Labor reform...not going well


#21

[quote=“jotham, post:19, topic:158317, full:true”]
Really, this is much more appropriately left to the states than the federal government.[/quote]
In theory yes. In some cases. However, “thou shalt not fuck up other people’s water supply” is just a variant on “thou shalt not steal”, and funnily enough that one works fine when handed down from on high.

Anyway, corruption and mismanagement thrives at state level just as readily as at federal level. Possibly more so.

That’s third-world reasoning. You genuinely believe a State the size of Ireland would be unable to provide jobs if it didn’t allow large companies to misappropriate public resources (ie., pollute)?

So … apparently best not left to the states, then?

What he said. This might have been true 60 years ago. Not now.


#22

West Virginia isn’t doing too well lately. I have no reliable and up-to-date info re Ireland.

Until fairly recently in human history, what we call the Third World was the norm for human society. It wouldn’t take much to slide back into that.


#23

Ireland has its issues BUT it is one of the most prosperous countries (all things considered) on Earth and also one of the cleanest.
Basically Ireland skipped the most polluting part of the industrial revolution (no coal) and jumped into light manufacturing and now mostly services.
Ireand doesn’t have much in terms of natural resources (beyond abundant rain and grass) and still came out pretty well in the 21st century.
In the 1950s the Irish governnent abandoned its previously failed self succificency program and completely changed their tax laws and promoted free trade zones. At that time it was one of the poorest countries in Europe with mass emigration of its citizens.
In the 1960s my parents were the first generation to get free secondary degree schooling and go to college. The education status went from many in the 1950s graduating with a certificate from primary school or junior high school to by the 1970s the expectation that most would aim to graduate from college.
Basically a sea change in educational levels in less than two generations.

In 1973 Ireland joined the EU and implemented their environmental directives and received substantial infrastructure support , joined Erasmus EU student exchange program and became less dependent on the UKs market and policies. In the 1990s Ireand abolished university fees for citizens (they are creeping back in). In the 1990s the governnent and people also signed the Good Friday agreement to reduce the cycle of violence in the North and helped to improve the image of Ireland among tourists and investors.

It’s all making smart choices and investing in yourself. Ireland also has made some terrible economic choices in the recent past but it’s moving forward in a broadly positive manner and unemployment rates are dropping quickly again.

We are also proud of our heritage and mountains we wouldn’t generally lop the tops off of them and pollute all and sundry for a quick buck.

West Virginia is part of the richest and more powerful country in the world and has a lot going for it than most of the other shit buckets out there.

I’m thinking West Virginians can do better in terms of raising their prosperity and improving their health than the proverbial shitting where they eat.

They could campaign to get special incentives for service or other lighter polluting industries to set up in West Virginia. They could invest in education. There are smarter approaches.


#24

Well, that’s nice. Supposedly, Ireland was in the toilet in 2010. Is that all better now?


#25

Brian’s point is that Ireland did not up its game by mining coal.

If you need any more help with reading comprehension, just let me know.

Guy


#26

Care to elaborate?


#27

I just gave you a detailed explanation why are you asking me again? Maybe you can look it up yourself?


#28

My, such hostility.


#29

[quote]The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), passed in 2010, is the main shackle that America puts on other countries. It requires financial institutions abroad to report details of their American clients’ accounts or face punishing withholding taxes on American-sourced payments. America’s central role in global finance means most comply.

FATCA has spawned the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), a transparency initiative overseen by the OECD club of 34 countries that is emerging as a standard for the exchange of data for tax purposes. So far 96 countries, including Switzerland, once favoured by rich taxophobes, have signed up and will soon start swapping information. The OECD is also leading efforts to force multinationals to reveal more about where and how profits are made, and the deals they cut with individual governments, in order to curb aggressive tax-planning.

Because it has signed a host of bilateral data-sharing deals, America sees no need to join the CRS. But its reciprocation is patchy. It passes on names and interest earned, but not account balances; it does not look through the corporate structures that own many bank accounts to reveal the true “beneficial” owner; and data are only shared with countries that meet a host of privacy and technical standards. That excludes many non-European countries… . .

Only a few other financial centres have declined to commit themselves to the CRS, among them Bahrain and Nauru. Hong Kong has signed but will implement it one tax-treaty partner at a time rather than using a multilateral shortcut; some regard this as a delaying tactic. Undeclared Asian and Middle Eastern money is moving to Taiwan and Lebanon, respectively, both of which are outside the club. Panama, which vies with Miami for Latin American money, looks set to back out of its tentative commitment to the CRS, using America’s double standards as an excuse.[/quote] – The Economist

Taiwan is being pushed to join the CRS.


#30

Here’s another article on it.

I suspect it’s not as easy as this person makes out, but it’s probably very easy to do If you are Taiwanese and relatively easy if a Chinese speaker.


#31

Thank you for the information, which was one essential piece of information that was not aware of. Much appreciated.

Do you think this is one of the reason TWD is way too strong against USD in relation to PPP?

https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm


#32

I wasn’t referring to Taiwan as a country, I was referring to the case of the student who needed a bionic arm. Because average Taiwanese aren’t wealthy enough that they can fathom to finance such on their own as average citizens in countries where more accumulated capital is available per head.

I could compare with the US, but after 8 years of Obama and many more years of low interest rates, we may very well be closer to the status of Taiwanese.


#33

Completely disagree. The demographics are, if anything, weighted slightly in Taiwan’s favour because there’s a smaller underclass of have-nothings. 95% of Americans would not be able to fund an advanced arm prosthesis without hardship, just as 95% of Taiwanese would.

OTOH, I suggest 20-30% of Taiwanese could fund a more basic model, compared to 10-20% of Americans, simply because of the much lower cost of medical services (fitting, rehab, etc) in Taiwan.

Just my impression. I’ll happily admit I pulled those numbers out of the air.


#34

[quote=“finley, post:21, topic:158317, full:true”]

[quote=“jotham, post:19, topic:158317, full:true”]
Really, this is much more appropriately left to the states than the federal government.[/quote]
In theory yes. In some cases. However, “thou shalt not fuck up other people’s water supply” is just a variant on “thou shalt not steal”, and funnily enough that one works fine when handed down from on high.

Anyway, corruption and mismanagement thrives at state level just as readily as at federal level. Possibly more so.[/quote]
Corruption may thrive at the state level, but where it exists, the effects are limited only to that state, which is another reason why local is better. A corrupt president, (or Congress) on the other hand, is something that effects us all. And I happen to think corruption is less likely on the state level, because you have less power and less money than the federal government, so less lobbying efforts. (Actually lobbying wasn’t such a problem in the Senate when it was constituted as the Founders envisioned, as the voice of the States, whose legislatures sent two representatives. Such representatives would have to vote the will of the state (instructions were sent to them how to vote) and not be influenced by lobbyists.

That’s third-world reasoning. You genuinely believe a State the size of Ireland would be unable to provide jobs if it didn’t allow large companies to misappropriate public resources (ie., pollute)?[/quote]
I’m talking about West Virginia specifically, which is in the Appalachian Mountains and has been coal-mining area since before 1900s, maybe even 1800s, and 53 of 55 counties have coal. This is not Ireland at all. You and Obama are suggesting the whole state change its main source of income, like telling Chinese they shouldn’t grow rice, which is arrogant. Obama’s war on coal would devastate a state like West Virginia, which is traditionally Democrat, but understandably didn’t vote for Obama in a landslide. This is why our government is built on federalism, or the principle that states have more governing power than the federal government to decide these local kinds of issues. Arrogant Obama and Democrats always feel their oats and want to get their grubby hands involved in all aspects of American’s lives, and this demonstrates why local power is better.

So … apparently best not left to the states, then?[/quote]
No, because West Virginians can weigh the advantages and disadvantages and vote accordingly. Their governor isn’t going to engage in policies that will devastate the state, because they are beholden to the people. A president is too alienated from the consequences of his decisions on local areas like West Virginia. His executive orders may not effect New Yorkers at all, which is why they cheer him, but its a life-changer for West Virginians.


#35

Oh, I forgot about health insurance. What is Taiwan’s policy on this? Is it covered? That’s a whole different arena, a whole different ball game to discuss and consider the aspects of, but my original contention is on the free market, 20 years ago, without Obamacare, (which has made healthcare more expensive, not cheaper, so you may be right now), Americans were better situated and wealthy enough that such accidents wouldn’t phase them as much as poorer Taiwanese, (unless health insurance take up the slack).

Well let’s put it this way, health insurance would have to take a larger bulk for Taiwanese than would be necessary for Americans 20 years ago.


#36

98% of Taiwanese are covered by NHI. And they got enough social enterprises, charities, community funds to get a bionic arm. heck, they have one of the highest rates of people working with physical and or mental dissabilities.

If you want to get a bit pissed, this socialist paradise pays a monthly stipend to homeless people that do not work, so they will have some dignity. They are also entitled to meals and stuff, like elderly people who have daily lunch delivered by local lizhangs. Practically communists.


#37

It’s the main reason. Lots of other people’s money staying one step ahead of the taxman.


#38

So who are those old people sleeping in the underpasses and selling chewing gum?

Just wondering.


#39

Charities, community fund, social enterprises are different, they function best under a free market. Socialism tends obviate these charities, especially as rich people donate less when they are taxed more.

But if Taiwan is really so socialist as that, that alone can explain low wages and economic morass Taiwan finds itself, since socialism puts a strain on the wealth-creating mechanism of the free market.

Take your pick, dignified wages for working citizens with which they can take care of themselves with dignity or dignified government services for citizens whose wages are barely enough to pay for life’s essentials.


#40

Some have mental issues and refuse treatment. Some are convicts. Some have been deceived of their money by family. Most receive some kind of help and have resources for help available.