Peter Schiff at congressional hearing on JOBS: Absolutely schools the Keynesians!!!

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
YoungEntrepreneur's picture
YoungEntrepreneur
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 86
Peter Schiff at congressional hearing on JOBS: Absolutely schools the Keynesians!!!

This was a CLASSIC!!!

http://www.dailypaul.com/178607/schiff-knocks-it-outta-the-park-must-see-video

Schiff should be running the economy, not Bernanke, Geithner or the crony and corrupt Wall Street economic advisors that the                           teleprompter-reading, over-paid actor and puppet Obama has in the White House.

The Cummings character and Dr. Boushey in the video are excellent examples of the type of clouded and erroneous economic thinking that prevails and pervades through government and academia right now and has largely contributed to this mess.

Schiff speaks the truth!

Okay liberals, socialists, keynesians and phony conservatives (neo-conservatives), it's okay to let a good cry out now. Thanks.

YE

idoctor's picture
idoctor
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 4 2008
Posts: 1731
Thanks for posting!

Thanks for posting!

YoungEntrepreneur's picture
YoungEntrepreneur
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 86
idoctor: Thanks, glad you enoyed it!

I had college professors like Dr. Boushey and still meet plenty of people like Congressman Cummings, including folks on this board.

When I was younger I did not know any better as I certainly never had anyone guide me or educate me on any of these topics. Unfortunately, I made some career and investment decisions based on these faulty perspectives and economic logic. Those did not turn out so well.

I have a high BS radar now.

Continue to educate from carefully selected filters. Peter Schiff is great for economics, Doug Casey is excellent for international speculation, Gerald Celente is awesome for trends research and Catherine Austn Fitts is dead-on for uncovering hidden agendas and dark conspiracies by global banks, elitists and the military-industrial complex. Enjoy!

YE  

gcruwitme's picture
gcruwitme
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 13
Where does globalization fit in to this?

 Where does globalization fit in to all of this?

Peter Schiff says we can creat jobs instantly by abolishing the minimum wage laws and also that an employee's wages needs to provide more value than is received....I get all this, but.....

With globalization, companies can find labor for pennies an hour....is that who we need to be competive with.

As to governmental regulation, do we need to be competitive with those governments that allow the air and water to be polluted?

If I could even survive on Chinese peasant labor rates, what costs are there to others in terms of the social welfare net to take care of those people.

I for one have a hard tme beleiving that left to their own moral compass, companies will do what's right as opposed to what will make them rich....just look at the disparity between workers and CEOs that didn't exist all too long ago.  

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
gcruwitme wrote:  Where
gcruwitme wrote:

 Where does globalization fit in to all of this?

Peter Schiff says we can creat jobs instantly by abolishing the minimum wage laws and also that an employee's wages needs to provide more value than is received....I get all this, but.....

With globalization, companies can find labor for pennies an hour....is that who we need to be competive with.

As to governmental regulation, do we need to be competitive with those governments that allow the air and water to be polluted?

If I could even survive on Chinese peasant labor rates, what costs are there to others in terms of the social welfare net to take care of those people.

I for one have a hard tme beleiving that left to their own moral compass, companies will do what's right as opposed to what will make them rich....just look at the disparity between workers and CEOs that didn't exist all too long ago.  

+1

This is one of the arguments I have with the more Libertarian view (not that Peter is or isn't a Libertarian). This notion that all government is bad and that true free markets will cure all ills.

There are winners and losers in capitalism and when you bring globalization into the picture someone, somewhere is going to have to do the heavy lifting and they are not going to be happy about it.

YoungEntrepreneur's picture
YoungEntrepreneur
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 86
Johnny Ox & GCRU: Good points but...

GCRU:

Employer taxes, employee rights, unions, high wages with extensive benefits and gov't regulations have gotten to the point that it takes an employer ALLOT to really want to employ someone in the US. The exployee must be exceptional with unique high value skills that can not simply be replaced by technology and automation or cheaper, younger and hungrier labor willing to work for harder for less.

The Baby Boomer had it very good and were spoiled. These are also not the 80's or 90's anymore.

Something has got to change.

If not, jobs will continue to disappear from the US. I hire people only as independent contractors and bonus them for quality results. Incentives with reasonable base pay work for me and if I want or need someone who is truly exceptional and decide that additional perks, pay increases or benefits are warranted to retaon them long-term and exclusively then I can do so. Being forced to bend over backwards and pay a premium for mediocre talent and effort is not in my cards.

