Job killing regulations

[Bronzeage]

As is the case in these kinds of discussions, someone throws out a phrase intended to excite the emotions, without any context. Why not "baby killing regulations," or "puppy killing regulations"? It would get the same result.

There are a lot of regulations which killed a lot of jobs. Does anyone know anyone who works in a chemical plant that manufactures DDT? What happened to the DDT workers? Ciba-Giegy, a big Swiss Chemical manufacturer, has a chemical plant in Louisiana. They manufacture pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. One day in 1984, they shut down one of their units. The pesticide it produced had been banned in the US. About 100 people were laid off without notice. I had a couple friends on that crew. Of course, we can't count how many lives were saved from pesticide poisoning.

Regulations don't really kill jobs. They realign and rearrange jobs. When a regulation is needed, what it really means is someone is taking advantage of someone else. This is usually the public. It's always cheaper to dump your garbage in the river, but someone is paying the price for polluted water and air.

In the end, when everything is properly defined, "job killing regulations" kill the jobs that kill people.

But that's constistant with laughing's argument too. But then the argument would be what is the net gain/loss. It's the argument with minimum wage about who loses jobs and how much compared to the gain of other people. But not all the job killing regulations are that it kills people.

What's the correction factor? What if the dead jobs don't kill people, but only steal money from them. The building next to mine once housed three separate payday loan companies. All three were owned by the same person, but each office appealed to a descending scale of desperation. The Legislature changed the law, which put "post dated check" loan companies in the same category as other small loan businesses. Two of the businesses closed as a result.

Every regulation or law gores someone's ox. If it didn't, there would be no need for them. Traffic regulations such as stop signs and speed limits make serious cuts into the business of auto body shops and emergency room technicians. No one is suggesting we try to achieve full employment by destroying cars and maiming people.

As for the minimum wage costing jobs, why not cut the minimum wage and put more people to work?

Laws are put in place to insure public safety and order. Sometimes this cuts into someone's livelihood, but we generally want to discourage people who endanger the public just because they need the money. Full employment is a noble goal, but there are worse social ills than unemployment.

 

[Underseer]

Thanks to deregulation, lots of Texas factories and other economic facilities are blowing up, burning to the ground, etc., etc.

So the regulations they used to have prevented this sort of thing, which meant less work for firefighters and other emergency workers, which hurt the economy. Now that Texas is so much more deregulated, they have lots more jobs. Those freedom-hating liberals want fewer factories to explode, which proves that they want to kill jobs. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[coloradoatheist]

As is the case in these kinds of discussions, someone throws out a phrase intended to excite the emotions, without any context. Why not "baby killing regulations," or "puppy killing regulations"? It would get the same result.

There are a lot of regulations which killed a lot of jobs. Does anyone know anyone who works in a chemical plant that manufactures DDT? What happened to the DDT workers? Ciba-Giegy, a big Swiss Chemical manufacturer, has a chemical plant in Louisiana. They manufacture pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. One day in 1984, they shut down one of their units. The pesticide it produced had been banned in the US. About 100 people were laid off without notice. I had a couple friends on that crew. Of course, we can't count how many lives were saved from pesticide poisoning.

Regulations don't really kill jobs. They realign and rearrange jobs. When a regulation is needed, what it really means is someone is taking advantage of someone else. This is usually the public. It's always cheaper to dump your garbage in the river, but someone is paying the price for polluted water and air.

In the end, when everything is properly defined, "job killing regulations" kill the jobs that kill people.

But that's constistant with laughing's argument too. But then the argument would be what is the net gain/loss. It's the argument with minimum wage about who loses jobs and how much compared to the gain of other people. But not all the job killing regulations are that it kills people.

What's the correction factor? What if the dead jobs don't kill people, but only steal money from them. The building next to mine once housed three separate payday loan companies. All three were owned by the same person, but each office appealed to a descending scale of desperation. The Legislature changed the law, which put "post dated check" loan companies in the same category as other small loan businesses. Two of the businesses closed as a result.

Every regulation or law gores someone's ox. If it didn't, there would be no need for them. Traffic regulations such as stop signs and speed limits make serious cuts into the business of auto body shops and emergency room technicians. No one is suggesting we try to achieve full employment by destroying cars and maiming people.

As for the minimum wage costing jobs, why not cut the minimum wage and put more people to work?

Laws are put in place to insure public safety and order. Sometimes this cuts into someone's livelihood, but we generally want to discourage people who endanger the public just because they need the money. Full employment is a noble goal, but there are worse social ills than unemployment.

But the regulations have tradeoffs. We have to decide on the regulation of streets/highways to find what level of accident/death is acceptable. We could make it so nobody died on highways by setting the speed limit at 1mph and requiring cars to have physical limits to it. So the argument about minimum wage is who gets hurt and who benefits. Same thing with Underseer's factory example and what costs/benefits we get from allowing factories to make mistakes.

 

[Valjean]

I don't have specific examples but a class of them comes to mind: Cases where the established industry attempts to regulate out upstart competitors. Tesla and Uber come to mind.

Such as?

You're right Ksen. Given free reign, business/industry will attempt to eliminate competitors by 'any means necessary', and you'll end up with monopoly or oligopoly. Just look at history.

Regulations can maintain a more level playing field, keep jobs at home and prevent the big boys from stifling new enterprise. Our current financial malaise is a direct result of diminished regulation.

As for the aforementioned Uber and Tesla, these are new, start-up enterprises that existing industries are trying to regulate out of the market.
Uber: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fagin/life-as-an-uber-driver_b_4698299.html
Tesla: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...-battles-car-dealers-over-right-to-sell-cars/

Curious how Industry quietly pushes regulation when it benefits their interests, but rails against it in public when the 'job creating' free trade they advocate rears its head to bite them in the pocketbook.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Economic liberty publications - Institute for Justice

A pretty good overview of the way big business uses regulation to prevent small competitors, how big business uses economic regulations to prevent poor people from going into business for themselves, how big business uses economic regulations to force people to work for big business.

It is pretty conservoprogressive the way big business uses regulation against the poor.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Uh huh....

So when the government says "Tesla, you may not sell directly to the consumer, you must use the car dealership model" that's the same as saying "murder is illegal, so is murder for hire also illegal."

I think that you are talking about fairness, not jobs. It seems that Tesla selling directly to the public would be more efficient and generate fewer jobs than adding the extra layer of having to go through a dealership. Or do you think that Tesla selling directly to the public would require more jobs and be less efficient?

Once again, the thread is asking for examples of job killing regulations. There must be thousands of them to have the impact on the economy that you claim.

Actually, while it will kill the jobs of the car lot dealers, the direct to buyer approach Tesla is trying should ultimately create jobs in other areas on the grounds of the consumer saving money in this area and therefore being able to use that money in other areas. Now one might try to say that the money not spent in the other areas creates jobs in the initial area but that wouldn't be the case.

The reason it isn't the case is because the end result is more goods or services being purchased for the same amount of money, which does open up more opportunity overall. Otherwise the fact that we have computers doesn't mean we have a more robust economy with more opportunity because we're putting all of those bookkeepers and mathematicians out of work by using the computers.

If you can accomplish the same task for less, or purchase the same goods for less, that does open up more jobs. Regulations that prevent doing so are the ones that kill jobs. And they do so on behalf of the large established businesses that don't want to face any upstart competition, which is what all regulation is and does.

 

[Bronzeage]

As is the case in these kinds of discussions, someone throws out a phrase intended to excite the emotions, without any context. Why not "baby killing regulations," or "puppy killing regulations"? It would get the same result.

There are a lot of regulations which killed a lot of jobs. Does anyone know anyone who works in a chemical plant that manufactures DDT? What happened to the DDT workers? Ciba-Giegy, a big Swiss Chemical manufacturer, has a chemical plant in Louisiana. They manufacture pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. One day in 1984, they shut down one of their units. The pesticide it produced had been banned in the US. About 100 people were laid off without notice. I had a couple friends on that crew. Of course, we can't count how many lives were saved from pesticide poisoning.

Regulations don't really kill jobs. They realign and rearrange jobs. When a regulation is needed, what it really means is someone is taking advantage of someone else. This is usually the public. It's always cheaper to dump your garbage in the river, but someone is paying the price for polluted water and air.

In the end, when everything is properly defined, "job killing regulations" kill the jobs that kill people.

But that's constistant with laughing's argument too. But then the argument would be what is the net gain/loss. It's the argument with minimum wage about who loses jobs and how much compared to the gain of other people. But not all the job killing regulations are that it kills people.

What's the correction factor? What if the dead jobs don't kill people, but only steal money from them. The building next to mine once housed three separate payday loan companies. All three were owned by the same person, but each office appealed to a descending scale of desperation. The Legislature changed the law, which put "post dated check" loan companies in the same category as other small loan businesses. Two of the businesses closed as a result.

Every regulation or law gores someone's ox. If it didn't, there would be no need for them. Traffic regulations such as stop signs and speed limits make serious cuts into the business of auto body shops and emergency room technicians. No one is suggesting we try to achieve full employment by destroying cars and maiming people.

As for the minimum wage costing jobs, why not cut the minimum wage and put more people to work?

Laws are put in place to insure public safety and order. Sometimes this cuts into someone's livelihood, but we generally want to discourage people who endanger the public just because they need the money. Full employment is a noble goal, but there are worse social ills than unemployment.

But the regulations have tradeoffs. We have to decide on the regulation of streets/highways to find what level of accident/death is acceptable. We could make it so nobody died on highways by setting the speed limit at 1mph and requiring cars to have physical limits to it. So the argument about minimum wage is who gets hurt and who benefits. Same thing with Underseer's factory example and what costs/benefits we get from allowing factories to make mistakes.

Every rule, law or regulation is a compromise of competing interests. Are you arguing that it's smart to do smart things?

 

[coloradoatheist]

As is the case in these kinds of discussions, someone throws out a phrase intended to excite the emotions, without any context. Why not "baby killing regulations," or "puppy killing regulations"? It would get the same result.

There are a lot of regulations which killed a lot of jobs. Does anyone know anyone who works in a chemical plant that manufactures DDT? What happened to the DDT workers? Ciba-Giegy, a big Swiss Chemical manufacturer, has a chemical plant in Louisiana. They manufacture pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. One day in 1984, they shut down one of their units. The pesticide it produced had been banned in the US. About 100 people were laid off without notice. I had a couple friends on that crew. Of course, we can't count how many lives were saved from pesticide poisoning.

Regulations don't really kill jobs. They realign and rearrange jobs. When a regulation is needed, what it really means is someone is taking advantage of someone else. This is usually the public. It's always cheaper to dump your garbage in the river, but someone is paying the price for polluted water and air.

In the end, when everything is properly defined, "job killing regulations" kill the jobs that kill people.

But that's constistant with laughing's argument too. But then the argument would be what is the net gain/loss. It's the argument with minimum wage about who loses jobs and how much compared to the gain of other people. But not all the job killing regulations are that it kills people.

What's the correction factor? What if the dead jobs don't kill people, but only steal money from them. The building next to mine once housed three separate payday loan companies. All three were owned by the same person, but each office appealed to a descending scale of desperation. The Legislature changed the law, which put "post dated check" loan companies in the same category as other small loan businesses. Two of the businesses closed as a result.

Every regulation or law gores someone's ox. If it didn't, there would be no need for them. Traffic regulations such as stop signs and speed limits make serious cuts into the business of auto body shops and emergency room technicians. No one is suggesting we try to achieve full employment by destroying cars and maiming people.

As for the minimum wage costing jobs, why not cut the minimum wage and put more people to work?

Laws are put in place to insure public safety and order. Sometimes this cuts into someone's livelihood, but we generally want to discourage people who endanger the public just because they need the money. Full employment is a noble goal, but there are worse social ills than unemployment.

But the regulations have tradeoffs. We have to decide on the regulation of streets/highways to find what level of accident/death is acceptable. We could make it so nobody died on highways by setting the speed limit at 1mph and requiring cars to have physical limits to it. So the argument about minimum wage is who gets hurt and who benefits. Same thing with Underseer's factory example and what costs/benefits we get from allowing factories to make mistakes.

Every rule, law or regulation is a compromise of competing interests. Are you arguing that it's smart to do smart things?

But isn't the argument between the two parties about what is smart?

 

[Bomb#20]

Here's one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/m...an-be-a-hair-braider.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[dismal]

I remember George McGovern after he left the Senate tried to open up a business and said that he wished he'd known what a pain in the ass regulations were because he'd have been a better Senator and presidential candidate.

I saw some Dem congressman who opened up a restaurant say more or less the same thing,

Here's McGovern:

In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.

Today we are much closer to a general acknowledgment that government must encourage business to expand and grow. Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey and others have, I believe, changed the debate of our party. We intuitively know that to create job opportunities we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities.

My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: `Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.’ It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.

http://aun-tv.com/george-mcgovern-warned-1992-get-government-regulation-out-of-business/

 

[dismal]

David Bonior:

David Bonior is a hungry entrepreneur bent on making money.

David Bonior ?

The former Michigan Democratic congressman, liberal pit bull, academic, antiwar firebrand and labor-union BFF has undergone an epiphany, making him simpatico with businesses and the profit motive.

...

“There are always going to be problems, and we’ve had our share.”

Bonior said if he had the power, he would lighten up on pesky regulations.

“It took us a ridiculous amount of time to get our permits. I understand regulations and . . . the necessity for it. But we lost six months of business because of that. It’s very frustrating.”

...

“The biggest surprise is how you have to hustle,” he said. “It was an eye-opener. I always heard this when I was in Congress. ‘You should try and own a business someday, Bonior.’ So I own two small businesses with my stepson and daughter-in-law. It’s tough to make it, in terms of profit margins. But somehow you get by and you figure it out.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...99e3a2-c9a3-11e3-95f7-7ecdde72d2ea_story.html

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I remember George McGovern after he left the Senate tried to open up a business and said that he wished he'd known what a pain in the ass regulations were because he'd have been a better Senator and presidential candidate.

I saw some Dem congressman who opened up a restaurant say more or less the same thing,

Here's McGovern:

In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.

Today we are much closer to a general acknowledgment that government must encourage business to expand and grow. Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey and others have, I believe, changed the debate of our party. We intuitively know that to create job opportunities we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities.

My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: `Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.’ It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.

http://aun-tv.com/george-mcgovern-warned-1992-get-government-regulation-out-of-business/

The funny thing about that story is the regulations that McGovern had to deal with. Each and everyone one of them (probably) was a small one, the kind of thing that would generally be thought of as "gee, nobody could really oppose that." If you do publicly oppose them you are made out as the kind of person who eats labradoodle puppies and uses their blood to make notes in the margins of your business plan. But he discovered that the cumulative effect is enormous.

He discovered that all of these well-meaning (allegedly but not actually) regulations do indeed come at a price, and that the more of them there are the bigger the price.

 

[Bronzeage]

But isn't the argument between the two parties about what is smart?

Agree with me and you'll never doubt if you are smart.

The cry of "job killing regulations" is just the latest war cry of people who want the government to give them business advantages over their competitors and customers. There's no love of freedom or liberty in this, just greed. It's a disservice to true smart people to call the JKR club, smart.

I could easily be one of those people, but this is one time when being smart is a disadvantage, or at least enough to get me blackballed from the JKR club.

I would like to open a coffee shop in my neighborhood. There isn't a sit down coffee/pastry shop in about a 20 square block area and I have the lease on a great location. It is centrally located and I have plenty of parking. This is an advantage over nearly every other possible location in the area. However, there is a problem.

My city recently upgraded its commercial building code. If I want to put a coffee shop in my building, I would have to renovate the plumbing to meet restaurant standards. My city recently passed new building codes which would require around an added $30,000 in construction costs to bring this space up to code. It's a deal killer.

