US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:There is a small distinction, Daryl. Your job center creates nothing. It is an operating expense. Taking your story at face value, your job center was the less expensive option. Even so without the need for private jobs, your job center has nothing to do and produces nothing.

It might be the least efficient expense option for needed functions, but it makes nothing nor provides any service to an end user.

"produces nothing"...

It increases the part of the population that is working compared to not working.
Even just purely on a financial basis that is a big chunk of "nothing", because of how you turn a financial drain into a financial and either service or goods gain to society.

By your thinking, no kind of service jobs could ever be considered as a gain for an economy.
And obviously healthcare becomes nothing but a huge drain with that kind of stupid thinking.

*bah*

Daryl wrote:A new conservative government outsourced the function, by closing us down and paying a range of fees to new private agencies for placing people in jobs.
The net cost to the national economy has been calculated to be two and a half times what our operating costs were. This is due to duplication, inefficiencies from small scale local operations, fraud, and massive profits to some agencies. An ironic twist is that the wife of a progressive politician made a $200M+ fortune out of owning one of these agencies

Sounds not too far from the previous con-government here. They didn´t privatize the main part, but they added lots of stupid stuff around it, raising costs, cutting their effectiveness. As usual from con(artist) governments.

Tenshinai wrote:

PeterZ wrote:There is a small distinction, Daryl. Your job center creates nothing. It is an operating expense. Taking your story at face value, your job center was the less expensive option. Even so without the need for private jobs, your job center has nothing to do and produces nothing.

It might be the least efficient expense option for needed functions, but it makes nothing nor provides any service to an end user.

"produces nothing"...

It increases the part of the population that is working compared to not working.
Even just purely on a financial basis that is a big chunk of "nothing", because of how you turn a financial drain into a financial and either service or goods gain to society.

By your thinking, no kind of service jobs could ever be considered as a gain for an economy.
And obviously healthcare becomes nothing but a huge drain with that kind of stupid thinking.

*bah*

Lol, if they do it's by accident.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Thank you for quoting this. The prior poster is on my ignore list.

Regulations make having an HR department necessary. Then how on earth is a service that enables compliance additive to the economy as a whole? Without the the regulations the money spent on HR would go towards actual production or sales support. So how does government add anything in this exchange? It does not.

This has nothing to do with providing services people need regardless of any regulations. Doctors will offer services to the sick. Accountants provide accounting services. IT services improve efficiency. All those services add value.

Regulators that erect legal barriers to doing business are not adding value even if businesses have to hire people to navigate those barriers. That's like saying that breaking windows will force people to repair those windows and stimulate the economy and add value. More people will work but no value is created.

Annachie wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:
"produces nothing"...

It increases the part of the population that is working compared to not working.
Even just purely on a financial basis that is a big chunk of "nothing", because of how you turn a financial drain into a financial and either service or goods gain to society.

By your thinking, no kind of service jobs could ever be considered as a gain for an economy.
And obviously healthcare becomes nothing but a huge drain with that kind of stupid thinking.

*bah*

Lol, if they do it's by accident.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Peter, it's like your refining the old arguement against true socialust communism.
Work done does not automatically add value.

As for my comment it was more the perception that more jobs these days are found via word of mouth or droppi g resumes at large chains than through the job placenent companies. More interested in making money than finding jobs for people.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I suppose I was kicking a deceased equine. I have no idea if Daryl agency
added value or not. Just trying to assert that the dead horse usually is employed by government.

Annachie wrote:Peter, it's like your refining the old arguement against true socialust communism.
Work done does not automatically add value.

As for my comment it was more the perception that more jobs these days are found via word of mouth or droppi g resumes at large chains than through the job placenent companies. More interested in making money than finding jobs for people.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

By quite literally ensuring that businesses actually comply with the rules? Same as a compliance department and safety department. They ensure that short term profit is not put ahead of long term problems following on, eg paying workers and preventing discrimination such as preventing no white male workers from being hired, which is deleterious to the economy as a whole. The money would not necessarily go to production or support, it would more likely go to shareholders as it would count as increased profit. Remember, a business seeks to make as much money as possible for as little cost as possible. if it can increase profits by cutting costs/corners, a business would normally be cutting those corners. A government is simply the HR and safety and compliance department as a whole for the entire economy. The government arent profit creators necessarily, but the government is a cost reducer.


Simple example: NZ. We have regulations surrounding waste disposal. By your claim, this is a cost to the economy. But, ensuring companies follow this rule allows us to be seen as a top tourist destination for those who want unspoiled natural beauty, and improves our tourism income. In addition to this, it allows us to have a better quality of life by being able go out and exercise, such as swim, kayak/canoe, fish etc, in clean water. This encourages people to go on domestic tourism trips, as opposed to heading overseas. Therefore, this regulation may be slightly deleterious to individual businesses but advantageous to the country as a whole.

The easiest way to think of a government is that they are there to prevent the tragedy of the commons...

PeterZ wrote:Thank you for quoting this. The prior poster is on my ignore list.

Regulations make having an HR department necessary. Then how on earth is a service that enables compliance additive to the economy as a whole? Without the the regulations the money spent on HR would go towards actual production or sales support. So how does government add anything in this exchange? It does not.

This has nothing to do with providing services people need regardless of any regulations. Doctors will offer services to the sick. Accountants provide accounting services. IT services improve efficiency. All those services add value.

Regulators that erect legal barriers to doing business are not adding value even if businesses have to hire people to navigate those barriers. That's like saying that breaking windows will force people to repair those windows and stimulate the economy and add value. More people will work but no value is created.

HR departments do much more than recruit, I was pointing out that a single national recruitment agency can be an efficient way to get quality employees, even if is run by the government.

In regard to employment regulation of employee conditions, we didn't have a direct role in that, except to ensure that the people we sent were not mistreated.
I do however believe that some government regulation of working conditions is essential, both to ensure that employees aren't mistreated, and to stop fraud.
In my latter years before retiring I managed defence logistics that required (among much else) large labour hire contracts for aircraft maintenance. Most employers behaved responsibly, however I do have to say that of those who tried to get away with sheer bastardry, all were branches of large US defence contractors.

Most employers behaved responsibly, however I do have to say that of those who tried to get away with sheer bastardry, all were branches of large US defence contractors.

That´s not surprising.

US business standards are bad enough that the foreign department here runs courses on how to do business in USA.

The comparison has been made that doing business with an average US company is like doing business with the Russian mafia, they will stick to the letter of a contract as long as they must, but they will do anything and everything to rip you off.

It´s notable that the only other nations they run those kind of courses for regularly are China and Japan, and THOSE are due to differences in business culture rather than business standards.

There´s even an unofficial list specifying what US companies will stick to the intent of a contract rather than the letters only, ie the ones honorable enough to be worthwhile dealing with.
Kinda sad that there are hundreds of companies on that list, but millions not on it.

Are rules necessary? Of course! They reflect desired inefficiencies. Compliance to rules providing for good treatment of employees is usually easy enough. These moral rules for the treatment of employees are still a necessary cost that reflect the moral values of that society. They do not add value so much as represent the minimum commitment necessary to participate as an employer.

As these rule become more Byzantine, the shift from representing the morals of society to an arcane and inefficient drain on private employment. The same sorts of arcane rules can come from various agencies of government. Not all of them or always but in the US an increasing number.

Daryl wrote:HR departments do much more than recruit, I was pointing out that a single national recruitment agency can be an efficient way to get quality employees, even if is run by the government.

In regard to employment regulation of employee conditions, we didn't have a direct role in that, except to ensure that the people we sent were not mistreated.
I do however believe that some government regulation of working conditions is essential, both to ensure that employees aren't mistreated, and to stop fraud.
In my latter years before retiring I managed defence logistics that required (among much else) large labour hire contracts for aircraft maintenance. Most employers behaved responsibly, however I do have to say that of those who tried to get away with sheer bastardry, all were branches of large US defence contractors.