Federal rules & Regulation paper pushing cost economy $245 billion a year!

[healthmyths]

The following are two examples of "regulations" cost to consumers...

[A]The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) calculates that the federal government currently imposes more than 10.3 billion hours of paperwork compliance annually.
What Does an Hour of Regulatory Compliance Cost? | American Action Forum

This is not a guess... it comes from the Government!

So at the current rate of the average hourly $23.87 that gets paid, US Average Hourly Earnings
this means paperwork compliance costs: 10.3 billion hours times $23.87/hour = $245.861 billion a year.

$245 billion a year just in paperwork for FEDERAL compliance!
This doesn't account for State/Local paperwork compliance costs.

And so if any business wants to hire more people here is just ONE example of how Obama's administration thwarts job creation...

PER OSHA "water closet" means a toilet facility maintained within a toilet room for the purpose of both defecation and urination and which is flushed with water.
Minimum number of Number of employees water closets
1 to 15.................................................... 1
16 to 35................................................... 2
36 to 55................................................... 3
56 to 80................................................... 4
Sanitation. - 1910.141

OSHA requires if a business has 1 water closet for 15 workers and the business decides to hire 1 more person...
per OSHA law the business must provide 2 water closets! This means capital expenditures to build more water closets.

This is just ONE very simple very easy example of how the Federal Govt. works to keep people unemployed!

If any of you have more examples of government RULES and REgulations thwarting employers from hiring please share!

 

[g5000]

Yeah, those pesky regulations preventing corporations from dumping chemicals in empty lots are a real nuisance. Why, if we just let them kill everyone with poisons instead of making them follow rules, it would save billions!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now, how much would no pesky regulations cost us? A shit ton more than that

 

[martybegan]

Now, how much would no pesky regulations cost us? A shit ton more than that

So crappy complex redundant regulations at multiple levels are acceptable because
"at least they are there"

Got it. and people wonder why progressives are seen as idiots when it comes to economics and business.

 

[Toronado3800]

The following are two examples of "regulations" cost to consumers...

[A]The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) calculates that the federal government currently imposes more than 10.3 billion hours of paperwork compliance annually.
What Does an Hour of Regulatory Compliance Cost? | American Action Forum

This is not a guess... it comes from the Government!

So at the current rate of the average hourly $23.87 that gets paid, US Average Hourly Earnings
this means paperwork compliance costs: 10.3 billion hours times $23.87/hour = $245.861 billion a year.

$245 billion a year just in paperwork for FEDERAL compliance!
This doesn't account for State/Local paperwork compliance costs.

And so if any business wants to hire more people here is just ONE example of how Obama's administration thwarts job creation...

PER OSHA "water closet" means a toilet facility maintained within a toilet room for the purpose of both defecation and urination and which is flushed with water.
Minimum number of Number of employees water closets
1 to 15.................................................... 1
16 to 35................................................... 2
36 to 55................................................... 3
56 to 80................................................... 4
Sanitation. - 1910.141

OSHA requires if a business has 1 water closet for 15 workers and the business decides to hire 1 more person...
per OSHA law the business must provide 2 water closets! This means capital expenditures to build more water closets.

This is just ONE very simple very easy example of how the Federal Govt. works to keep people unemployed!

If any of you have more examples of government RULES and REgulations thwarting employers from hiring please share!

I almost literally feel your pain.

The problem is history tells us of the evils of corporations and humans in general in search of money.

Remember the industrial revolution here when it was easier for Pa Ingalls to take his family to near Indian lands than work in a factory.

We really do not want to push fokks to have to unionize and fight or die THAT much. It is that era which gave birth to socialism.

Now I am all for streamlining. The pain in my line if work is in the trips to the MIGHTY local municipalities to get permits, renews and inspections. If our only problem was telling Uncle Sam how many employees we had and having the right inspectors just show up that would be a blessing. It is the inefficient layers which waste my time.

 

[g5000]

A rule requiring the cotton industry to reduce dust in textile factories lowered the
prevalence of brown lung among industry employees by 97 percent;

A rule requiring employers to place locks and warning labels on powered equipment
is credited with preventing 50,000 injuries and 120 fatalities per year;

A rule on excavations at construction sites has reduced the fatality rate from cave-ins
by 40 percent;

A grain-handling facilities standard has reduced the number of fatalities caused by
dust-related explosions by 95 percent;

And a 1969 mine safety law led to a rapid 50 percent decrease in the coal mine
fatality rate.

Link.

After a series of catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970s left 59 workers dead in just
one month, the hazards of grain facilities drew the attention of federal regulators. OSHA
began developing its Grain Handling Facilities Standard, which it finalized in 1987. The
regulation limited the amount of dust allowed on surfaces within grain facilities and
required testing of silos for combustible gases. It also prohibited employees from entering
storage bins without a proper harness and a spotter present.

Industry groups and the Reagan administration’s Office of Management and Budget voiced
opposition to the Grain Handling Facilities Standard during the rulemaking process. A
spokesman for the National Grain and Feed Association derided the proposed limits to
grain dust levels, saying, “Research shows no one level of dust is more hazardous than
another.”28 One official from the Office of Management and Budget referred to OSHA’s
assessment of grain facility hazards as “substantially overstated.”29

In the end, the OSHA standard made grain handling facilities much safer places to work.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), which initially opposed the standard,
now finds it to be remarkably effective at improving workplace safety, citing a 95 percent
drop in explosion-related fatalities for certain facilities.30 In comments submitted to OSHA
in 1998, NGFA stated that in the years following the standard, “there has been an
unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities.”31
OSHA’s analysis shows that the standard prevented an average of five suffocation deaths
per year.32 Data presented by industry showed that the standard annually prevents eight
injuries and four deaths resulting from explosions in grain elevators.33
27

So not only do regulations save lives, the very industries which are regulated initially OPPOSED making any changes to the way they did business, and now they SUPPORT the regulations.

]

Coal mines are among the most dangerous workplaces in the United States. Workers, facing
the ever-present risks of mine explosion and collapse, must perform their jobs in confined
spaces near heavy machinery. Since 1900, over 100,000 miners have been killed on the
job.34 Mining has become dramatically safer, however. The first major decrease in fatality
rates began in the late 1940s, as mines began relying less on explosives and more on
machinery.35 But after the early 1950s, progress on mine safety stagnated; the fatality rate
remained largely unchanged between 1950 and 1969.36 It was not until the 1969 passage
of the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act that government regulatory efforts spurred
another major decrease in coal mining fatality rates, and the results were dramatic.

Regulation of the mining industry increased gradually throughout the 20th century. The
federal government first addressed mine safety in 1910 when Congress created the U.S.
Bureau of Mines (USBM). USBM was primarily engaged in conducting research and
investigating catastrophic mine accidents. The agency had no regulatory authority
throughout most of its existence. Even after Congress granted it authority to inspect certain
mines in 1952, USBM lacked the power to compel mining operations to make needed
changes. In 1969, Congress passed the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act, the first
comprehensive mine safety law creating mandatory inspection requirements, enforceable
health and safety standards, and civil and criminal penalties for willful violations. The law
laid the framework for even stronger protections under the Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, which established the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

In 1969, the year that the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act passed, 152 fatalities
occurred for every 100,000 underground coal miners. After the act’s passage, these fatality
rates dropped off steeply, decreasing by 50 percent in just four years.37

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now, how much would no pesky regulations cost us? A shit ton more than that

So crappy complex redundant regulations at multiple levels are acceptable because
"at least they are there"

Got it. and people wonder why progressives are seen as idiots when it comes to economics and business.

Yea that's just what I said...no put down that straw

 

[martybegan]

Now, how much would no pesky regulations cost us? A shit ton more than that

So crappy complex redundant regulations at multiple levels are acceptable because
"at least they are there"

Got it. and people wonder why progressives are seen as idiots when it comes to economics and business.

Yea that's just what I said...no put down that straw

You started with the straw that there are only two states, regulations, and no regulations, assuming those of us wanting to streamline the crap out of them really want to get rid of them.

The straw was in your hand first, tough guy.

 

[g5000]

So crappy complex redundant regulations at multiple levels are acceptable because
"at least they are there"

Got it. and people wonder why progressives are seen as idiots when it comes to economics and business.

Yea that's just what I said...no put down that straw

You started with the straw that there are only two states, regulations, and no regulations, assuming those of us wanting to streamline the crap out of them really want to get rid of them.

The straw was in your hand first, tough guy.

Nope. The opening post implies all government regulations are a waste of money. It does not give a figure for how much WASTEFUL regulations cost us. It does not tell us how much government regulations SAVE us each year. This is what is known as a lie of omission, and this was a whopper.

So get back to us when you have those figures.

 

[Toronado3800]

The OP probably is amazed at the total cost of paperwork. I should have even asked what level the OP thought was appropriate. I am just soo used to running into the extremes on the internet I assume.

 

[editec]

federal rules & regulation paper pushing cost economy $245 billion a year!

$245 billlion sounds like a whole lot, doesn't it?

Now compare the regulatory burden to the economy as a whole which comes in at roughtly $14 trillions per year

245/14,000 = 0.0175​

So the cost of all regulations to this economy amounts to UNDER two percent of the GDP.

Perspective...get some!​

 

[martybegan]

Yea that's just what I said...no put down that straw

You started with the straw that there are only two states, regulations, and no regulations, assuming those of us wanting to streamline the crap out of them really want to get rid of them.

The straw was in your hand first, tough guy.

Nope. The opening post implies all government regulations are a waste of money. It does not give a figure for how much WASTEFUL regulations cost us. It does not tell us how much government regulations SAVE us each year. This is what is known as a lie of omission, and this was a whopper.

So get back to us when you have those figures.

Regulation supporters are the ones that say they "Save" us all sorts of money (theoretical internet dollars?)

All people know is how much extra it costs them to pay for some expediter to work their way through the regs so they dont get in trouble.

You do the math if you think the "savings" are so high. My friends can show thier invoices for the required "consulting" to figure out how to hell to meet the regs in the first place.

 

[Truthmatters]

every time the right has talked us into deregulation the people have gotten screwed.


you wont fool them again

 

[ClosedCaption]

You started with the straw that there are only two states, regulations, and no regulations, assuming those of us wanting to streamline the crap out of them really want to get rid of them.

The straw was in your hand first, tough guy.

Nope. The opening post implies all government regulations are a waste of money. It does not give a figure for how much WASTEFUL regulations cost us. It does not tell us how much government regulations SAVE us each year. This is what is known as a lie of omission, and this was a whopper.

So get back to us when you have those figures.

Regulation supporters are the ones that say they "Save" us all sorts of money (theoretical internet dollars?)

All people know is how much extra it costs them to pay for some expediter to work their way through the regs so they dont get in trouble.
You do the math if you think the "savings" are so high. My friends can show thier invoices for the required "consulting" to figure out how to hell to meet the regs in the first place.

No that's all YOU know..or claim to know. Ignorance is not a point so if you don't know how much getting rid of these regs cost us, what you crying about?

 

[martybegan]

Nope. The opening post implies all government regulations are a waste of money. It does not give a figure for how much WASTEFUL regulations cost us. It does not tell us how much government regulations SAVE us each year. This is what is known as a lie of omission, and this was a whopper.

So get back to us when you have those figures.

Regulation supporters are the ones that say they "Save" us all sorts of money (theoretical internet dollars?)

All people know is how much extra it costs them to pay for some expediter to work their way through the regs so they dont get in trouble.
You do the math if you think the "savings" are so high. My friends can show thier invoices for the required "consulting" to figure out how to hell to meet the regs in the first place.

No that's all YOU know..or claim to know. Ignorance is not a point so if you don't know how much getting rid of these regs cost us, what you crying about?

How about rewriting them by engineer's instead of lawyers, and writing them in such a way that you have a clear cut, defined regulation instead of some 10 tiered bullshit?

Go try to look up an OSHA reg one day, have fun with that.

 

[g5000]

You started with the straw that there are only two states, regulations, and no regulations, assuming those of us wanting to streamline the crap out of them really want to get rid of them.

The straw was in your hand first, tough guy.

Nope. The opening post implies all government regulations are a waste of money. It does not give a figure for how much WASTEFUL regulations cost us. It does not tell us how much government regulations SAVE us each year. This is what is known as a lie of omission, and this was a whopper.

So get back to us when you have those figures.

Regulation supporters are the ones that say they "Save" us all sorts of money (theoretical internet dollars?)

All people know is how much extra it costs them to pay for some expediter to work their way through the regs so they dont get in trouble.

You do the math if you think the "savings" are so high. My friends can show thier invoices for the required "consulting" to figure out how to hell to meet the regs in the first place.

I provided actual facts and figures in post 6. It was a real long post. How did you miss it?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Regulation supporters are the ones that say they "Save" us all sorts of money (theoretical internet dollars?)

All people know is how much extra it costs them to pay for some expediter to work their way through the regs so they dont get in trouble.
You do the math if you think the "savings" are so high. My friends can show thier invoices for the required "consulting" to figure out how to hell to meet the regs in the first place.

No that's all YOU know..or claim to know. Ignorance is not a point so if you don't know how much getting rid of these regs cost us, what you crying about?

How about rewriting them by engineer's instead of lawyers, and writing them in such a way that you have a clear cut, defined regulation instead of some 10 tiered bullshit?

Go try to look up an OSHA reg one day, have fun with that.

Good idea from the what if bin....What if it was written by 7 year olds? Really easy then right?

No point has no points

 

[healthmyths]

Yea that's just what I said...no put down that straw

You started with the straw that there are only two states, regulations, and no regulations, assuming those of us wanting to streamline the crap out of them really want to get rid of them.

The straw was in your hand first, tough guy.

Nope. The opening post implies all government regulations are a waste of money. It does not give a figure for how much WASTEFUL regulations cost us. It does not tell us how much government regulations SAVE us each year. This is what is known as a lie of omission, and this was a whopper.

So get back to us when you have those figures.

I'm saying over $245 billion a year pushing FEDERAL rules and regulations' paperwork. 10 billion hours!
The best example of over zealous write more rules and regulations is the current gun debate.
A few people including Obama want MORE gun laws.
Yet all Obama's administration has to do is enforce the already existing laws!
FACT:
Despite his calls for greater gun control, including a new assault weapons ban that extends to handguns, President Obama's administration has turned away from enforcing gun laws,
cutting weapons prosecutions some 40 percent since a high of about 11,000 under former President Bush.
Gun prosecutions under Obama down more than 45 percent | WashingtonExaminer.com

Weapons prosecutions down 40% and yet you want MORE rules,laws,regulations that obviously won't be enforced!
That is the stupidity of people who don't seem to understand what they already have but want to have MORE!

And remember that 10 billion hours were JUST for Federal compliance! Consider state and local rules and regulations!
You are totally wrong if you don't think there are duplicity in Federal/state/local laws!

How can there be otherwise? Do the FEDs make laws ONLY for Texas and not for Florida?
Obviously not but Florida and Texas may already have laws that cover what the Federal laws duplicate!

And this is the problem. Our society will collapse under the weight of rules,regulations that are in most cases duplicated!

 

[healthmyths]

A rule requiring the cotton industry to reduce dust in textile factories lowered the
prevalence of brown lung among industry employees by 97 percent;

A rule requiring employers to place locks and warning labels on powered equipment
is credited with preventing 50,000 injuries and 120 fatalities per year;

A rule on excavations at construction sites has reduced the fatality rate from cave-ins
by 40 percent;

A grain-handling facilities standard has reduced the number of fatalities caused by
dust-related explosions by 95 percent;

And a 1969 mine safety law led to a rapid 50 percent decrease in the coal mine
fatality rate.

Link.

After a series of catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970s left 59 workers dead in just
one month, the hazards of grain facilities drew the attention of federal regulators. OSHA
began developing its Grain Handling Facilities Standard, which it finalized in 1987. The
regulation limited the amount of dust allowed on surfaces within grain facilities and
required testing of silos for combustible gases. It also prohibited employees from entering
storage bins without a proper harness and a spotter present.

Industry groups and the Reagan administration’s Office of Management and Budget voiced
opposition to the Grain Handling Facilities Standard during the rulemaking process. A
spokesman for the National Grain and Feed Association derided the proposed limits to
grain dust levels, saying, “Research shows no one level of dust is more hazardous than
another.”28 One official from the Office of Management and Budget referred to OSHA’s
assessment of grain facility hazards as “substantially overstated.”29

In the end, the OSHA standard made grain handling facilities much safer places to work.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), which initially opposed the standard,
now finds it to be remarkably effective at improving workplace safety, citing a 95 percent
drop in explosion-related fatalities for certain facilities.30 In comments submitted to OSHA
in 1998, NGFA stated that in the years following the standard, “there has been an
unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities.”31
OSHA’s analysis shows that the standard prevented an average of five suffocation deaths
per year.32 Data presented by industry showed that the standard annually prevents eight
injuries and four deaths resulting from explosions in grain elevators.33
27

So not only do regulations save lives, the very industries which are regulated initially OPPOSED making any changes to the way they did business, and now they SUPPORT the regulations.

]

Coal mines are among the most dangerous workplaces in the United States. Workers, facing
the ever-present risks of mine explosion and collapse, must perform their jobs in confined
spaces near heavy machinery. Since 1900, over 100,000 miners have been killed on the
job.34 Mining has become dramatically safer, however. The first major decrease in fatality
rates began in the late 1940s, as mines began relying less on explosives and more on
machinery.35 But after the early 1950s, progress on mine safety stagnated; the fatality rate
remained largely unchanged between 1950 and 1969.36 It was not until the 1969 passage
of the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act that government regulatory efforts spurred
another major decrease in coal mining fatality rates, and the results were dramatic.

Regulation of the mining industry increased gradually throughout the 20th century. The
federal government first addressed mine safety in 1910 when Congress created the U.S.
Bureau of Mines (USBM). USBM was primarily engaged in conducting research and
investigating catastrophic mine accidents. The agency had no regulatory authority
throughout most of its existence. Even after Congress granted it authority to inspect certain
mines in 1952, USBM lacked the power to compel mining operations to make needed
changes. In 1969, Congress passed the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act, the first
comprehensive mine safety law creating mandatory inspection requirements, enforceable
health and safety standards, and civil and criminal penalties for willful violations. The law
laid the framework for even stronger protections under the Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, which established the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

In 1969, the year that the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act passed, 152 fatalities
occurred for every 100,000 underground coal miners. After the act’s passage, these fatality
rates dropped off steeply, decreasing by 50 percent in just four years.37

Well guess what happened after those rules and regulations were created??
In 1920 there were 784,621 coal miners.
In 2005 there were 83,000 coal miners.
Coal and jobs in the United States - SourceWatch
Since 1900, technological developments in the coal mining industry have dramatically increased miner productivity;
thus, while U.S. coal production is currently at a record high, mining employment is a fraction of what it was during the heyday of coal mining in the 1910's and 20's

So mining became more mechanical and less manual. That mean from 1920 to 2005 89% of the coal miners were replaced. 701,000 out of work.
The truth is there are less miners BECAUSE of the regulations which forced companies to be more productive!
In 1920 the average production of the 784,621 miners was 0.84 short tons per worker.
In 2005 the 83,000 miners produced 14 short tons per miner.

Everyone except the 700,000 miners that are no longer working due to the above rules and regulations that forced companies to replace with mechanical mining
are happy!