GDP shrinks 1% in Q1

[Imawhosure]

I don't think China is exactly the model to emulate. Lo/no regulation at work:

 

But you still haven't explained away the main thrust of my point-------------> if we were only 30% unionized, while other countries were 70 to 85% unionized, since unions demand higher wages, how is it that the United States had the highest standard of living in the world?

 

See, most people have to unlearn the garbage they have been force fed by politicians to discover why things are what they were/are. They tell you a very good story to fire you up, but reality is............most of it is just fairytale theatrics to get you blaming people from other segments in the population.

 

Oh, and I really like your picture. Seems to me if enviros are really worried about the world, they should ALL buy a plane ticket to either China or India, as that is where they could do the most good. Of course, they aren't really about fixing anything, just about feeling good about themselves.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Imawhosure

[Edstock]

Well, people rise to the challenge:

 

The School of Belle Knox — The Duke Porn Star on One Way to Pay for Outrageous College Costs

 

 

[the_spaniard]

But you still haven't explained away the main thrust of my point-------------> if we were only 30% unionized, while other countries were 70 to 85% unionized, since unions demand higher wages, how is it that the United States had the highest standard of living in the world?

 

See, most people have to unlearn the garbage they have been force fed by politicians to discover why things are what they were/are. They tell you a very good story to fire you up, but reality is............most of it is just fairytale theatrics to get you blaming people from other segments in the population.

 

Oh, and I really like your picture. Seems to me if enviros are really worried about the world, they should ALL buy a plane ticket to either China or India, as that is where they could do the most good. Of course, they aren't really about fixing anything, just about feeling good about themselves.

 

Sorry, I was commenting on your comparison to China and it's coal factories, though America does not have the highest standard of living in the world.

 

So not wanting to have a sky that looks like the picture I posted makes people (me included I guess) an enviros? That is a bit extremist don't ya think? Most people can't afford to commit that kind of time and money to their beliefs, and some people are just kinda concerned about raising their children in a country with clean air and natural resources their grandchildren will be able to enjoy.

 

If I had a knee-jerk reaction I would say that people that don't care about the environment should go live in China or India, as such conditions obviously don't bother them.

 

Instead, I would try to educate the dangers of such polluted environments to those that would listen. Many people (myself included) spend the large majority of our time at work and home outside. Nearly every day, in all kinds of weather. No growth or development is worth a skyline that looks like that picture.

Edited June 5, 2014 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

Not saying "No regulation." But, too much and poorly crafted or implemented can be more devistating to the quality of live than what you showed in the photo.

 

Is there any real evidence (not CNN, FOX, NBC talking points) but actual studies that have shown that environmental regulations have ever caused significant damage (or growth) to our economy?

 

You always hear about crazy statistics from republicans about the world coming to an end and from democrats saying it will create a ton of new jobs but where exactly is the real evidence of any sort of impact either way?

[xr7g428]

The EPA is specifically forbidden from doing cost benefit analysis.

[chevys]

Every regulation is a hidden tax. I have seen it estimated as high as 23 percent we pay more for goods and services. Its a no brainer that when you regulate everything costs are going to go up. I dont think we need a harvard scholar to tell us this. I am not saying all of them are bad either but I am sick and tired of high energy prices. BHO wants high energy prices to justify is green energy nuts and his reckless spending on it.

[cal50]

 

Is there any real evidence (not CNN, FOX, NBC talking points) but actual studies that have shown that environmental regulations have ever caused significant damage (or growth) to our economy?

 

 

You always hear about crazy statistics from republicans about the world coming to an end and from democrats saying it will create a ton of new jobs but where exactly is the real evidence of any sort of impact either way?

 

 

 

Anything that increases the cost of energy is not helpful for most business and manufactures that use energy and for all of us at home that use that same energy.

The XL pipeline , lack of any new refineries being built and the mandated multiple blends of seasonal gasoline bottlenecked by refineries drives up cost at the pump and the price if finished goods.

 

There is some irony that some people want to slam a coal fired generating plant that meets prior licensing emissions but not the newer more stringent standards and slated to be taken offline.

I would rather have an organic coal fired power plant next to me ( with scrubbers) than the lovely golf course with tons of fertilizer and insect control running off into our drinking water.

 

Acres of weed and bug free grass does not occur naturally..........