Some salary with incentives and the younger labor is cheaper, full of energy and does what you ask them. The overseas labor often works harder and is hungrier than comparable US labor pool.

The "average" fat, lazy, spoiled, unambitious, mediocre, minimally skilled or not exceptionally educated US worker does not compare favorably.

Heck, I can get more out of well-selected interns who trade their time and labor for training, experience, letter of recs and compete for job offers than what I get from the typical high wage middle aged schlep. 

For most people a job with perhaps lower wages or benefits is better than no job at all. The regulations also need to change and unions have gone wild.

Whether it's wages, taxes, regulations, compliance or whatever, the cost versus the output of the typical US worker does not make sense, especially in highly competitive markets and contracting general economies. 

If workers don't like it they can become self-employed or start their own businesses and see how it feels when the shoes is on the other foot.

People are always free to move or do what they have to in order to compete and find their niche.

You're right, some government oversight and regulation is warranted in select areas and at limited levels but we have gone way past what is desirable and necessary in those terms.

JOHNNY:

Extreme and pure capitalism is survival of the fittest and Social Darwinian. From a societal perpestive, that, upon extremes, can be very dangerous and destructive. However, I do believe most solutions and trends should be dictated by the free market. Big government, communism and socialism have never worked in the long term.

Europe is about to find out why and how western socialism does not work and the US is no longer a republic or purely capitalistic state. It has lost it's status of Republic and has been gross infected by socialism and Big Government politics.

Gov't has a role but it should be very limited, not nearly as all-encompassing as what you now see in the US.

Peter is most definitely a staunch Libertarian and hails from the Von Mises Institute/Austrian School of Economics

gcruwitme's picture
gcruwitme
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 13
Yes it changed in the last 40 years

 Many things have changed over the past 20 to 50 years that have afected where we are today.....and I am willing to give the average US worker the benefit of the doubt that they didn't become lazy and stupid in that time.  

I would argue that it wasn't the workers that became lazy and stupid, but a select group of elite that became greedy.

A few things that have changed:

CEO vs. average worker pay went from 24:1 in 1965 to 336:1 today

Families used to be able to make it on one income.  Now many are lucky if both working is enough.

We've invented a whole uber rich "leach" class that produces nothing and skims off the system.

Trade deficit went from a 1960 surplus of 3.5 billion to a deficit of $690 billion in 2008

We used to save money, now we're in debt.

Government used to exist for the common good of the population; now it's a corrupt system that caters to the uber rich.

and so on......

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Not even Schiff gets it

When will we ever hear an economist/financial guru acknowledge the fact we have Limits to Growth?  You can argue all you like about wages, taxes, regulations, but nothing will alter the fact Business as Usual is finished.....

Humanity's greatest shortcoming is its inability to understand the exponential function.

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
DTM: Agree with you there...

A contraction was long overdue and the artificial stimulus, big government policy induced bubbles, fraud, corruption and war mongering has only made it worse.

The US is in for an ugly decade, generally speaking. Some will do very well though, in fact many argue that the elite benefit most from such circumstances and actually conspire to bring them about.

Definitely not "business as usual" and a new economic paradigm has arrived.

Next few years are going to be a wild ride! That's why prepping, safe haven selection, skill acquisition, wise career choices and shrewd investments are going to be so critically important. 

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Well, yeah, there is that......
Damnthematrix wrote:

When will we ever hear an economist/financial guru acknowledge the fact we have Limits to Growth?  You can argue all you like about wages, taxes, regulations, but nothing will alter the fact Business as Usual is finished.....

Humanity's greatest shortcoming is its inability to understand the exponential function.

........but otherwise ya gotta admit he kicked their @$$e$, don'tcha think??

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Well, yeah, there is that......
earthwise wrote:
Damnthematrix wrote:

When will we ever hear an economist/financial guru acknowledge the fact we have Limits to Growth?  You can argue all you like about wages, taxes, regulations, but nothing will alter the fact Business as Usual is finished.....

Humanity's greatest shortcoming is its inability to understand the exponential function.

........but otherwise ya gotta admit he kicked their @$$e$, don'tcha think??

Maybe......  but so what?  All he wants is to deregulate the labor market so he can hire people on the cheap?  He's already admitting to moving some of his workforce offshore, and frankly, if anything, my estimation of him went DOWN....

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Do you live in "opposite world"?
Damnthematrix wrote:
earthwise wrote:
Damnthematrix wrote:

When will we ever hear an economist/financial guru acknowledge the fact we have Limits to Growth?  You can argue all you like about wages, taxes, regulations, but nothing will alter the fact Business as Usual is finished.....

Humanity's greatest shortcoming is its inability to understand the exponential function.

........but otherwise ya gotta admit he kicked their @$$e$, don'tcha think??

Maybe......  but so what?  All he wants is to deregulate the labor market so he can hire people on the cheap?  He's already admitting to moving some of his workforce offshore, and frankly, if anything, my estimation of him went DOWN....

 I know that the seasons are the reverse of ours here but do words have opposite meaning there too? Did you even listen to  the piece?  What he said was that he was forced to move his new hiring offshore by regulations in spite of his desire to hire locally.  Deregulating would make local hiring more feasible. Go back and listen again as I did. Did you miss the part where he related how he was fined, yes fined, for hiring too many brokers, brokers here in America, brokers that were justified by the workload that he had? How do you square that with your assertion that he's trying to offshore jobs?  What choice did he have? He tried to hire locally! The regulations forbade that hiring! And the part where he told how it cost him $500,000 in legal fees (in addition to the fines) to fight these absurd regulations? And that's why he moved those jobs offshore?  It seems that you are locked into that world view that sees all commerce as exploitation and blind yourself to facts to the contrary.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1329
Libertarian view from Peter Schiff
gcruwitme wrote:

I for one have a hard tme beleiving that left to their own moral compass, companies will do what's right as opposed to what will make them rich....just look at the disparity between workers and CEOs that didn't exist all too long ago.

It's not a moral compass that guides a company, it's profit.  Companies have no moral compass other than that of their management, investors, and customers.  Those 3 determine what is needed to make a profit.   The problem is we are seeing the results of massive manipulation, particularly of the value of money that has caused all kinds of distortions to arise - including the disparity of workers versus management.

If labor, transportation costs (ie. energy), resources, etc were all allowed to be properly valued, I do not believe we would see near the problems.  For instance, your management at a large corporation, and because labor in the US is manipulated higher than it's value relative to the cost of goods/service being produced (this could be due to minimum wage laws, required benefits, etc) you can outsource your production to China.  However, that only works because transportation costs are artificially low because of the petro-dollar.  In addition you also can borrow money cheap from your banker who gets money for free from the Fed. This allows you to build out the infrastructure oversees that you otherwise might not be able to afford.   

We also see the manipulation show up in government in dramatic ways.  Many of the things the government does would never happen if we had to have direct taxation of the populace versus the hidden tax of borrowing from the future.  If governments had to directly tax the citizens there would be revolts long before government became as large and involved in our lives.

So, keep in mind, you are not seeing free market forces at work, and haven't for quite a long time.

Johnny Oxygen wrote:

This notion that all government is bad and that true free markets will cure all ills.

There are winners and losers in capitalism and when you bring globalization into the picture someone, somewhere is going to have to do the heavy lifting and they are not going to be happy about it.

Governments are not all bad and the free market doesn't cure all ills.  I don't think most Libertarians will tell you that, but we do believe that what we have today is far from free market and way way too much involvement (manipulation) by government.

gcruwitme wrote:

CEO vs. average worker pay went from 24:1 in 1965 to 336:1 today

Families used to be able to make it on one income.  Now many are lucky if both working is enough.

We've invented a whole uber rich "leach" class that produces nothing and skims off the system.

Trade deficit went from a 1960 surplus of 3.5 billion to a deficit of $690 billion in 2008

We used to save money, now we're in debt.

Government used to exist for the common good of the population; now it's a corrupt system that caters to the uber rich.

All of those can be traced to the effect of ever larger manipulation of the value of money.  So if you really want to point a finger - do so at the Federal Reserve, and the government that forces the use of the USD on it's citizens (legal tender laws, taxation on currency exchanges - particularly to metals).  Do keep in mind however, that it's the Fed that has allowed the government to grow ever larger - so most politicians will not go after the Fed.

Damnthematrix wrote:

When will we ever hear an economist/financial guru acknowledge the fact we have Limits to Growth?  You can argue all you like about wages, taxes, regulations, but nothing will alter the fact Business as Usual is finished.....

Very true - it's one of the areas I disagree with Peter Schiff.  If we didn't have an energy and resource problem right now I think his economics are right on.  However, without acknowledging the energy situation we will find ourselves in, it means you miss the problem that we probably won't see growth like the past.

However, I don't believe that negates the economics - we need sound money and currency, so that we can allocate scarce resources where they are needed/desired most.  However, since we don't have an accurate measuring stick we will continue to poor money into malinvestments.  

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
A Cynical Look At Labor And Capital These Days

I posted a rather cynical look at labor and capital from the point of view of someone who might want to start up a for-profit business in the United States.

While I admire Peter Schiff - he's predicted the housing bubble crash and the financial crisis, and he's definitely right on about how more debt won't solve our consumers' and governments' debt "ditch" - I do think he's got some things wrong about regulations, taxes, and the minimum wage.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/cynical-look-labor-and-capital-these...

Poet

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
earthwise wrote:Did you miss
earthwise wrote:

Did you miss the part where he related how he was fined, yes fined, for hiring too many brokers, brokers here in America, brokers that were justified by the workload that he had? How do you square that with your assertion that he's trying to offshore jobs?  What choice did he have? He tried to hire locally! The regulations forbade that hiring! And the part where he told how it cost him $500,000 in legal fees (in addition to the fines) to fight these absurd regulations? And that's why he moved those jobs offshore?  It seems that you are locked into that world view that sees all commerce as exploitation and blind yourself to facts to the contrary.

No, I didn't miss that bit, and yes, I did think it was all a bit weird.......  But we don't know the details, so it's hard to comment really.

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Damnthematrix
Damnthematrix wrote:

 

............... so it's hard to comment really.

But yet you did comment, and harshly. Why?

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
rhare wrote:...If we didn't
rhare wrote:

...If we didn't have an energy and resource problem right now I think his economics are right on.  However, without acknowledging the energy situation we will find ourselves in, it means you miss the problem that we probably won't see growth like the past.

However, I don't believe that negates the economics - we need sound money and currency, so that we can allocate scarce resources where they are needed/desired most.  However, since we don't have an accurate measuring stick we will continue to poor money into malinvestments.  

The major problem with all modern economic theories is that they do not recognize the costs of nature's capital such as energy. Economic theory does just the opposite and encourages faster draw down of limited resources under the assumption there will be always be a substitute. How smart is it to give oil companies a depletion allowance for extraction of non-renewable energy sources? Sound money is needed but money will not be a substitute for non-renewable resources.

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 208
Prisoners Dilemma
YoungEntrepreneur wrote:

GCRU:

Employer taxes, employee rights, unions, high wages with extensive benefits and gov't regulations have gotten to the point that it takes an employer ALLOT to really want to employ someone in the US. The exployee must be exceptional with unique high value skills that can not simply be replaced by technology and automation or cheaper, younger and hungrier labor willing to work for harder for less.

The Baby Boomer had it very good and were spoiled. These are also not the 80's or 90's anymore.

Something has got to change.

If not, jobs will continue to disappear from the US. I hire people only as independent contractors and bonus them for quality results. Incentives with reasonable base pay work for me and if I want or need someone who is truly exceptional and decide that additional perks, pay increases or benefits are warranted to retaon them long-term and exclusively then I can do so. Being forced to bend over backwards and pay a premium for mediocre talent and effort is not in my cards.

Some salary with incentives and the younger labor is cheaper, full of energy and does what you ask them. The overseas labor often works harder and is hungrier than comparable US labor pool.

The "average" fat, lazy, spoiled, unambitious, mediocre, minimally skilled or not exceptionally educated US worker does not compare favorably.

Heck, I can get more out of well-selected interns who trade their time and labor for training, experience, letter of recs and compete for job offers than what I get from the typical high wage middle aged schlep. 

For most people a job with perhaps lower wages or benefits is better than no job at all. The regulations also need to change and unions have gone wild.

Whether it's wages, taxes, regulations, compliance or whatever, the cost versus the output of the typical US worker does not make sense, especially in highly competitive markets and contracting general economies. 

If workers don't like it they can become self-employed or start their own businesses and see how it feels when the shoes is on the other foot.

People are always free to move or do what they have to in order to compete and find their niche.

You're right, some government oversight and regulation is warranted in select areas and at limited levels but we have gone way past what is desirable and necessary in those terms.

JOHNNY:

Extreme and pure capitalism is survival of the fittest and Social Darwinian. From a societal perpestive, that, upon extremes, can be very dangerous and destructive. However, I do believe most solutions and trends should be dictated by the free market. Big government, communism and socialism have never worked in the long term.

Europe is about to find out why and how western socialism does not work and the US is no longer a republic or purely capitalistic state. It has lost it's status of Republic and has been gross infected by socialism and Big Government politics.

Gov't has a role but it should be very limited, not nearly as all-encompassing as what you now see in the US.

Peter is most definitely a staunch Libertarian and hails from the Von Mises Institute/Austrian School of Economics

 

Has anyone here heard of the term Prisoners Dilemma?

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PrisonersDilemma.html

I see it as one of the major symptoms to pur perpetul race to the bottom.

Essentially, we have created a situation where every person, company, country is pitted against everyone else and is wiped or injured unless they give more ground perpetually to outdo their competition.

Thus an employee in this country faces constand downward pressure on his/her job, a company faces constant pressure to erode working/environmental conditions, and countries face similar pressures to always grow in a never ending race to stay one step ahead in the endless race.

A system like this cannot work.

I see it as inevitable that at some point the workers in such a system would stop buying into the system and would start to opt out as they can.  Companies and countries (as non living entities) really have no choice but to keep going forward as there is always another robotic entity to pick up the ball and drive it.

It is sad to me that most people in this country essentially believe that the solution is to take away more safeguards and make life even more hard to force people back into working for a system that is failing them so badly.  Not that handouts solve the problem either.  Neither solve the root cause of our problem - Perpetual growth.

I see energy failure and environmental failure as a way possible path out of the gordian knot we have created. It wont be pretty.

 

 

 

 

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1329
Devaluing currency causes lots of problems...
frobn wrote:

How smart is it to give oil companies a depletion allowance for extraction of non-renewable energy sources? Sound money is needed but money will not be a substitute for non-renewable resources.

Yes - the tax code  is a major source of manipulation - favors some over others.  It's why it needs to go!  Either tax only consumption or at least vastly simplify the tax code.  While sound money is not a substitute for resources - it does provide us a way to accurately measure the value of those resources and the work to obtain them.

jturbo68 wrote:

Essentially, we have created a situation where every person, company, country is pitted against everyone else and is wiped or injured unless they give more ground perpetually to outdo their competition.

Thus an employee in this country faces constand downward pressure on his/her job, a company faces constant pressure to erode working/environmental conditions, and countries face similar pressures to always grow in a never ending race to stay one step ahead in the endless race.

So very true.  Both Ron Paul and Peter Schiff talk quite a bit about this in relation to sound money.  Chris has commented on it as well, showing that we must all be speculators and take risks because we can't just save.  

However, I don't think employees are taking much downward pressure - government has forced more and more conditions on employers to the point that conditions get better and better right to the point that the jobs are eliminated.  But yes, constant requirement for growth from our money system has effects everywhere.

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Love your repsonses Rhare...

Good to know I found a like-minded brother on this forum. Not too many of those on this board.

Funny pic with the dog and sun glasses. Dogs rock!!!

Looking forward to exchanging some thoughts in the near future. Thanks.

JG

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
But yet you did comment
earthwise wrote:
Damnthematrix wrote:

 

............... so it's hard to comment really.

But yet you did comment, and harshly. Why?

I was commenting on the whole video generally, not on THAT particularly bit....  I have no idea why a government would fine ayone from hiring "too many people", but there must be some reaon we're not aware of, and to some degree shows a lack of professionalism on his part (or his HR people) to not know the rules...  even if you disagree with them.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1329
Totally unrealistic ideas about small businesses
Poet wrote:

I posted a rather cynical look at labor and capital from the point of view of someone who might want to start up a for-profit business in the United States.

While I admire Peter Schiff - he's predicted the housing bubble crash and the financial crisis, and he's definitely right on about how more debt won't solve our consumers' and governments' debt "ditch" - I do think he's got some things wrong about regulations, taxes, and the minimum wage.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/cyni...

I hadn't read that post, but I can comment on some of it.  Most of your issues certainly do not apply to a start-up or entrepreneurial type business.  Most of the conditions you have only work for the really really large giant corporations - and even then I think are way off base:

Poet wrote:

I'm not an entrepreneur. But if I were a cost-conscious, uncaring bastard of an entrepreneur today in the United States, I would:

Labor Cost Reduction Strategies

1. Get college-degreed, unpaid interns to do a lot of the office work and grunt work required in the U..S. - and every few months, bring on more interns while letting the previous interns go with glowing letters of recommendation. After all, 85% of recent college graduates are returning to live with their parents anyway. Their parents can subsidize the cost of my free employees, with room and board and spending money, and health insurance up to age 26 (under the new health care law).

As a small business or start-up you can't get free employees like that.  Only large companies that look good on your resume or that you hope you can move up get interns.  We used to have apprenticeships for trade skills, but those are long gone.

Poet wrote:

2. I would outsource a lot of my work to freelance programmers and engineers in India, sub-contractor manufacturers in China, and freelance office and network administrators and data entry typists in the Philippines who can log in remotely to do the work I need them to do. They cost anywhere from 5 to 10 times less than the going rate here in the U.S.

Clearly you have never run a technical business (particularly a small one).  This would completely bankrupt you very shortly when you didn't get what you needed or wanted.  Only very very large shops can make this work.  It's takes teams to negotiate the work, keep it on track, and insure that you actually get things done.  I ran a small business (< 200 people) and we tried this for software development - complete disaster and I know of lots of others that have the same results.  Unless you have a very large project and can devote lots of man power to managing the effort - it's won't work.  You can't simply throw the project over the fence and hope it comes out.  Also, there is a odd cultural tendency in lots of these out sourcing places to never say no.  So you ask if someone understands what you want and they always answer yes, then after a few months, lots of money, you get a five foot carved wooden horse instead of a circuit board!

Poet wrote:

3. If I needed an on-site programmer or technician, I could see about getting a foreign worker into this country on an H-1B visa after advertising for a job with deliberately difficult-to-meet requirements and "not finding any American applicants". Maybe with help from a law firm. I can do that to avoid paying prevailing wages. The foreign worker would be stuck with me despite 12-hour days of hard work, because if I let him go or he leave my employment, he can't stay in this country anymore.

Yeah right, all the people I know on H-1B Visas make really good money.  On top of that all that help from a law firm and all the hassles for paperwork make the employee far more costly than just hiring a US citizen.  Then on top of that you have the problem of a key employee working on a project suddenly loosing their Visa and you have to scramble to transfer knowledge to another.  This is quite the fallacy of the H-1B visa workers.  Most companies hire non-US technical workers because there is (was) a shortage of workers with the skills needed.

Poet wrote:

4. If I had to hire more unskilled or semi-skilled employees in the U.S., then I'd go with temporary labor for the most part - especially for grueling warehouse jobs (like at Amazon) where I don't have to worry about paying too much for injuries, worker's compensation claims, sick days, or vacation days. There's always someone unemployed who can fill in a gap from Labor Ready or Manpower. As the economy continues to deteriorate, I'll have more such workers waiting for me to hire them.

And finally we get to the only realistic thing.  Yes, you would hire cheap labor that you don't have to pay any benefits, because all the regulation have made hiring employees too expensive for unskilled labor.  This is a common problem with minimum wage laws - they make the value of unskilled labor too high.  Again, a manipulation.  If you have a glut of unskilled labor, then price for that labor needs to fall.  As labor falls more people get jobs, employers can expand.  But instead we eliminate jobs because it's better to have someone unemployed than working at a job that pays too little.    Also, you will find, that most people that do this as soon as a good worker comes along, you hire them permanently because finding good help is difficult, even in todays market.  Only the most unskilled labor (things that you can explain to a person what to do in under a minute) does this type of labor situation work.  Time spent training and monitoring a crappy employee eats up much of your profit.

Poet wrote:

And if they don't get enough hours or enough pay? Or if the minimum wage is lowered or done away with altogether as Peter Schiff suggests, then even better! After all, government, family, and local charities subsidize the cost of my temporary, part-time employees with food stamps, Section 8 housing assistance, Medicaid, room and board, more food - so that they (or others just like them) are always relatively fed, rested, and healthy enough to be available at a moment's notice, whatever the shift or number of hours I require.

Life isn't fair.  As we have less and less resources people will have to be productive.  They will have to earn their way, earn their food, earn their housing.  None of these subsidies should exists as they don't force people to realize the those realities.  I highly doubt you will see the Peter Schiffs or Ron Pauls of the world supporting any of those things.  They are unsustainable subsidies and need to be eliminated.

Poet wrote:

5. Now if I did have to hire a few permanent staff, I'd make sure their numbers would be few, and the benefits relatively decent, so I would have the most loyal and enthusiatic people who would be extremely grateful for the jobs they had. Their fierce loyalty and great enthusiasm could be used like carrots dangling on a stick in front of the interns and temporary workers. "See? You could make it, too!"

This type of crap only comes from people who have never run a business.  Instead you find that if you can make enough money to eek by, you then have to create a nice environment for your employees otherwise those that are helping you make it will leave for greener pastures.  Most employers (at least small ones) fully understand this. You end up working very hard, often giving up lots of gain to try and keep a business running.  You often pay employees far better than you make - particularly in the early years.  Then when you finally get a sustainable business and are able to benefit from it, you get people like you point out how evil you are.

Sorry Poet, but your view could only come from someone who has never run a small business, has no clue how truely difficult it is to start and keep it going. 

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1329
A maze of thousands of laws and regulations
Damnthematrix wrote:

and to some degree shows a lack of professionalism on his part (or his HR people) to not know the rules...  even if you disagree with them.

You've got to be kidding.  There are thousands of small rules by states, municipalities, many federal agencies.  It's incredibly easy to break the rules.  In fact I would bet everyone breaks some law in this country every day.  There are so many it's impossible not too.  For a business it is a  mine field of regulation that you hope you don't break and have to hire lawyers or pay fines.

JuanGalt wrote:

Good to know I found a like-minded brother on this forum. Not too many of those on this board.

There are a lot more than you think.  I spend far too much time commenting on the forums, as someone pointed out, those who get it are too busy doing real things (prepping, working, etc).  

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
  Damnthematrix wrote: I

 

Damnthematrix wrote:

I was commenting on the whole video generally, not on THAT particularly bit.... 

It's hard to square the above with the below.  But whatever.................

Damnthematrix wrote:

Maybe......  but so what?  All he wants is to deregulate the labor market so he can hire people on the cheap?  He's already admitting to moving some of his workforce offshore, and frankly, if anything, my estimation of him went DOWN....

ckessel's picture
ckessel
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 12 2008
Posts: 486
rhare wrote: Damnthematrix
rhare wrote:
Damnthematrix wrote:

and to some degree shows a lack of professionalism on his part (or his HR people) to not know the rules...  even if you disagree with them.

You've got to be kidding.  There are thousands of small rules by states, municipalities, many federal agencies.  It's incredibly easy to break the rules.  In fact I would bet everyone breaks some law in this country every day.  There are so many it's impossible not too.  For a business it is a  mine field of regulation that you hope you don't break and have to hire lawyers or pay fines.

JuanGalt wrote:

Good to know I found a like-minded brother on this forum. Not too many of those on this board.

There are a lot more than you think.  I spend far too much time commenting on the forums, as someone pointed out, those who get it are too busy doing real things (prepping, working, etc).  

All I can add to your posts rhare is a big AMEN and a +100!!!!    I will also extend a thank you for your time in responding on the forum. Having been a small business owner for over 30 years involved in architecture and construction I can attest what you say is fact.

Coop

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
  Rhare, Thank you for

 

Rhare,

Thank you for spending your valuable time to address these issues. So many times I want to, but just don't have the time (nor the eloquence) to do so. As a small business owner I thank you for expressing so thouroughly an eloquently what business owners see in the trenches everyday.  People who have never run a business have no clue and it's irksome to hear them tell us how. Especially when the "how" is designed to meet their own social agenda, not the business purpose.

P.S. I, too, like your dog and his funky tropical-fruity sunglasses.

 

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
Au Contraire, Rhare
rhare wrote:

As a small business or start-up you can't get free employees like that.  Only large companies that look good on your resume or that you hope you can move up get interns.  We used to have apprenticeships for trade skills, but those are long gone.

Maybe I wrote what I did, because I currently have friends who put in free time at start-ups, hoping to make it big. And friends who interned part-time for free, again at small start-ups, trying to get some experience on their resume.

This isn't uncommon these days, as you can see in the articles below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03intern.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/opinion/03perlin.html
http://graduatefog.co.uk/2011/1440/startups-unpaid-interns/
http://hartford.craigslist.org/cpg/2598432540.html

It's not just large companies, but also small businesses and start-ups. Maybe your vaunted experience is a little dated.

rhare wrote:

Clearly you have never run a technical business (particularly a small one).  This would completely bankrupt you very shortly when you didn't get what you needed or wanted.  Only very very large shops can make this work.  It's takes teams to negotiate the work, keep it on track, and insure that you actually get things done.  I ran a small business (< 200 people) and we tried this for software development - complete disaster and I know of lots of others that have the same results.  Unless you have a very large project and can devote lots of man power to managing the effort - it's won't work.  You can't simply throw the project over the fence and hope it comes out.  Also, there is a odd cultural tendency in lots of these out sourcing places to never say no.  So you ask if someone understands what you want and they always answer yes, then after a few months, lots of money, you get a five foot carved wooden horse instead of a circuit board!

No, but I work at a software company and have freelanced in the field. A few years ago, our company laid off about 9 employees in our Engineering department and outsourced to a firm in India with about 40 employees dedicated to our software development needs. It took them about one year to get up to speed. But I would say they work hard, are always attentive, and research everything we asked of them immediately rather than try to put it off by saying they had too much other work - to the point where I considered their work and results to be superior.

One of my consulting clients - owner of a small package assembly business with about 10 full-time employees and 30 temporary employees - put $15,000 into an on-line business platform, paying programmers in India. They were happy with the results, too.

Maybe you just had a bad experience and some buyer's remorse, Rhare.

rhare wrote:

Yeah right, all the people I know on H-1B Visas make really good money.  On top of that all that help from a law firm and all the hassles for paperwork make the employee far more costly than just hiring a US citizen.  Then on top of that you have the problem of a key employee working on a project suddenly loosing their Visa and you have to scramble to transfer knowledge to another.  This is quite the fallacy of the H-1B visa workers.  Most companies hire non-US technical workers because there is (was) a shortage of workers with the skills needed.

That's funny. Translating what you know into a generalization and calling what I have to say to be a fallacy. Being a member of a minority community, with friends who are  H1-B visa workers, the ones I knew made a lot less than one would expect for their job, and worked a lot more. I personally think that out of the hundreds of thousands of unemployed American IT workers, there are skills there for the asking - just maybe not the price.

rhare wrote:

And finally we get to the only realistic thing.  Yes, you would hire cheap labor that you don't have to pay any benefits, because all the regulation have made hiring employees too expensive for unskilled labor.  This is a common problem with minimum wage laws - they make the value of unskilled labor too high.  Again, a manipulation.  If you have a glut of unskilled labor, then price for that labor needs to fall.  As labor falls more people get jobs, employers can expand.  But instead we eliminate jobs because it's better to have someone unemployed than working at a job that pays too little.    Also, you will find, that most people that do this as soon as a good worker comes along, you hire them permanently because finding good help is difficult, even in todays market.  Only the most unskilled labor (things that you can explain to a person what to do in under a minute) does this type of labor situation work.  Time spent training and monitoring a crappy employee eats up much of your profit.

It doesn't have to be the most unskilled labor. I've worked for a temp agency in the past myself. It took maybe 30 minutes of training, and I was soon filing things and typing shipping freight information into a data entry screen. My father, a manager who ran a plant on his own for over a decade, has hired temps. A lot of them have familiarity with the specific packages of accounting software, cashier experience, etc. Even training one for a few days is worth it for the month or so of peak season work before they are let go.

rhare wrote:

Life isn't fair.  As we have less and less resources people will have to be productive.  They will have to earn their way, earn their food, earn their housing.  None of these subsidies should exists as they don't force people to realize the those realities.  I highly doubt you will see the Peter Schiffs or Ron Pauls of the world supporting any of those things.  They are unsustainable subsidies and need to be eliminated.

Agreed. But don't forget that the less fortunate are people, too. And they see what is happening. They are not entirely blind. As for employers, I wrote (but you deliberately didn't quote), "I'm not saying most entrepreneurs are like this. There are a lot of great, conscientious, patriotic American entrepreneurs and corporate leaders. Some of the good people are right here in this community. They care about their employees and their communities."

You are taking exception and attacking a straw man.

rhare wrote:

This type of crap only comes from people who have never run a business.  Instead you find that if you can make enough money to eek by, you then have to create a nice environment for your employees otherwise those that are helping you make it will leave for greener pastures.  Most employers (at least small ones) fully understand this. You end up working very hard, often giving up lots of gain to try and keep a business running.  You often pay employees far better than you make - particularly in the early years.  Then when you finally get a sustainable business and are able to benefit from it, you get people like you point out how evil you are.

Sorry Poet, but your view could only come from someone who has never run a small business, has no clue how truely difficult it is to start and keep it going. 

This type of response only comes from someone who isn't willing to accept that there are other viewpoints that can be just as valid. I don't have to be a person who never ran a business to have a legitimate opinion. Even if the closest I've come to it is helping my father at his small business for years. Yes, my father suffered losses for years and paid his employees more. We did end up working hard and providing free labor - as family often does - just to make ends meet in those years.

But to discount what I know because I never personally ran a small business is like telling an oncologist or a nurse that he doesn't have a right to study or diagnose a patient or offer suggestions on therapy because he never had cancer himself. Or telling someone who hasn't served in the military that she doesn't have the right to an informed opinion on military spending. I would say that you need to be more open minded than that. Everything in the cynical/satirical piece that I've written has some basis in fact, and you know it. Don't take it so personally.

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