Bob

But, just to use the EPA as an example, remember how dirty out air and water were 50, 60 years ago? The EPA had a mandate to make our environment cleaner. As much as they’ve done, you’d think the EPA’s job would be easier and cheaper – maybe even at some point they might look around and say “that’s good enough” and they could all pack up and go home – but, no, it’s even harder now. That’s because “cleaner” is a never-ending job and the cleaner you make it the more it takes to get it even cleaner. There’s a law of diminishing returns there, but unfortunately money’s no object to these people and there’s no sacrifice so great that they’re not perfectly willing for other people to make it.

Look at Trump’s complaints about other countries stealing our manufacturing jobs – it’s nice to have the EPA and OSHA and the DoL making sure we all have nice, clean, safe, good-paying jobs with all the benefits, but that means all the low-skill, dirty, dangerous, labor-intensive jobs moved to China and Mexico. Our lifestyle and our expectations have a cost, but nobody’s ever sat down and discussed the price and whether or not we thought we were getting our money’s worth. It’s just our betters in Washington deciding what’s best for everyone and since it’s not their money or their lives they’re playing with their hierarchy of values might not quite align with the rest of the country.

Heck, they’re in no danger of having to work a 60 hour week for low pay or losing a finger in a punch press or spending all day long breathing in dust and fumes, why would anybody else want to have that sort of job? Well, if your choice is between having a crappy job or no job at all, some of us don’t appreciate having the crappy job option removed. Maybe we could be consulted as to the nature of the cost/benefit analysis.