Open E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
For anyone who may think that the business complaint of strangling regulations is exaggerated, judge yourself from the following list:
50+ Employees
Laws and Regulations Employers with 50 or more employees must comply with the following laws & regulations:
Consumer Credit Protection Act
Employee Polygraph Protection Act
Equal Pay Act
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Federal Income Tax Withholding
Federal insurance Contribution Act (FICA)
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)
Labor Management Relations Act
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
Uniform Guidelines for Employment Selection Procedures
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Uniformed Services Employment & Re-employment Rights Act of 1994
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Americans with Disabilities Act
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
The Family and Medical Leave Act
The Federal Contractor Program requires that any contractor receiving a contract from the Federal Government in the amount of $25,000 or more, or any subcontractor
receiving a contract in the amount of $25,000 or more from such a covered contractor must file a VETS-lao Report (link: http:/fvetsloo.cudenver,edu/ ) on an annual basis.
When are you going to start disassembling this morass?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Firing Employees
The other Republican presidential candidates are all over Mitt Romney for his statement concerning "firing". Rick Perry is the leader of this pack.
Firing means to take an individual off a company payroll or discharge an organization who has been providing service. The term "firing" is normally used less frequently than in the discharge of organizations. Mitt Romney later explained that his use of the term was in connection with the discharge of services from a healthcare organization, but that is somewhat beside the point. Rick Perry further indicated that he was really referring to the previous actions of Mitt Romney, in firing people when Romney was operating companies.
The discharge of an employee can occur for several reasons. Some of the most common are incompetence, inability to get along with fellow workers and management, fraud or theft, and downsizing of the labor force.
Let's concentrate on "downsizing of the labor force". We are in a time of bloated government, and the general public and Republican Party generally want a reduction in government size. Government has employed people. If we are to have a smaller government, it is obvious that we have to have a "downsizing of the government labor force". Perhaps more crudely, we can say we need to "fire" government people. If "firing" is so horrendous to Rick Perry and the general run of Republican presidential candidates, we are obviously on a path of not achieving our objective of reduced government size. This will then lead to continued high government expenditures, as those employees find ways to spend money as they have in the past.
If there is any hope for a reduction in government size, all of the presidential candidates will need to do an about-face and recognize that a downsizing of the government labor force will be necessary and this means "firing".
Firing means to take an individual off a company payroll or discharge an organization who has been providing service. The term "firing" is normally used less frequently than in the discharge of organizations. Mitt Romney later explained that his use of the term was in connection with the discharge of services from a healthcare organization, but that is somewhat beside the point. Rick Perry further indicated that he was really referring to the previous actions of Mitt Romney, in firing people when Romney was operating companies.
The discharge of an employee can occur for several reasons. Some of the most common are incompetence, inability to get along with fellow workers and management, fraud or theft, and downsizing of the labor force.
Let's concentrate on "downsizing of the labor force". We are in a time of bloated government, and the general public and Republican Party generally want a reduction in government size. Government has employed people. If we are to have a smaller government, it is obvious that we have to have a "downsizing of the government labor force". Perhaps more crudely, we can say we need to "fire" government people. If "firing" is so horrendous to Rick Perry and the general run of Republican presidential candidates, we are obviously on a path of not achieving our objective of reduced government size. This will then lead to continued high government expenditures, as those employees find ways to spend money as they have in the past.
If there is any hope for a reduction in government size, all of the presidential candidates will need to do an about-face and recognize that a downsizing of the government labor force will be necessary and this means "firing".
Monday, January 9, 2012
Free Trade Is a Job Killer for the US
Free trade is now and has been a US jobs killer. The reason is simple: company profit motivation. As a company makes more profit, its owners obtain higher dividends and/or increased value of their stock. The managers receive higher salaries and bonuses.
How does the company gain a higher profit? The most obvious way is to reduce its costs, which will then allow some reduction in selling prices and increase sales volume compared to competition. There are three primary costs in any manufacturing operation: equipment, raw materials and labor. Of these three, labor is usually the highest cost, although it varies depending upon the industry. For example, the textile industry is highly labor-intensive, whereas the petrochemical industry is low in labor intensiveness.
Many years ago, a few alert textile companies recognized that rather than continuing production in locations such as Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Northeast in general, it would be more efficient for them to manufacture their products in foreign countries, such as the Far East and Latin America, where labor costs were significantly lower. Freight costs and subsequent import duty costs to the US were still significantly less than if the product had been manufactured in the US. Other US textile companies followed suit leading to the eventual demise of the textile industry in the US. It no longer exists, although one can see the desolation of these huge buildings, which once hummed with activity.
The upside of this transformation was that the public could generally receive products at lower prices than previously. The downside was that US textile workers were then out of jobs, but that was a local situation, generally not considered by the US consumers.
Other companies having noticed the effectiveness of overseas production on increasing profits, slowly followed suit. The less labor-intensive a manufacturing industry was, the less incentive there was to move the operation overseas. However, the new business technique slowly increased manufacturing unemployment in the US.
Factors other than labor cost started to enter the picture. These included tax benefits, regulations, and the general investment climate of local governments compared to the US. Restrictive regulations on manufacturing have continued to develop in the US, corporate taxes remain high, and the US government, since the Obama administration, has clearly shown its antibusiness attitude. Even the petrochemical industry, which is noted for not being labor-intensive, has moved most of its investment activity outside of the US. This total combination leaves little opportunity for manufacturing jobs, which is why we presently have a high rate of unemployment and which the Obama administration uses as an excuse to soak the rich in order to keep paying unemployment benefits to those displaced workers.
While these latter factors of corporate tax, regulations, and government attitude are significant and should be changed, the largest factor contributing to present high US unemployment is free trade. The US government must use customs duties to equalize product costs between low labor cost countries and the high labor cost of the US.
How does the company gain a higher profit? The most obvious way is to reduce its costs, which will then allow some reduction in selling prices and increase sales volume compared to competition. There are three primary costs in any manufacturing operation: equipment, raw materials and labor. Of these three, labor is usually the highest cost, although it varies depending upon the industry. For example, the textile industry is highly labor-intensive, whereas the petrochemical industry is low in labor intensiveness.
Many years ago, a few alert textile companies recognized that rather than continuing production in locations such as Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Northeast in general, it would be more efficient for them to manufacture their products in foreign countries, such as the Far East and Latin America, where labor costs were significantly lower. Freight costs and subsequent import duty costs to the US were still significantly less than if the product had been manufactured in the US. Other US textile companies followed suit leading to the eventual demise of the textile industry in the US. It no longer exists, although one can see the desolation of these huge buildings, which once hummed with activity.
The upside of this transformation was that the public could generally receive products at lower prices than previously. The downside was that US textile workers were then out of jobs, but that was a local situation, generally not considered by the US consumers.
Other companies having noticed the effectiveness of overseas production on increasing profits, slowly followed suit. The less labor-intensive a manufacturing industry was, the less incentive there was to move the operation overseas. However, the new business technique slowly increased manufacturing unemployment in the US.
Factors other than labor cost started to enter the picture. These included tax benefits, regulations, and the general investment climate of local governments compared to the US. Restrictive regulations on manufacturing have continued to develop in the US, corporate taxes remain high, and the US government, since the Obama administration, has clearly shown its antibusiness attitude. Even the petrochemical industry, which is noted for not being labor-intensive, has moved most of its investment activity outside of the US. This total combination leaves little opportunity for manufacturing jobs, which is why we presently have a high rate of unemployment and which the Obama administration uses as an excuse to soak the rich in order to keep paying unemployment benefits to those displaced workers.
While these latter factors of corporate tax, regulations, and government attitude are significant and should be changed, the largest factor contributing to present high US unemployment is free trade. The US government must use customs duties to equalize product costs between low labor cost countries and the high labor cost of the US.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
High Truck Sales Portent Public/Government Contoversy
I heard on the radio this morning that truck sales are high. Let's not get confused by thinking that trucks are only 18-wheeler's. Pickup trucks and SUVs are categorized as light trucks.
I then checked the Internet to find some detail and found the following: "Americans' appetite for trucks of all kinds rebounded strongly in December, boosting pickups, vans and SUVs to a combined 54.8% of new vehicle sales. The truck trend seems to defy logic: Trucks use a lot of fuel, and gasoline is stubbornly above $3 a gallon".
Why the high truck sales? The answer is simple. People want them, and they are willing to spend their money and credit to buy them.
However this creates a major problem. Truck buyers are thinking one way and the government is thinking a different way. Recall that government is thinking of energy generation from solar and wind sources. The generated energy is electricity, which can be used for electric cars. Government has been promoting electric cars, and has been dumping taxpayer money into solar and wind energy development.
Is this ideology difference between truck buyers and government bad? Not necessarily. The public doesn't always look at the big picture, whereas public-service representatives believe they have a better view of the big picture. However, the problem is that the public is not generally wrong, whereas the track record of government "big picture" decisions is poor. There is little doubt that fossil fuels have a limited long term availability, while we expect solar and wind energy to be with us forever. The more pertinent observation is that fossil fuels are much more efficient as energy sources and the life expectancy of supplies is really unknown, although it is obviously not infinite. New potential resources, especially gas and oil, are continuing to be found. They are not mostly being developed because of government restrictions, presumably in order to favor solar and wind development.
The larger problem is that in present forms of government, the public elects representatives (Congress and a President) to operate government. The theory is that the representatives will do the bidding of the public. However it doesn't work that way. The representatives have their own idea as to what is best for the public and operate accordingly. See the above paragraph.
This is all tied into the basic characteristics of humanity. One part of a human being desires opportunity to advance his well-being, through power, money, and long life. Another part of the human being desires that he be taken care of. These two characteristics are in continued conflict.
In order to maintain their power, money, and long life, representatives use the "taken care of" process on the American public. The representatives grant social security, low-cost medical care, food stamps, reduced or free housing costs, etc. All of these appeal to the childlike aspect of being taken care of. However, government doesn't really have independent assets to supply all of these benefits. It does so by taxing the public and accumulating debt. Those receiving the benefits don't care about the taxing, because they usually don't pay them. Payment of taxes is reserved to "rich" people, who through another human characteristic of jealousy have, deserve to be taxed. With respect to debt, benefit receivers generally have no concept or at least have convinced themselves that such payment is way down the road, and they need not be concerned. The key point is that benefit receivers then vote to keep their representatives in power and maintain the flow of benefits.
The government has its own idea of what else should be done, as indicated in the first part of this essay. More recently it has decided that the public should no longer have access to incandescent light bulbs. To control this elimination, government now makes it illegal for manufacturers to produce them. Whether an individual wants an incandescent light bulb or not, it will no longer be available to him. He may not like this restriction on his independence, but after all, look at all the other benefits he is receiving from government. In other words, it is a compromise. The saying is that there is no free lunch. If an individual receives benefits from the government, he will pay in one form or another. Usually it's a matter of giving up independent rights. In that, we have to consider freedom. The essence is whether people want to be taken care of by government, with the long-term possibility that government may run out sources for assets. This is much like whether we will eventually run out of fossil fuels. The other possibility is whether people want to retain independence with respect to opportunity for personal development of those same benefits (power, money, and long life), which government representatives presently have.
It can go one way or the other. After the War of Independence, the United States had a number of years of small government with few restrictions, and opportunities for personal investment were almost unlimited. Through the years, that has slowly changed to a large percentage of the population now having a "taken care of" mentality. If that is what the people desire, things are going well, but if it is not or has the prospect that it will change to "not", consideration should be given for making some radical changes.
The question is whether the US public wants to return to "a land of opportunity" or a "land of dependence". A land of opportunity offers potential benefits for capable individuals willing to work, with the possibility of failure. A land of dependence offers immediate benefits to individuals whether capable or not and without effort. With the latter.there is no possibility for personal failure, but there is a longer-term certainty that benefits will run out. Do we want to have a way of life such as the Cubans have had under the Castro regime, wherein government controlled all significant aspects of personal life, or do we want opportunities for personal advancement?
I then checked the Internet to find some detail and found the following: "Americans' appetite for trucks of all kinds rebounded strongly in December, boosting pickups, vans and SUVs to a combined 54.8% of new vehicle sales. The truck trend seems to defy logic: Trucks use a lot of fuel, and gasoline is stubbornly above $3 a gallon".
Why the high truck sales? The answer is simple. People want them, and they are willing to spend their money and credit to buy them.
However this creates a major problem. Truck buyers are thinking one way and the government is thinking a different way. Recall that government is thinking of energy generation from solar and wind sources. The generated energy is electricity, which can be used for electric cars. Government has been promoting electric cars, and has been dumping taxpayer money into solar and wind energy development.
Is this ideology difference between truck buyers and government bad? Not necessarily. The public doesn't always look at the big picture, whereas public-service representatives believe they have a better view of the big picture. However, the problem is that the public is not generally wrong, whereas the track record of government "big picture" decisions is poor. There is little doubt that fossil fuels have a limited long term availability, while we expect solar and wind energy to be with us forever. The more pertinent observation is that fossil fuels are much more efficient as energy sources and the life expectancy of supplies is really unknown, although it is obviously not infinite. New potential resources, especially gas and oil, are continuing to be found. They are not mostly being developed because of government restrictions, presumably in order to favor solar and wind development.
The larger problem is that in present forms of government, the public elects representatives (Congress and a President) to operate government. The theory is that the representatives will do the bidding of the public. However it doesn't work that way. The representatives have their own idea as to what is best for the public and operate accordingly. See the above paragraph.
This is all tied into the basic characteristics of humanity. One part of a human being desires opportunity to advance his well-being, through power, money, and long life. Another part of the human being desires that he be taken care of. These two characteristics are in continued conflict.
In order to maintain their power, money, and long life, representatives use the "taken care of" process on the American public. The representatives grant social security, low-cost medical care, food stamps, reduced or free housing costs, etc. All of these appeal to the childlike aspect of being taken care of. However, government doesn't really have independent assets to supply all of these benefits. It does so by taxing the public and accumulating debt. Those receiving the benefits don't care about the taxing, because they usually don't pay them. Payment of taxes is reserved to "rich" people, who through another human characteristic of jealousy have, deserve to be taxed. With respect to debt, benefit receivers generally have no concept or at least have convinced themselves that such payment is way down the road, and they need not be concerned. The key point is that benefit receivers then vote to keep their representatives in power and maintain the flow of benefits.
The government has its own idea of what else should be done, as indicated in the first part of this essay. More recently it has decided that the public should no longer have access to incandescent light bulbs. To control this elimination, government now makes it illegal for manufacturers to produce them. Whether an individual wants an incandescent light bulb or not, it will no longer be available to him. He may not like this restriction on his independence, but after all, look at all the other benefits he is receiving from government. In other words, it is a compromise. The saying is that there is no free lunch. If an individual receives benefits from the government, he will pay in one form or another. Usually it's a matter of giving up independent rights. In that, we have to consider freedom. The essence is whether people want to be taken care of by government, with the long-term possibility that government may run out sources for assets. This is much like whether we will eventually run out of fossil fuels. The other possibility is whether people want to retain independence with respect to opportunity for personal development of those same benefits (power, money, and long life), which government representatives presently have.
It can go one way or the other. After the War of Independence, the United States had a number of years of small government with few restrictions, and opportunities for personal investment were almost unlimited. Through the years, that has slowly changed to a large percentage of the population now having a "taken care of" mentality. If that is what the people desire, things are going well, but if it is not or has the prospect that it will change to "not", consideration should be given for making some radical changes.
The question is whether the US public wants to return to "a land of opportunity" or a "land of dependence". A land of opportunity offers potential benefits for capable individuals willing to work, with the possibility of failure. A land of dependence offers immediate benefits to individuals whether capable or not and without effort. With the latter.there is no possibility for personal failure, but there is a longer-term certainty that benefits will run out. Do we want to have a way of life such as the Cubans have had under the Castro regime, wherein government controlled all significant aspects of personal life, or do we want opportunities for personal advancement?
Monday, January 2, 2012
Weakening Patent Law
Glenn Hess has an article in the December 19 issue of Chemical and Engineering News entitled, "Critics Target Patent Deals".
The article discusses Senate Bill S. 1882, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Republican Sen. David Vitter to encourage more generic companies to challenge the validity of brand-name drug patents. The intention is to bring more generic pharmaceuticals to the marketplace.
This bill is unnecessary. Normal market and business forces should be allowed to prevail. The US patent system should not be weakened by extraneous regulations.
The purpose of patent law is to grant economic advantage to those persons and companies who have engaged in research to develop products and processes having economic marketability. Any regulatory weakening of the patent system also weakens incentives to develop new products.
As a patent is granted, the inventor is given a limited time market exclusivity on his product or process. The patent may be considered by others as strong or weak, depending upon the patent details which are publicly revealed.
A potential competitor, which in pharmaceuticals is considered a generic producer, may come to the patent holder and suggest that because of the patent weakness, the generic producer may try to in validate the basic patent in court or may produce a product, which he considers will not be applicable to control by the patent.
This matter should be left to negotiation of the two contenders. Conclusion usually will involve an exchange of money or if the patent holder considers that his position may be weak, he may agree to an early marketing of the generic producers product in exchange for eliminating further contention.
The federal government generally has no business to be involved in these negotiations, unless it feels that the public is being deprived of product or low pricing through illegal means. The details of "illegal means" are described in the Antitrust Laws, and it is the responsibility of the Justice Department to prosecute offenders.
The article discusses Senate Bill S. 1882, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Republican Sen. David Vitter to encourage more generic companies to challenge the validity of brand-name drug patents. The intention is to bring more generic pharmaceuticals to the marketplace.
This bill is unnecessary. Normal market and business forces should be allowed to prevail. The US patent system should not be weakened by extraneous regulations.
The purpose of patent law is to grant economic advantage to those persons and companies who have engaged in research to develop products and processes having economic marketability. Any regulatory weakening of the patent system also weakens incentives to develop new products.
As a patent is granted, the inventor is given a limited time market exclusivity on his product or process. The patent may be considered by others as strong or weak, depending upon the patent details which are publicly revealed.
A potential competitor, which in pharmaceuticals is considered a generic producer, may come to the patent holder and suggest that because of the patent weakness, the generic producer may try to in validate the basic patent in court or may produce a product, which he considers will not be applicable to control by the patent.
This matter should be left to negotiation of the two contenders. Conclusion usually will involve an exchange of money or if the patent holder considers that his position may be weak, he may agree to an early marketing of the generic producers product in exchange for eliminating further contention.
The federal government generally has no business to be involved in these negotiations, unless it feels that the public is being deprived of product or low pricing through illegal means. The details of "illegal means" are described in the Antitrust Laws, and it is the responsibility of the Justice Department to prosecute offenders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
