Boeing to cease 757 production

In article . net, "Mike
Rapoport" writes:

Not enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

You sure about that?

What is the cost to society of not having the regs? If we don't dontrol
emissions then we have either health problems or a cleanup done by the
government either of which is more expensive than controlling the source
pollution source.

I don't believe the issue is the existence of the "regs". What is at issue is
policy being driven by enviro-facists with no concern for the costs of
achieving the next level of "cleanness". As the cost of achieving the next
level of "cleanness" increases disproportionately to the returns, business will
eventually become unprofitable. At that point, the jobs start disappearing.

And I assure you, if you think that economic prosperity is bad for the
environment, try poverty for complete environmental tragedy. (Look at eastern
Europe; practically the whole place is a toxic waste dump) When people start
wondering where their next mortgage payment or meal is coming from, they stop
caring about the environment. A visit to any "poor" country should make that
clear to you.

Which, I might add, is a cost to society.

Which is why Mexico City has awful air. Their squalid economy cannot afford to
mandate pollution controls that we take for granted here. Heck, even
supposedly "green" western Europe doesn't have the requirements or air quality
we have here.

John

In article 9TFkb.825533$Ho3.227062@sccrnsc03, Ralph Snart
writes

The biggest lie in the world.. "I'm from the goverment, and I'm here to
help'.

Another way of putting this, referring to people who say they have come
to help and don't, is:

"They come to offer every form of assistance short of actual help."
--

David E-Mail reply to

Exactly, enviro-fascists coupled with bureaucrats. That's the problem. No
one is suggesting that we go back to air quality of 19th century London, but
when you go over a company's MSDS book and see, that because they have
bottled water in the cafeteria, they have to include "water" in the list,
that's just nuts.

"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Mike
Rapoport" writes:

Not enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

You sure about that?

What is the cost to society of not having the regs? If we don't dontrol
emissions then we have either health problems or a cleanup done by the
government either of which is more expensive than controlling the source
pollution source.

I don't believe the issue is the existence of the "regs". What is at
issue is
policy being driven by enviro-facists with no concern for the costs of
achieving the next level of "cleanness". As the cost of achieving the
next
level of "cleanness" increases disproportionately to the returns, business
will
eventually become unprofitable. At that point, the jobs start
disappearing.

And I assure you, if you think that economic prosperity is bad for the
environment, try poverty for complete environmental tragedy. (Look at
eastern
Europe; practically the whole place is a toxic waste dump) When people
start
wondering where their next mortgage payment or meal is coming from, they
stop
caring about the environment. A visit to any "poor" country should make
that
clear to you.

Which, I might add, is a cost to society.

Which is why Mexico City has awful air. Their squalid economy cannot
afford to
mandate pollution controls that we take for granted here. Heck, even
supposedly "green" western Europe doesn't have the requirements or air
quality
we have here.

John

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I've seen very good estimates that by getting the EPA and their
political
hacks out of it, the cost of cleaning up and keeping the environment
CLEANER
would be about one-sixth the present cost.

I agree (don't know about one sixth though), but the problem is that
SOMEONE
has to bear the cost to pollute less and NOBODY wants to do it.



It almost
has to be the federal government setting the rules. Or you could let me
do
it. I would just pick the areas where I could reduce pollution at the
lowerst cost.

How about a pollution-controller version of Underwriters Labratories?

How about the market in general?



I notice, too, that most states/cities that have emmissions checks on
vehicles cleaverly exempt the worst pollutors. A UColorado/Denver study
in
1995 showed that over 80% of pollution (in the Denver area) was caused
by
about 10% of vehicles, but under Colorado law, those 10% were largely
exempt).

I agree completely. I asked Willie Brown once why people with ****ty cars
had a right to poisen everybody and he really didn't have a good answer.

I stand by my earlier assertion that these aren't the major reasons why
jobs
go offshore.

It's not THE major reason (it's IS the reason US industry can't compete),
the major reason being the high cost of unskilled labor.


I also think that we have to question your numbers particulaly
the $800B one. There are less than 100MM tax returns representing ~$4.5T
in
taxable income filed in the US each year. I find it hard to believe that
$8,000 per family or over 15%$ of personal income is spent complying with
various regulations.

Believe it. (Why does it require two incomes to live as well as it did just
a couple generations ago...and don't confuse toys with REAL COSTS of
living).

$800B spread over 280M people is about $2400 per person, but it hits higher
if what you buy comes out of manufacturing (more so than services). The cost
of regulation adds 50 cents to a gallon of gas, for instance, about $25-50K
to the price of a house, about 25% to a grocery bill...

If I am looking to hire 1000 software engineers and they will cost ~100MM
a
year in the US and ~20MM in India it really doesn't matter much what
additional regulations there are in the US.

So, why are the Indian SE's 1/5th the price?

BTW There have recently been articles in the Indian press bemoaning the
loss
of manufacturing jobs to Vietnam!

What skill levels on those jobs? BTW, in working for several years with
several eastern Indian SE's, I find that (once past their heavy accents)
they can read, write, and calculate MUCH better than their American
counterparts. Much the same with lesser skill levels -- an American with a
college degree is about as literate (reading comprehension, for instance)
than an EI with just elementary school education.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people." -- Bill Maher

While I don't know what will happen to today's displaced workers, I think
that the fundemental strength that the US has over many of its competitors
is the ability and willingness of its workforce to change and adapt.

First, they need to learn to read, write and calculate.

One thing to keep in mind, the US generates something like 80% of patents
filed around the world. Unfortunately, like productivity, creativity
typically resides in a small subset of the population.

In article , "Tom S."
wrote:

Believe it. (Why does it require two incomes to live as well as it did
just
a couple generations ago...and don't confuse toys with REAL COSTS of
living).

Don't diminish your arguement with incorrect claims. It doesn't
require 2 incomes. Our quality of living is vastly superior to
those of a couple of generations. Medical, education, shelter
are all improved.

--
Bob Noel

"Tom S." writes:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news
Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

Bull! EPA regs cost US business something like $300 bbbbillion a year in
additional overhead. Other regs (OSHA, and the endless list) account for
over $800 BILLION. Try competing with that hanging over your economy.

Far, *far* better than not being able to drink the water or breathe
the air. Environmental preservation *should* be a basic conservative
issue -- it's as vital as your next breath.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

I think the problem is that some very influential people believe that only
cleanroom pure air and reagent grade water is acceptable.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news
Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

Bull! EPA regs cost US business something like $300 bbbbillion a year in
additional overhead. Other regs (OSHA, and the endless list) account for
over $800 BILLION. Try competing with that hanging over your economy.

Far, *far* better than not being able to drink the water or breathe
the air. Environmental preservation *should* be a basic conservative
issue -- it's as vital as your next breath.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots:
www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

"Tom S." wrote in message
...
I also think that we have to question your numbers particulaly
the $800B one. There are less than 100MM tax returns representing
~$4.5T
in
taxable income filed in the US each year. I find it hard to believe
that
$8,000 per family or over 15%$ of personal income is spent complying
with
various regulations.

Believe it. (Why does it require two incomes to live as well as it did
just
a couple generations ago...and don't confuse toys with REAL COSTS of
living).

$800B spread over 280M people is about $2400 per person, but it hits
higher
if what you buy comes out of manufacturing (more so than services). The
cost
of regulation adds 50 cents to a gallon of gas, for instance, about
$25-50K
to the price of a house, about 25% to a grocery bill...

Please cite a credible source. Thanks.

Mike
MU-2

"Jon Woellhaf" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

Bull! EPA regs cost US business something like $300 bbbbillion a year in
additional overhead. Other regs (OSHA, and the endless list) account for
over $800 BILLION. Try competing with that hanging over your economy.

Far, *far* better than not being able to drink the water or breathe
the air. Environmental preservation *should* be a basic conservative
issue -- it's as vital as your next breath.

I think the problem is that some very influential people believe that only
cleanroom pure air and reagent grade water is acceptable.

That certainly *would* be a problem. But I'll tell you, the level the
air quality gets down to sometimes here in Minneapolis, with no
mountains and pretty regular prevailing winds to move it along, is
quite bad enough; I really *don't* want to know what it would be like
without catalytic converters and electronic fuel injection and oxygen
sensors on cars, and scrubbers on power stations and such.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/