Utopia Talk / Politics / Ban Creating Jobs in China

Hot Rod Member	Sun Oct 10 07:01:07 Federal Light Bulb Ban Creating Jobs in China A federal law banning ordinary incandescent light bulbs has already had a negative effect on the American economy â?? GE has closed its last major bulb producing factory in the United States, creating job opportunities in China. Legislation enacted in 2007 orders the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs beginning with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and ending with the 40-watt light in 2014. These bulbs cannot meet efficiency requirements dictated by law. Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) are the least expensive alternative. But the manufacture of CFLs is â??labor intensive and too expensive to be done at U.S. wage rates,â?? according to a report from The Heartland Institute, which estimates that domestically produced CFLs would be 50 percent more expensive than bulbs manufactured in China. So instead of retrofitting its plant in Winchester, Va., to produce CFLs, GE closed the plant in September and laid off 200 workers. CFLs are already being manufactured in China, and increasing American demand will no doubt create new jobs there. As the Insider Report disclosed earlier, while CFLs use about 75 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs and last far longer, they cost significantly more, take longer to turn on, can flicker, and contain small amounts of highly toxic mercury, which creates problems for users when they break or need to be disposed of after they burn out. â??Environmental activists and their allies in Washington were either too ignorant of basic economics to see these job losses coming, or they were simply too callous to really care,â?? said Heartland Institute science director Jay Lehr. â??Either way, compact fluorescent light bulbs in the real world fail to live up to environmental promises, unnecessarily subject American households to toxic mercury, produce poor-quality light, and are sending American workers to the unemployment line.â?? And Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said: â??If the new energy-saving technologies being pushed by government are really that good, then we donâ??t need government to mandate them. And if they are being mandated, thatâ??s a sure sign that theyâ??re not very good.â?? Three Republican members of Congress â?? Joe Barton, Marsha Blackburn and Michael Burgess â?? have introduced a bill that would repeal the ban on the incandescent bulb. The three said in an article on The Daily Caller: â??The unanticipated consequence of the â??07 act â?? layoffs in the middle of a desperate recession â?? is what sometimes happens when politicians think they know better than consumers and workers.â?? http://news.newsmax.com/?Z6IvXWpmAUvEobIJ4XtzwuWHz3yztJRAZ
Hot Rod Member	Sun Oct 10 07:03:53 And before you whine that Bush signed The Bill. "When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007 in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years." http://en....dence_and_Security_Act_of_2007 And therein lies the danger of attaching questionable Bills to other Bills that are more desirable or needed.
ehcks Member	Sun Oct 10 10:09:25 "And therein lies the danger of attaching questionable Bills to other Bills that are more desirable or needed." The danger comes from people who think banning wasteful, obsolete technology is questionable. The danger is people who think it's not the companies' faults for sending jobs overseas. And really, how is banning incandescent lights and replacing them with compact fluorescent lights unrelated to an "Energy Efficiency Act" bill?
Tragically Hip Member	Sun Oct 10 11:14:21 It's a shame that people lost their jobs, but if manufacturer's aren't going to make an effort to change with the times then sadly the will be left behind and it's the American workers who, ultimately, suffer.
miltonfriedman Member	Sun Oct 10 12:18:04 The real danger is that Molester Rod is still out there molesting kids. "Renzo, your little niece is the best knob polisher" -Pedophile Rod
miltonfriedman Member	Sun Oct 10 23:04:05 ^attention whore
Hot Rod Member	Sun Oct 10 23:23:05 "But the manufacture of CFLs is â??labor intensive and too expensive to be done at U.S. wage rates, according to a report from The Heartland Institute, which estimates that domestically produced CFLs would be 50 percent more expensive than bulbs manufactured in China." Thanks to the unions. ehcks - The danger comes from people who think banning wasteful, obsolete technology is questionable. If someones breaks a CFL bulb in their living room will HAZMAT come out and clean it up for free or do their kids have to live with Mercury Poisoning?
miltonfriedman Member	Sun Oct 10 23:38:39 Did Davey?
Hellfire Member	Mon Oct 11 01:49:42 "If someones breaks a CFL bulb in their living room will HAZMAT come out and clean it up for free or do their kids have to live with Mercury Poisoning? " http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp TRUE: CFLs contain mercury, a potentially dangerous substance. TRUE: While mercury stays safely contained in intact CFLs, it escapes from broken CFLs into the immediate surroundings. FALSE: The amount of mercury contained in one CFL bulb poses a grave danger to a home's inhabitants. TRUE: The breakage of a CFL bulb needs to be handled with care and certain procedures should be followed in removing the broken bulb and its contents from a home. FALSE: The mercury dispersed by one broken CFL bulb needs to be dealt with only by an environmental clean-up crew. ------------------------------------------------- I really hope CFL bulbs go the way of the incandescent ASAP, LED lights give off much better light and are even more energy efficient... Their prices just need to come down so they get used more widely.
The Children Member	Mon Oct 11 02:54:26 BS thread and an even bigger BS topic. If your job is going to China, youve got noone to blame but yourself.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Oct 11 03:03:22 "Thanks to the unions." The answer is to start paying US workers chinese wages. I don't know yet how having millions of people working for $2/hour will help, but thats your answer. Then you will be competitive with TC's brethren.
The Children Member	Mon Oct 11 03:44:58 Hmmm? "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The jobs crisis has brought an unwelcome discovery for many unemployed Americans: Job openings in their old fields exist. Yet they no longer qualify for them. They're running into a trend that took root during the recession. Companies became more productive by doing more with fewer workers. Some asked staffers to take on a broader array of duties -- duties that used to be spread among multiple jobs. Now, someone who hopes to get those jobs must meet the new requirements." ____________ Owned?
Honest Politician Member	Mon Oct 11 04:50:21 Incandescent lightbulbs are terribly inefficient, banning them is a good thing. There's going to be a market so US-made bulbs could possibly compete: 'Buy American'.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Oct 11 05:54:06 Soft drinks have about 16 spoons of sugar in each can, let's ban them to cut down on obesity. Electric cars are more efficient, but cost thousands more. Let's ban gasoline engines totally. Let the government make *EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED DECISION FOR YOU* from cradle to grave. Is that what you really want? Some people do not like CFL bulbs, my sister-in-law hates them. Granted she is a bit strange, but shouldn't she be allowed to buy an inefficient product for her home if that is what makes her happy?
roland Member	Mon Oct 11 06:27:37 Of course, the CFL reduce the overall energy consumption, and thus reduce the amount of money we give to the terrorists in order to get energy from them, I think that was their argument.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Oct 11 06:37:27 See 'electric cars' in my last post.
roland Member	Mon Oct 11 07:10:43 Cars are a lot more complex, because the main thing we would be replacing arent the car itself, but mainly it is about replacing the way how we supply fuels to the cars. Light bulbs in comparison is a lot more simple, and also less costly.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Oct 11 07:13:37 *but mainly it is about replacing the way how we supply fuels to the light bulbs." The only thing different is scale and price. You want the government to make your decisions for you.
roland Member	Mon Oct 11 07:57:03 "The only thing different is scale and price." And that dont matter? Imagine there are two policies that would serve the same goal, one is sending $10 million aid to a country to buy their loyalty, and the another is to launch a war to topple their leadership that would cost trillions. Which one do you think would gernerate more publicity, or opposition? " You want the government to make your decisions for you. " That's a reasonable assumption that some decisions should be made by the people as a collective, while other decisions should be left to be decided by individuals, this is not black and white issue. I can't really say the government is making every GOD DAMNED DECISION for me. They arent.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Oct 11 08:03:10 "The only thing different is scale and price. " lololol...some economist might say that a difference in scale and price is a rather important in economics lool
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Oct 11 09:46:50 "The only thing different is scale and price." lulz
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Oct 11 10:53:50 Yes, ban the fuck out of incandescents! It's not like you'd have any reason to continue using them... http://en....#Design_and_application_issues
Dakyron Member	Mon Oct 11 10:57:18 "Soft drinks have about 16 spoons of sugar in each can, let's ban them to cut down on obesity." I agree. Obesity is a rampant problem that needs government attention. "Electric cars are more efficient, but cost thousands more. Let's ban gasoline engines totally. " As soon as electric cars are competitive with gasoline cars, this will happen. I think the current government target is 2040 for all cars to be zero emissions. "Let the government make *EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED DECISION FOR YOU* from cradle to grave. Is that what you really want? " No, but when it comes to the environment, companies are uninterested in conservation, and people too stupid to do the right thing. "Some people do not like CFL bulbs, my sister-in-law hates them. Granted she is a bit strange, but shouldn't she be allowed to buy an inefficient product for her home if that is what makes her happy? " No. Just like if I wanted to put asbestos in my house it wouldnt be allowed.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Oct 11 10:59:46 " my sister-in-law hates them. Granted she is a bit strange, but shouldn't she be allowed to buy an inefficient product for her home if that is what makes her happy?" No. This is why you will be persecuted for the raping and murdering of Lil' Davey.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Oct 11 11:02:42 "I think the current government target is 2040 for all cars to be zero emissions." I like how something is said to be zero emissions even if all you're doing is moving them from an exhaust pipe to a power plant.
Dakyron Member	Mon Oct 11 11:08:30 True, but its technologically possible to create power that is zero emissions. Solar, wind, tidal forces, all are zero emissions. Nuclear power puts nothing into the air. Cities would be far cleaner with all electric vehicles.
ehcks Member	Mon Oct 11 11:33:51 And even if you're using a gasoline-based power plant, it's more efficient to power cars from the electricity produced than to use gasoline-powered cars.
Honest Politician Member	Mon Oct 11 13:43:04 As I said Rod, there's going to be a larger market so it's up to US companies to try and get in there. It doesn't just mean laws for China, it has job opportunities for the US too.
Valishin Member	Mon Oct 11 14:18:00 "The danger comes from people who think banning wasteful, obsolete technology is questionable." Banning it is certinally questionable involvement of government, letting it die out in the market however seems entirely approprate if it is indeed wasteful and obsolete. It is not the role of government to pick winners and loosers in the marketplace, even for the most noble of reasons. That is the role of the consumer.
jergul Member	Mon Oct 11 16:56:00 Inability to conform to changes in the marketplace is a defining characteristic of a looser. Nothing stopping GE from adapting to change except the inability to do so. Though the actual need to micro-regulate is linked to the inability to macro-regulate by way of emission taxation.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Oct 11 18:24:44 jergul - Inability to conform to changes in the marketplace is a defining characteristic of a looser. Nothing stopping GE from adapting to change except the inability to do so. Wrong. One thing stopping GE is the price they would have to charge if they made the CFL's here. At least 50% more than China's. We can thank the unions for that.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Oct 11 18:31:27 I know, right? What if everyone is paid like they are living in China?
roland Member	Tue Oct 12 02:09:01 "At least 50% more than China's. We can thank the unions for that. " Try a few times.
Honest Politician Member	Tue Oct 12 07:55:37 That 50% higher production cost? Well Jerguls point applies yet again. Companies will/should adapt to reduce the cost.
roland Member	Tue Oct 12 08:55:33 "That 50% higher production cost?" HR is talking about wages there. their average unskilled factory workers wage is about 1-2000 RMD a month, let's call it 2000, which is 300 USD a month. Our minimum wage is 7.25 USD, let say the guy is only working for 30 hours a week, and in a month, that's close to 900 USD. Our lazy guy who work probably about half of the time less than the guy in China, and still make 3 times more than him. Of course, without the union, the gap will probably be narrower, but it wont be enough to make up the gap.
Honest Politician Member	Tue Oct 12 09:12:14 Wages have to be factored into production costs, if the labour intensity is reduced then you lower the cost.
The Children Member	Tue Oct 12 12:02:01 So after two days of arguing I think we can agree on the conclusion: China is by far superior. By far.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 12 12:10:15 slavery helps businesses, no doubt about it
Honest Politician Member	Tue Oct 12 12:32:31 I agree, superior slavery implementation.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 12 12:39:54 Generally, if wages are the reason the US cannot go more high tech, then the low tech lightbulbs currently produced would be vulnerable too. So we have to assume Chinese producers knew about the coming legislature and moved on to an appropriate product, while the US producer did not. All hope is not lost. If you cannot beat them stepping forward, then a bulky lighting source too backward for the Chinese to bother export might be the solution for GE. May I suggest abattoir remnants and the production of tallow for candle making as a suitable product for GE.
earthpig55049 Member	Sun Feb 05 00:36:13 slow verb question round eat room set .
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: