Conquer Club

Aside from the enormous costs in terms of time and money, what difference does all this [labor laws and regulation] make? Surprisingly little.

Take the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The O’Neill’s find that the black/white wage gap was narrowing at about the same rate in the two decades leading up to the passage of the act as it did in the years that followed. Only in the South is there evidence that the legislation mattered. Outside the South, federal legislation basically followed social change rather than lead it. The wages of blacks rose relative to those of whites over time for two primary reasons: (1) more schooling and better schooling and (2) the migration of blacks out of the South.

As for the wages of men and women, the O’Neill’s find no evidence that antidiscrimination policies have made a difference, including the actions of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Most health and safety legislation also obeys Goodman’s Law. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates workplace safety. Yet in the years leading up to OSHA, workplace fatalities were falling at the same rate as they fell in the period after its passage. Non-fatal injuries show no impact of OSHA as well.

TeeGee wrote:More regulation?

You really want me to edit ALL your posts and lock all your threads

By the way, MADAGAN IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!!

The O’Neill’s findings are consistent with economic theory

Symmetry wrote:

The O’Neill’s findings are consistent with economic theory

That was the point where I called it.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

The O’Neill’s findings are consistent with economic theory

That was the point where I called it.

That's okay. There's plenty of other people who aren't as willfully ignorant as you! I look forward to Hope and Change, and thanks for trying, Sym!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, boy. Did you know that the Civil Rights Act, all that anti-discrimination nonsense, and OSHA are completely useless?

"GEE, I DIDN"T KNOW THAT, BUT IT OFFENDS MY IDEAL VISION OF GOVERNMENT. I SHALL IGNORE THIS AND CONTINUE SUPPORTING SUCH USELESS REGULATION."

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, boy. Did you know that the Civil Rights Act, all that anti-discrimination nonsense, and OSHA are completely useless?

"GEE, I DIDN"T KNOW THAT, BUT IT OFFENDS MY IDEAL VISION OF GOVERNMENT. I SHALL IGNORE THIS AND CONTINUE SUPPORTING SUCH USELESS REGULATION."

Actually, it did not truly say they were useless, it said they worked fine in the south.

ooge wrote:regulation..glass /spegal why was it put into law? when was it repealed? what were the consequences of the repealing of this regulation? Arline industry when was it deregulated? by whom? what have been the consequences of this deregulation?State of California and energy deregulation,what were the consequences of the deregulation.Trucking industry? one can go on and on about how government has deregulated over regulated the past forty years.

Phatscotty wrote:Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.

If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.

If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?

And get them out of our bedrooms.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.

If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?

And get them out of our bedrooms.

Why be consistent?

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.

If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?

And get them out of our bedrooms.

Why be consistent?

why troll?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.

If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?

And get them out of our bedrooms.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.

If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?

And get them out of our bedrooms.

Why be consistent?

why troll?

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.

If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?

And get them out of our bedrooms.

Why be consistent?

why troll?

You're just like Player, who has driven me crazy with her inconsistencies lately.

On the one hand, you're all for freedom and getting the government out of something when it's something you don't want the government to be in. And to drive home your argument, you use tenets from the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

On the other hand, when it's something like abortion or gay marriage, you're all about government intervention and ignore any founding documents or any other logical link between government intervention and freedom.

You argue out of both sides of your mouth and that's not only stupid, it's dishonest. If you're going to argue about less government regulation of business while arguing against gay marriage and abortion, as far as I'm concerned you're prohibited from invoking the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, or any other historical or modern interpretations thereof. Hypocrisy doesn't work here. Sorry little buddy.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

ooge wrote:regulation..glass /spegal why was it put into law? when was it repealed? what were the consequences of the repealing of this regulation? Arline industry when was it deregulated? by whom? what have been the consequences of this deregulation?State of California and energy deregulation,what were the consequences of the deregulation.Trucking industry? one can go on and on about how government has deregulated over regulated the past forty years.

Huh? What? Who? When? Where? Why? How?


(The underlined were very beneficial examples of deregulation/privatization).

ooge wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

ooge wrote:regulation..glass /spegal why was it put into law? when was it repealed? what were the consequences of the repealing of this regulation? Arline industry when was it deregulated? by whom? what have been the consequences of this deregulation?State of California and energy deregulation,what were the consequences of the deregulation.Trucking industry? one can go on and on about how government has deregulated over regulated the past forty years.

Huh? What? Who? When? Where? Why? How?


(The underlined were very beneficial examples of deregulation/privatization).

care to elaborate on why deregulation was beneficial to the underlined?

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.

If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?

And get them out of our bedrooms.

Why be consistent?

why troll?