Where is the connection between employment and regulations?

United States
June 20, 2012 5:01pm CST
Many republicans are calling for NO federal regulations until unemployment reaches a certain number. They believe that federal regulations cause employers to hold off hiring, and causes firing. Although some businesses are hurt by regulations, others are helped by these same regulations. Do you think there is a connection between regulations and employment, or do you think this is just election year politics? http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/211797-gop-looks-to-ban-federal-regulations-until-unemployment-falls-to-6-percent
1 person likes this
3 responses
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
21 Jun 12
The new EPA neshap rules that goes in effect over the next year is predicted to close several manufacturing plants. So don't even start to tell me regulations do not cause people to lose their jobs. We are seeing it. Also, you can look at the coal industry and see how the regulations are causing reductions in the coal mining industry. You, yourself, on another topic talked about oil refineries closing on the east coast. Why were they closing. If you look closing, I think you will find that they had trouble meeting some EPA regulations. There need to be sensible regulations, but the latest ones the EPA are pushing will drive manufacturing over seas.
@burrito88 (2779)
• United States
21 Jun 12
Many oil refineries on the east coast have closed because they are old and also not cost efficient to run with some of the grades of crude oil that are available.
1 person likes this
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
21 Jun 12
birrito, And I think if you read between the lines and understand the EPA standards, you would see for them to retrofit these plants, to meet the new EPA standards, it would not be cost efficient. The EPA standards of today make it very hard to retrofit old plants and to build new ones. Electric companies have pretty much quit building coal plants because of all the EPA standards they have to comply with. Instead, they are building natural gas plants because the standards are cheaper to meet, even though coal has been cheaper to run. With the coal plants they have to install sulfur scrubbers, use active coke injection, SNCR control and possible some other others. And now they have to look at CO2.
• United States
21 Jun 12
Fat, we will have to see how those new regulations effect manufacturing. I have heard the doom and glum projections most of my life living in the rust belt, and they usually don't live up to their hype. The coal industry is being effected by some EPA regulations, but in the power plants they are moving those jobs to other locations, and they are building other locations to offset that lost energy. What many don't understand is that corporations use the EPA like the oil companies use OPEC: As an excuse. Many of those coal plants were going to be closed because they weren't efficient enough. When it comes to refineries it is NOT the EPA that is closing them, it is the oil companies because of efficiencies, and profits. What MANY Americans don't understand is that the oil industry is a MONOPOLY, and why would you work more and harder to make the same amount of money? The question I would like to ask the senator, and all of the right wingers who think this is a good idea is: Please point to me what regulation caused all of the job loses in 1987/2001/2008? I am sure you would hear crickets!!!
@sierras236 (2740)
• United States
20 Jun 12
Well considering that a printing of all Federal Regulations would wipe out all of the Forests in the entire Northern Hemisphere and no one (not even Federal Employees) can actually keep up with what is already on the books, then what exactly is the point of passing more regulations? I am not against Regulations. However, I am against the really stupid ones like the EPA declaring CO2 a Hazard because it is a greenhouse gas. Heck, water vapor is a greenhouse gas too. Should that also be a hazard? Let's not forget that CO2 is needed to produce O2 which humans and animals need to sustain life. Ooohhh, someone forgot to do their biology homework at the EPA. Methane is also a greenhouse gas but again, the EPA Jokers don't realize that Nature herself produces it vast quantities. But oh, let's blame the cows. Yet, the buffalo once roamed those same exact plains and produced quite a bit of gas. Can't forget about the dinosaurs either. A single dinosaur probably put out as much gas as a hundred cows. Nope don't hear about that part of global warming either. Hey, here's a new theory on the extinction of dinosaurs. They all choked on the Methane gas that they were producing due to Global warming. So yeah, umm, since the regulations suggested by the EPA have been in a word, idiotic, then yeah No more regulations until they all retake courses in Elementary School Biology.
• United States
21 Jun 12
Sierras, first off, we have the internet now, so we don't need to print ANYTHING!!! Second, I agree there are SOME regulations that don't make sense to you or me, but they do to other in a certain industry. I deal with customers that complain about disposal of used anti-freeze, but do you know what would happen if business owners started to just dump the anti-freeze in the sewer system? The problem that you have with businesses in general is in most cases they will NOT do the right thing, unless someone makes them. I don't think you right wingers understand how much damage could be done to the earth if we didn't regulate how to dispose of waste. But, you still didn't explain how regulations effect employment.
• United States
21 Jun 12
Shh... There's a secret Government office that contains hard copy of all the bills. The Internet itself wasn't a part of record keeping until the 1970s, then those were all punch cards. All kidding aside, these bills are still printed out on paper. Congress and the President still have hard copies. They aren't official until they are signed in pen by the President. Some dispute over the robosigning pen but it still is paper he is signing not a computer. Yes, I am aware of Smart regulations. I don't have a problem with directing the disposal of hazardous waste. I don't have a problem with restrictions on say a Nuclear plant where the material inside is so obviously dangerous. Of course, I don't consider Nuclear power a "green" energy either. Note my objections are against STUPID regulations like calling CO2 a hazard when it is in fact a necessary part of the environment and a requirement to produce Oxygen. You would think with all those scientific minds that someone at the EPA remembered that. I also object to all that Carbon footprint nonsense as well. Of course, humans are going to have an impact on the environment. You want the real truth. Scientists don't have a clue about what causes the Environment of the Earth to change. They have a very tiny picture of the data about the Earth's weather. In fact it is so small that if you were to statistically compare the age of the Earth to the time when have been measuring weather conditions, it would come up as statistically insignificant. Even NASA has acknowledge that some of that temperature measuring data was incorrect. Yes, humans have damaged the environment. Elephants knock down trees. Lighting sets things on fire. Volcanoes spew more noxious gas than China. Is the EPA going to fine Mother Nature for an eruption? It is almost at that point now. Careful because shortly YOU are going to be fined for the simple act of exhaling because it is now deemed a hazard and contributes to Global Warning. Point is that it is now borderline ridiculous. Stopping the regulations temporarily and reevaluating them is not that bad a thing.
• United States
21 Jun 12
I understand there are some regulations that don't make sense to me or you. But, they may make sense for others in this country who have to put up with them. You mentioned Methane gas. Have you ever been to a dairy before? Let me tell you that you wouldn't want to live anywhere near one. I understand as well that no one really knows if global warming exist, but do we really want to destroy the earth and find out? Again, I understand what you are saying, but do you really think these regulations are hurting hiring? I can give you many examples of when regulations DIDN'T effect hiring, and in many cases where regulations can be blamed for companies closing you can also find other reasons as well.
@Rollo1 (16686)
• Boston, Massachusetts
21 Jun 12
As mentioned by others, some EPA regulations end up causing businesses to close plants rather than spend millions trying to retrofit them. But even if the businesses decide to comply with the regulations, it always cost money to make changes. When a business has to spend large amounts of money in order to comply with new regulations, they are not going to commit themselves to large numbers of new employees. Even employees are expensive due to regulations. Each employee costs much more than his salary. The full compensation to an employee includes many costs that are the result of new regulations, the health care law being part of that. It only makes sense that when you make it more expensive to do business, there will be less business being done. Sometimes the answer is to move operations overseas, sometimes they just wait and see. Businesses look at the political climate in order to know whether or not it is a good time to expand. Let them know that they will be able to count on several years of no new regulations and therefore, no new expenditures to meet those regulatory requirements, and they may feel confident enough to start expanding and hiring.
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
21 Jun 12
And with our current administration attacks on businesses, a lot of the business are hoarding their money and waiting it out.
• United States
21 Jun 12
Rollo, when the cost to a business goes up, so does their prices. If you look at the last to economic expansions you will see that while come prices went up, the economy still did well. Look at 2006-2008, you will see that cost went up to businesses dramatically because of profits, and fuel (which effects that vast majority of companies). Just because cost go up, doesn't mean that business goes down. Look at the profits of corporations over the last three years you will see their cost have gone up because of health care (none Obamacare I will remind you), taxes, energy. Yet, many are making record profits.
@Rollo1 (16686)
• Boston, Massachusetts
21 Jun 12
Debater - the money that corporations have does not all come from profit. When things are not economically favorable for business expansion, they put money other places, investments, etc. The insurance industry, for example, does not make big profits, but they do have big assets. Have a look round your local grocery store and you will see that food prices have gone up, but at the same time, the sizes have becomes slightly smaller. The product becomes smaller combined with a slightly higher price. They prefer not to raise prices to meet their costs because consumers will start to cull certain items from their grocery lists. Companies won't price themselves out of the market, that would be stupid. They downsize, they streamline, they fiddle with prices and they don't hire extra people just out of the goodness of their hearts. You said it yourself - taxes and energy prices are driving everything up. But this administration has promised us higher energy prices as part of Obama's agenda and plan and will not lower corporate taxes to encourage businesses to hire and expand. If you see the problem, maybe you should look at the solutions more. The ones that this administration is trying don't work. To believe that somehow any business owes anything to anyone is a kind of balloon-never-lands philosophy of life. If you want business to thrive and as a result, hire, then stop trying to vilify them and destroy them.