Why can't America compete?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:16 pm

Your thoughts? With me it seems we can support a dictators army in the ME but we can't do what Chinas government does for its industry? Like it or not this is the reality of it.

Evergreen Solar Heads To China 'As Quickly As We Can'

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:37 pm

Personally, I don't want a China-style gov't, but I don't want the empirical regime we've had since WW2 (and arguably before), either.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:37 pm

A few things the federal govt could do:

Repeal the Davis - Bacon Act that artificially inflates the price of govt projects.

Repeal the portion of Humphrey - Hawkins that compels the Federal Reserve to raise short term interest rates to slow inflation.

End the union anti-trust exemptions.

Drill here. Drill now...The US has more hydrocarbons than all of the countries in the ME combined.

Eliminate the Dept's of Education, HUD, HHS, Agriculture, Transportation, Labor, and Energy and the anti-competitive regulations the bureaucrats foist upon business like obamacare. Any essential bureaus can be rolled into other Dept's.

Eliminate subsidies to businesses.

Eliminate the minimum wage.

Privatize Social Security as individual accounts and put everyone into an MSA for health care and prohibit businesses from offering bennies as a term of employment.

Lower or eliminate business taxes.

Institute a flat tax for individuals.

Loser pays in federal lawsuits. Hopefully the states would adopt this.

Balance the federal budget.

(Basically, get the hell away from socialism.)

What states could do:

Streamline the process for business formation.

What the ppl would do:

Go to work.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:39 pm

Here's a look at the tax rates in China:

Taxation in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:25 am

QUOTE=BaghdadBob;1352386: A few things the federal govt could do:

Repeal the Davis - Bacon Act that artificially inflates the price of govt projects. I agree

Repeal the portion of Humphrey - Hawkins that compels the Federal Reserve to raise short term interest rates to slow inflation. From what I read the Act is being largely ignored, so may as well toss the whole damn thing.

End the union anti-trust exemptions.End all anti-trust exemptions

Drill here. Drill now...The US has more hydrocarbons than all of the countries in the ME combined. I agree with the drilling part & will take your word for the rest.

Eliminate the Dept's of Education, HUD, HHS, Agriculture, Transportation, Labor, and Energy and the anti-competitive regulations the bureaucrats foist upon business like obamacare. Any essential bureaus can be rolled into other Dept's. I agree

Eliminate subsidies to businesses. I agree

Eliminate the minimum wage. I agree - it's a useless tool for political theater.

Privatize Social Security as individual accounts and put everyone into an MSA for health care and prohibit businesses from offering bennies as a term of employment. Phase out SS. I'm not touching an MSA unless and until they get rid of the 'use it or lose it' provision. Businesses can offer what they want, but no requirement to do so and certainly no incentives to.

Lower or eliminate business taxes. I agree

Institute a flat tax for individuals. I agree

Loser pays in federal lawsuits. Hopefully the states would adopt this. I agree

Balance the federal budget. I agree

(Basically, get the hell away from socialism.) I agree

I would add:

* Close all permanent peacetime military bases on foreign soil

* Cut the military budget by, say, 50%

What states could do:

Streamline the process for business formation.

What the ppl would do:

Go to work.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:54 am

I agree with everything BBob said except for stopping the minimum wage. The free market has not proven itself to be capable of much when it comes to living standards. Many forces outside and beyond peoples control affect prices. Prince Saud gets the sniffles, traders see fit to raise the price of crude a buck.

We can stop stuff like this. Bailing out corrupt nations and buying friends around the world is not working so great, never has never will. Take this money and put it into America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/world ... s&emc=tha2

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:30 am

Scrat;1352399 wrote: I agree with everything BBob said except for stopping the minimum wage. The free market has not proven itself to be capable of much when it comes to living standards. Many forces outside and beyond peoples control affect prices. Prince Saud gets the sniffles, traders see fit to raise the price of crude a buck.

We can stop stuff like this. Bailing out corrupt nations and buying friends around the world is not working so great, never has never will. Take this money and put it into America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/world ... s&emc=tha2

Supply / demand in a free market will determine your worth. The min wage kills low end jobs especially in the inner cities. Is it more important to employee 7 ppl at $8 an hour or 8 ppl at $7 an hour? I think it's much more important for younger workers to get some real world work experience under their belt than to sit on the street corner because of an artificial labor market greated by a leftist govt.

BTW, the Mickey D's near me has a sign on the counter that they're hiring at $9 an hour for days and $9.50 for nites.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:47 am

Phase out SS. I'm not touching an MSA unless and until they get rid of the 'use it or lose it' provision. Businesses can offer what they want, but no requirement to do so and certainly no incentives to.

You're confusing the sect 125 cafeteria plan with an MSA.

An MSA is a major medical plan. It differs from a sect 125 plan insofar as you don't forfeit the funds at year's end. In an MSA you deposit pre-tax funds into a bank/broker account and pay your deductible from the fund. (I have a debit card so I can charge medical expenses directly against my fund account). Yearly deductibles usually start in the $1200 range and go up from there. It's a marvelous free market solution to elective medical care and will drive down costs thru market forces...which is why teddy kennedy filibustered the MSA for nearly a quarter century. Prior to the passage of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act that also included Medicare Part D, MSA's were limited to 750k new participants per year which is why so few know about them.

Now, imagine that each year the $ you put into the socialist and bankrupt Medicare went into an account just for you to pay your deductible every year. The funds would grow and when you got to retirement you would have enuff saved to pay your deductible and major med premium for the rest of your life. No more socialism and no one could take the $ away from you and give it to someone else that didn't bother to take responsibility for their life.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:32 am

BaghdadBob;1352386 wrote: (Basically, get the hell away from socialism.)

The company is moving to a communist country. Do you get that?

Here's what the article said:

"The fact is, if the Chinese are going to continue to sell near marginal cost because they get the support of the Chinese government, that's just the way the world is. Either you get German ministers talking about it, you get the United States talking about it, but all we can hope for is this: that the U.S. government will not let the Chinese replace the Middle East for access to solar energy," said El-Hillow.

For example:

China Market Growth Fueled by Government Spending during Industry Downturn

Government support heats up China

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:25 am

yaaarrrgg;1352412 wrote: The company is moving to a communist country. Do you get that?

Do you get that communism is state / common ownership of everything and re-distributionist?

So, the company is giving itself to a communist govt? Odd, I thought they were moving to a place that is now more free market oriented than the place they just left.

If you meant that China has an authoritarian govt that oversees a burgeoning free market I would agree with you.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:31 pm

BaghdadBob;1352423 wrote: Do you get that communism is state / common ownership of everything and re-distributionist?

So, the company is giving itself to a communist govt? Odd, I thought they were moving to a place that is now more free market oriented than the place they just left.

If you meant that China has an authoritarian govt that oversees a burgeoning free market I would agree with you.

Most all the things you say are socialistic and harming our businesses exist in the place where the businesses are headed ... in some cases to an even greater extent. Even China is rolling out universal healthcare for all it's citizens, minimum wage, and prograssive taxation (with the upper rate of 45%).

I'm not sure how cutting all the govt subsidies for solar is supposed to entice the business to stay in the U.S. That's already why they are leaving.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:38 pm

yaaarrrgg;1352436 wrote: Most all the things you say are socialistic and harming our businesses exist in the place where the businesses are headed ... in some cases to an even greater extent. Even China is rolling out universal healthcare for all it's citizens, minimum wage, and prograssive taxation (with the upper rate of 45%). .

Kewl! I always knew they weren't as smart as they looked.

I'm not sure how cutting all the govt subsidies for solar is supposed to entice the business to stay in the U.S. That's already why they are leaving

Why do you support taking my hard earned $ and giving it to someone that couldn't make it in the marketplace?

Here's a thought; how about creating a business environment that doesn't rely on re-distributing my wealth. Mebbe we'd keep the jobs here, too.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:48 pm

BaghdadBob;1352438 wrote: Why do you support taking my hard earned $ and giving it to someone that couldn't make it in the marketplace?