[the_spaniard]

The EPA is specifically forbidden from doing cost benefit analysis.

 

Ummm no they aren't. They even have the support of the USSC in conducting those analysis.

 

Every regulation is a hidden tax. I have seen it estimated as high as 23 percent we pay more for goods and services. Its a no brainer that when you regulate everything costs are going to go up. I dont think we need a harvard scholar to tell us this. I am not saying all of them are bad either but I am sick and tired of high energy prices. BHO wants high energy prices to justify is green energy nuts and his reckless spending on it.

 

It's still not evidence. There should be plenty of evidence that environmental regulation has hurt/helped the economy.

 

<EDIT. Someone want to find me a study that covers something like this info? Just a draft but interesting reading. A real-world breakdown of the costs/benefits (not estimates) would be cool.

 

Anything that increases the cost of energy is not helpful for most business and manufactures that use energy and for all of us at home that use that same energy.

 

And yet there is little to no evidence that it (or any other environmental regulation) has a long-term negative impact on our economy.

 

The XL pipeline will have little if any effect on gas prices at the pumps..the US State Department and Keystone XL agree on that. Just like the mythical 120,000 jobs numbers republicans still push (based on a longer pipeline proposed 2 years ago), the reality is different. Once again Keystone XL and the State Department both agree the number is around 42000 temporary jobs that would last two years. After that, Keystone XL expects to create a mere 50 jobs to run it.

Edited June 6, 2014 by the_spaniard

[RangerM]

Speaking on behalf of a client of mine, a specific Federal regulation that goes into effect next year will very likely result in the closing of the facility, because it will cost too much to comply.

 

I'd call that a direct impact on their (local) economy.

[the_spaniard]

Speaking on behalf of a client of mine, a specific Federal regulation that goes into effect next year will very likely result in the closing of the facility, because it will cost too much to comply.

 

I'd call that a direct impact on their (local) economy.

 

While I agree it is an impact, whether it is a positive or negative for the local economy still remains to be seen.

 

For all the bluster over environmental regulation and hatred of the EPA, there sure isn't much evidence that EPA policies have negatively (or positively) impacted economic growth at all. Looking at past legislation covering everything from clean air to vehicle emissions, not much in the way of dire predictions came true. For many of the examples job loss is negated by net jobs created resulting in a near-zero impact on the American economy.

 

I don't believe these regulations create jobs (the way some democrats tell it), but there is very little evidence that they will hurt the economy, despite ramblings like this.

[FiredMotorCompany]

The EPA is specifically forbidden from doing cost benefit analysis.

Sounds like a plan.......from administrations that don't want to bear their government underlings mucking up their agenda with facts and stuff.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

 

The XL pipeline will have little if any effect on gas prices at the pumps..the US State Department and Keystone XL agree on that. Just like the mythical 120,000 jobs numbers republicans still push (based on a longer pipeline proposed 2 years ago), the reality is different. Once again Keystone XL and the State Department both agree the number is around 42000 temporary jobs that would last two years. After that, Keystone XL expects to create a mere 50 jobs to run it.

Hey! That's job growth to Obama. Your not supposed to recognize that losing 100, 000 high paying jobs isn't offset by the creation of 100, 000 lower paying jobs they call growth and lower unemployment. Edited June 6, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[RangerM]

 

While I agree it is an impact, whether it is a positive or negative for the local economy still remains to be seen.

The facility is located in rural Alabama. You can bet for at least a generation, the impact will be (economically) negative. Then there's the long term effects of those family providers who are without jobs, and the lost opportunity at that facility to get a well-paying (at least by local standards) job.

 

How long term do you want to go?

Edited June 6, 2014 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

 

though America does not have the highest standard of living in the world.

 

Eh, that all depends in how you define it. Combining everything from average incomes, average education level, opportunity to advance, guaranteed individual liberties, etc. and there's still nowhere else that comes close in my opinion. Perhaps Canada.

[Edstock]

opportunity to advance,

 

Sorry to say, the Scandinavian countries actually offer more opportunity to advance, partially because post-secondary education doesn't require the burden of humongous student debt. Canada, unfortunately, has become almost as expensive as the US for that get-ahead education, as opposed to, say, Finland, where post-sec is free. That's why a couple of years ago, there were massive student demonstrations in the province of Quebec, as that provincial government tried to jack up the cost of tuition to the egregious levels charged by English-Canadian universities.

 

It seems that for kids today in North America, the chances of doing better than their parents are rapidly declining, in a down-sized, contracted-out economy that is becoming more and more roboticized. Recently, Cambridge University published a report that predicts that almost 40% of current office jobs could disappear in the next 30 years as Artificial Intelligence automates a lot of offices.

 

[xr7g428]

The EPA performs what are called Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). The purpose of the RIA is to estimate the impact of a proposed rule change. They are specifically not required to waive the rule change because of the RIA. Recently they changed the rules for wood stoves. Here is link to the RIA for the industry. If you read it, you will see that they predict it will have zero effect on employment in the industry.

 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/eo12866_nspsresidentialwoodheaters_2060-ap93_proposal_ria_finalcleanvf2.pdf

 

Once things get rolling we start to see what is really going on... What is the cost of freezing to death?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/01/29/epas-wood-burning-stove-ban-has-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/

 

I own a factory that once employed over 200, we are now down to 6. The reason: EPA determined that the adhesive we use, (the only one accpetable to OSHA) could no longer be sold in bulk. It is the same adhesive that is used in latex paint. (the clear stuff on top when you open the can). We were told directly by the EPA that we should just buy our product in China and distribute it here.

[the_spaniard]

The facility is located in rural Alabama. You can bet for at least a generation, the impact will be (economically) negative. Then there's the long term effects of those family providers who are without jobs, and the lost opportunity at that facility to get a well-paying (at least by local standards) job.

 

How long term do you want to go?

 

I see your point, and I agree that a null impact on overall economic development doesn't mean much if you are one of those negatively impacted, and not one of those positively impacted. Hard to say anecdotal cases don't matter if you aren't the one getting canned, closing shop, etc. And believe me, as a former victim of this wonderful world economy (and outsourcing overseas) I empathize.

 

Even so, seems that everything I am finding is pointing towards little negative or positive overall economic impact for any EPA legislation passed within the last 30 years. That includes whoppers such as the CAA, CAFE, etc.

 

It seems that some topics are being so incredibly politicized that actual evidence does not matter, and many Americans have become too lazy to do any actual thinking.

[xr7g428]

The RIA's all point to a couple of studies that say there is no economic impact. They use those same studies over and over. Common sense tells you otherwise. Have you ever tried to get a bumper rechromed? Its almost impossible, as all of the chroming shops are closing due to impossible to meet regs. In manufacturing it is getting to be very heard to make things because the supplier base is all being shut down for one reason or an other. You can't buy bolts made in the USA if the plating is anything special. I have to buy machine parts from Germany because no one can do the hardening and plating here any more.

[akirby]

The myth that a college education isn't affordable today is ridiculous. There are plenty of smaller colleges that anyone can afford. I paid my own way through college working full time in minimum wage jobs with only a modest amount of student debt (< $5K). And I was living on my own for the last half.

 

All you need is the will to do it. It may be easier or harder for certain individuals but it's certainly available if you want it.

 

It's far easier to just sit back and play the victim and say "it's too hard".

 

But you don't even need a college education to earn a good living. Be a fireman or a policeman. Learn to be a welder or electrician or a plumber. Work your way up the chain and be a manager of a fast food restaurant.

[mettech]

The Air Force/DoD paid for two A.S and one B.A. for me.

 

There are avenues available for advance education that are not only free.. but somewhat profitable too.

[RangerM]

 

I see your point, and I agree that a null impact on overall economic development doesn't mean much if you are one of those negatively impacted, and not one of those positively impacted. Hard to say anecdotal cases don't matter if you aren't the one getting canned, closing shop, etc. And believe me, as a former victim of this wonderful world economy (and outsourcing overseas) I empathize.

 

Even so, seems that everything I am finding is pointing towards little negative or positive overall economic impact for any EPA legislation passed within the last 30 years. That includes whoppers such as the CAA, CAFE, etc.

 

It seems that some topics are being so incredibly politicized that actual evidence does not matter, and many Americans have become too lazy to do any actual thinking.

