Debate Now The Question: Too Much Federal Interference with Commerce and Industry?

[gallantwarrior]

For one issue, there is the minimum wage. Many believe it is a good thing to pay people more for ethical and practical reasons. Others believe it is creating a serious disadvantage for the mom and pop stores and is a factor that is shutting many youth, especially black youth, out of the labor market altogether.

I tend to think left alone, people will pay what they have to pay to get people to work for them. And the greater good is to achieve full employment so busineses will have to pay better to get good people to work for them.

There is no advantage in having laws that force employers to hire more part time or temporary workers, reduce other benefits, or scale back their business or close their business because they can't afford to meet federal mandates.

Observations about minimum wage: 1) such a minimum wage should not be mandated by government. Wages should be negotiated between employer and employee, and employees with lesser skills should not expect to be paid higher wages. If an employee wants more pay, they should work to improve their skill sets in order to offer an employer a more lucrative "product". 2) Employees should consider their earning potential prior to establishing a situation which would require them to either earn more or budget better. 3) Mandating a minimum wage locks out many low- or unskilled workers who could use such employment to establish themselves in the workforce, allowing them to demonstrate their ability to show up on time and perform their job to at least some minimum standard.
If employers wish to attract more skilled labor, or people with better, more developed work ethics, they would find offering better wages more conducive to developing the type of work force they desire.

While I don't disagree G.W., now is the 64 dollar question: WHY? What makes leaving the wages to the employers to decide better than having the federal government mandate that?

Employers have a vested interest in both establishing a skilled workforce and hiring people would tend to increase the quality of the product/service they provide. The federal government is welcome to establish minimum wages for those jobs they offer. Otherwise, the federal government has a vested interest in increasing their tax base at the expense of the consumer. Most business owners will no doubt pass increased wages to their customers.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

You are obviously not an owner of livestock or make a living raising said animals. I shoot any predator that kills my animals. Have you ever considered the terror experienced by a sheep or cow when they are attacked and killed by a predator or feral dog? Oft times, such predators will begin devouring their prey before it is dead, lots of them attack pregnant animals and drag the unborn young from their womb prior to eating it.

Here is one of those mandates that requires commerce and industry, farms/ranches and everybody else, to adapt their practices and property to accommodate endangered species as defined by the EPA. I really can appreciate the rules such as making it illegal to shoot bald eagles or whooping cranes for sport.

It is undeniable that reintroduction of the gray wolf into the wilds of Yellowstone has netted great benefits for all the wildlife, for the vegetation, and even for the waterways. Yellowstone needed that wolf to thrive in important ways.

Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into the more populated areas of southern New Mexico has not been a happy experience. The human population was nicely regulating the deer and elk population and keeping it at a non destructive population level pleasing for aesthetic purposes and sufficient to supply meat for those who wanted or needed it and for sport. But the depleted deer and elk population didn't furnish easy prey for the wolves who were soon invading towns, raiding garbage cans, and going after chickens or pets or baby calves or lambs--anything they could kill with their limited skills.

And as GW said, those calves and lambs and chickens generally represented the livelihood of the people who were raising them. So they shot the wolves as they felt they had to, toss the tracking collars on the tops of semi trailers passing through. Whatever they felt they had to do for their own survival.

And elsewhere--and this still turns my stomach to think about it--the environmentalists were capturing and severely injuring deer and elk and turning them loose in hopes that the starving wolves would be able to catch and bring them down.

There is nobody on the planet probably who is more even militantly passionate about our wonderful planet and the wonderful plants and creatures on it and all its aesthetic beauty as I am. I get white hot with anger when people intentionally or carelessly harm that. But there are many ways to look at these thngs. And one-size-fits all federal mandates are certainly not the answer for all. Maybe for even most.

 

[Foxfyre]

For one issue, there is the minimum wage. Many believe it is a good thing to pay people more for ethical and practical reasons. Others believe it is creating a serious disadvantage for the mom and pop stores and is a factor that is shutting many youth, especially black youth, out of the labor market altogether.

I tend to think left alone, people will pay what they have to pay to get people to work for them. And the greater good is to achieve full employment so busineses will have to pay better to get good people to work for them.

There is no advantage in having laws that force employers to hire more part time or temporary workers, reduce other benefits, or scale back their business or close their business because they can't afford to meet federal mandates.

Observations about minimum wage: 1) such a minimum wage should not be mandated by government. Wages should be negotiated between employer and employee, and employees with lesser skills should not expect to be paid higher wages. If an employee wants more pay, they should work to improve their skill sets in order to offer an employer a more lucrative "product". 2) Employees should consider their earning potential prior to establishing a situation which would require them to either earn more or budget better. 3) Mandating a minimum wage locks out many low- or unskilled workers who could use such employment to establish themselves in the workforce, allowing them to demonstrate their ability to show up on time and perform their job to at least some minimum standard.
If employers wish to attract more skilled labor, or people with better, more developed work ethics, they would find offering better wages more conducive to developing the type of work force they desire.

While I don't disagree G.W., now is the 64 dollar question: WHY? What makes leaving the wages to the employers to decide better than having the federal government mandate that?

Employers have a vested interest in both establishing a skilled workforce and hiring people would tend to increase the quality of the product/service they provide. The federal government is welcome to establish minimum wages for those jobs they offer. Otherwise, the federal government has a vested interest in increasing their tax base at the expense of the consumer. Most business owners will no doubt pass increased wages to their customers.

I agree. Employers will pay what they have to pay to get the people who will profit those employers the most. And in times of full employment, they may have to pay a LOT to get the people they need as they will be competing with others for those same people. When people have to compete for jobs, wages will be low. When employers have to compete for employees, wages will be much higher.

A business climate that encourages commerce and industry to thrive is what the federal government should be focused on, and not in micromanaging a bunch of mandates that may or may not benefit anybody.

 

[Coyote]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

That is a valid argument. But on what criteria do you judge that people in the federal government will care more about wildlife, wildlands, beaches, wolves than will those in state and local governments? While I am not opposed to having national parks--WITH the consent of the people in the states where they reside and those who will be required to pay for them--I just don't see more nobility in an authoritarian federal government than would exist in a state government trying to do its best for the people that formed it.

The federal government is answerable to all of us, the state is not. A state could decide that it would prefer the economic benefits of developing or logging huge tracts of Yellowstone (an extreme example, but it makes the point) and preserving only a tiny bit because the people of that state would rather have the economic boost of development and no one else would have a say in it. People could withdraw their consent at any time making the preservation of those lands unstable and once their gone, you can't always bring them back. It's not a matter of "nobility" but accountability to more than just a small segment of Americans.

 

[Coyote]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

You are obviously not an owner of livestock or make a living raising said animals. I shoot any predator that kills my animals. Have you ever considered the terror experienced by a sheep or cow when they are attacked and killed by a predator or feral dog? Oft times, such predators will begin devouring their prey before it is dead, lots of them attack pregnant animals and drag the unborn young from their womb prior to eating it.

Don't make any assumptions about me. As a stockman, you have a right to shoot predators that are attacking your stock. I live in a rural area and accept that reality. But off your land it's a different story. Sure, they are terrified. But it's also the harsh reality of the natural world. It ain't Disney. And the trip to the stockyards, the crowding, the downers, the killing - that's pretty terrifying to an animal too.

But when we start removing predators form the natural world - we put everything off balance. They have a right to exist in the world too.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

You are obviously not an owner of livestock or make a living raising said animals. I shoot any predator that kills my animals. Have you ever considered the terror experienced by a sheep or cow when they are attacked and killed by a predator or feral dog? Oft times, such predators will begin devouring their prey before it is dead, lots of them attack pregnant animals and drag the unborn young from their womb prior to eating it.

Here is one of those mandates that requires commerce and industry, farms/ranches and everybody else, to adapt their practices and property to accommodate endangered species as defined by the EPA. I really can appreciate the rules such as making it illegal to shoot bald eagles or whooping cranes for sport.

It is undeniable that reintroduction of the gray wolf into the wilds of Yellowstone has netted great benefits for all the wildlife, for the vegetation, and even for the waterways. Yellowstone needed that wolf to thrive in important ways.

Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into the more populated areas of southern New Mexico has not been a happy experience. The human population was nicely regulating the deer and elk population and keeping it at a non destructive population level pleasing for aesthetic purposes and sufficient to supply meat for those who wanted or needed it and for sport. But the depleted deer and elk population didn't furnish easy prey for the wolves who were soon invading towns, raiding garbage cans, and going after chickens or pets or baby calves or lambs--anything they could kill with their limited skills.

And as GW said, those calves and lambs and chickens generally represented the livelihood of the people who were raising them. So they shot the wolves as they felt they had to, toss the tracking collars on the tops of semi trailers passing through. Whatever they felt they had to do for their own survival.

And elsewhere--and this still turns my stomach to think about it--the environmentalists were capturing and severely injuring deer and elk and turning them loose in hopes that the starving wolves would be able to catch and bring them down.

There is nobody on the planet probably who is more even militantly passionate about our wonderful planet and the wonderful plants and creatures on it and all its aesthetic beauty as I am. I get white hot with anger when people intentionally or carelessly harm that. But there are many ways to look at these thngs. And one-size-fits all federal mandates are certainly not the answer for all. Maybe for even most.

I have always found the denial of the human role in the natural order of things repugnant. We are, by nature, predators who consume other animals. Unfortunately, our role in that order has been subverted and hunting (harvesting) certain animals has become anathema for some social factions. As apex predators, we are in direct competition with other predators. At best, we recognize those predators and set aside some numbers of prey for their consumption, as well. But there is a definite correlation between prey-predator species numbers. We cannot, nor should we, deny our participation in the natural course of that cycle.
There is a deep schism between "conservationists" and "preservationists".

 

[gallantwarrior]

For one issue, there is the minimum wage. Many believe it is a good thing to pay people more for ethical and practical reasons. Others believe it is creating a serious disadvantage for the mom and pop stores and is a factor that is shutting many youth, especially black youth, out of the labor market altogether.

I tend to think left alone, people will pay what they have to pay to get people to work for them. And the greater good is to achieve full employment so busineses will have to pay better to get good people to work for them.

There is no advantage in having laws that force employers to hire more part time or temporary workers, reduce other benefits, or scale back their business or close their business because they can't afford to meet federal mandates.

Observations about minimum wage: 1) such a minimum wage should not be mandated by government. Wages should be negotiated between employer and employee, and employees with lesser skills should not expect to be paid higher wages. If an employee wants more pay, they should work to improve their skill sets in order to offer an employer a more lucrative "product". 2) Employees should consider their earning potential prior to establishing a situation which would require them to either earn more or budget better. 3) Mandating a minimum wage locks out many low- or unskilled workers who could use such employment to establish themselves in the workforce, allowing them to demonstrate their ability to show up on time and perform their job to at least some minimum standard.
If employers wish to attract more skilled labor, or people with better, more developed work ethics, they would find offering better wages more conducive to developing the type of work force they desire.

While I don't disagree G.W., now is the 64 dollar question: WHY? What makes leaving the wages to the employers to decide better than having the federal government mandate that?

Employers have a vested interest in both establishing a skilled workforce and hiring people would tend to increase the quality of the product/service they provide. The federal government is welcome to establish minimum wages for those jobs they offer. Otherwise, the federal government has a vested interest in increasing their tax base at the expense of the consumer. Most business owners will no doubt pass increased wages to their customers.

I agree. Employers will pay what they have to pay to get the people who will profit those employers the most. And in times of full employment, they may have to pay a LOT to get the people they need as they will be competing with others for those same people. When people have to compete for jobs, wages will be low. When employers have to compete for employees, wages will be much higher.

A business climate that encourages commerce and industry to thrive is what the federal government should be focused on, and not in micromanaging a bunch of mandates that may or may not benefit anybody.

And yet, it is government that has been instrumental in driving so much of our commerce offshore.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

You are obviously not an owner of livestock or make a living raising said animals. I shoot any predator that kills my animals. Have you ever considered the terror experienced by a sheep or cow when they are attacked and killed by a predator or feral dog? Oft times, such predators will begin devouring their prey before it is dead, lots of them attack pregnant animals and drag the unborn young from their womb prior to eating it.

Don't make any assumptions about me. As a stockman, you have a right to shoot predators that are attacking your stock. I live in a rural area and accept that reality. But off your land it's a different story. Sure, they are terrified. But it's also the harsh reality of the natural world. It ain't Disney. And the trip to the stockyards, the crowding, the downers, the killing - that's pretty terrifying to an animal too.

But when we start removing predators form the natural world - we put everything off balance. They have a right to exist in the world too.

I believe you and I are not that deeply divided. Nature is a BITCH!. Truthfully, I have not yet had to kill any natural predators, but I have had to deal with feral animals and animals left uncontrolled by their owners. But we do have to accept the fact that we are also predators and we must consider that fact when we "balance" the "natural" world. Humankind is as natural as wolves or bears.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

That is a valid argument. But on what criteria do you judge that people in the federal government will care more about wildlife, wildlands, beaches, wolves than will those in state and local governments? While I am not opposed to having national parks--WITH the consent of the people in the states where they reside and those who will be required to pay for them--I just don't see more nobility in an authoritarian federal government than would exist in a state government trying to do its best for the people that formed it.

The federal government is answerable to all of us, the state is not. A state could decide that it would prefer the economic benefits of developing or logging huge tracts of Yellowstone (an extreme example, but it makes the point) and preserving only a tiny bit because the people of that state would rather have the economic boost of development and no one else would have a say in it. People could withdraw their consent at any time making the preservation of those lands unstable and once their gone, you can't always bring them back. It's not a matter of "nobility" but accountability to more than just a small segment of Americans.

Is it? Is the federal government answerable to all of us?

 

[Coyote]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

You are obviously not an owner of livestock or make a living raising said animals. I shoot any predator that kills my animals. Have you ever considered the terror experienced by a sheep or cow when they are attacked and killed by a predator or feral dog? Oft times, such predators will begin devouring their prey before it is dead, lots of them attack pregnant animals and drag the unborn young from their womb prior to eating it.

Here is one of those mandates that requires commerce and industry, farms/ranches and everybody else, to adapt their practices and property to accommodate endangered species as defined by the EPA. I really can appreciate the rules such as making it illegal to shoot bald eagles or whooping cranes for sport.

It is undeniable that reintroduction of the gray wolf into the wilds of Yellowstone has netted great benefits for all the wildlife, for the vegetation, and even for the waterways. Yellowstone needed that wolf to thrive in important ways.

Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into the more populated areas of southern New Mexico has not been a happy experience. The human population was nicely regulating the deer and elk population and keeping it at a non destructive population level pleasing for aesthetic purposes and sufficient to supply meat for those who wanted or needed it and for sport. But the depleted deer and elk population didn't furnish easy prey for the wolves who were soon invading towns, raiding garbage cans, and going after chickens or pets or baby calves or lambs--anything they could kill with their limited skills.

It's tricky. And here, yes...the human population through recreational hunting can "regulate" deer - but to use that as an excuse to deny the re-introduction of native species into the historic ranges is exactly why I think that Federal Government oversite is needed rather than the State. I'm not anti-hunting. I have a freezer full of bambi burger every year. Hunting is needed to balance the deer population and it satisfies an important human outlet when done responsibly. People might need to adjust hunting limits to allow for the existance of the wolf and, wolf populations might need to be controlled but it should be done based on science, not special interest groups which have a greater influence on state politics than federal.

And as GW said, those calves and lambs and chickens generally represented the livelihood of the people who were raising them. So they shot the wolves as they felt they had to, toss the tracking collars on the tops of semi trailers passing through. Whatever they felt they had to do for their own survival.

Based on reality? Actual data? Or hype? Wolves traditional and still got blamed for a lot of things they never did.

And elsewhere--and this still turns my stomach to think about it--the environmentalists were capturing and severely injuring deer and elk and turning them loose in hopes that the starving wolves would be able to catch and bring them down.

There is nobody on the planet probably who is more even militantly passionate about our wonderful planet and the wonderful plants and creatures on it and all its aesthetic beauty as I am. I get white hot with anger when people intentionally or carelessly harm that. But there are many ways to look at these thngs. And one-size-fits all federal mandates are certainly not the answer for all. Maybe for even most.

I agree that is the biggest downfall of Federal Regulation - but, the example of the wolf reintroduction and the prevalence of a lot of mythology that remains concerning them is one reason I trust states less than I do Federal to preserve these things.

Neither is ideal. In fact, and this is digressing, one of my favorite "charities" is a group called Nature Conservency that tries to work with private and landowners to increase conservation efforts. I think that is a great effort but I still think that the Federal side is needed particularly when issues involve multiple states or national resources.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The Question: Too Much Federal Interference with Commerce and Industry?"

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary and proper regulatory measures.

The appropriateness of regulatory policy is determined on a case by case basis, predicated on facts, evidence, and objective documentation.

It is a fact, for example, that there are businesses that will endanger worker safety to maximize profit, or pollute the environment to maximize profit, or sell unsafe goods and services to consumers to maximize profit.

This necessary and proper regulatory policy manifest as a consequence of businesses' misconduct, and does not constitute 'interference' on the part of the Federal government, where it's naïve and foolish to assume businesses can 'self-regulate,' or that the markets can provide the necessary 'regulatory oversight.'

 

[Coyote]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

That is a valid argument. But on what criteria do you judge that people in the federal government will care more about wildlife, wildlands, beaches, wolves than will those in state and local governments? While I am not opposed to having national parks--WITH the consent of the people in the states where they reside and those who will be required to pay for them--I just don't see more nobility in an authoritarian federal government than would exist in a state government trying to do its best for the people that formed it.

The federal government is answerable to all of us, the state is not. A state could decide that it would prefer the economic benefits of developing or logging huge tracts of Yellowstone (an extreme example, but it makes the point) and preserving only a tiny bit because the people of that state would rather have the economic boost of development and no one else would have a say in it. People could withdraw their consent at any time making the preservation of those lands unstable and once their gone, you can't always bring them back. It's not a matter of "nobility" but accountability to more than just a small segment of Americans.

Is it? Is the federal government answerable to all of us?

hmmm....(thinking about huge amounts of money floating campaigns...)...good question but that would be a whole 'nother topic!

For all it's faults, I feel it is more answerable than a state government in which I do not have a part in. It might mean that I must support special interest groups to have a voice though but at least it gives me a voice. And to some degree, through elections - I have a voice. But it is very muted these days.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

You are obviously not an owner of livestock or make a living raising said animals. I shoot any predator that kills my animals. Have you ever considered the terror experienced by a sheep or cow when they are attacked and killed by a predator or feral dog? Oft times, such predators will begin devouring their prey before it is dead, lots of them attack pregnant animals and drag the unborn young from their womb prior to eating it.

Here is one of those mandates that requires commerce and industry, farms/ranches and everybody else, to adapt their practices and property to accommodate endangered species as defined by the EPA. I really can appreciate the rules such as making it illegal to shoot bald eagles or whooping cranes for sport.

It is undeniable that reintroduction of the gray wolf into the wilds of Yellowstone has netted great benefits for all the wildlife, for the vegetation, and even for the waterways. Yellowstone needed that wolf to thrive in important ways.

Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into the more populated areas of southern New Mexico has not been a happy experience. The human population was nicely regulating the deer and elk population and keeping it at a non destructive population level pleasing for aesthetic purposes and sufficient to supply meat for those who wanted or needed it and for sport. But the depleted deer and elk population didn't furnish easy prey for the wolves who were soon invading towns, raiding garbage cans, and going after chickens or pets or baby calves or lambs--anything they could kill with their limited skills.

It's tricky. And here, yes...the human population through recreational hunting can "regulate" deer - but to use that as an excuse to deny the re-introduction of native species into the historic ranges is exactly why I think that Federal Government oversite is needed rather than the State. I'm not anti-hunting. I have a freezer full of bambi burger every year. Hunting is needed to balance the deer population and it satisfies an important human outlet when done responsibly. People might need to adjust hunting limits to allow for the existance of the wolf and, wolf populations might need to be controlled but it should be done based on science, not special interest groups which have a greater influence on state politics than federal.

And as GW said, those calves and lambs and chickens generally represented the livelihood of the people who were raising them. So they shot the wolves as they felt they had to, toss the tracking collars on the tops of semi trailers passing through. Whatever they felt they had to do for their own survival.

Based on reality? Actual data? Or hype? Wolves traditional and still got blamed for a lot of things they never did.

And elsewhere--and this still turns my stomach to think about it--the environmentalists were capturing and severely injuring deer and elk and turning them loose in hopes that the starving wolves would be able to catch and bring them down.

There is nobody on the planet probably who is more even militantly passionate about our wonderful planet and the wonderful plants and creatures on it and all its aesthetic beauty as I am. I get white hot with anger when people intentionally or carelessly harm that. But there are many ways to look at these thngs. And one-size-fits all federal mandates are certainly not the answer for all. Maybe for even most.

I agree that is the biggest downfall of Federal Regulation - but, the example of the wolf reintroduction and the prevalence of a lot of mythology that remains concerning them is one reason I trust states less than I do Federal to preserve these things.

Neither is ideal. In fact, and this is digressing, one of my favorite "charities" is a group called Nature Conservency that tries to work with private and landowners to increase conservation efforts. I think that is a great effort but I still think that the Federal side is needed particularly when issues involve multiple states or national resources.

My experience with all that is up close and personal having worked for years in that area, dealing with the people who have lived there for generations, and having close relatives who ranch there and have endured the nightmare.

The fact is, before so much federal meddling, farmers and ranchers liked having rare creatures on their property. Yes, some were irresponsible and destructive, but most were not and accommodatied those rare things. But once the federal government started telling people what they could and could not do with their property because some rare something also existed there, the farmers and ranchers became quite interested in making sure nothing rare would be found on their property. Just about everybody was pretty sure all that government meddling was not encouraging anybody to protect endangered wildlife but was having mostly the opposite effect.

Again my knowledge of this is gained from speaking face to face with farmers and ranchers all over New Mexico, into Arizona, and a big chunk of West Texas, a little bit in Nevada. My work put me in the position to have those conversations.

A state government I believe would be much more likely to work out a reasonable compromise with those farmers and ranchers and would be far more likely to come up with a plan of action that would be satisfactory for everybody and every thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

That is a valid argument. But on what criteria do you judge that people in the federal government will care more about wildlife, wildlands, beaches, wolves than will those in state and local governments? While I am not opposed to having national parks--WITH the consent of the people in the states where they reside and those who will be required to pay for them--I just don't see more nobility in an authoritarian federal government than would exist in a state government trying to do its best for the people that formed it.

The federal government is answerable to all of us, the state is not. A state could decide that it would prefer the economic benefits of developing or logging huge tracts of Yellowstone (an extreme example, but it makes the point) and preserving only a tiny bit because the people of that state would rather have the economic boost of development and no one else would have a say in it. People could withdraw their consent at any time making the preservation of those lands unstable and once their gone, you can't always bring them back. It's not a matter of "nobility" but accountability to more than just a small segment of Americans.

Is it? Is the federal government answerable to all of us?

hmmm....(thinking about huge amounts of money floating campaigns...)...good question but that would be a whole 'nother topic!

For all it's faults, I feel it is more answerable than a state government in which I do not have a part in. It might mean that I must support special interest groups to have a voice though but at least it gives me a voice. And to some degree, through elections - I have a voice. But it is very muted these days.

The State government is not eager to really piss off the people of the state and therefore generally is more responsive to the will of the people. Why should the federal government care if they piss off a bunch of New Mexicans when they will have the support of everybody else who doesn't give a flying fig about those property owners in New Mexico but are fed romantic visions of the majestic wolf again surveying his realm in the wild?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll jump in and give my opinion.

I grew up at a time when the effects of pollution, unregulated pesticides, and the extinction of species were just beginning to be realized.

My political views were sandwitched between the lyrics of Tom Lehrer's Pollution song:
Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

and a poignant add entitled "Run Rhino Run, Extinction is forever" (and add that for the White Rhino, may sadly be true).

Because of that, and many other public concerns such as lead paint and asbestos, and most recently the BP oil spill, I am strongly supportive of government regulation in public health, safety and the environment and why I do not trust industry to "self regulate".

Does it go to far? Sometimes. The problem with a centralized federal government is it most often operates in a one-size fits all mentality. It also inevitably aquires a burdonsome and unweildy amount of bureaucratic crap that defies common sense. Because of that, small farmers may find their small manure lagoons regulated the same as toxic waste sites.

But I would not want to go backwards.

I have long championed federal policies that championed regulation and clean up of shared waterways, aquifers, air, coastlines, and potentially hazardous products coming into the country or crossing state lines as the states cannot realistically regulate this themselves. Such I believe falls squarely in the intended realm of the general welfare.

But does it HAVE to extend to the small farmer's manure lagoon that is bothering nobody?

I think giving the federal government auithority to regulate almost every aspect of how a business conducts business just because the federal government considers it the right thing to do is way more authority than what the federal government was intended to have.

Would it be going backwards to leave matters that affect only the people within the borders of a state to that state to deal with?

No, not in my opinion.

Certain resources are national resources - to be conserved for all Americans. Wildlife, wildlands, beaches, for example. In addition - things which effect water and air don't stop at state borders.

One example is the reintroduction of wolves into parts of the US. Once they felt that the species had sufficient population, they took it off the endangered list turned management over to the state. State's response? Bowing to pressure from anti-wolf ranching lobbies, deer hunters etc they opened up hunting. I think it's back on the list now.

You are obviously not an owner of livestock or make a living raising said animals. I shoot any predator that kills my animals. Have you ever considered the terror experienced by a sheep or cow when they are attacked and killed by a predator or feral dog? Oft times, such predators will begin devouring their prey before it is dead, lots of them attack pregnant animals and drag the unborn young from their womb prior to eating it.

Don't make any assumptions about me. As a stockman, you have a right to shoot predators that are attacking your stock. I live in a rural area and accept that reality. But off your land it's a different story. Sure, they are terrified. But it's also the harsh reality of the natural world. It ain't Disney. And the trip to the stockyards, the crowding, the downers, the killing - that's pretty terrifying to an animal too.

But when we start removing predators form the natural world - we put everything off balance. They have a right to exist in the world too.

Creatures have come and gone on planet Earth for as long as there has been life on planet Earth. Wanton destruction of the creatures on it and/or their habitat just because we can do that is abhorent to me. As I said those who carelessly or wantonly destroy or spoil what I see as God's creation is one thing that can turn me white hot angry very quickly.

But humankind are creatures of the Earth too. Who has the greater right? The wolf who needs to eat to survive? Or the deer who will lose its life so that the wolf survives? The wolf who wants the baby sheep or baby calf for its dinner? Or the rancher who needs the baby sheep or calf in order to provide for himself and his family? And who in Washington can possibly understand how to manage all that in a way that meets everybody's needs?

Here near the banks of the middle Rio Grande lives a tiny fish called a silvery minnow that presumably lives nowhere else on Earth. The fish has managed to survive countless droughts when the river dried up to a trickle or traveled only underground, and floods when the water was so full of mud and debris you could practically cut it with a knife.

So we have been in extreme drought conditions for some years now and the river is having a tough time keeping a level sufficient to provide water for the communities along its banks and the agricultural industry that has depended on it for centuries. The State was valiantly trying to manage the situation and was planning to capture enough silvery minnow to preserve until they could be reintroduced to the river, not that they are in any grave danger, and accommodate the needs of the people as much as possible. But no, the EPA shows up and demands that we protect the silvery minnow at all cost by diverting water to its habitat and if that means people go without water or people lose their farms, so be it. The EPA rules state that endangered habitat comes ahead of commerce and industry.

That is what happens with a one-size-fits-all government mandate.

 

[Foxfyre]

"The Question: Too Much Federal Interference with Commerce and Industry?"

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary and proper regulatory measures.

The appropriateness of regulatory policy is determined on a case by case basis, predicated on facts, evidence, and objective documentation.

It is a fact, for example, that there are businesses that will endanger worker safety to maximize profit, or pollute the environment to maximize profit, or sell unsafe goods and services to consumers to maximize profit.

This necessary and proper regulatory policy manifest as a consequence of businesses' misconduct, and does not constitute 'interference' on the part of the Federal government, where it's naïve and foolish to assume businesses can 'self-regulate,' or that the markets can provide the necessary 'regulatory oversight.'

Sorry. I didn't see this post until I was closing down for the night. I have to get to bed, but I would like to discuss this in the morning.

I have agreed that it is appropriate for the federal government to regulate issues of pollution and other dangers when the issue is water, soil, and air shared by more than one state and/or potentially dangerous products transported across our borders or across state lines.

But why would you trust the federal government to regulate how a business does business more than you would trust the state to regulate that business if it needs regulation? And how much regulation would you consider necessary?

 

[Foxfyre]

On minimum wage, some years ago, when I was on the last job I held working for the other guy, I was working straight commission. I was making good money but I was also handling a killer work load and 12-14 hour days were the norm. There was an unused desk in my office, and my husband came out of early retirement to give me a hand for a few hours a day. (He had retired with this same company so everybody knew him.)

An attorney was our landlord and occupied the other half of our building. And in an informal discussion, he was made aware of my husband's volunteer job. He advised that this violated the federal wage/hour laws and the company could get into trouble. There was no way I could split my commissions with him because he was not yet 65+ and the income would have screwed up his social security. So they 'fired' him lest they get into trouble with the federal law.

There is something very wrong with that.

 

[Foxfyre]

"The Question: Too Much Federal Interference with Commerce and Industry?"

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary and proper regulatory measures.

The appropriateness of regulatory policy is determined on a case by case basis, predicated on facts, evidence, and objective documentation.

It is a fact, for example, that there are businesses that will endanger worker safety to maximize profit, or pollute the environment to maximize profit, or sell unsafe goods and services to consumers to maximize profit.

This necessary and proper regulatory policy manifest as a consequence of businesses' misconduct, and does not constitute 'interference' on the part of the Federal government, where it's naïve and foolish to assume businesses can 'self-regulate,' or that the markets can provide the necessary 'regulatory oversight.'

Sorry. I didn't see this post until I was closing down for the night. I have to get to bed, but I would like to discuss this in the morning.

I have agreed that it is appropriate for the federal government to regulate issues of pollution and other dangers when the issue is water, soil, and air shared by more than one state and/or potentially dangerous products transported across our borders or across state lines.

But why would you trust the federal government to regulate how a business does business more than you would trust the state to regulate that business if it needs regulation? And how much regulation would you consider necessary?

And back to this. When OSHA went into effect in 1971, the government reported a significant drop in worker accident and deaths that became almost immediatley obvious in the following years. But I wonder if that was all because of OSHA? Or was it because of private insurance companies doing safety inspections and basing their premiums for liability and work comp on the risk?

On this one I do believe it is appropriate to have laws that prohibit companies from exposing people to hazardous substances or conditions that they have no way of knowing about or avoiding. But how far do you take this?

And why should the federal government be the regulatory authority and not the states themselves?

 

[Foxfyre]

Mark Adams of the Mercatus Center, George Mason University, offers some additional food for thought.


i.e. Artificially high minimum wage hurts those it is supposed to help the most.

. . . Minimum wage workers tend be young and unskilled. Less than half of workers under the age of 25 are currently employed and many rely on low paying opportunities to get their first break. The majority will earn a raise within a year, but they currently lack the experience and skill to compete for higher paying jobs. Raising the minimum wage makes it harder for these inexperienced workers to find a job, because businesses will either eliminate positions or choose to hire someone with more experience at the higher mandated wage. Minimum wage jobs could also be a pathway to retraining for workers facing a mismatch between their skills and available openings. A higher minimum wage would limit such opportunities, and that's particularly dangerous during this historically slow recovery. . .​

i.e. More and more regulation too often benefits the wealthy and hurts the poor:

. . . Wealthier households who are willing to pay more for higher quality products and services actually benefit the most from regulation but don't pay the full cost, which is spread across all households. For example, one recent Department of Transportation rule requires that every car have a rear view camera, currently an option only on luxury vehicles. The benefit largely goes to the wealthier families who want the feature, but the cost to standardize this feature is incurred by everyone. . .​

i.e. Government regulation almost always drives up costs often in ways that hurt those who can least afford those higher costs:

. . . Diana Thomas, an economist at Utah State, found that health and safety regulations can cost poorer families as much as six to eight times more as a share of income than wealthier families. One rule in many states forces parents who place their child in daycare to pay for child-size toilets, which increases the costs of providing child care, and hence what parents pay for the service. High child care costs make it harder for parents to afford to go to work. And when they do, it directly reduces the money they can spend on measures that they could take to make their family safer and healthier. Just moving to a better neighborhood halves the chance of a child being injured. Instead families must spend that money on regulations that provide one-fifth the health and safety benefits for each dollar spent that low income families could have achieved through their own decisions. . . .​

Raising the Minimum Wage Hurts the Poor - US News

 

[gallantwarrior]

"The Question: Too Much Federal Interference with Commerce and Industry?"

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary and proper regulatory measures.

The appropriateness of regulatory policy is determined on a case by case basis, predicated on facts, evidence, and objective documentation.

It is a fact, for example, that there are businesses that will endanger worker safety to maximize profit, or pollute the environment to maximize profit, or sell unsafe goods and services to consumers to maximize profit.

This necessary and proper regulatory policy manifest as a consequence of businesses' misconduct, and does not constitute 'interference' on the part of the Federal government, where it's naïve and foolish to assume businesses can 'self-regulate,' or that the markets can provide the necessary 'regulatory oversight.'

Sorry. I didn't see this post until I was closing down for the night. I have to get to bed, but I would like to discuss this in the morning.

I have agreed that it is appropriate for the federal government to regulate issues of pollution and other dangers when the issue is water, soil, and air shared by more than one state and/or potentially dangerous products transported across our borders or across state lines.

But why would you trust the federal government to regulate how a business does business more than you would trust the state to regulate that business if it needs regulation? And how much regulation would you consider necessary?

And back to this. When OSHA went into effect in 1971, the government reported a significant drop in worker accident and deaths that became almost immediatley obvious in the following years. But I wonder if that was all because of OSHA? Or was it because of private insurance companies doing safety inspections and basing their premiums for liability and work comp on the risk?

On this one I do believe it is appropriate to have laws that prohibit companies from exposing people to hazardous substances or conditions that they have no way of knowing about or avoiding. But how far do you take this?

And why should the federal government be the regulatory authority and not the states themselves?

Some jobs inherently include exposure to hazardous substances. Better that companies make their workers aware of the risks and provide them appropriate means of protecting themselves. Unfortunately, even if a company does both of those things, how do you force the workers to comply. Case in point, I work with people who have to handle human waste. They receive training and appropriate PPE (Personal protective equipment). Very few of them use those tools to protect themselves from exposure to waste-borne pathogens. It's just too inconvenient.
OSHA might have a legitimate role in publishing appropriate information for the companies and personnel to use to protect themselves.