Boeing to cease 757 production

[Capt. Doug]

There was a one paragraph blurb in the business section this morning that
Boeing will shutdown the 757 production line late next year. Is the
Dreamliner to be the replacement in the product line? I didn't think the
Dreamliner would be certified that soon.

D.

[David H]

"Capt. Doug" wrote:

> There was a one paragraph blurb in the business section this morning that
> Boeing will shutdown the 757 production line late next year. Is the
> Dreamliner to be the replacement in the product line? I didn't think the
> Dreamliner would be certified that soon.

This has been big news around here in the Seattle area, as you might expect
(especially since Boeing continues to shed tens of thousands of jobs
locally).

The 757 line in Renton will be shut down next year as they work through the
last of their orders.

The company has not formally made a decision whether or not to commit to
producing the 7E7. They say they will make that announcement, and will say
where it will be built, later this year. 7E7s won't be flying for a while.

As you can imagine, people around here are watching closely. Most folks
seem to agree that the plane will be built (unlike some other recent high
profile Boeing projects), and many are saying that the end of 757 production
actually makes it even more likley that they will build the 7E7.

Personally, I believe they will commit to the 7E7, but it's anybody's guess
as to where they will build it. The company's leaders seems to take great
pleasure in bashing the Seattle area every chance they get, and if I had to
bet my lunch money on it, I probably wouldn't put my chips on the hometown,
even though that seems to make the most sense to me.

My 2 cents.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:44:44 GMT, "Capt. Doug"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>There was a one paragraph blurb in the business section this morning that
>Boeing will shutdown the 757 production line late next year. Is the
>Dreamliner to be the replacement in the product line? I didn't think the
>Dreamliner would be certified that soon.
>
>D.
>

BOEING CO. said it would shut down its 757 narrow-body jet line
in Renton, Wash., in late 2004 after 22 years for lack of
orders, and take a pretax charge of $184 million. Boeing's
Seattle-based jetliner unit delivered more than 1,000 of the
mid-sized 757s since 1982 but airlines in recent years have
instead chosen the smaller and cheaper 737 model as well as
jets from rival Airbus SAS.
(Reuters 05:08 PM ET 10/16/2003)

More:
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=876616&m=100623f8f1f9600021577a&s=rb031016

================================================== ==========
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, David H
> writes:

>The company's leaders seems to take great
>pleasure in bashing the Seattle area every chance they get, and if I had to
>bet my lunch money on it, I probably wouldn't put my chips on the hometown,
>even though that seems to make the most sense to me.

Just as the local government has been taking pleasure in bashing Boeing for
years. Call it the results of biting the hand that feeds you, or gorging on
the golden goose.

John

[Larry Fransson]

On 2003-10-17 18:44:44 -0700, (null) said:

> There was a one paragraph blurb in the business section this morning that
> Boeing will shutdown the 757 production line late next year. Is the
> Dreamliner to be the replacement in the product line? I didn't think the
> Dreamliner would be certified that soon.

They are going to spend more time and energy on the new 737s. Continental recently converted an order for a couple 757s to an order for 737-800s.

[Jessica Gallagher]

David H wrote:

> Personally, I believe they will commit to the 7E7, but it's anybody's guess
> as to where they will build it. The company's leaders seems to take great
> pleasure in bashing the Seattle area every chance they get, and if I had to
> bet my lunch money on it, I probably wouldn't put my chips on the hometown,
> even though that seems to make the most sense to me.

The local government figures have been attacking Boeing for years, and squeezing
them hard for every drop and cent every time Boeing wanted to do anything. They
certainly should not be the least bit surprised if Boeing decides it wants to do
major manufacturing elsewhere, in more hospitable territory. It also would not
be shocking to see the wings manufactured in Japan, where many orders may come
from. Moving the hq out of Washington should have been a huge wake up signal.