Why on earth would my city government pass job killing regulations, when they could have a nice coffee shop in my building? Think if the jobs a coffee shop would generate. Think of the sales taxes. Not only that, but coffee shops attract young professionals, and what city doesn't want young professionals?

I know why. The city passed the building code because restaurants were clogging the sewer systems with grease. The city was spending millions a year in sewer maintenance and home owners still had sewage bubbling up through the bathtub drain on rainy days. If I want to open a coffee shop, I'll need a grease trap in the sewer system. That alone adds $7,000 to the bill. Add in the rest of the plumbing that is intended to stop the spread of food poisoning, and it comes out to $30K(don't forget to include handicap accessible restrooms).

I could jump up and down and cry about job killing regulations. After all, my great business idea just got pushed out of the profit margin. On the other hand, I don't like sewage in my bathtub any more than anyone else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The laws against hiring hit men are examples of job-killing regulations. The federal minimum wage is a job-killing regulation. There are plenty of job-killing regulations. The real issue is whether the regulation yields a net benefit or not.

The minimum wage has never been shown to kill jobs. It could only theoretically kill jobs when the economy is running at full employment with a large number of workers earning the minimum wage. This is an oxymoron, it would mean that there is a shortage of labor resulting in low wages. A certain impossibility.

What an increase in the minimum wage does all of the time no matter how the economy is running is to lower profits. I think that that this is the real reason that there is so much resistance to it from the rich.

Regulations also increase the number of jobs. Regulations that pass economic external costs into the transaction, that make sure that the costs of pollution controls are paid for by the parties who benefit from the product.

You forget American Samoa. That case involved a big enough effect it stuck up above the noise. Most of the time the change is too small to see, especially as it tends to strike in bad times, not in good times like you say.

There's another example: The recent hike for federal workers--it's got some businesses that operate concessions on base very upset. They are prohibited from charging more there--and the higher minimum wage means they'll be running at a loss. They're asking to be let out of their leases and leave--and when a business wishes to leave a market you know the government went way too far.

 

[ksen]

and the higher minimum wage means they'll be running at a loss.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/m...an-be-a-hair-braider.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yup, we have the same problem here. I don't think they're going at it the right way, though.

I have no problem with the idea of a limited license requirement for even the hair braiders--there are still sanitation issues. The real problem is the one-size-fits-all license being used as a barrier to entry.

For fields where the job can be split up (and that's most of them) I would say the license exam should be split into sections--you're free to take only the sections you want to but your license applies only to the areas you took the test in. If you can make a reasonable case to the board that a section should be carved out they would be obligated to do the carving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

and the higher minimum wage means they'll be running at a loss.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

When they ask to be let out of their leases it's pretty obvious they consider abandoning the facility cheaper than operating it--and that has to mean they would be running at a loss as they consider a certain loss to be the better option.

 

[Bronzeage]

and the higher minimum wage means they'll be running at a loss.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

When they ask to be let out of their leases it's pretty obvious they consider abandoning the facility cheaper than operating it--and that has to mean they would be running at a loss as they consider a certain loss to be the better option.

There is a difference between operating at a loss and operating at less than expected.

Why should minimum wage be the regulation which pushed them into the red? If jobs are so important, why not reduce the regulations which govern sanitation, fire protection and safety. This way, business's can cut costs in other places and preserve their payroll.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

and the higher minimum wage means they'll be running at a loss.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

When they ask to be let out of their leases it's pretty obvious they consider abandoning the facility cheaper than operating it--and that has to mean they would be running at a loss as they consider a certain loss to be the better option.

There is a difference between operating at a loss and operating at less than expected.

Why should minimum wage be the regulation which pushed them into the red? If jobs are so important, why not reduce the regulations which govern sanitation, fire protection and safety. This way, business's can cut costs in other places and preserve their payroll.

They wouldn't be asking to abandon their investment if they weren't going to be running at an actual loss.

 

[ksen]

and the higher minimum wage means they'll be running at a loss.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

When they ask to be let out of their leases it's pretty obvious they consider abandoning the facility cheaper than operating it--and that has to mean they would be running at a loss as they consider a certain loss to be the better option.

No it doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk