Federal regulation versus jobs…not much there
The Washington Post points us to a study on the overall impact of regulations and jobs:
The critique of regulations fits into a broader conservative narrative about government overreach. But it also comes after a string of disasters in recent years that were tied to government regulators falling short, including the financial crisis of 2008, the BP oil spill and the West Virginia mining accident last year.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules.
Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts.
In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.
The best, most successful, con artist knows that the con requires two centers of attention. The first is not the primary. The primary focus of the con man is to divest the rube of something of value. The primary focus of the rube is on the secondary focus of the perpetrator of the con, the distraction. Like the pick pocket that works with a confederate. The latter distracts the target and the former takes the wallet unnoticed. The rube rarely recognizes the actual con game being too busy fighting and fending off invalid claims and theories. It is not a debate to the con artist, as it is to the rube. It is a ned to distract that results in all manner of assault on our attention to the crux of the matter. When did the business community and their “conservative” allies kin government ever truly believe that government intervention in the markets was an interference? Price supports, depletion allowances, accelerated depreciation, etc.
It is a confidence game and all of the flailing around to disprove the validity of the distraction is just that, a distraction. Government regulations that increase profitability is fine and may or may not, usually the latter, add jobs to an industry. Government regulation that protects our health and the health of the environment or the economy isn’t intended to effect profitability and almost always requires more employees. Some times when you think you’re fighting the good fight you’re only contributing to the distraction. Government regulation enjoys the advantage of having face validity. It need not be proven to have an economic effect one way or the other. It’s purpose is not economic, but, instead, the prevention of some form of distortion in a market.
One of the most important “things” going on right now is mobile/wireless. Yet, the governmnet is dragging their feet on getting spectrum out there – and have been over two administartions. That is an example of governmnet regulation possibly killing jobs.
The pipeline proposal that was killed recently. etc….
Getting infrastructure projects going can take decades too, and there are studies about this too.
Even Obama knows the governmnet is delaying things:
The other distraction is “uncertainty” Businesses are not hiring because of uncertainty. There was a humerous dustup over it last week on CNBC where someone said they thought business was not hiring because of lack of demand and the host said that he was wrong because business people themselves said it was due to “uncertainty”. They then got into an argument. Of course business people say they are not hiring because of uncertainty and of course the reason they are not hiring is lack of demand. lack of demand does not fit the narrative so they go with uncertainty. I think regulations are great. If it were not for the EPA insisting on reducing the effect of PCBs in the Fox River in Wisconsin, I know of at least 100 lawyers who would have to find something else to do.
Err, measuring how many jobs are destroyed by regulation isn’t the way to do it. Come along now, this is economics here: recall your Bastiat. How many aren’t created because of regulation is what we actually want to know.
So enlighten us Tim. how do you see regulation as a deterent to employment? How does the need to comply with the rule of law reduce the numbers of workers required to produce the product? These are tracks that run parallel. There is no intersection between regulation and jobs other than the need to hire in order to meet all regulatroy requirments. You’re blowing economic hypothsesis smoke through your Bastiat pipe. He never proved anything other than a man with too much idle time on his hands can imagine all manner of theoretical truths. In a word, who gives a flying f___k what a 19th century French fop living off of his inherited wealth had to say?
I posted examples above. Follow the link for more
We seem to be falling into a trap with the word “regulation.”
Nobody, NOBODY, in this discussion (certainly no gov’t types) ever gets down to what regulations they are specifically mad about, and why. But every single government regulation was put in place to do something. Some of them might be moot now, some might have been foolish from the beginning, but they all had to survive some sort of process to go into force.
Bad food, dangerous products, embezzelment, animal cruelty, de facto slavery, control fraud, misrepresentation of product quantity or quality, false labeling … the ways for a seller to do a buyer wrong are legion, and we have seen in financial instruments in the 00s, the usual arguments which all begin “But surely they wouldn’t…” generally means “Yep. They will.” Ditto with “It only stands to reason…”
If I was a reporter, I would ask these guys on the campaign trail for a short list of specific regulations they want scrapped. Abstract “regulation” means nothing, just as abstract “drugs,” describes anything from aspirin to Dilaudid.
Forgive me for being redundant, but let me point out, again, that the con is to focus on ambiguous regulations that “hinder businesses in their quest to employ all of America, especially the one’s living in China and India.” The con artist isn’t going to be specific unless he is pushing a point that enriches his group. Do they want to scuttle the Farm Bill? Do they want to de-regulate ethanol production? How about ending regulations that allow mining on government lands and paying chump change to the government for the wealth carted off? There are plenty of government regulations that I would like to see removed, but I don’t think our Republican friends, and those Democrats whose local business interests benefit, want to de-regulate the same things that I would.
Hmm. How about removing all the new regulations put in place concerning the use of Zucotti Park in NYC? The damn government is getting in the way again, but it has produced added employment for police and sanitation workers. Not additional workers, but the over-time just before the holidays will warm the hearts of all those taking advantage of enforcing these new government regulations.
I contend that state and local regulation are as much an issue as federal ones, but of course that can’t go on national news. For example restricting the number of taxis, licensing for interior decorators being required (I guess the idea is to be sure that decorators don’t arrange things so that they fall on peoples heads), needing a license to build coffins (see monastery in la). But of course the real reason they are not gone after is that the business community wants this protection to keep competitors out.
This may be a duplicate. As with the reply to Noni, above, it some how got lost from the thread, but remained on the back up under my name. Dan, what’s up?
I was pondering the activities of Grover Norquist and wondering about the conflict between his No Tax pledge and the oath of office taken by members of Congress. As I understand the Grover pledge those who sign it are pledging never to raise taxes. How can such a pledge not be in conflict with an oath of office that obliges the office holder to abide by the laws and the Constitution of the USofA? It says specifically,
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
How does the Grover pledge not place a “mental reservation or purpose of evation” on the individual who signs the Grover pledge. Is one’s faith and allegiance not abridged by pledging to constrict one’s actions actions regarding the business of the country?
Business regulations that businesses like just keep on occuring to me. What about compulsory auto insurance? It makes the product more expensive and it sure makes the insurance industry healthier.
And why can’t I just drfive off to Canada without having to identify myself to a border crossing agent? Why does anyone have to know where I am and why I’m there just because there is an artificial line on the map? My family traveled to Montreal regularly when I was a kid and we didn’t need anything more than a birth certificate. Even that seems a bit silly. What difference did it make, how old I was?
I saw on the news last evening that some young woman was being looked for by the police because she had been providing psychological services without a license. I was a psychologist for many years. I even had academic credentials. If anyone believes that a degree in psychology (or psychiatry) makes one fit to provide psycho-therapeutic services of any value they are nuts. But that’s what one needs to be “licensed” to be a psychologist. Why isn’t any one complaining about that regulation? I suppose that the AMA likes it because their untrained psychiatrists don’t need the license to offer the services. They only need an MD degree and license. That makes perfect sense. A psychiatrist with possibly no education in the basic human processes can offer serfvice, but a PhD psychologis needs a state issued license. And the state isn’t all that concerned with the school that gave out the degree. Nuts!!!
There is nothing in the Constitution that demands that Taxes be raised. The Americans for Tax Reform’s position is that the federal government derives power through taxation. The federal government was never meant to be centralized, i.e. power was to be distributed throughout the states, and their position is that growth in a centralized government can only be controlled by controlling the tax revenue needed for it to grow. There is actually two Pledges, the second is for the state level governments.
Many people do not understand that letting the Bush Tax cuts expire does not violate The Pledge. Also, many people do not understand that if tax incentives, loopholes, or breaks are ended for business and individuals, it also does not violate The Pledge. The Pledge’s main focus is “additional and new” taxes that contribute to the growth in the size and reach of government.
Are we to infer, then, that “a drop in business demand” can have nothing to do with changing interventionist policy?
“How does the need to comply with the rule of law reduce the numbers of workers required to produce the product?”
You are misinterpreting what Tim has said. I believe Tim has the correct take on it. The issue isn’t about which regulations actually destroy a business and there are many that have, but the issue is which regulations hamper growth in the economy….ie. the creation of jobs and wealth.
In Obama’s first two years there has been 132 “significant” regulations, those defined as having an impact of $100 Million or more. That is an average of 66 per year. Bush and Clinton averages were 47 per year. As of right now there are still 219 “signifigant” regulations additional in the pipeline, and this does not include the huge number of regulations that are going to hit by 2013 with Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, and the EPA’s scheduled estimations.
It is true that some regulations create jobs, and it is true that some regulations are absolutely necessary to accomplish overall improvement in the general welfare of the public. But what we have seen since the Democrats have taken power in 2006 is just absolute overreach. Almost all regulations being creating are an overlap of existing, or basically a mechanism for a hidden tax.
If you are looking for a specific example of what Republicans are talking about, then look no further than the NLRB action against Boeing in South Carolina. Another small example would be the new Lead Pollution Prevention (LPP) and Course Particulate Matter (CPM) regulations that have devistated the Housing and Construction industries. There is so many other examples there is no way to go thru each senerio.
Spectrum issues have at least as much, if not more, to do with competing private interests as what the government wants. Also, those regulations are a necessity for the system to work.