But as what you are finding "is pointing towards little negative or positive overall economic impact for any EPA legislation passed within the last 30 years" I'd expect you're nuanced enough to realize the ridiculousness of a Federal environmental regulation that applies to all facilities whether they be in the middle of a major city or in the middle of nowhere. (as is the case of my client)

 

The facility has been in business for nearly 70 years, and there is no environmental wasteland surrounding it, nor do people drop like flies due to industrial poisoning; yet it will (likely) be put out of business if an economical way to comply cannot be found.

 

If your answer to this seems to be "too bad", well you can expect to reap what you sow. (I'm using "you" non-specifically) Killing a metaphorical "jobs garden" reaps no economic benefit whatsoever.

 

Right or Left, I'd hope we can all agree that the goal of any economy should be to produce/increase value; and destroying the sources of that production/value is no way to run an economy.

 

Nobody wants purposeful pollution, but as you've seen your job evaporate due to global economic competition, over-reaching (and largely needless) environmental regulation accelerates the process. Eventually, such policy can only result in the total destruction of a self-sufficient middle class.

Edited June 7, 2014 by RangerM

[the_spaniard]

But as what you are finding "is pointing towards little negative or positive overall economic impact for any EPA legislation passed within the last 30 years" I'd expect you're nuanced enough to realize the ridiculousness of a Federal environmental regulation that applies to all facilities whether they be in the middle of a major city or in the middle of nowhere. (as is the case of my client)

 

The facility has been in business for nearly 70 years, and there is no environmental wasteland surrounding it, nor do people drop like flies due to industrial poisoning; yet it will (likely) be put out of business if an economical way to comply cannot be found.

 

If your answer to this seems to be "too bad", well you can expect to reap what you sow. (I'm using "you" non-specifically) Killing a metaphorical "jobs garden" reaps no economic benefit whatsoever.

 

Right or Left, I'd hope we can all agree that the goal of any economy should be to produce/increase value; and destroying the sources of that production/value is no way to run an economy.

 

Nobody wants purposeful pollution, but as you've seen your job evaporate due to global economic competition, over-reaching (and largely needless) environmental regulation accelerates the process. Eventually, such policy can only result in the total destruction of a self-sufficient middle class.

 

I would certainly prefer to see smart legislation that takes geographic location into account in situations such as your clients, but if it is the choice of "blanket" regulation and no regulation, I have to go for the blanket. But I really don't think that is the choice unless we are being that lazy.

 

Right or Left, I'd hope we can all agree that the goal of any economy should be to produce/increase value; and destroying the sources of that production/value is no way to run an economy.

 

 

Bingo, that is a good way to put it.

 

Nobody wants purposeful pollution, but as you've seen your job evaporate due to global economic competition, over-reaching (and largely needless) environmental regulation accelerates the process. Eventually, such policy can only result in the total destruction of a self-sufficient middle class.

 

Yes but my point is we have not seen that...yet. While legislation may be labeled "needless", it hasn't hurt the economy but likely has been a benefit to the environment. If we hit a point where environmental legislation becomes an national level (hell or even state-level) "drag" on the economy I'll be right with anyone to scrutinize the cost/benefit.

 

The myth that a college education isn't affordable today is ridiculous.

 

 

Tuition costs are ridiculous. In 2003 aggregate student debt in this country was $253 billion. Last year it was $1.08 trillion. For at least two years of an undergraduate degree, you are going to pay $10-15K a year. And even with the lax requirements today, not everyone can join the military and serve. That leaves student loans. I agree a trade is good route to go, provided you find one you enjoy.

 

As far as student loans, the average student graduates with over $30,000 in debt. That is pretty tough debt to have when you are just starting off. So much, that the Senate just had hearings whether it will hamper the economy. Out of state tuition is where people really get nailed...and not everyone can study in their own states - some schools just don't offer the programs they want to study.

 

I went back for my second bachelors, and two years of college still cost me over $10K. Graduate school will cost me another $30K (the average for graduate students) and that is before my PHD. The only difference for me is that I want to get it done quickly, and I want to study overseas. Studying full-time for my masters here will take 2-3 years. I can earn my masters in the UK in a solid year and be done with my PHD (if I do it) in another 3-4. Here, a PHD could take 4-8 years. Not everyone can work and go to school full-time or part-time. My last career would not afford me an opportunity to go to school part-time. Night classes are impossible if you regularly work 50-60 hours weekly, with irregular spikes of crunch time into the 70-range. I literally had to save up a nest egg and walk away from my last career just to get my second degree.

 

If kids aren't doing their GE in a community college, then they must be rich or have their heads examined. Though if your goal is ivy-league you are unlikely to gain entrance by transferring from a community college.

[akirby]

 

I would certainly prefer to see smart legislation that takes geographic location into account in situations such as your clients, but if it is the choice of "blanket" regulation and no regulation, I have to go for the blanket. But I really don't think that is the choice unless we are being that lazy.

 

 

Bingo, that is a good way to put it.

 

 

Yes but my point is we have not seen that...yet. While legislation may be labeled "needless", it hasn't hurt the economy but likely has been a benefit to the environment. If we hit a point where environmental legislation becomes an national level (hell or even state-level) "drag" on the economy I'll be right with anyone to scrutinize the cost/benefit.

 

 

Tuition costs are ridiculous. In 2003 aggregate student debt in this country was $253 billion. Last year it was $1.08 trillion. For at least two years of an undergraduate degree, you are going to pay $10-15K a year. And even with the lax requirements today, not everyone can join the military and serve. That leaves student loans. I agree a trade is good route to go, provided you find one you enjoy.

 

As far as student loans, the average student graduates with over $30,000 in debt. That is pretty tough debt to have when you are just starting off. So much, that the Senate just had hearings whether it will hamper the economy. Out of state tuition is where people really get nailed...and not everyone can study in their own states - some schools just don't offer the programs they want to study.

 

I went back for my second bachelors, and two years of college still cost me over $10K. Graduate school will cost me another $30K (the average for graduate students) and that is before my PHD. The only difference for me is that I want to get it done quickly, and I want to study overseas. Studying full-time for my masters here will take 2-3 years. I can earn my masters in the UK in a solid year and be done with my PHD (if I do it) in another 3-4. Here, a PHD could take 4-8 years. Not everyone can work and go to school full-time or part-time. My last career would not afford me an opportunity to go to school part-time. Night classes are impossible if you regularly work 50-60 hours weekly, with irregular spikes of crunch time into the 70-range. I literally had to save up a nest egg and walk away from my last career just to get my second degree.

 

If kids aren't doing their GE in a community college, then they must be rich or have their heads examined. Though if your goal is ivy-league you are unlikely to gain entrance by transferring from a community college.

 

Bullshit. My daughter is enrolled in a local 4 year college in North Georgia. Her tuition is $1250/semester or $2500/year not counting summer. That's only $10K for four years. Work and you can pay for at least half that yourself.

 

And in Georgia we have hope scholarship which will pay all or most of your tuition for 4 years if you simply maintain a B average.

 

Just because some students choose to live on campus and rack up enormous student debt or think they have to go out of state without a scholarship doesn't mean that there aren't less expensive affordable alternatives.

 

It took me 6 years and working full time but I went 2 years to a community college locally, worked for a year, then moved to Athens, GA and spent 3 years at UGA, 2 full time and 1 part time. I worked at a close to minimum wage job. I also paid for my own vehicle and shared an apartment with my fiancee. I left with only about $5K in student debt and got a job immediately in the IT department of a large corporation.

 

So I don't want to hear how you need money because I didn't have a penny of help from anyone and I know plenty others who did the same thing. All it takes is determination.

[cal50]

My daughter did 2 years of community college then transferred to OSU and we are paying it off as she goes. If I did not have the money she would still get a college education but it would likely vary from the current path.

If anything there is reverse racism in grant money and programs geared towards a persons ethnicity vs their GPA or income.

 

I would agree IF a person really wants to attend college there are many avenues available but all of them might be different than the one the person wants.

Most people want a Ferrari but buy a Focus.

[RangerM]

 

I would certainly prefer to see smart legislation that takes geographic location into account in situations such as your clients, but if it is the choice of "blanket" regulation and no regulation, I have to go for the blanket. But I really don't think that is the choice unless we are being that lazy.

When the Federal takes geography into account, it runs into equal protection issues.

 

The way you "take geographic location into account" is by leaving the environmental legislation to the respective states. Where there are environmental issues related to borders/interstate commerce, then there is room for Federal, but it should be a last resort.

 

IMO, the Feds should be there to help guide the states and maybe even provide scientific consultation, NOT to impose on them.

Edited June 8, 2014 by RangerM