How each industrialized nation operates is based on their political economic realities. When nations trade those political economic realities play a significant role in the standard of living of each nation.
When company’s offer services for the world market they need to be priced competitively. Other industrialized nations have socialized healthcare. Regardless of the pros and cons of a national health care system one thing is true, some industrialized nations do not have the financial obligation of health care costs being part of their financial statements. That one cost reduction gives a significant advantage to those other industrialized nation’s businesses.
One reason IBM moved one of their operational facilities to Canada, reduced health insurance costs. Is it IBM’s fault? No it is not! One reason General Motors went out of business, they couldn’t afford to pay health benefits for the retired workforce anymore.
One aspect of ObamaCare was to increase insurance participation thereby stabilizing or helping to reduce premiums for companies and individuals. However, the burden is still on business to provide money for health care, whereas their foreign business competition does not have that financial burden. As we all know in America the amount of money health care premiums require is significant to any business.
The thoughts I am presenting is not the merits of a national healthcare system. It is how America needs to be competitive in world markets. Reducing cost for American businesses will help reduce the vulnerability of moving service industry jobs to foreign markets.
Government regulation adds to the operational costs of business some of it is necessary and some is not. Compliance implementation with government regulations needs to be overhauled, within every federal, state and local government agencies, which monitors and regulates businesses and its citizens.
As an example, someone in New Jersey Motor vehicle department realized having a brand new car should receive a 5 year inspection sticker, whereas before it was yearly. Why make a person spend time to inspect a vehicle that is brand new (to the original owner) each year. It is apparent the vehicle will be intact for at least 5 years before ever becoming unsafe. This type of thinking helps the state reduce labor and printing sticker costs. In addition, because inspection volume drops and people don’t spend time unnecessarily, a win for government and the people.
Another example, the federal government consumer protection agency making sure when auto manufacturers advertise on television a disclaimer on the bottom of the screen list in detail the financial terms. The disclaimer text is so small it would be hard to read. In addition, the text is displayed for only several seconds so you cannot possibly have enough time to read and comprehend.
Radio advertisements follow the same pattern. When the advertisement is finished a speed talker recites the disclaimer in less than 3 seconds, basically no one would ever be able to understand or comprehend the disclaimer.
That is the acceptable solution from the federal government regulators for protecting the consumer from financial deceptive auto advertisements. The time and energy it took to create the compliance law and advertising disclaimer copy that ultimately has no value, wasted tax dollars and wasted corporate resources. Does that mean the government shouldn’t require business to fully disclose, no it does not. However those details can be fully disclosed at the dealership.
I understand the bait and switch but no one is exchanging any money until the financial terms are fully disclosed. An auto maker doesn’t want to spend money convincing people to purchase their cars that they cannot afford. It would be a waste of resources. In addition, a car salesperson doesn’t want to spend time closing a deal only to find out they cannot afford the vehicle.
That is a small example of over protecting the consumer. If customers go down to an auto dealer and obtain the financial terms and said to themselves wow if I knew what the real costs were I would have never wasted my time going to the dealer. That negative publicity would not be favorable to the manufacturer, especially with social marketing. A simple solution is saying see your local dealer for full details and financial terms, which they sometimes say in the commercial. They shouldn’t have to disclose all the financial details. This is a prime example of bad implementation of consumer protection, adding to the cost of doing business.
I can give numerous examples of serious excessive cost to implement regulation and compliance requirements of federal, state and local government however the point is the most efficient way to implement anything in government should be mandated.
In order for American to be competitive in world markets we need to reduce cost to all businesses large or small. We can do this by overhauling the cost to administer, implement our compliance, regulation and fees in government. We also need to align our business required health care costs with other industrialized nations otherwise those nations have an additional competitive advantage over America’s domestic businesses when competing in world markets.