Wisconson - sign of more to come?

311 posts / 0 new
Last post
rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1271
Re: Wisconsin - sign of more to come?

PetraViolet wrote:
No, *I* am not complaining. I am not personally in this situation;

Sorry PetraViolet, I attributed the comment to the wrong person, it was inga that said this:

inga wrote:
Nurses don't walk until there is desperation because people's lives depend on them.  Nurses already are forced to work double shifts....what is next, chain us to the patients' beds?

Yes that does look like complaining, particularly when everyone is under financial stress.  The problem is continuing to work double shifts if you consider the work underpaid, only proliferates the problem.  Did you ever think that you're covering double shifts is actually making patient care worse?  When your tired you more likely to make mistakes, treat patients badly, etc. Either you decide that the pay is worth the extra time, or not.  It's your choice to make and it is a culmination of many decisions you may have made earlier in life.  This is a good example of where healthcare is different causes distortions.  Instead of realizing that there is a shortage of nursing staff resulting in additional nurses to enter the field because of either higher wages or better benefits (including work hours), we have government mandating what is appropriate, what will be paid for by medicare, medicaid, va forcing hospitals to keep staffing low.

Will working what you believe is appropriate hours result in more deaths in the short run, possibly, but it's no different than many other fields. What about cutbacks in police, fire?  Or how about cutbacks in road maintenance that causes more accidents, or cutbacks in utility workers that keep gas/electric on so we have power to run the healthcare equipment, or keep our houses warm so we don't freeze.

It's that "healthcare" is most important and different than any other field and the continuous excuses government has to meddle because of that attitude that I find troubling.  It's also the distortions caused by bueraucrats trying to pick the best use of money, when the free market would do a much better job allocating where funds would be best deployed. 

sjdavis's picture
sjdavis
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 21 2008
Posts: 76
Re: Wisconson - sign of more to come?

rhare wrote:

Going to be difficult for doctors, nurses, teachers to do their job from a foreign country.  Any non-manufacturing job certainly doesn't fall into the outsourcing scenario.  As energy costs for transportation rises, local goods certainly become a lot more attractive as well.  Besides, we have all this unions, government protection and look where we are today: Broke!  While all these interferences into the market have done is delayed the consequences while make them much worse.  It's just another form of kicking the can down the road.

Not true, a remote work case can be made for parts of those professions, unless we're talking about a future with less technology, which is certainly one possibility.  But with technology advances and expanding reach, each profession has pieces that can be location agnostic. Specialized doctors can read scans and data from anywhere, and increasingly with any device.  Not necessarily a bad thing as it means the medical industry works round the clock.  It's a good business.  While difficult at early ages, teachers can also be outsourced.  Distance learning is making huge profits for new public companies.  Stanford offers their courses free over the Internet.  A change of mind set here or there and education could be delivered, managed, and measured differently.  I've read your later posts and realize you're talking about the person-to-person requirement, which is where nurses fit.  I can't see any way that job can be outsourced, just that they'll be asked to do more and more.

The point of the above is not to state what's good or bad, but simply to keep discussion honest.  To state that doctors, nurses and teachers can not be outsourced is not entirely true.  Mix some creative business ideas, a ready market and profit motive and it can be done.  The question is whether that's the society we the people want.

Also, you say "with all these unions..." and make a point about being broke.  That statement ignores the numbers, which are in my original post.  Since 1980, when our deficit started to balloon, union as a percent of total workforce has dropped to 12% from 23%.  So the phrase could just as easily read, "with the busting of unions over 3 decades, we are still broke."

Again, the point is not whether unions are good or bad, just that the discussion quickly gets ideological rather than fact based.

rhare wrote:
So we have 43.6T representing 87% of all wealth in the US owned by those evil rich people, but we have $53T in Net Present Value liabilities all ready (and I question that that number is not really low), then we clearly you can not tax the rich to solve the problem.  Even complete confiscation of all wealth of those EVIL EVIL rich people won't solve the problem.

No disagreements on the scale of the problem, but there is a choice.  We have a three-legged stool of financial ruin - Defense, SS, and Medicare. The issue is that some people focus only the latter two, which actually have a visible and tangible safety net for our citizens.  Defense the way practiced today is a zero roi proposition.  We're told it keeps us safe and free and very few people argue.  But keep paying an elderly person's SS and healthcare and people are creating new enemies at home.

My other problem with your statement here is that it's an example of the "all or nothing only" solution when it suits your argument.  Since this action does not solve 100% of the problem then it's worthless and discussion resorts to name calling.  Does denying public employees collective bargaining rights solve 100% of the problem today?  No.  Does taxing the rich at Reagan levels solve the problem?  No.  What I don't get is why anybody cares if the top 1% pay a more fair share of taxes relative to income.  What is the logical opposition to raising the SS income ceiling?  

Were you complaining when Bush increased debt by lowering taxes and starting 2 wars?  I don't want to assume, but those are 3 things in this decade that accelerated our path to insolvency.  We could not afford tax cuts for the wealthy, they were doing just fine before.  But just like government, once someone gets a tax cut, any attempt to return to a normal level is coined a nasty job crippling tax hike.  CM makes the point that government programs that are temporary fixes with good intentions become permanent fixtures requiring exponential funding.  We all complain about this as we should.  But similarly, the wealthy act the same as government where taxes are concerned.  Just run this scenario... If we all agree that 40% is a fair top rate, then we cut that to 20% for 4 years for whatever reason, what would be the talking points when trying to take the top rate back to 40%?  How about 30%?  Even 25%?  The talking points are the same - tax hiking liberals at it again.

rhare wrote:
No, it's whether governments are forced to agree to collective bargaining.  As far as I'm concerned any private business that wants to enter into collective bargaining agreements is free to do so (I think it's stupid, but their choice).  However, governments should not because it is then a taxpayer subsidy for the worst workers.   After all collective bargaining is essentially saying, the best workers will give up some of their potential gain to subsidize those that would not do as well in a competitive market.

So matter of fact when you say "the worst workers," like business doesn't have any executives that fit the bill.  I guess Madoff, Ebbers and the Enron crew are great successes that just made the mistake of getting caught.  So is marginalization the key to a strong economy?  It's conscious Darwinism of the work force.  How again do we define "worst workers?"  Without collective bargaining, are we sure that managers responsible for measuring worker quality are not biased?  Of course they're not, otherwise we'd have a gender wage equality issue in right to work parts of the economy.  Oh wait, that still exists.

Still, it's about the RIGHT to bargain, whether public or private.

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Re: Wisconson - sign of more to come?

rhare wrote:

No I didn't.  I have never said that all this regulation or health care doesn't have any benefit, merely that is is unaffordable, unsustainable, and may have many unintended consequences.  I still advance that free market will often yield the same or better results. 

Thanks for the response.

However, my comment has nothing to do with healthcare, it is in direct reference to safety regulations (claimed for years by the auto industry in general to be unaffordable) mandated by government.

Regulations that have tangible benefits for the citizenry, in this case, extended life span. I believe Volvo introduced seat belts in 1959 to production vehicles, and they had only sporadic use until legislation was enacted requiring all car manufactures to install them (I believe in the 1966 model year) over much protest. The argument was made that such overreach would inhibit innovation (sound familiar) and the tooling costs would force auto makers into a perpetual embracing of old technology. Then came air bags (also mandated by law 1989) again with much protest.

Crash testing was also mandated, with strict structural standards defined by the NHTSA and imposed on auto manufacturers. Crash testing had been done with the Big Three since 1934, but was never put into production until mandated by the Federal government - but not for lack of trying. Ford marketed a safety package in 1956, which was not accepted by consumers and abandoned:

Lifeguard was the name of a 1956 safety package marketed by the Ford Motor Company.

Spurred by Robert McNamara, the Cornell University crash research program and the first year of Ford's own crash testing (1955) the Lifeguard package included:

  • Two standard features:
    • A safety "deep-center" steering wheel.
    • Safety "double-grip" door latches to prevent occupant ejection in case of a crash.
  • Three optional features:
    • Front and rear [1] lap only seat belts (first offered by Ford in 1955).
    • Padded dashboard and sun visors. The instruments were recessed to minimize injury potential.
    • Safety rearview mirror to reduce broken glass if shattered.

The buying public was unresponsive to the Lifeguard package, and Henry Ford II said: McNamara is selling safety, but Chevrolet is selling cars

I’d say that Mr. Ford summed it up very succinctly.

It is widely recognized that automotive safety would not be anywhere near the current state without the aggressive interaction of  Federal oversight and related regulation.

With regard to workplace safety, pages could be written on Federally mandated safety equipment which was always met with great protest by industry, and often (if not always) resulted in demonstrable improvements in workplace safety.

It is simply not possible to review a brief history of regulatory oversight of these specific subjects and conclude in retrospect that these means were either oppressive, too costly, or ineffective. Perhaps most importantly, to conclude that these would have occurred with the same efficacy and in a meaningful timeline with only free market force is just not intellectually honest.

rhare wrote:

In fact most safety oriented air regulations by the FAA probably result in a larger loss of life due to increased cost of compliance with safety regulations than they save.  An airline has a big enough incentive to keep planes safe and in the air, a $80M+ aircraft is quite the incentive to keep flying safe. 

I had to push back form my keyboard after reading this one, it’s a doozy. While no airline is dumb enough sacrifice a $80mm aircraft, this is not the primary motivation – you lose a bird you risk losing the company (Air Tran anyone). That said, to claim that loss of life is greater due to FAA regulations is absurd. Cost more per passenger mile, sure, but greater loss of life? If you would like to have a discussion about Airworthiness Directives, aluminum fatigue failures of aircraft structures,  MTBF for airframes,  MTBO for jet engines, and all of the mission critical safety of flight inspections mandated by the FAA (to great protest of course by the airlines) that feel free to jump in.  Lacking that commentary, I will say with 100% certainty that if the FAA was abolished tomorrow, the deaths per passenger air mile would skyrocket, and would very likely collapse the industry due to fear of flying.

Link

Improve Aviation Safety. As the stewards of aviation safety in the United States, FAA and its industry partners have built a system that has reduced the risks of flying to all-time lows. In 1997, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security issued a challenge to FAA and the aviation industry to reduce the air carrier fatal accident rate by 80 percent in ten years. In the three years prior to 1997, the United States averaged about six commercial fatal accidents per year. The average loss of life each year was 266 deaths. Since that time, during the past three years the United States averaged approximately two fatal accidents per year, with an average loss of life of 28 per year.

FY 2007 marked the end of the ten-year period set by the Commission. In FY 2007, there were 0.22 fatal accidents per 100,000 departures – a 57 percent drop. Although FAA did not achieve the target set ten years ago, and also did not meet its performance target of a 0.010 rate averaged over three years, the safety achievements are significant.

Through the continuing effort and cooperation of all the participants in the aviation industry and FAA, the aviation industry has achieved the safest period in aviation history. For this reason FAA is introducing a new performance metric for commercial air carrier safety – Fatalities per 100 million Persons On Board. This new metric is more relevant to the flying public, as it better measures the individual risk, as low as it is, to fly. And the long-term target is no less challenging than the previous goal – the agency aims to cut this risk in half by 2025. To make this vision a reality, FAA will continue to work in partnership with industry.

These conversations are worthwhile in that they repeatedly draw attention to factual and easily observable (by anyone) phenomena and illustrate, with no wriggle room, how reliant we are on effective and meaningful regulation, despite ideologies that refuse to accept this premise.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Re: Wisconson - sign of more to come?

darbikrash wrote:

rhare wrote:

In fact most safety oriented air regulations by the FAA probably result in a larger loss of life due to increased cost of compliance with safety regulations than they save.  An airline has a big enough incentive to keep planes safe and in the air, a $80M+ aircraft is quite the incentive to keep flying safe. 

I had to push back form my keyboard after reading this one, it’s a doozy. While no airline is dumb enough sacrifice a $80mm aircraft, this is not the primary motivation – you lose a bird you risk losing the company (Air Tran anyone). That said, to claim that loss of life is greater due to FAA regulations is absurd. Cost more per passenger mile, sure, but greater loss of life? If you would like to have a discussion about Airworthiness Directives, aluminum fatigue failures of aircraft structures,  MTBF for airframes,  MTBO for jet engines, and all of the mission critical safety of flight inspections mandated by the FAA (to great protest of course by the airlines) that feel free to jump in.  Lacking that commentary, I will say with 100% certainty that if the FAA was abolished tomorrow, the deaths per passenger air mile would skyrocket, and would very likely collapse the industry due to fear of flying.

DK,

I think he was refering to the fact that if air travel is made more expensive by regulation, flying might be priced out of the reach of people that are then forced to use a less safe means of travel.  If this happens, it is not hard to imagine how an unintended consequence might be for the regulation to end up costing more lives than it saves.

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Re: Wisconson - sign of more to come?

Carl Veritas wrote:

Nacci,

The average workweek was 61 hours in 1870, compared to 34 hours today.   Child labor has all but disappeared and the American workplace has indeed become safer.   Not to forget  investments in technology to improve productivity.    

All of the above was caused by capitalistic competition,  not unions.  

https://mises.org/daily/1590/Markets-Not-Unions-Gave-us-Leisure

Perhaps you can explain why the Factory Acts were necessary in 19th century industrial society if capitalistic competition was so all encompassing and effective?

Factory Acts

From your link on the Mises site:

The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market. 

Capitalistic competition is also why "child labor" has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary.  Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families.  But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.  Union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun.  Moreover, child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work.  Since child labor sometimes competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work.  In the Third World today, the alternative to "child labor" is all too often begging, prostitution, crime, or starvation.  Unions absurdly proclaim to be taking the moral high road by advocating protectionist policies that inevitably lead to these consequences.

No mention at all from the author (who also penned the ridiculous and wholly preposterous tome “ How Capitalism Saved America”) anywhere in the piece about LAWS and REGULATION, somehow he would have us believe these changes in workweek were organic and initiated from the Capitalists? Someone needs to get himself to a library, and pronto!

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
air

goes211 wrote:

I think he was refering to the fact that if air travel is made more expensive by regulation, flying might be priced out of the reach of people that are then forced to use a less safe means of travel.  If this happens, it is not hard to imagine how an unintended consequence might be for the regulation to end up costing more lives than it saves.

Perhaps you’re right on the interpretation, but it is a weak argument. Regulation of the airlines is already in place and quite heavy with respect to safety of flight items, and there is still a robust market for air travel. There are few practical alternatives for most people to air travel, given normal societies’ time and distance constraints. The dominant cost factor in air travel are fuel costs, not regulatory compliance.

The truth is the FAA is a shining example of a successful regulatory body that has an excellent safety record with entirely manageable (but not free) cost per passenger air mile. The costs are known, recognized, and absorbed every day by every air traveler. There is just no disputing this.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1271
darbikrash wrote:Perhaps

darbikrash wrote:
Perhaps you’re right on the interpretation, but it is a weak argument.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2003/10/4689/airline-infant-safety-seat-rule-could-cause-more-deaths-it-prevents-pe

I happen to know a transportation engineer that studies these type of things and he concurs that the more you can get people to fly, the safer travel becomes because of the much higer risk of fatalities per mile traveled of automobile transportation, this paper talks about deregulation of airlines and has the same statement:

[quote=http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv14n3/reg14n3-mckenzie.html]

Finally, the impact of airline deregulation on air safety should not be isolated from its impact on the safety of other modes of travel, most notably highway travel. Any small shift in travel from cars to planes could result in significantly reduced overall travel accidents, injuries, and deaths. Air travel, measured in deaths per million miles, is more than 30 times safer than passenger-car travel.

Quote:

This article does a good job of illustrating some of the problems with regulations, particularly the FAA, in reduced innovations, many safety related:

http://philip.greenspun.com/book-reviews/the-death-of-common-sense

The truth is the FAA is a shining example of a successful regulatory body that has an excellent safety record with entirely manageable (but not free) cost per passenger air mile. The costs are known, recognized, and absorbed every day by every air traveler. There is just no disputing this.

I know several small plane pilots and it amazes me that even the most basic innovations from the last 30 years in the automobile industry that improve engine reliability and safety are not remotely incorporated into the airline industry because of the massive over regulation.  It definitely makes small planes less safe.

I love how you statist like to declare things like "there is no disputing this", sorry but I think there is considerable room for discussion about these points.  Just because you say "there is no dispute" certainly does not make it so. 

Here is another good article that discusses the TSA and how it makes us less safe (same story as the FAA, just different government agency):

http://mises.org/daily/836

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Factory Law; Child Labor Laws; Fair Labor Standards

tRash,

Factory laws. 

https://mises.org/daily/2443/The-Factory-System-of-the-Early-Nineteenth-...

Child Labor Laws.   http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=337

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.   This is in the U.S.  http://mises.org/daily/2858

Nate's picture
Nate
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 6 2009
Posts: 461
Let's count the ways the

Let's count the ways the politicians and media divide us.  Abortion, God, guns, unions, corporations, bankers, global cooling, global warming,  climate change, ag subsidies, welfare, military spending, war, and fill in the blank.

Can't wait until we get a societal crash so we can forget these arguements no one can win (or change anyone's mind) and start to focus on what is really important. (my peach tree started to bloom today)

Nate

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Mises

Carl Veritas wrote:

tRash,

Factory laws. 

https://mises.org/daily/2443/The-Factory-System-of-the-Early-Nineteenth-...

Child Labor Laws.   http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=337

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.   This is in the U.S.  http://mises.org/daily/2858

Karl

What a hoot. Got a real belly shaker out of that piece of dementia, and of that web site as a whole, the hits just keep on coming. Here is some of the hideous logic they try and use to pass off the notion that never is any sort of government intervention a benefit. Note, they very carefully obfuscate the argument which might question what were children doing in factories in the first place, rather, they focus on trying to challenge an observers recollection of conditions, and based on accusations of faulty recollection, attempt to cloud and explain away the central issue, which is never really addressed – Why did it take legislation and regulation drawn out over 100 years to stop what any 8th grade civics student knows, that children do not belong in factories??? That what the free market would not and could not do?

Get a load of these pithy quotes from the brain trust at Mises.org:

It seems to the writer a fact of the deepest significance that, in spite of Gaskell holding these opinions, and in spite of his regarding factory labor in general as "singularly unfitted for children," he could not bring himself to advocate the abolition of child labor. "The employment of children in manufactories," he wrote, "ought not to be looked upon as an evil, till the present moral and domestic habits of the population are completely re-organised. So long as home education is not found for them, and they are left to live as savages, they are to some extent better situated when engaged in light labour, and the labour generally is light which falls to their share."[29] It was the home life of children, prior to their factory days, which primarily led to such physical degeneracy as there was, and Gaskell emphasized this view. "This condition, it must be constantly borne in mind, has nothing to do with labour — as yet the child has undergone none."[30]

and…

Of the specific causes suggested for such decadence as there appeared to be, there are two which seem to have some plausibility. The first is the high earnings of the operatives which led to intemperance. Both Thackrah and Gaskell treat this as axiomatic. "The pocket-book makers have high wages and are not compelled to keep hours. Hence they are often very dissipated."[39] "The high wages allowed in some departments, induce drunkenness and improvidence."[40] "Higher wages, moreover, very often, if not generally, lead men to intemperance."[41]

And…

We can ignore the platitude that the child, at least, was not a free agent. There were two lines of argument. On one side, "Against none do children more need protection than against their own parents"; and, on the other, "The parent is the only natural and efficient guardian of the child." We shall not attempt to value the implications involved in these ideas, but the second one is significant. The human emotions from which parental affections spring were no different then from what they are today, and it is to the different social and economic medium in which they were expressed that we must look for the cause of apparent callousness and cruelty.

It is hard to believe that rich philanthropists felt more strongly than parents about the welfare of their children. Protection against the effects of drunkenness may, perhaps, have been needed, but, in general, upper-class support for legal restrictions on child labor was based upon a complete lack of understanding of the difficulties with which the working masses had to contend.

And…

Moreover, until man has something to do in leisure, or until the commodities for use in leisure are sufficiently cheap and plentiful, what is the use of it to him? When he has these things, he can make a "choice between benefits," between leisure and other things. Legal enactments often enforce the choice of an authority, which thinks it knows better. Perhaps, in the case of factory legislation, the authority was, indirectly, right. By bringing the operative a greater degree of leisure "artificially," it may have taught him to value it for its own sake and prefer it to the extra money which he habitually spent in the "alehouse" or the "dram shop." But until the Industrial Revolution had so far advanced as to bring other and more desirable things into competition with those institutions, it is possible that reduced hours may have had the reverse effect and led him to waste even more of his income than formerly. In the same way the moral welfare of children was probably safer in the factory than in the home before the social and moral changes, which the new industrial system made possible, had matured.

fandango's picture
fandango
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 52
RE:  Nate’s comment,

RE:  Nate’s comment, “Let's count the ways the politicians and media divide us.”

I would add the Fed/banking cartel to the root of this equation.  If you control the money supply, than everything else (except peak oil) is just a sideshow.   

                                                                           

              “Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws."   Baron M. A. Rothschild

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
DK, You never know who is at

DK,

You never know who is at the other end of the internet, typing away like a Chinese 50-center:

You Know Those Obnoxious Posters Who Almost Seem Like Alter Egos Of The Same Person? They Actually Might Be ...

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
tRash, I'm against child

tRash,

I'm against child labor, but in many cultures for centuries, parents  expected their children to work  before the industrial revolution.     Government only codified was already taking place in society over time.   

Do you also believe that minimum wage laws created the  relatively higher standards of living Americans enjoy,  or was it the evil capitalists?

It goes hand in hand with the belief system that only recognizes "corporate greed"    while government greed is non existent.   Both are bad but let's look at who can do real damage and give credit where it's due.     Income tax rates began at 3 percent,  yet the government has  still saddled us with $13.9 Trillion in debt,    plus $59 Trillion in unfunded liabilities.   

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Hot air

rhare wrote:

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2003/10/4689/airline-infant-safety-seat-rule-could-cause-more-deaths-it-prevents-pe

I happen to know a transportation engineer that studies these type of things and he concurs that the more you can get people to fly, the safer travel becomes because of the much higer risk of fatalities per mile traveled of automobile transportation, this paper talks about deregulation of airlines and has the same statement:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv14n3/reg14n3-mckenzie.html]

Finally, the impact of airline deregulation on air safety should not be isolated from its impact on the safety of other modes of travel, most notably highway travel. Any small shift in travel from cars to planes could result in significantly reduced overall travel accidents, injuries, and deaths. Air travel, measured in deaths per million miles, is more than 30 times safer than passenger-car travel.

This article does a good job of illustrating some of the problems with regulations, particularly the FAA, in reduced innovations, many safety related:

http://philip.greenspun.com/book-reviews/the-death-of-common-sense

I’m not at all sure that article you reference supports your position:

Airlines could offer a solution that would allow parents and airline personnel to place children in child-restraint seats more often, without diverting parents and their children to car travel, Newman and his colleagues note.  In his editorial, Bishai praises this compromise, initially suggested by the FAA
—airlines could supply effective child-restraint seats and always seat infants’ parents next to vacant seats on sub capacity flights.  “Millions of infants could receive all of the protection of child-restraint systems and none of the costs with [this] policy,” Bishai wrote.

And from the Libertarian article you referenced on FAA bureaucracy in reference to Kennedy fatal plane crash:

His $325,000 didn't buy an aircraft that had benefited from a free and legally-just market for aircraft manufactures and pilots.  His powerful friends and relatives in Washington didn't know that but for them, his plane could have been almost unimaginably safer.  ...For the Washington do-gooders hadn't even blinked an eye when they casually traded in the marvels of free market could-have-beens in favor of stale, government baked good-enoughs.  And we certainly know that when they learned of the crash, they didn't look down and see Kennedy blood on their hands. Perhaps they should take off their rose-colored glasses.

Now that’s objective commentary. Standard conservative fare, pick some annoyance regulation (like labeling sand as poison in your referenced article) and conflate this to reflect a bias ridiculing the entire premise of any and all regulations. After all, if one regulation is nonsensical, then they must all be.

rhare wrote:

I love how you statist like to declare things like "there is no disputing this", sorry but I think there is considerable room for discussion about these points.  Just because you say "there is no dispute" certainly does not make it so. 

OK, please provide some factual reference to an unregulated commercial air travel environment with a better safety record. Data please. No data, the comment stands.

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Capitalistic Good Will

Carl Veritas wrote:

tRash,

I'm against child labor, but in many cultures for centuries, parents  expected their children to work  before the industrial revolution.     Government only codified was already taking place in society over time.  

Karl

So am I now to understand that your position is that government regulations did indeed play a role in the Factory Acts? And that you now describe such a role as “codification”?

So it would seem we have moved towards the notion that these LAWS and REGULATIONS were in fact the driving force for the cessation of CHILD LABOR and not the organic good will of the Capitalists.

Progress.

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Fitty cent

xraymike79 wrote:

DK,

You never know who is at the other end of the internet, typing away like a Chinese 50-center:

You Know Those Obnoxious Posters Who Almost Seem Like Alter Egos Of The Same Person? They Actually Might Be ...

LOL.

Makes you wonder....

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1271
Back to the Wisconsin topic.

Okay, I can see there are some of us on here that are never going to agree.  So I'm going to try and ignore those type of conversations. Tongue out

So back to the regularly scheduled programming, Wisconsin - sign of more to come?..

I don't see how the Unions come out on top no matter what happens.  It looks like there are 2 outcomes:

  • The governor wins - collective bargaining is removed, government workers pay 1/2 their pension and 12.6% of healthcare costs.   The unions consider this a defeat.
  • The unions win - 6000 unionized employees loose their jobs.  Government is smaller, do the unions consider this a win?

The really scary part is this change apparently saves $300M towards a $3.6B deficit for the next biennium.  Thats less than 9% of the needed cuts!  It sure looks like there is going to be a whole lot more rioting in the future.....

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1844
Scott Walker's Selectivity

rhare wrote:

The really scary part is this change apparently saves $300M towards a $3.6B deficit for the next biennium.  Thats less than 9% of the needed cuts!  It sure looks like there is going to be a whole lot more rioting in the future.....

What's funny is, roughly $120 million of the deficit was caused by the governor himself calling a special session of the legislature to pass unpaid-for tax breaks to special interests and those of high net worth. So the unions are now being asked to pay for some of that $120 million in tax breaks. Also funny: the police unions and a few others aren't getting their collective bargaining rights taken away - just the other unions. Gee, I wonder why this selectiveness..

Poet

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1271
Poet wrote:What's funny is,

Poet wrote:
What's funny is, roughly $120 million of the deficit was caused by the governor himself calling a special session of the legislature to pass unpaid-for tax breaks to special interests and those of high net worth. So the unions are now being asked to pay for some of that $120 million in tax breaks.

While I don't disagree that adding spending was stupid, $120M is 0.3% of the total $31B budget. Based on the deficit of $3.6B they are needing to cut spending or raise taxes 11.6% (without the 120M it would still be 11.2%) .  I'm just wondering how they are going to come up with the other 91.6% (3.6B-300M/3.6B) of the cuts after this 300M.

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1584
same person, different personna

Ha! Thank you, X-Ray Mike, for bringing up the concept of internet "sock puppets." FYI, everyone else - anyone who knows how to check the IP address of a poster can see if the person is making up a new "identity" to make it look like other people are agreeing with them. It's a favorite tactic of internet forum trolls. These alter-egos are known as sock puppets.

That being said, inferring that someone is using sock puppets to bolster their arguments can be a tactic of tolls as well, so let's not be the Internet Troll Under the Bridge of Understanding and make baseless accusations. Can you prove a person is using sock puppets? If so, tell us and tell the forum moderators. I'm sure they'd really, really like to know. Otherwise, let's be civil and not make unfounded accusations.

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Pushing ideologies

safewrite wrote:

Ha! Thank you, X-Ray Mike, for bringing up the concept of internet "sock puppets." FYI, everyone else - anyone who knows how to check the IP address of a poster can see if the person is making up a new "identity" to make it look like other people are agreeing with them. It's a favorite tactic of internet forum trolls. These alter-egos are known as sock puppets.

That being said, inferring that someone is using sock puppets to bolster their arguments can be a tactic of tolls as well, so let's not be the Internet Troll Under the Bridge of Understanding and make baseless accusations. Can you prove a person is using sock puppets? If so, tell us and tell the forum moderators. I'm sure they'd really, really like to know. Otherwise, let's be civil and not make unfounded accusations.

Hi Safewrite,

    It appears you have misunderstood my last post. You would have to view and read the links in that post to fully understand - people paid to influence social networks by pushing a certain ideology such as Milton Friedman's glorious "free market." A lot of people don't have to be paid; they're simply brainwashed.

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1584
Hi Safewrite,      It

Hi Safewrite,

    It appears you have misunderstood my last post. You would have to view and read the links in that post to fully understand - people paid to influence social networks by pushing a certain ideology such as Milton Friedman's glorious "free market." A lot of people don't have to be paid; they're simply brainwashed.

Ah, of course. Being a believer in Free Markets I consider you the brainwashed one (who seems to think capitalists are some sort of cardboard cut-out villians who are hiding under every rock.). Yet enjoy your thoughtful posts and appreciate your willingness to engage in dialog rather than hyperbole. There are of course, as you say, people paid to push many agendas: my belief is that most of them are simply acting in self-interest, but that's another topic.

But there are also sock puppets, and I thought it might be a good occasion to remind people of that fact.

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Trash, You need  yet even

Trash,

You need  yet even more clarification?      I'll do my best to explain in a manner that suits your needs.

Your position (correct me if I misunderstood you)  is that absent government regulations, the practice of child labor would never have ended, and I disagree.

You were working on the assumption that child labor did not exist centuries before the industrial revolution, that's why you were bewildered that there was no mention of  why children were working in the first place.    You gave yourself away there.

The same culture that  previously tolerated the practice was  also the driving force for change,  not some politician's extraordinary powers of perception.   The role politics played was to confirm what was already going on, by legislation.

I have a question for you  ------  Why  do many   employers bother to pay above what the minimum wage law dictates?

(1)   public relations   

(2)  they don't care to make a profit

(3)  to  compete for the best workers as a competitive advantage.

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
More

Carl Veritas wrote:

Your position (correct me if I misunderstood you)  is that absent government regulations, the practice of child labor would never have ended, and I disagree.

Yes, you do misunderstand. I never said that. Rather than repeat myself, please reread my post. (below)

darbikrash wrote:

So it would seem we have moved towards the notion that these LAWS and REGULATIONS were in fact the driving force for the cessation of CHILD LABOR and not the organic good will of the Capitalists.

Carl Veritas wrote:

You were working on the assumption that child labor did not exist centuries before the industrial revolution, that's why you were bewildered that there was no mention of  why children were working in the first place.    You gave yourself away there.

The same culture that  previously tolerated the practice was  also the driving force for change,  not some politician's extraordinary powers of perception.   The role politics played was to confirm what was already going on, by legislation.

Ah yes, I gave myself away.

You’ll need to answer this yourself, as the solution is not likely to be found on Mises.org. Hint: You’ll need to have a working knowledge of the difference between children working on their parents' farm, working in an agrarian society, in a feudal society, in a mercantilist society, and in a capitalist society.  Hint # 2, you’ll need to understand the relationship between exploitative capture of underage labor for the purposes of extracting surplus value, and the family farm/business.

Do check in when you discover the solution.

Carl Veritas wrote:

Trash,

Really, what are you twelve?

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Bambirash, Sorry for the

Bambirash,

Sorry for the typo.    You are good with your non answers, are you a lawyer or politician?  

I was replying to your statement        "perhaps you can explain why the factory acts were necessary in the 19th century industrial society ...."

From 1730 to 1740,   75 percent of children in England died before age five.   From 1810 to 1829,  supposedly the evil age of the factory, infant mortality fell to 32 percent and would continue to drop.     The British parliament passed the first law against child labor in factories in 1802. 

Right or wrong,  legal or not,  keeping children fed and idle until they're 16 or older is an option not available to many poor families in the world even to this day.   

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
In Other Words

England had a high  infant mortality rate (75%)  well before the supposedly evil industrial age, perhaps poor nutririon,  healthcare etc     If government laws was all that is necessary to alleviate this tragedy, why didn't they?     But since lower infant mortality rate (32%)  coincided with the arrival of the industrial age,   we certainly couldn't credit the Factory Laws which were enacted  in 1833 and 1834.  

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Have you graduated Elementary School?

Carl Veritas wrote:

tRash... [nonsense]

Trash... [more nonsense]

Bambirash.... [even more nonsense]

And you are how old?

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2120
Time to push back from the computers and do something else

xraymike79 wrote:

Carl Veritas wrote:

tRash... [nonsense]

Trash... [more nonsense]

Bambirash.... [even more nonsense]

And you are how old?

I think it's time folks put down the keyboards, take a deep breath, and let the internet mind itself for awhile.  This thread has passed the point of no return, IMO.  Give it a rest, gang.

Nate's picture
Nate
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 6 2009
Posts: 461
Amen Sager XX! Give up the

Amen Sager XX!

Give up the thread.  Plant your spring garden.  Hug your kids and wife.  Enjoy another glass of your favorite adult beverage.

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1844
Who's Trash?

I'm sorry. But I don't know anyone here named Trash. Who's Trash?

Is someone here attacking a person and using insults rather than using critical thinking in debate here?

Poet

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments