...regulation should be primarily to tax polluters, etc., to pay for what they pass on to the rest of us and, primarily, to ensure that fair and free competition is the order of the day.

In other words, simplify our obscene tax code. Dramatically. And just watch economic productivity skyrocket (and job creation along with it.
 
2004-03-30 05:24:02 PM
anyway, as far as creating jobs, it can't be done until the economy picks up further, thus creating a need for more jobs.

the gov't tries to take care of this by creating jobs rather than the need for jobs, and thus we have big government with huge payrolls - but remember, the gov't doesn't produce anything - it just "manages." the dept. of agriculture has more employees than there are farmers in the US for chrissakes.

they're scared of downsizing because then you'd have a glut of unskilled workers who can't find another job. again, workers need to make themselves needed, and then indispensable.
 
2004-03-30 05:24:21 PM
Magnus

Alexis-- They let you cruise through FARK at the Kerry campaign headquarters? Shouldn't you be making calls to some old people trying to scare the crap out of them?


Nah... I wait until late at night to do that. Much more effective when they're laying in bed in the dark. =)
 
2004-03-30 05:24:24 PM
I knew it was time to stop reading when I got to this part:


This is nuts. We have reshaped our society to protect endangered species whose continued survival is of no discernible benefit, such as the black-footed ferret or the spotted owl, while blithely writing laws and regulations that threaten the survival of the one species the entrepreneur on whom our lives and welfare utterly depend.


Someone point out to this guy that the fungus on oranges had no use either until someone figured out it could save billions of lives all over the world. (Penicillin)
 
2004-03-30 05:24:27 PM
I liked the article, even if it is in National Review.

I think the thing that's screwed up with small business and employment is that here in the US, our healthcare is tied to our jobs. That's just wrong, if you think about it. I can see worker's comp, to cover on-the-job accidents or illnesses from your work (black lung, etc); but weighing down our small employers and lower tier workers with private health insurance that's pretty much mandatory is farked up. Should your boss have to foot the bill for heart surgery for you because you eat nothing but Krispy Kreme? NO.

When you factor in how insurance prices get bloated because of deep pockets paying for it (see what happened to California's worker's comp system), it's easy to see why insurance company profits have been chugging along quite nicely.

I don't know the best way to make sure that everybody gets humane and effective healthcare, but making mom 'n' pop businesses pony up for it all is insane.
 
2004-03-30 05:25:50 PM
Dear farking Lord. What *more* can we do to give business owners breaks? Fellate them on a daily basis, perhaps? Would that be enough?

Got fired from the bowling alley again eh jfurdell?
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report