Comments about ‘Regulatory fog chokes hiring’

Spot on editorial. Well done.

Other words that describe why American companies not hiring might include blackmail, hostage, or even Criminal.

Having no need to sell or produce anything to bolster their wallets, business has adopted an agenda to hold the workers and the consumers hostage as a way to eliminate those pesky government regulations that protect their worker victims and consumers.

Thanks to the Supreme Court decision favoring business, and the apparent republicanization of our democrat government, it seem very likely that business will soon control all rights and freedoms and we will be more like Mexico or ever Haiti.

The business propaganda machine, sometimes known as Fox, Conservatives, or Republicans, has done it’s work to the Nth degree in America. Workers in America are regarded as mere resources to be used only as needed and not protected as if they were actually human beings.

The American experiment in government is about to be traded in on a new Corporate model.

This editorial is just not true. The regulatory environment has not changed much at all since Obama took office, in large part because it takes so long to impose changes and Obama has not been in office that long. But it can be argued that the lack of regulations hurts business. Take, for example, the egg recall we just went through. In 1999, Clinton proposed FDA oversight. Before the regulations were adopted, Bush came in and the regulations were shelved, even though the industry groups did not object. The result was over a half billion eggs recalled, hundreds sick and who knows how many lawsuits will result as well as the harm to the reputation of the egg industry. A lot of product was destroyed. Had the Bush Administration followed through, all of this would have been avoided. It cost the industry more by not having the proposed regulations. Fortunately, the Obama Administration passed the regs which will go into effect in a few months (but not soon enough to prevent the disaster). This editorial is a knee-jerk reaction that does not reflect reality or what is good for business and the consumer.

Ultra Bob has chosen to attribute universal, negative motives to American companies...the market place usually responds as folks work to their own best self interest, otherwise we call it charity...if allowed businesses will hire and expand, but not to their detriment.

What inane article that tosses out economic reality. A recession is a drop in aggregate demand. Companies don't invest in new capital or hire people if there is no demand.

No demand is why the Bush tax cuts was not a tax cut but, deferred taxation. It created none of the wealth Bush and the cuts backers said it would create. It does require that the federal government borrow 2.3 trillion dollars to pay for it.

There was more money for the wealth who own 83% of America. Why invest in capital if the middle class haven't driven up demand because of the redistribution of wreath from the middle class to the already wealthy? Workers wages have declined and so has there wealth.

What will happen with these cash on hand is corporations with buy out their smaller competitors and gain customers not by making better products but by buy new customers when they acquire their competitors.

Then they can consolidate and lay off American workers.

"With so many positive economic indicators, why are American companies not hiring?" Because they are continuing to do what got us into this mess. Hours worked by current employees are climbing, but productivity is rising faster - in Marxian this means that the rate of surplus value is increasing (the rise in productivity is outstripping the increased hours). In short capital is giving labor as little as possible. Why hire when you can wring a little more out of current labor?

We are in this mess in large part because over the last 40 years the U.S. real wage has been stagnant while labor productivity has soared. The Marxian nightmare of collapse from high surplus value has come true. Surplus value is a correct concept after all! The current situation is just a continuation of this theme. So much wealth is in so few hands that we are dependent on a very small number of people.

Mind you, I understand the Deseret News is incapable of seeing things from this theoretical angle, not that government doesn't share responsibility, just not in the way you think.

@ marxist.
What positive economic idicators are you talking about? Intelligent people see only massive national debt, higher taxes coming in Jan. and more government bungling and interferance. There is no jobs bill, only more spending bills. Money we don't have!

Mountanman - I was quoting the editorial which you should read first, then my piece.

What a stupid economic theory. The clear reality is that businesses aren’t hiring because there isn’t enough demand to justify them doing so. If people were lining up to purchase goods and services, businesses would hire in order meet the demand.

If there were any truth to this editorial, there would be examples of shortages of food, gas, homes, cars, or whatever, where businesses weren’t producing enough to meet consumer demand, and the reason they weren’t producing enough was because they were afraid to hire because of this alleged uncertainty.

If I can't sell the Wigets that I am presently producing, there is no reason to expand my output. I wonder who wrote this opinion, a journalist or economist?

I agree 100% with the editorial's point that in spite of profits and liquidity, companies are slower to hire because of uncertainty about the future. Gloomy forecasts abound: double-dip recession, European governments in financial trouble, U.S. state and local governments in financial trouble, future Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid benefits are unsustainable, multi-employer pension and health plans are in serious financial trouble , the highly-educated baby boomers start reaching age 65 in 2011, dissension about climate change, dissension about clean energy, and so forth. Business expectations of the future drive investment and consumer expectations drive demand. I think there is a developing consensus that we need a clear path to fiscal responsibility by all levels of government. In addition, I believe we need confidence in getting control of our health care costs. Doing these things may be our best long-term jobs program.

The proof of the wisdom of this article is actually very easy to spot. States with heavy regulation and telegraphing intent to make it worse are losing businesses. They are moving to states with lighter regulation and a much more favorable business environment. Utah has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation and several businesses like Adobe, EA Games, and EBay are greatly expanding their presence here. Those of you attributing the current climate to some kind of business run shadow government are giving business far too much credit for their organizing ability. For the most part they are engaged in robust competition with each other.

"The adaptability and productivity of the American worker is unparalleled in the world."

Then why are all of our jobs going overseas? American exceptionalism? My spell checker doesn't even recognize the word "exceptionalism."

You can lament regulation for the reasons stated. But the marketplace needs rules.

@ Brad Daw

States moving their businesses to Utah and businesses laying people off/not hiring are two completely different issues.

Utah may provide a better environment than other states. Why then doesn't every business just move on over to Utah then? The main reason why businesses aren't hiring/are still laying people off is because there's still not enough demand for our products. Businesses in general are getting by with worker production still so high. The article even explains this at the very beginning before going off the deep end blaming the government on everything.

Businesses will hire when demand forces them to rehire. Until then, basic economics people. It's pretty simple. We're getting by just fine, producing and meeting the world's demands, with fewer employees. It's capitalism at its finest. We can produce far more than we can ever consume. Thus, we enter into a period of reduction and recession.

In time, demand will rise and businesses will hire once more.

DRay | 8:52 a.m.

When I spend so much time and effort hammering on business and businessmen, It has to do with my psyche that makes me think of everything as a game. It seems to make sense to me to treat the players and their actions as a part of a game.

Beyond the jungle and our intense desire for survival, pleasure, and safety, it is necessary that we create rules, regulations, morals, and creeds if we wish to live in collectives of societies and civilizations.

And the easiest way to visualize that process is to compare it to the process of teams and the games they play. It is not negative that we want the other to lose, it’s just that we want to win.

So business wants to win. Their opponents are other businesses, workers, consumers, and sometimes the government who is the referee of their game. Unlike sporting games with external authorities who make the rules, in the game of Capitalism, the players make the rules.

It still becomes the government’s job to enforce the rules. Hopefully the rules are satisfactory to everyone, but that may be a goal too far.

A word to describe this editorial: Bull.

The editorial argues businesses are not hiring because of uncertainty about the cost of healthcare reform. Does the writer of the editorial really think that business had a concise knowledge of their healthcare costs over the last decade with insurance companies raising costs drastically each year?

As others have pointed out, businesses will hire when demand increases. In fact businesses are hiring right now.

Most companies hire based on demand for their product, when demand goes up they hire, when it goes down they fire.

The editorial also says small businesses will be hurt by regulations, but did you notice that it gave zero examples of any regulations? Very shoddy writing.

Is this an example of the new Deseret News?

mark, Obamacare does not and will not (despite BO's promises to the contrary) control the rise in premiums.

to paraphrase queen nancy, "we have to pass it to know what's in it" In other words, we have to let it take affect to know all the intended and unintended consequences. Between Obamacare and dudd-frank, there are, what, 3,000 - 5,000 pages of legislation and untold regulations to be written? How can there be any certainty with that coming down the road?

I think the BO apologists are just lashing out at anything that points to the anointed one's failures.

The heslth care reform legislation was focused more on expanding coverage than addressing the issue of costs. I believe that addressing health care costs is critical for the future financial welfare of our nation due to the aging of our population. The leading edge of the baby boom generation turns 65 in 2011. This huge wave of our citizens will have rising utilixation of medical care providers and place a huge strain on our nation's medical providers over the next 20-30 years. While the issues of health care costs are complex and varied, we urgently need to discuss them and address them.

lost in DC|8:27 a.m. Sept. 7, 2010
mark, Obamacare does not and will not (despite BO's promises to the contrary) control the rise in premiums.

=======

I never said one way or the other, did I lost? I did not make any argument, whatsoever, lost, concerning whether or not the health care reform legislation would controll costs or not.

This editorial is designed to do one thing: play on the fears of the conservative DN readers who want to blame President Obama for everything wrong with this country. The editorial presents absolutely no facts to back up its opinions, and is a disgrace to the newspaper. It should be, and will be, either completely ignored or laughed to scorn by anyone who cares about truthful journalism.