Here's a thought; how about creating a business environment that doesn't rely on re-distributing my wealth. Mebbe we'd keep the jobs here, too.

Some things require a large up-front investment. If you want to wait for private investors on everything, I might as well invest in China.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:25 pm

yaaarrrgg;1352441 wrote: Some things require a large up-front investment. If you want to wait for private investors on everything, I might as well invest in China.

If it made economic sense then venture capital would be all over it.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:50 pm

BaghdadBob;1352447 wrote: If it made economic sense then venture capital would be all over it.

Why would venture capital care if production is in the U.S. versus China?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:15 pm

Why do you support taking my hard earned $ and giving it to someone that couldn't make it in the marketplace?

Because of what you do with it? People with money in America are not investing in America. This brings us to this venture capital thingy. Why invest in a factory making shoes in America where you have to pay the workers $5 an hour when you can go to China and get workers who will do the same job for $1 an hour?

If you Bbob make more money on your investment by it going to China and get to live here in America (with all of comforts that go with it) you have quite a good deal 'eh? At least until things get so bad people are being killed on the streets by the army and the country is in revolt from coast to coast and you and people like you simply take your wealth and leave. Kind of like what's happening in Egypt as we speak.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:43 pm

Why do you support taking my hard earned $ and giving it to someone that couldn't make it in the marketplace?

A couple of jobs ago I was doing HVAC service. It became apparent to me after going on some strange calls that an individual I worked with didn't have a goddamn clue what he was doing. This individual was related to the owner of the business. It seems to me the "free market" would have ensured this situation did not occur. This is a meritocracy is it not? Ones merits (or lack of them) dictates ones worth to society?

Sometimes life isn't fair, sometimes one person is more equal than another. I think we can all give a little to ensure a kind of balance. Your ideals are full of holes when it comes to real life. What it comes down to is what kind of a society you want to live in. I'm not into the third world.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:48 pm

Scrat;1352399 wrote: I agree with everything BBob said except for stopping the minimum wage. The free market has not proven itself to be capable of much when it comes to living standards.

Scrat;1352461 wrote: Why invest in a factory making shoes in America where you have to pay the workers $5 an hour when you can go to China and get workers who will do the same job for $1 an hour? Point-Counterpoint! :wah:

Your response?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:20 pm

Accountable;1352466 wrote: Point-Counterpoint! :wah:

Your response?When taken together, this actually is not a contradiction as much as it is a quandary.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:24 pm

BaghdadBob;1352386 wrote:

Repeal the Davis - Bacon Act that artificially inflates the price of govt projects.How does Davis-Bacon artificially inflate the price of govt projects?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:08 am

Capitalism without social responsibility is economic feudalism. Even medieval warlords realised they needed healthy and well fed peasants to fight for them. Knives out free for all capitalism was not what Adam Smith advocated in the wealth of nations. His words also contain some of what we would now call socialist ideas.

You are seeing in America the effects of a capitalist ideology where profit is all that matters. It is short term, narrow minded and doomed to failure. You need to invest in the future and research even where there is no immediate foreseeable benefit. Laser technology must be the classic example of that. All the researchers wanted to do was find out what would happen, they weren't thinking what use is it. Innovation doesn't come from big companies it's guys in sheds all big companies do is buy in innovation and in the case of the american car companies squash it so they can keep making what they want to make.

China is pouring money in to solar energy and electric cars because only a short sided idiot think we can keep using oil the way we are. Not investing in your own country or preserving a well paid prosperous customer base is short sighted commercial suicide. You blame everybody else for mass unemployment but the very people who are causing you the problems.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:55 am

Ahso!;1352474 wrote: How does Davis-Bacon artificially inflate the price of govt projects?I worked for a sub-sub-contractor installing cabinets in hospitals, schools, office buildings, etc. It was the owner, 4 carpenters, and usually 4 carpenter's helpers (that's me). The pay sucked but we had a great time. When we hired on to a federal contract, the owner had to pay us much higher than normal because of the Davis-Bacon Act. It added tremendously to the overhead. If he were able to pay our regular pay, the bid could be much lower. Davis-Bacon thereby inflated the price of the gov't project.

As an aside, Davis-Bacon also creates de facto discrimination against micro-small and new business. My boss wasn't able to take many federal contracts because of the higher costs to the business that weren't reimbursed until later. He could only take on a federal project if business was already good, but if pickings were slim, he didn't have the reserve cash to pay us Davis-Bacon wages until the contract money came in.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:54 am

As I understand Davis-Bacon, it's purpose is to ensure competitive wages with the locality in which the work is performed. Do you agree with my interpretation?

As for your particular example, how do I know your former boss was a smart business person? Many companies (at least today) use credit to pay workers until the contract money is allocated. It's possible your boss didn't have good credit, or perhaps didn't possess enough business savvy to consider the option, maybe he didn't agree with the use of credit to pay employees. There are lots of variables involved in operating a successful business.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:39 am

Later Busy.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:43 pm

When taken together, this actually is not a contradiction as much as it is a quandary.

Yeah, it is exactly that. A quandary. GMCs post goes a long way towards bringing the problem into the light and kind of makes the solution obvious.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:55 pm

Ahso!;1352486 wrote: As I understand Davis-Bacon, it's purpose is to ensure competitive wages with the locality in which the work is performed. Do you agree with my interpretation?Sure, why not. Purpose and results are often at odds.

Ahso! wrote: As for your particular example, how do I know your former boss was a smart business person? Many companies (at least today) use credit to pay workers until the contract money is allocated. It's possible your boss didn't have good credit, or perhaps didn't possess enough business savvy to consider the option, maybe he didn't agree with the use of credit to pay employees. There are lots of variables involved in operating a successful business.Not the point. BB said it increases costs. That it does.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:21 am

It was your example. Almost anything can increase cost. What Bagh said was it "artificially" inflates cost, which I don't think it does.

What Bagh's argument really is, is: I don't like the rules, so I'm out to change them. Which incidentally, is once again that giant sobbing sound of conservatives whine about being victimized. When our children come home from school complaining about the rules they're subject to we tell them to suck it up, figure it out and obey authority, but, no, not conservatives, they get a sympathetic ear because they've got a hard-on for the big, bad, evil government. Read Bagh's posts with a critical eye and you'll notice the same theme over and over again...."We've been victims of government and liberals throughout history!"

But, for the sake of argument, let's say Davis-Bacon is repealed, okay?

What's to stop people from offering basic shelter for the duration of employment with said company to workers along with minimal pay so the contractor could consistently bid low on contracts? Is this how you interpret the idea of better living standards for future generations?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:33 am

Of course it artificially inflates the cost. Let's say I sell a widget at a 10% markup. If you agree to buy my widget on the condition that I increase my markup to 25%, you have artificially inflated your cost. That's the same thing the gov't does when it will not award a contract to a company who pays their people less than "prevailing wages" or whatever the phrase was.

The market is to stop people from offering basic shelter for the duration of employment with said company blah blah blah ... The trick is trusting the market, which neither of you are really willing to do.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:48 am

gmc;1352481 wrote: Capitalism without social responsibility is economic feudalism. Even medieval warlords realised they needed healthy and well fed peasants to fight for them. Knives out free for all capitalism was not what Adam Smith advocated in the wealth of nations. His words also contain some of what we would now call socialist ideas.

You are seeing in America the effects of a capitalist ideology where profit is all that matters. It is short term, narrow minded and doomed to failure. You need to invest in the future and research even where there is no immediate foreseeable benefit. Laser technology must be the classic example of that. All the researchers wanted to do was find out what would happen, they weren't thinking what use is it. Innovation doesn't come from big companies it's guys in sheds all big companies do is buy in innovation and in the case of the american car companies squash it so they can keep making what they want to make.
I agree with everything you've written here. What you fail to mention is the government's complicity in the whole thing. Irresponsible capitalism of the type we've been witnessing today is impossible without the government running point taking out the natural market forces that would otherwise prevent a company from falling prey to focusing only on profit. You and others continuously imply that government inaction allowed our current situation to develop. I say that government action was instrumental in that development. That is not to say that gov't has no role to play (not that typing this will prevent you from accusing me of saying exactly that), but the role they have been playing is enabler, when they should be playing referee.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:56 am

There is no artificial anything (or it's everything), those are the rules set out by the entity shopping for the work. If (as in the example you provided earlier) the contractor lacks either the economic muscle or business savvy to compete successfully in a certain venue, then perhaps that's due to being in a game that's too big for said contractor and the business needs a reality check in perception and should probably understand it needs to remain in the minor leagues for a bit longer.

The market will always prefer the best for least. Unfortunately, the best is (more often than not) an illusion (marketing ploy) and the least is still the least monetarily. The rules (regulation) attempts to offset the difference in marketing (illusion) and reality with standards. That's why regulation is important. Is it subject to abuse? Yes, but that comes down to the behavior of individuals whether those individuals are in the public or private sector. That's is where our educational system comes into play here.

Now to your Widget example: It's actually not a good choice as an example because you're talking wholesale/retail to contracting, but heres how wholesale and retail operates regarding this:

Any manufacturer can set any "suggested retail price" for their product they want (it's completely market driven). So, my widgets cost me one dollar to make and I arbitrarily set my "suggested retail" at $25.00 per Widget, you, OTOH, also spend one dollar on the manufacturing of your (essentially exact) Widget (per each) and you set your "suggested retail at $20.00 per Widget. We both approach Ballsmart with the prospect of them retailing our product for us. Ballsmart's marketing dept , by virtue of it's expertise in retail, knows that Widgets will only sell for $5.00 each at best and since the retailer (Ballsmart) can legitimately show a larger discount off suggested retail on my Widgets as opposed to yours, which one do you think they will carry? Now, let's say there was a rule that removed the marketing ploy (illusion) and both widgets were subject to equal suggested retail, the emphasis can then be concentrated on such demands as quality, professionalism, warranty and so on. "But" you will say, "the market forces will take care of all that 'suggested retail' stuff", and right you would be, except, however, there are only two overall methods for that correction to occur via market forces; 1) collusion, which is also an anti-market approach, so we know good market driven businesses would not resort to that option, right!? or; 2) constant marketing investment into keeping up with the competition, and #2 is where unnecessary price increases to the public can be found.

Bidding for Government contracts is a completely different ballgame.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:03 am

Accountable;1352574 wrote: I agree with everything you've written here. What you fail to mention is the government's complicity in the whole thing. Irresponsible capitalism of the type we've been witnessing today is impossible without the government running point taking out the natural market forces that would otherwise prevent a company from falling prey to focusing only on profit. You and others continuously imply that government inaction allowed our current situation to develop. I say that government action was instrumental in that development. That is not to say that gov't has no role to play (not that typing this will prevent you from accusing me of saying exactly that), but the role they have been playing is enabler, when they should be playing referee.What good is a referee with no authority?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:37 am

What we have in the U.S. is a minimum wage, rather than a fair wage. I wonder if minmum wage should based on a percentage of profits, rather than an absolute number. For example, if a company makes billions of dollars in profit, suppose at least 50% of those profits must be paid back to the production workers in wages.

That way, if a company is not making any money, they don't have to pay workers anything (wouldn't penalize small companies). A company might try to fiddle with the books to make it look like they weren't making any money, but that's not something you really want to brag about to investors.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:44 am

I get a kick out of these whinny conservatives and a-likes. They claim America has been held back all these years, and yet, they admit America has become the best the world has to offer. They want to fix what hasn't been broken, AFAICT. Oh, that's right, they broke it and claim it's all my fault because I'm liberal minded.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:46 am

I agree with everything you've written here. What you fail to mention is the government's complicity in the whole thing. Irresponsible capitalism of the type we've been witnessing today is impossible without the government running point taking out the natural market forces that would otherwise prevent a company from falling prey to focusing only on profit.You and others continuously imply that government inaction allowed our current situation to develop. I say that government action was instrumental in that development. That is not to say that gov't has no role to play (not that typing this will prevent you from accusing me of saying exactly that), but the role they have been playing is enabler, when they should be playing referee.

I think this is mostly correct and I think I know why. The way our election process is run, it takes money to get elected. I think the best thing to do is bring this to a stop. Free the electoral process from the whip of the money. This means free air time for campaigning and getting your message across.

You and others continuously imply that government inaction allowed our current situation to develop. I say that government action was instrumental in that development.

I think the government is simply and obviously doing the wrong thing. A politician is paid to do WHAT HE IS TOLD. Not what is BEST FOR THE COUNTRY.

Where's Stalin when you need him.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:22 pm

Ahso!;1352578 wrote: There is no artificial anything The customer's insisting to pay more than the contractor would likely bid is articficially inflating the costs. If you're incapable of acknowledging something so plainly obvious, then I'll leave you to spar with BB. :yh_bye

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:25 pm

yaaarrrgg;1352586 wrote: What we have in the U.S. is a minimum wage, rather than a fair wage. I wonder if minmum wage should based on a percentage of profits, rather than an absolute number. For example, if a company makes billions of dollars in profit, suppose at least 50% of those profits must be paid back to the production workers in wages.

That way, if a company is not making any money, they don't have to pay workers anything (wouldn't penalize small companies). A company might try to fiddle with the books to make it look like they weren't making any money, but that's not something you really want to brag about to investors.I once gave a tongue-in-cheek speech suggesting that teachers receive a small royalty from every student they teach. :yh_bigsmi

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:30 pm

Scrat;1352590 wrote: I think this is mostly correct and I think I know why. The way our election process is run, it takes money to get elected. I think the best thing to do is bring this to a stop. Free the electoral process from the whip of the money. This means free air time for campaigning and getting your message across.

I'm not in favor of free air time. I'd rather see the candidates each get a set purse to budget as they see fit. Supporters will still spend their money on campaign ads, but at least they won't be purchasing the candidates directly as they do now.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:14 pm

Accountable;1352610 wrote: The customer's insisting to pay more than the contractor would likely bid is articficially inflating the costs. If you're incapable of acknowledging something so plainly obvious, then I'll leave you to spar with BB. :yh_byeLook, everyone who asks for bids from contractors have demands when the desired job is explained. It may have to do with the quality of the materials used for the project, the alloted time to finish the project along with the workmanship of the contractor and the contractor's employees. The government has additional standards to consider because it is spending the taxpayer's money and the work is being performed within communities where the government employees hiring the contractor does not live or work and therefore have little vested interests, so certain other standards, defined through law apply, Davis-Bacon being one.

Normally, probably 99.9% of home or business owners will only offer local contractors to bid on work. But according to you, any private or public contracting job not put out nationwide is artificially inflating the cost of the job. How do you think local relationships would be affected if say a business in New York hired a contractor from Tennessee where the cost of living is lower, snubbing the local New York contractors who have to deal with their costs of living. It's a courtesy and a commitment to one's community to spend more in order to put local people to work. Government contracts, due to logistics must mandate that courtesy, or at least make it as fair as possible.

It's not artificially inflating the cost, it's a process of consideration for the economy of the locality where the work is to be performed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, in fact it's quite fair.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:05 pm

A law that requires "normal" wages seems to me like it would protect the government and public more than it would help the workers. The workers honestly aren't getting any special favor by paying them a normal wage (which is probably lousy to begin with).

The real danger between public/private contracts is that the government will get bilked rather than being charged too little. Like sharks smelling blood in the water, private contractors often know that the government has a lot of money, and they can increase their prices. They'd sell the government a toilet seat for $500 if they can get away with it.

It also eliminates a conflict of interest between choosing quality vs price. The government must pick someone reasonably competent to do the work, not just someone's crazy 2nd cousin who promises to do the work in exchange for free beer. This weeds out the fly-by-night operations, and limits the field to established pros. There's a saying: "good, fast, or cheap...pick two."

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:02 am

Ahso!;1352615 wrote: ... it's a process of consideration for the economy of the locality where the work is to be performed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, in fact it's quite fair.and inflationary.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:44 am

I notice the person (Chicken Little) who originally put forward these assertions has remained conveniently unwilling (probably more accurately, unable) to engage in the discussion.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:06 pm

yaaarrrgg;1352617 wrote: A law that requires "normal" wages seems to me like it would protect the government and public more than it would help the workers. The workers honestly aren't getting any special favor by paying them a normal wage (which is probably lousy to begin with).

The real danger between public/private contracts is that the government will get bilked rather than being charged too little. Like sharks smelling blood in the water, private contractors often know that the government has a lot of money, and they can increase their prices. They'd sell the government a toilet seat for $500 if they can get away with it.

It also eliminates a conflict of interest between choosing quality vs price. The government must pick someone reasonably competent to do the work, not just someone's crazy 2nd cousin who promises to do the work in exchange for free beer. This weeds out the fly-by-night operations, and limits the field to established pros. There's a saying: "good, fast, or cheap...pick two."

Read this from govermentcontractors.org

and then argue these salient points:

1. The racist aspect of the law which I'm sure asho! is for:

a lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice argued that the Act is racially discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. "The minority contractors challenging the constitutionality of the Davis-Bacon Act in this lawsuit have seen business opportunities lost and their ability to hire minority workers from their communities greatly restricted because of the requirements of the Act"

and

Many individuals in favor of repeal argue that the Act restricts contracting and employment opportunities for small (and primarily non-unionized) minority-owned construction firms. Proponents also argue that the Act establishes inflated wage rates and creates rigid job classifications and procedures which are more standard operating practice for unions.

2. The Act is specifically designed to drive prices of projects up thru higher wages:

In 1935, Congress wanted to ensure that contractors bidding on public works projects would not reduce wages in order to offer the lowest bid price. The amendment allowed government agencies, that were required to accept the lowest bids, to employ contractors paying "fair" wage rather than those who competed by hiring cheaper labor. Later, in 1964, the Act was modified to include fringe benefits in the calculation of prevailing wages.

3. Believed by multiple administrations to hinder free markets:

The Davis-Bacon Act has been suspended by several Presidents in the wake of national emergencies. It was first suspended in 1934 by President Franklin Roosevelt...

Anecdotally, The former owner of the Miami Dolphins football team paid for and built a new stadium for his team from private funds because the costs, if done thru gubbermint contracts, would have left him with lease payments higher than the cost of ownership.

Discuss

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:36 pm

BaghdadBob;1352687 wrote: Anecdotally, The former owner of the Miami Dolphins football team paid for and build a new stadium for his team from private funds because the costs, if done thru gubbermint contracts, would have left him with lease payments higher than the cost of ownership.

Discuss

That's an interesting case. There's a plus side that too, from the "fiscally conservative" point of view. Shouldn't the government get out of the stadium-building business altogether, on your view? The private contractors are free to cut costs, corners, and face the risk of private lawsuit if the construction is not up to par with accepted standards. They can do the circuses and leave the government to worry about the bread. Meanwhile, if the government is fixing a bridge I drive on, I'm not sure I want the cheapest guy they can hire, or pay under the table, to do the work. I don't really want money to be the deciding factor.

The interesting thing here, is we have a law that was written by Republicans (possibly for racist reasons?), which is now primarily attacked by Republicans (because they want to hire undocumented workers?

). I'm not sure the law is a bad idea though.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:36 pm

yaaarrrgg;1352689 wrote: That's an interesting case. There's a plus side that too, from the "fiscally conservative" point of view. Shouldn't the government get out of the stadium-building business altogether, on your view?

Hell yes I'm against it. Without checking I think the first stadium paid for with public funds was county stadium in Milwaukee.

After that the floodgates opened. In S Florida, the Marlins had a very difficult row to hoe in getting public funding because the gov and state houses are both R controlled but the donks in Miami-Dade County finally folded and are paying for most of the new stadium. Suckers.

The private contractors are free to cut costs, corners, and face the risk of private lawsuit if the construction is not up to par with accepted standards. They can do the circuses and leave the government to worry about the bread. Meanwhile, if the government is fixing a bridge I drive on, I'm not sure I want the cheapest guy they can hire, or pay under the table, to do the work. I don't really want money to be the deciding factor.

The stories of govt contractors cutting corners is legion. There's no correlation between $ paid and quality received.

Projects are spec'ed and inspected. That's not really an issue under the Act.

The interesting thing here, is we have a law that was written by Republicans (possibly for racist reasons?), which is now primarily attacked by Republicans (because they want to hire undocumented workers?

). I'm not sure the law is a bad idea though.

Yeah, see what happens when the R party moves away from free market Capitalism? The racist donks jump all over it and hang onto it for dear life.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Public funding of stadiums. Stories in the papers here about the bad weather in Dallas for the Super Bowl and the fact that the NFL is holding back awarding another to Miami until they spend PUBLIC $ to put a roof over the stands. It rained one year and they don't want the poor fans that pay hi 3 figures at a minimum to be there to get wet. Wonder what they were thinking when they awarded a Super Bowl to the stadium in New Jersey?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:59 am

One of the first things Sarah Palin did as mayor of Wasilla is build a multi-million dollar stadium It left the tiny town with millions of dollars of debt. Is she a "donk" too?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:42 am

They bring in an awful lot of tax revenue, stadiums do, so I understand why states and local governments agree to help fund stadium constructions. Team ownership has the expense of providing the product (players) which is no cheap endeavor. What happens most of the time though is through negotiations, the government entity then has little say on any management of the structure But that's also understandable because of rotation of elected officials and appointees.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:26 am

One of the first things Sarah Palin did as mayor of Wasilla is build a multi-million dollar stadium It left the tiny town with millions of dollars of debt. Is she a "donk" too?

You wish!

:yh_rotfl

Current Mayor Diane M. Keller, who served on the City Council when Palin was mayor, said just presenting those raw figures is misleading.

Yes, she said, Wasilla's budgets increased and tax receipts went up under Palin's reign, but much of that was due to the growth of the city during those six years.

Yes, she said, the sales tax rate went from 2 percent to 2.5 percent under Palin, but that was approved via voter referendum, with the extra proceeds earmarked specifically to pay off that sports complex. CBS News reported that the referendum on the sports complex passed by just 20 votes.

Due to the economic growth in the community, Keller said, Wasilla is going to be able to stop charging that extra .5 percent sales tax two years earlier than anticipated. The property tax rate was reduced under Palin from 2 mills to .5 mills (it was later eliminated under Keller).

Voters also okayed the bond issue to pay for road improvements, Keller noted.

"The people in our community wanted road improvements," Keller said. "The taxpayers voted on it. Same thing with the sports complex. It's up to us to do what the people are asking for." The U.S. Census does not provide yearly population estimates before 2000, but Wasilla's population grew by about 13 percent in the last two years of Palin's mayorship alone. It stands to reason that a town's budget will grow as the population rises.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:47 am

Sarah Palin:

inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later–to the delight of the lawyers involved!

About Sarah Palin: A Letter From Anne Kilkenny | John McCain

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:38 pm

yaaarrrgg;1352787 wrote: Sarah Palin:

About Sarah Palin: A Letter From Anne Kilkenny | John McCain

What's your point?

I fact checked that letter for you before you posted a link to it.

Does this mean anything to you?

"The taxpayers voted on it. Same thing with the sports complex. It's up to us to do what the people are asking for."

Or, was she supposed to be like a donk and turn her nose up at the will of the people?

And one more thing. Why are you so concerned what a now private citizen did as mayor of a small town in Alaska years ago?

Sounds like Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Seek help.