[Ralph Snart]

"Jessica Gallagher" > wrote in message
...
> David H wrote:
>
> > Personally, I believe they will commit to the 7E7, but it's anybody's
guess
> > as to where they will build it. The company's leaders seems to take
great
> > pleasure in bashing the Seattle area every chance they get, and if I had
to
> > bet my lunch money on it, I probably wouldn't put my chips on the
hometown,
> > even though that seems to make the most sense to me.
>
> The local government figures have been attacking Boeing for years, and
squeezing
> them hard for every drop and cent every time Boeing wanted to do anything.
They
> certainly should not be the least bit surprised if Boeing decides it wants
to do
> major manufacturing elsewhere, in more hospitable territory. It also
would not
> be shocking to see the wings manufactured in Japan, where many orders may
come
> from. Moving the hq out of Washington should have been a huge wake up
signal.
>
Yet another reason that business is leaving America - increasingly
stringent enviromental regulations, increasinly complex goverment
regulations, increasingly excessive taxes; when the business leaves, those
jobs are gone...forever.

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

[Mike Rapoport]

"Ralph Snart" > wrote in message
news:9TFkb.825533$Ho3.227062@sccrnsc03...
>
> Yet another reason that business is leaving America - increasingly
> stringent enviromental regulations, increasinly complex goverment
> regulations, increasingly excessive taxes; when the business leaves,
those
> jobs are gone...forever.
>

You should stop listening to so much talk radio.

Mike
MU-2

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:06:23 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>
>"Ralph Snart" > wrote in message
>news:9TFkb.825533$Ho3.227062@sccrnsc03...
>>
>> Yet another reason that business is leaving America - increasingly
>> stringent enviromental regulations, increasinly complex goverment
>> regulations, increasingly excessive taxes; when the business leaves,
>those
>> jobs are gone...forever.
>>
>
>You should stop listening to so much talk radio.
>

Actually, I believe I heard that Boeing wings (model(s)?) are
currently manufactured in Japan, and Boeing plans to outsource wings
and other parts for future models abroad. The reduced labor cost in
foreign countries probably more than cover shipping costs. How else
do you explain the recent jump in manufacturing, and continued
increase in unemployment?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Ralph Snart]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Ralph Snart" > wrote in message
> news:9TFkb.825533$Ho3.227062@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > Yet another reason that business is leaving America - increasingly
> > stringent enviromental regulations, increasinly complex goverment
> > regulations, increasingly excessive taxes; when the business leaves,
> those
> > jobs are gone...forever.
> >
>
> You should stop listening to so much talk radio.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

Just what did I state that is incorrect?

BTW, has NAFTA, GATT and other 'free trade' laws cause you to lose
your job? If not, you one of the lucky ones. Speak to the many from HP,
SISCO, Nike, Microsoft, Levi Strauss, etc whose jobs are now overseas. They
would say that YOU need to listen to talk radio.

[Ralph Snart]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:06:23 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> et>:
>
> >
> >"Ralph Snart" > wrote in message
> >news:9TFkb.825533$Ho3.227062@sccrnsc03...
> >>
> >> Yet another reason that business is leaving America - increasingly
> >> stringent enviromental regulations, increasinly complex goverment
> >> regulations, increasingly excessive taxes; when the business leaves,
> >those
> >> jobs are gone...forever.
> >>
> >
> >You should stop listening to so much talk radio.
> >
>
> Actually, I believe I heard that Boeing wings (model(s)?) are
> currently manufactured in Japan, and Boeing plans to outsource wings
> and other parts for future models abroad. The reduced labor cost in
> foreign countries probably more than cover shipping costs. How else
> do you explain the recent jump in manufacturing, and continued
> increase in unemployment?
>
>
This guy (Mike) accuses me of listening to too much talk radio, but he
sounds just like Rush Limbaugh. I wonder if Rush slipped him a few
narcs......

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 04:53:46 GMT, "Ralph Snart"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:06:23 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> et>:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ralph Snart" > wrote in message
>> >news:9TFkb.825533$Ho3.227062@sccrnsc03...
>> >>
>> >> Yet another reason that business is leaving America - increasingly
>> >> stringent enviromental regulations, increasinly complex goverment
>> >> regulations, increasingly excessive taxes; when the business leaves,
>> >those
>> >> jobs are gone...forever.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You should stop listening to so much talk radio.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, I believe I heard that Boeing wings (model(s)?) are
>> currently manufactured in Japan, and Boeing plans to outsource wings
>> and other parts for future models abroad. The reduced labor cost in
>> foreign countries probably more than cover shipping costs. How else
>> do you explain the recent jump in manufacturing, and continued
>> increase in unemployment?
>>
>>
> This guy (Mike) accuses me of listening to too much talk radio, but he
>sounds just like Rush Limbaugh. I wonder if Rush slipped him a few
>narcs......
>

I know Mr. Rapoport to be reasonable, knowledgeable, and business
savvy. Let's give him an opportunity to reveal his rationale before
passing judgement.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Mike Rapoport]

Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:06:23 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> et>:
>
> >
> >"Ralph Snart" > wrote in message
> >news:9TFkb.825533$Ho3.227062@sccrnsc03...
> >>
> >> Yet another reason that business is leaving America - increasingly
> >> stringent enviromental regulations, increasinly complex goverment
> >> regulations, increasingly excessive taxes; when the business leaves,
> >those
> >> jobs are gone...forever.
> >>
> >
> >You should stop listening to so much talk radio.
> >
>
> Actually, I believe I heard that Boeing wings (model(s)?) are
> currently manufactured in Japan, and Boeing plans to outsource wings
> and other parts for future models abroad. The reduced labor cost in
> foreign countries probably more than cover shipping costs. How else
> do you explain the recent jump in manufacturing, and continued
> increase in unemployment?
>
>
> --
>
> Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> -- Larry Dighera,

[Mike Rapoport]

It is (almost) all about labor cost. Basically, if someone else has your
job skills and is willing to do your job for 20% of what you are being paid,
then they will have your job soon. No amount of moaning, howling or finger
pointing is going to change that. Not losing ones job to a foreign worker
has nothing to do with luck, it has to do with having skills that are not
easily replicated or having a job that is not easily portable.

Mike
MU-2


"Ralph Snart" > wrote in message
news:hRJkb.594949$Oz4.587734@rwcrnsc54...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Ralph Snart" > wrote in message
> > news:9TFkb.825533$Ho3.227062@sccrnsc03...
> > >
> > > Yet another reason that business is leaving America - increasingly
> > > stringent enviromental regulations, increasinly complex goverment
> > > regulations, increasingly excessive taxes; when the business leaves,
> > those
> > > jobs are gone...forever.
> > >
> >
> > You should stop listening to so much talk radio.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
> Just what did I state that is incorrect?
>
> BTW, has NAFTA, GATT and other 'free trade' laws cause you to lose
> your job? If not, you one of the lucky ones. Speak to the many from HP,
> SISCO, Nike, Microsoft, Levi Strauss, etc whose jobs are now overseas.
They
> would say that YOU need to listen to talk radio.
>
>

[Tom S.]

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

[Tom S.]

ADDENDUM/CORRECTION

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > 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
>
....of which a huge portion is higher labor costs. Try competing with that
hanging over your economy.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:52:05 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>
>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.

Try breathing the thickly smog polluted air in Mexico City, where
automobile exhaust emission controls are nonexistent. The choice is
yours: environmental responsibility or early respiratory related
death.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=10260
http://www.mexicoautotravel.com/articles/mexcity.asp
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9805/29/mexico.fires/
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Mike Rapoport]

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.

Mike
MU-2


"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > 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.
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:52:05 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote
> in Message-Id: >:
>
> >
> >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.
>
> Try breathing the thickly smog polluted air in Mexico City, where
> automobile exhaust emission controls are nonexistent. The choice is
> yours: environmental responsibility or early respiratory related
> death.
>

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

Mike
MU-2


>
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=10260
> http://www.mexicoautotravel.com/articles/mexcity.asp
> http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9805/29/mexico.fires/
> --
>
> Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> -- Larry Dighera,

[Big John]

Jess

There have been many articles and discussions over the years about
Boeing going off shore to have their wings manufactured.

Feeling was that their (Boeing aircraft) performance parameters were
tied to the wing and the millions of dollars and hours spent designing
same could be lost (to the competition) if they were to be
manufactured overseas (out of house).

Will see if they send their advanced wings overseas.

Big John


On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:22:32 -0400, Jessica Gallagher
> wrote:

>David H wrote:
>
>> Personally, I believe they will commit to the 7E7, but it's anybody's guess
>> as to where they will build it. The company's leaders seems to take great
>> pleasure in bashing the Seattle area every chance they get, and if I had to
>> bet my lunch money on it, I probably wouldn't put my chips on the hometown,
>> even though that seems to make the most sense to me.
>
>The local government figures have been attacking Boeing for years, and squeezing
>them hard for every drop and cent every time Boeing wanted to do anything. They
>certainly should not be the least bit surprised if Boeing decides it wants to do
>major manufacturing elsewhere, in more hospitable territory. It also would not
>be shocking to see the wings manufactured in Japan, where many orders may come
>from. Moving the hq out of Washington should have been a huge wake up signal.

[Tom S.]

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

(Logic fallacy: False Alternative)

When you get past the notion that it's "either/or" (regs or pollution) we
can discuss them.

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> >
> > >
> > >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.
> >
> > Try breathing the thickly smog polluted air in Mexico City, where
> > automobile exhaust emission controls are nonexistent. The choice is
> > yours: environmental responsibility or early respiratory related
> > death.
> >
>
> Which, I might add, is a cost to society.
>

So you both consider the only alternatives to be A) $300 billion worth of
often contradictory regulations, or B) massive pollution?? Hmmmm...!!??

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > Try breathing the thickly smog polluted air in Mexico City, where
> > > automobile exhaust emission controls are nonexistent. The choice is
> > > yours: environmental responsibility or early respiratory related
> > > death.
> > >
> >
> > Which, I might add, is a cost to society.
> >
>
> So you both consider the only alternatives to be A) $300 billion worth of
> often contradictory regulations, or B) massive pollution?? Hmmmm...!!??
>

No, what I said is that enviornmental regulation is not a major cause of
jobs moving offshore. You have to realize that most of your $300B figure is
going to reduce pollution and that is reducing cost somewhere else.

Mike
MU-2

[Peter Duniho]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
> So you both consider the only alternatives to be A) $300 billion worth of
> often contradictory regulations, or B) massive pollution?? Hmmmm...!!??

You are mixing your complaints. The amount is only 3% of the GDP which,
frankly, seems like a perfectly reasonable cost to avoid long-term pollution
problems.

As for the accusation of the regulations being "contradictory", are you or
are you not familiar with the FARs? Governments have a problem making 100%
sensible regulations, and yet things work pretty well anyway. The fact that
the regulations aren't perfect doesn't mean that they should simply be
abandoned.

I choose A). Thanks for asking.

Pete

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So you both consider the only alternatives to be A) $300 billion worth
of
> > often contradictory regulations, or B) massive pollution?? Hmmmm...!!??
> >
>
> No, what I said is that enviornmental regulation is not a major cause of
> jobs moving offshore.

It's may not be THE FIRST cause, but it is one of MANY.

> You have to realize that most of your $300B figure is
> going to reduce pollution and that is reducing cost somewhere else.

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 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).

Wanna guess WHY they were exempt? (Hint: it's easier to BS 50 legislators,
than 1 million consumers).

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tom S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > So you both consider the only alternatives to be A) $300 billion worth
> of
> > > often contradictory regulations, or B) massive pollution??
Hmmmm...!!??
> > >
> >
> > No, what I said is that enviornmental regulation is not a major cause of
> > jobs moving offshore.
>
> It's may not be THE FIRST cause, but it is one of MANY.
>
> > You have to realize that most of your $300B figure is
> > going to reduce pollution and that is reducing cost somewhere else.
>
> 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.

> 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. 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.

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.

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

Mike
MU-2

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:33:38 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Tom S." > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > So you both consider the only alternatives to be A) $300 billion worth
>> of
>> > > often contradictory regulations, or B) massive pollution??
>Hmmmm...!!??
>> > >
>> >
>> > No, what I said is that enviornmental regulation is not a major cause of
>> > jobs moving offshore.
>>
>> It's may not be THE FIRST cause, but it is one of MANY.
>>
>> > You have to realize that most of your $300B figure is
>> > going to reduce pollution and that is reducing cost somewhere else.
>>
>> 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.

Environmental issues are a reality that is going to steadily grow more
prominent as the world continues to become more industrialized, and
world population continues its exponential growth rate. To expect
anything else is delusion.

The most equitable method I am capable of imagining to generate the
revenue to fund environmental waste processing would be a system
modeled on the tax on aviation fuels; s/he who consumes, pays to
clean-up after her/himself. What could be more equitable? Each
consumer pays for environmental health in proportion to that which
s/he consumes.

Such a tax affects all players in a given industry, and would permit
them to continue competing at virtually the same relative national
positions they are today. But there will be resistance to increased
retail prices by those who figure they'll be long-gone before the
environment becomes as bad as that portrayed in Soylent Green*. And
if only the US and/or EU were to process their waste, not only would
their labor be uncompetitive on the world market as it is today, but
their goods would necessarily be priced even higher than the same
product made in polluting nations. It would seem fitting for the
world's largest polluter to lead the way toward proactive
environmental responsibility, and provide the technology to eventually
work toward more closed systems.

>> 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.

If you are talking worldwide, I would guess automobile pollution to be
a result of the resistance to increased cost necessary to prevent it
not being mandated by the sovereigns upon whose soil automobiles
operate.

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

Your logic (in your example below re: hiring software engineers) seems
reasonable to me on that issue.

>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.
>
>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.
>
>BTW There have recently been articles in the Indian press bemoaning the loss
>of manufacturing jobs to Vietnam!
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>

Grocery store checkers are on strike in SoCal due to management
cutting their health benefits. Jobs such as these, that have been
largely automated by new technology, are destined to disappear at some
point in the future. What do you foresee as the road to employment
for displaced workers such as these, former Boeing workers, etc. in
the future western world? It's going to be necessary for them to find
new skill sets that don't exist elsewhere at lower rates, I suppose.



* http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/usercomments

--

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

[Mike Rapoport]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Grocery store checkers are on strike in SoCal due to management
> cutting their health benefits. Jobs such as these, that have been
> largely automated by new technology, are destined to disappear at some
> point in the future. What do you foresee as the road to employment
> for displaced workers such as these, former Boeing workers, etc. in
> the future western world? It's going to be necessary for them to find
> new skill sets that don't exist elsewhere at lower rates, I suppose.
>
>
>
> * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/usercomments
>
> --
>
> "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.

Mike
MU-2.

[JohnMcGrew]

In article et>, "Mike
Rapoport" > writes:

>You should stop listening to so much talk radio.

You don't need to listen to "talk radio" to see it happen. I've lived it. I
fled California a few years ago, and they still haven't figured out why.

John

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, Larry Dighera
> writes:

>Boeing wings (model(s)?) are
>currently manufactured in Japan, and Boeing plans to outsource wings
>and other parts for future models abroad. The reduced labor cost in
>foreign countries probably more than cover shipping costs.

It also encourages the airlines in those countries to buy Boeing.

John

[JohnMcGrew]

In article et>, "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

[[email protected]]

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 >

[Les Gawlik]

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 et>, "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

[Tom S.]

"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.

[Tom S.]

"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.

[Bob Noel]

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

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Tom S." > writes:

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

[Jon Woellhaf]

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
> > ink.net...
> > > 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/>

[Mike Rapoport]

"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

>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jon Woellhaf" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom S." > writes:
> >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > 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/>

[JohnMcGrew]

In article et>, "Mike
Rapoport" > writes:

>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.

You're answering your own questions. You right; it isn't just environmental
overregulation. It's taxes too. (especially double taxation)

John

[Mike Rapoport]

"JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>, "Mike
> Rapoport" > writes:
>
> >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.
>
> You're answering your own questions. You right; it isn't just
environmental
> overregulation. It's taxes too. (especially double taxation)
>
> John

The wage difference between the US and many other countries is so high that
it wouldn't matter if US taxes and regualtions were zero.

Mike
MU-2

[JohnMcGrew]

In article t>, "Mike
Rapoport" > writes:

>The wage difference between the US and many other countries is so high that
>it wouldn't matter if US taxes and regualtions were zero.

True. But taxes and regulations are the factors of the cost of production that
can be changed by fiat. Workers expecation of what they should be able to make
cannot.

John

[Tom S.]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." > writes:
>
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > 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.

If you want 99.9999% clean water at $300B instead of 99.999% clean for
$300M, then buy your won with YOUR OWN money.

(Where does everyone come up with the logic error of "False
Alternatives"???)
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm

[Tom S.]

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
news:lLzlb.855556$uu5.153335@sccrnsc04...
> I think the problem is that some very influential people believe that only
> cleanroom pure air and reagent grade water is acceptable.
>

Because they don't have to pay the bill themselves, or they are bureaucrats
who achieve more power/funding/influence by pushing the impossible via
hysterics and crisis-mongering.

[Tom S.]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Jon Woellhaf" > writes:
>
> 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.

Problem is, as you stated, all than and you STILL have pollution. I'll bet
your emmissions examinations exempt the worst sources (they do here in
Arizona). Thing is, it's easier to BS a few bureaucrats than a couple
million free-market consumers.

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "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
Here's a couple in just one issue (though others are spread around in other
issues).

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv14n4/reg14n4.html

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> >
> > You're answering your own questions. You right; it isn't just
> environmental
> > overregulation. It's taxes too. (especially double taxation)
> >
> > John
>
> The wage difference between the US and many other countries is so high
that
> it wouldn't matter if US taxes and regualtions were zero.

Do YOU have a "credible source" for that claim?


(Why do you think US wages ARE so high..especially for virtually unskilled
and mostly semi-skilled labor?)

[Tom S.]

"JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>, "Mike
> Rapoport" > writes:
>
> >The wage difference between the US and many other countries is so high
that
> >it wouldn't matter if US taxes and regualtions were zero.
>
> True.

False! (or argueable).

> But taxes and regulations are the factors of the cost of production that
> can be changed by fiat.
True.

>Workers expecation of what they should be able to make
> cannot.

False!

[Mike Rapoport]

If you look at another issue of the same publication:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv14n3/reg14n3-currents.html#niskanen

You will see that there are a range of estimates on the cost of regulation
from $44B to $182B (1988 dollars) and most of these regulations have an
offsetting benefit to somebody. When the coal fired powerplant is required
to install pollution control equipment that is revenue to the supplier of
the equipment, their suppliers employment for their workers ect.
Additionally these costs must be netted out against the benefits. The
bottom line is that the cost of regulation to society is nowhere near $800B.

Mike
MU-2


"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "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
> Here's a couple in just one issue (though others are spread around in
other
> issues).
>
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv14n4/reg14n4.html
>
>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Tom S." > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom S." > writes:
> >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > 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.
>
> If you want 99.9999% clean water at $300B instead of 99.999% clean for
> $300M, then buy your won with YOUR OWN money.
>
> (Where does everyone come up with the logic error of "False
> Alternatives"???)

You're in an excellent position to investigate that question by
introspection -- because you are doing just that; you're pretending no
positions are possible except "unlimited pollution" and
"laboratory-grade water in every river". Whereas in the real world
*nobody* argues for *either* of those positions.
--
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/>

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, "Tom S." >
writes:

>False!

Oh? At this moment I'm in LA where the mechanics for public transit are on
strike. Seems that the union bosses ****ed away their pension money and they
want the taxpayers to bail them out. In the meantime, they're making (on
average) over $50k, have full health, and get to retire with full pension after
23 years. Not bad for a job that requires little more than a high school
education. If I hadn't listened to may parents and gone to college, I could
have been retired by now, or on to a 2nd career.

The grocery workers are also on strike. They are upset that they will no
longer get all their health care paid for. (most of those jobs don't even
require a high-school degree)

And you're wondering why jobs are going overseas?

John

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> If you look at another issue of the same publication:
>
>
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv14n3/reg14n3-currents.html#niskanen
>
> You will see that there are a range of estimates on the cost of regulation
> from $44B to $182B (1988 dollars) and most of these regulations have an
> offsetting benefit to somebody. When the coal fired powerplant is
required
> to install pollution control equipment that is revenue to the supplier of
> the equipment, their suppliers employment for their workers ect.

That part was put in in jest; it's known as the "fallacy of the broken
windows".

Also, read the next paragraph:

"Most readers of Regulation will probably conclude that the authors of this
new study have grossly underestimated the costs of regulation. This study,
however merits the attention of the Regulation audience, both for its
contributions and its limitations. This note summarizes the approach,
conclusions, and limitations of this important new study. Those who wish to
pursue this issue further should read the original article. "

> Additionally these costs must be netted out against the benefits. The
> bottom line is that the cost of regulation to society is nowhere near
$800B.

For one thing, you're quoting a 1991 article; in the intervening years
(particularly the 90's), the amount of regulation has SKYROCKETED.

Further, regulation costs are hidden like high teaxes are hidden by
withholding from your paycheck.



>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "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
> > Here's a couple in just one issue (though others are spread around in
> other
> > issues).
> >
> > http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv14n4/reg14n4.html
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom S.]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." > writes:
>
> > "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tom S." > writes:
> > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > If you want 99.9999% clean water at $300B instead of 99.999% clean for
> > $300M, then buy your won with YOUR OWN money.
> >
> > (Where does everyone come up with the logic error of "False
> > Alternatives"???)
>
> You're in an excellent position to investigate that question by
> introspection -- because you are doing just that; you're pretending no
> positions are possible except "unlimited pollution" and
> "laboratory-grade water in every river".

Actually, it's called "hyperbole" and 'reductio absurdum', but them you've
already drawn you conclusion

> Whereas in the real world
> *nobody* argues for *either* of those positions.

Really? You should take a look into who are the most influential "spokesmen"
from the environnuts.

at the very start.

[Tom S.]

"JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Tom S."
>
> writes:
>
> >False!
>
> Oh? At this moment I'm in LA where the mechanics for public transit are
on
> strike. Seems that the union bosses ****ed away their pension money and
they
> want the taxpayers to bail them out. In the meantime, they're making (on
> average) over $50k, have full health, and get to retire with full pension
after
> 23 years. Not bad for a job that requires little more than a high school
> education. If I hadn't listened to may parents and gone to college, I
could
> have been retired by now, or on to a 2nd career.
>
> The grocery workers are also on strike. They are upset that they will no
> longer get all their health care paid for. (most of those jobs don't even
> require a high-school degree)
>
> And you're wondering why jobs are going overseas?

I'm not wondering at all. (You need to be more careful snipping the post
you're responding to).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Tom S." > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom S." > writes:
> >
> > > "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Tom S." > writes:
> > > >
> > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > If you want 99.9999% clean water at $300B instead of 99.999% clean for
> > > $300M, then buy your won with YOUR OWN money.
> > >
> > > (Where does everyone come up with the logic error of "False
> > > Alternatives"???)
> >
> > You're in an excellent position to investigate that question by
> > introspection -- because you are doing just that; you're pretending no
> > positions are possible except "unlimited pollution" and
> > "laboratory-grade water in every river".
>
> Actually, it's called "hyperbole" and 'reductio absurdum', but them you've
> already drawn you conclusion
>
> > Whereas in the real world
> > *nobody* argues for *either* of those positions.
>
> Really? You should take a look into who are the most influential "spokesmen"
> from the environnuts.
>
> at the very start.

Lunatic-fringe groups like Earth First that really do feel that
preserving Earth in pristine form (not just inhabitable to people) is
the most important things are *not* the most influential spokesmen for
the environmentalists. As you yourself are demonstrating :-). Hmm;
well, they don't influence people *to adopt environmentally-friendly
positions, anyway!
--
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.]

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

>
> Lunatic-fringe groups like Earth First that really do feel that
> preserving Earth in pristine form (not just inhabitable to people) is
> the most important things are *not* the most influential spokesmen for
> the environmentalists.

Oh Yes they are. They and Greenpeace have MUCH more time testifying in front
of Congress and in front of the mainstream media cameras.

Did you happen to catch that guy (can't think of his name) that used to be a
Director with Greenpeace that just wrote a book of what they've turned into
during the past ten years?

BTW...speaking of environut influence, two words - Al Gore

> As you yourself are demonstrating :-). Hmm;
> well, they don't influence people *to adopt environmentally-friendly
> positions, anyway!

No, they FORCE them...which is why they are aptly termed "EnviroNazis".

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Tom S." wrote:
>
> No, they FORCE them...which is why they are aptly termed "EnviroNazis".

Yep. Talk to some of the people who bought retirement property in areas that
then got turned into National Parks and Forests. Who weren't even allowed to
testify to the decision committees while the Manhattan econazi groups from
2,000 miles away were given the spotlight.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, "Tom S." >
writes:

>Oh Yes they are. They and Greenpeace have MUCH more time testifying in front
>of Congress and in front of the mainstream media cameras.

You can also expect them to keep their profile low while the fires in
California are buring.
about the Sierra Club director who clear-cut his land in eastern Washington?

John

[Tom S.]

"JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Tom S."
>
> writes:
>
> >Oh Yes they are. They and Greenpeace have MUCH more time testifying in
front
> >of Congress and in front of the mainstream media cameras.
>
> You can also expect them to keep their profile low while the fires in
> California are buring.
> about the Sierra Club director who clear-cut his land in eastern
Washington?
>
This just in:

"But the Senate compromise is opposed by environmental groups as well as the
powerful chairman of the House Resources Committee. So wildfire-reduction
legislation remains stalled more than a year after President Bush called for
it."

Tue, Oct. 28, 2003

Fires might break deadlock over effort to thin forests
FEINSTEIN URGES SENATE TO PASS COMPROMISE, REDUCE RISKS
By Jim Puzzanghera
Mercury News Washington Bureau

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7121359.htm

[Jamie Rogers]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
> enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

Are you sure about that Mike? Japan has some of the highest labor costs in the
world, and has been busy outsourcing manufacturing and labor intensive jobs
overseas. However its labor force IS highly skilled on average. Japan also
has some of the world's most stringent environmental regulations too, in many
cases more so than the USA.

[Tom S.]

"Jamie Rogers" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> > Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
> > enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.
>
> Are you sure about that Mike? Japan has some of the highest labor costs
in the
> world, and has been busy outsourcing manufacturing and labor intensive
jobs
> overseas. However its labor force IS highly skilled on average. Japan
also
> has some of the world's most stringent environmental regulations too, in
many
> cases more so than the USA.

Then why are THEY backing out of the Kyoto agreements?

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, Jamie Rogers
> writes:

>Are you sure about that Mike? Japan has some of the highest labor costs in
>the
>world, and has been busy outsourcing manufacturing and labor intensive jobs
>overseas. However its labor force IS highly skilled on average. Japan also
>has some of the world's most stringent environmental regulations too, in many
>cases more so than the USA.

They outsource to Japan in exchange for orders from Japanese airlines.

John