From Newsmax - Federal Light Bulb Ban Creating Jobs in China - Plus Something About Unemployment

From this article: 

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 — 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 “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.

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.

“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,” said Heartland Institute science director Jay Lehr.

“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.”

And Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said: “If the new energy-saving technologies being pushed by government are really that good, then we don’t need government to mandate them. And if they are being mandated, that’s a sure sign that they’re not very good.”

Three Republican members of Congress — Joe Barton, Marsha Blackburn and Michael Burgess — have introduced a bill that would repeal the ban on the incandescent bulb.

The three said in an article on The Daily Caller: “The unanticipated consequence of the ’07 act — layoffs in the middle of a desperate recession — is what sometimes happens when politicians think they know better than consumers and workers.”

 

 

***********

 

I've shared it before here - I HATE CFLs!!!  At our house, they do not last longer.  In fact, they have a very short life in our house.  Many of the packages for CFLs boast that the bulbs will last for 5 years.  The most they've lasted in our house has been about 3 months - about half as long as the cheapest incandescent light bulbs.  We've also had CFLs explode in our house.  The cost lots more.

 

And in our township, you're not supposed to dispose of CFLs in your regular trash.  Instead, you're supposed to hang onto them - perhaps in your garage - for the two times per year when you're allowed to take toxic materials to the township for disposal.

 

Think about some of the things mentioned above:

 

As with any government mandate - if it was really that great an idea, it would not need a mandate.

 

Government and environmentalists don't think - and often don't care - what their stupidity does to consumers or to our economy.

 

 

**********

 

Note:  Also on that same page there is a blurb about the fact that unemployment benefits are going to millionaires.  I'm betting some people will be surprised at that.  I'm not.  Maybe some will be ticked off.  I'm not.  The qualifications for receiving unemployment benefits don't include looking at your savings account or your net worth.  What counts is that you qualify based on certain criteria like the hours you worked (full time) and how long you were employed.  It doesn't matter that you have money in the bank.  That is not part of the criteria.

 

In recent days, I've been reading lots about how unemployment benefits work.  The formula for what employers pay into the system is complicated, but if they pay on time, it appears that most pay only $56 per year per employee for the unemployment insurance.  Think about that for just a moment....

 

The money that employers pay is supposed to go into a fund for unemployment and be used for just that, but we know how the government loves to steal/borrow from such funds.

 

Let's pretend that $56 per employee per year has been the same rate they've paid for 20 years.  It's not, of course, but for ease in showing how this works, let's pretend.

 

ABC Employer has 20 employees and has been in business for 10 years.  ABC had to let go 10 employees because of the economy.  How much has ABC paid into the system?  20 employees x $56 per employee x 10 years = $11,200.  (Plus ABC will continue to pay $56 per employee per year for each employee still working.)  If one of those employees who made $50,000 is only getting 36% of his earnings for unemployment pay, that one employee will be receiving more in benefits - $18,000 - than the employer paid into the system for all employees during the 10 years that he paid.

 

Is it any wonder why....

 

We want to be SURE to limit unemployment pay ONLY to those who show that they are ACTIVELY working to find work?

 

And we want to make sure that companies like the one for which my husband works - which has never had one single lay-off in 60 years should be encouraged to stay in business and to grow?

 

And that we want ALL businesses to receive benefits that make sure they grow and prosper in the US, instead of wanting to retreat to more business friendly countries?

 

We need the companies that DO have working employees to help pay for benefits of those who are not working.

 

Our country cannot continue paying people to stay at home, especially those who make no attempt to find work again until their benefits are ready to stop.  (And then they belly-ache and want the government to extend benefits again.)  We cannot afford to keep paying out money that we don't have.

 

How much of our country does China own at this point?  Doesn't that concern you?