Job killing regulations

[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.

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.

Sure they would because they're run by spiteful bastards that will cut off their own noses despite their faces if they can't continue to make the returns they think they deserve.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[+or-1]

You know, for years and years I've been listening to various industries whining that deregulation will create more jobs. As far as I can tell, it has never made a difference. It has made a difference on numerous fronts that people who care about the nation or the world cannot consider anything but bad but no difference that I've noticed on employment or lack thereof. The real problem I have with this is that there is already one large group of people who continue to believe things that are clearly not correct despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I call these people theists.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

That is untrue. The studies disagree with many showing job losses.

I said in another post that there is no conclusive empirical support that increases in the minimum wage causes job losses. And yes, the studies disagree, with many coming down on each side. There is no consensus in the studies. What this tells us is that if it does effect the number of jobs either up or down it is not enough to be telling.

But it is not just studies. What I was talking about in the post that you quoted was that in neo-classical economic theory, econ 101, there is no support for the idea that increases in the minimum wage causes job losses, except in the improbable case of raising the minimum wage when we are at full employment and if there are a large number of workers earning the minimum wage. This is pretty much only going to be the case if the minimum wage is already much too high. The classic question why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour?

Basically, any regulation that increases the costs of accomplishing something is likely to reduce specific jobs. Whether that results in a net job loss (i.e. offsetting increases in other areas) is a different question.

As I said in the post that you quoted, what any increase in costs does is to decrease profits. No one disagrees with this. This is the immediate, first order impact of any cost increase, whether it is in wages, material costs, taxes or increased regulatory costs. Profits go down.

As I have said many times before on this forum, when costs go up and profits go down it makes utterly no sense to lay off workers. You only employ workers if by doing so you can make more product and earn more profit by selling the extra product. If you do lay off workers not only do you lose profits because of the higher costs, you will lose the profits that you would have earned from the product that the layed off workers would have produced.

So no, when you say that "any regulation that increases the costs of accomplishing something is likely to reduce specific jobs" you are wrong or assuming that today's managers and business owners are idiots.

I know that this is a widely believed fallacy, especially in this forum. You will have to tell me why that is, why do you think that increasing costs means that businesses have to lay off workers?

 

[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.

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

It happens all the time. Under performing, but profitable operations are shut down all the time. When a corporation expects a certain return on investment, a break even or marginal operation will not be tolerated.

But, you didn't address my question.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

Once again, you are talking about fairness, not regulations killing jobs. If you want to start a thread about this subject I will post in it too. I will ask you if you realize that regulations are not written in a star chamber but are subject to public hearings before they are adopted. I will then ask how many of these public hearings have you gone to to try to change them to benefit the poor.

But back to this thread. Do you have any any examples of what must be thousands of regulations that kill jobs?

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

So you are saying that the regulations that are keeping Tesla from selling directly are saving jobs, not killing them.

We are asking for examples of just the opposite, regulations that are killing jobs.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

The original intention of the state franchise laws which protect new car dealerships were intended to protect local businesses from predatory manufacturers. The laws define how close a manufacturer can place two dealerships to one another and that sort of thing. It also prevents a manufacturer from competing with their franchisees. This is where Tesla has run into problems. Even though Tesla has no dealer network in any state, dealers do not want to set a precedent. It's not difficult to imagine a manufacturer going into bankruptcy and reorganizing with a plan which dissolved all franchise agreements. Then, they return with a Tesla type marketing plan. There would be a lot of cheap commercial real estate available, which would be a perfect place to sell cars.

Whether there would be a net loss or gain of jobs, if manufacturers were direct sellers, is an open question. The last manufacturer who tried this was American Motors. They actually had corporate owned sales facilities under construction when their last bankruptcy ended the project. I don't recall any great protest from local dealers at the time.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

That is untrue. The studies disagree with many showing job losses.

I said in another post that there is no conclusive empirical support that increases in the minimum wage causes job losses. And yes, the studies disagree, with many coming down on each side. There is no consensus in the studies. What this tells us is that if it does effect the number of jobs either up or down it is not enough to be telling.

But it is not just studies. What I was talking about in the post that you quoted was that in neo-classical economic theory, econ 101, there is no support for the idea that increases in the minimum wage causes job losses, except in the improbable case of raising the minimum wage when we are at full employment and if there are a large number of workers earning the minimum wage. This is pretty much only going to be the case if the minimum wage is already much too high. The classic question why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour?

In order for an increase in the minimum wage to have no effect on jobs, the demand for that type of labor would have to be completely insensitive to compensation rates. Ultimately that is an empirical question, but it seems unlikely that in every affected firm, that no one would reduce jobs when compensation rises.

As I said in the post that you quoted, what any increase in costs does is to decrease profits. No one disagrees with this. This is the immediate, first order impact of any cost increase, whether it is in wages, material costs, taxes or increased regulatory costs. Profits go down.

An increase in the minimum wage - if expected - need not reduce profits, if firms can alter their production process. Hence the rest of your argument is based on a false premise.

 

[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.

No it doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

So what do you think they're doing, cutting off their nose to spite their face?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure they would because they're run by spiteful bastards that will cut off their own noses despite their faces if they can't continue to make the returns they think they deserve.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I was asking that in a rhetorical sense, I didn't think you seriously thought they actually would behave that way.

It's amazing how far you guys will go to maintain your delusion about the pool of infinite profits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It happens all the time. Under performing, but profitable operations are shut down all the time. When a corporation expects a certain return on investment, a break even or marginal operation will not be tolerated.

But, you didn't address my question.

Companies expect a certain return on investment but they don't take a certain loss when they're just not making as much as they want.

- - - Updated - - -

An increase in the minimum wage - if expected - need not reduce profits, if firms can alter their production process. Hence the rest of your argument is based on a false premise.

And if they can alter their production processes they would have done so already to make more money.

<Shoots laughing dog>

I didn't hurt you, you could have put on a ballistic vest.

 

[Bronzeage]

An increase in the minimum wage - if expected - need not reduce profits, if firms can alter their production process. Hence the rest of your argument is based on a false premise.

Anyone who has supervised or managed a minimum wage work force can testify how much work it is. A small increase in pay is offset by the reduction in the costs incurred by hiring the least trained and least motivated, which always comes with greater loss and shrinkage.

 

[laughing dog]

And if they can alter their production processes they would have done so already to make more money.

Sometimes a change in costs is what prompts a firm to look for different ways to produce.

 

[EricK]

As I said in the post that you quoted, what any increase in costs does is to decrease profits. No one disagrees with this. This is the immediate, first order impact of any cost increase, whether it is in wages, material costs, taxes or increased regulatory costs. Profits go down.

As I have said many times before on this forum, when costs go up and profits go down it makes utterly no sense to lay off workers. You only employ workers if by doing so you can make more product and earn more profit by selling the extra product. If you do lay off workers not only do you lose profits because of the higher costs, you will lose the profits that you would have earned from the product that the layed off workers would have produced.

So no, when you say that "any regulation that increases the costs of accomplishing something is likely to reduce specific jobs" you are wrong or assuming that today's managers and business owners are idiots.

I know that this is a widely believed fallacy, especially in this forum. You will have to tell me why that is, why do you think that increasing costs means that businesses have to lay off workers?

Businesses fail all the time. The businesses that fail are generally those at the margin. These are the ones that are most vulnerable to a change which increases their costs. With every regulation which increases the costs of doing business, there is a chance that it pushes a company over the edge from hanging-on to failing. You might not be able to point to any particular regulation and any particular failed business and say this regulation caused that business to fail, but that does not invalidate the logic.

Some businesses never even get started. A person looking to start a business will look at the costs and their likely returns and make a decision based on that. With every regulation which increases the costs of doing business there is a chance that it pushes some prospective company over the edge from worth-a-shot to just-not-worth-it. You probably don't even get to hear about these businesses let alone get the chance to blame any particular regulation. But that, too, does not invalidate the logic.

So here are just two ways in which regulations which increase the cost of doing business will reduce employment without even considering the issue of laid off workers.

But there are also a number of reasons why businesses might lay off workers when costs go up which your simple analysis ignores. Not all workers are employed directly in the manufacturing of whatever product the firm produces. So for instance, some are there to make the working environment better for other staff - which aids retention and increases profits long-term; some are employed to provide a better customer experience - which again hopes to increase profits in the long term. But if your company is threatened in the short term, you might be forced to let some of these people go in order to keep the business afloat, while just retaining the essential employees - those who generate income in the short term.

 

[DBT]

And if they can alter their production processes they would have done so already to make more money.

What if there are too many workshops making the similar products? As the market can only absorb a given volume of output, many workshops are going to struggle, so it's inevitable that some businesses are going to fold regardless of the minimum wage rate.

 

[SimpleDon]

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

Still no examples of job killing regulations. In fact, you can argue that most regulations that require time and energy to fulfill, like filing for permits increase the number of jobs, since you have to hire people to keep track of the regulations and to fill out the permits.

So far we have established that regulations can be unfair, Tesla, and that they can be annoying, requiring permits, and that we need regulations according to Bonier and that they can increase the number of jobs but not that they kill jobs.

So try this, I am certain that none of you that believe this, that regulations kill jobs, and who repeat it nearly every day here on this forum heard this for the first time and accepted it at face value. So if you can't provide any examples of job killing regulations then what has convinced you that it is true?

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

And that price is inefficiency. And the inefficiency is that a business has to hire more people to keep track of the regulations and to fill out the paperwork that is required.

Some regulations like environmental regulations have created entirely new industries to meet the terms of the regulations. New industries with entirely new companies all of which have jobs that wouldn't be filled without the regulations.

So have you thought of any regulations that kill jobs yet?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Still no examples of job killing regulations.

Except for all the examples provided, you're right.

In fact, you can argue that most regulations that require time and energy to fulfill, like filing for permits increase the number of jobs, since you have to hire people to keep track of the regulations and to fill out the permits.

Employers desire to hire to people to do something productive, something that will increase the value of what is being produced. A person hired to fill out government forms is not hired to create anything for the business, not hired to provide a good or service to the customer. That person is hired to handle all the government obstacles the productive employees face. The person whose job is to handle government requirements is nothing more than an added expense, and when a business is small and on the margins that person can mean the difference between making a profit or going out of business.

So try this, I am certain that none of you that believe this, that regulations kill jobs, and who repeat it nearly every day here on this forum heard this for the first time and accepted it at face value. So if you can't provide any examples of job killing regulations then what has convinced you that it is true?

Try that link to the Institute for Justice that I provided.

And that price is inefficiency. And the inefficiency is that a business has to hire more people to keep track of the regulations and to fill out the paperwork that is required.

Some regulations like environmental regulations have created entirely new industries to meet the terms of the regulations. New industries with entirely new companies all of which have jobs that wouldn't be filled without the regulations.

So have you thought of any regulations that kill jobs yet?

Yes, the same ones that McGovern found. That inefficiency is what kills jobs. The person hired to handle the regulations isn't the productive employee.

Employers hire employees to help create the finished good or service. Anyone who doesn't support that is draining value. Take someone who wants to do interior design, a dreadfully dangerous job akin to brain surgery or flying an airplane. At least it would be if the absurd licensing requirements are to be believed. All the time and money used to apply for the license is a job killing regulation. I know, you think hiring someone to handle all the licensing is a created job, but the person doing that isn't the person looking at homes to figure out what would be an optimal design. The person handling the licensing isn't the person shopping for paints or fabrics. The person doing that isn't the one seeking new customers. The advertiser, designer, and buyer are all adding value. The person doing the paperwork isn't.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

This is not a minimum wage thread and I am reluctant to turn it into one. But since you can't come up with any other examples of job killing regulations I suppose that this well worn subject will have to do as the one and only regulation that kills jobs.

Ah, yes, American Samoa the killer example of a hike in the minimum wage killing jobs. In fact as I remember you said that it was the only example that the minimum wage kills jobs. Forced into the bill by the Republicans in spite of American Samoa previously having an exemption from the minimum wage because of local conditions. Because they claimed that the exemption that they had originally written into law when they controlled Congress was corporate welfare to benefit only one company. They would know, wouldn't they?

And the extra ordinary job loss was due to the closing of one single cannery. But the other cannery stayed open even with the increase in the minimum wage.

Yes, I remember American Samoa. I remember that it was the center of the lobbying scandal that eventually forced the Republican majority leader, the insect exterminator from Sugarland Texas, out of office and eventually into prison. That it was used to prove that allowing low wages creates jobs, as it did in American Samoa when it attracted a few sweatshop clothes manufacturers from Hong Kong who set up shop in American Samoa because they then could attach a made in the USA tag to the garment.

So see I do remember American Samoa. And if you want to you can keep referring it as the best example that you have of the minimum wage killing jobs. But in my opinion it is not a very good one because of the reasons that I listed. It is an outier, an exception because the job losses were due to the closing of a single business. This is a poor example to base a general, economy wide policy on.

And yes, most of the increases in the minimum wage don't cause the loss of jobs. And yes, it is possible to raise it too high and too fast. And yes, it is crazy to raise it in good times when we are at full employment. Which is the only time that neoclassical economics tells us that it will cause job loss.

And the minimum wage is like all regulations, there is another, important reason to enact it. Wages are not just a cost of production. Wages are the main component of economy wide demand for products. The money that is used to buy the products of our production. And over the last thirty years of policies meant to boost supply, capital, surprise, we have an imbalance of too much supply and not enough demand. We have no reason for investors to invest all of the money that these policies have provided to them because there is not sufficient demand in the country to justify investing in new production facilities. We must boost wages to boost effective demand in the economy.

Unless you are an Austrian/Libertarian economics proponent, who have the frankly bizarre idea that demand is fixed, there are only so many heads that require shampoo, then you have to agree that this is true, that our economic problem right now is that demand is too low. And that we need to raise wages in order to increase demand. Or to institute some large scale taxation and wage support programs which would only increase social frictions and would establish government subsidies for the lower wages.

And now we have an another example of business owners who are very upset by the increase in the federal government's contractor's minimum wage. . Once again, higher wages cuts profits. They are angry that their profits are reduced in a situation where their prices are fixed. Anyou believe that this establishes the proposition that high wages cost jobs in the overall economy where prices aren't fixed. If this is what you are saying I am willing to discuss it. But the world cup is on right now, Holland v. Mexico. Come on El Tri!

 

[Bomb#20]

As I have said many times before on this forum, when costs go up and profits go down it makes utterly no sense to lay off workers. You only employ workers if by doing so you can make more product and earn more profit by selling the extra product. If you do lay off workers not only do you lose profits because of the higher costs, you will lose the profits that you would have earned from the product that the layed off workers would have produced.

And in all those many times, has nobody explained to you why your reasoning is wrong? It treats the extra profit you earned by selling the extra product you made by employing the extra workers as if it were an independent variable. But that extra profit is actually a dependent variable; it's a function of your costs. If the costs go up and overall profits go down, the marginal profit from some of your inputs goes down with it. If you're running your business efficiently, most of your inputs are already running at a marginal profit of about zero; otherwise you'd already have increased your consumption of them to the point of diminishing returns. So when the marginal profit of one of those inputs drops, it drops below zero. Then it makes sense to buy less of it. Yes, that reduces the income you could have earned by using it; but it reduces your costs even more. You become a smaller business but more profitable one.

So, which of your inputs sees a reduction in its marginal profit when your costs go up? Well, that can be complicated due to a lot of second-order effects; but the first-order effect is that when the cost of a unit of input X goes up by epsilon, the marginal profit from a unit of X goes down by epsilon. For instance, raise the cost of employing people by a dollar an hour and the marginal profit from employing people will drop by a dollar an hour. If you already optimized the number of employees to maximize your profit, then each additional employee you hire is currently increasing your income by his wage (plus payroll tax, etc.), and increasing your profit by zero. Increase the cost of labor by a dollar an hour and now the marginal profit per laborer is now minus one dollar. Lay off a worker and your profit goes up a dollar an hour.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Still no examples of job killing regulations. In fact, you can argue that most regulations that require time and energy to fulfill, like filing for permits increase the number of jobs, since you have to hire people to keep track of the regulations and to fill out the permits.

The hair braiders.

Complying with the laws simply costs too much for them to do--we are talking about people who are doing it part time as causal work and mandating a huge amount of irrelevant training means they simply won't do it.

Furthermore, I note you didn't address the Uber situation.

Around here the taxi commission is not allowed to permit more cabs on the street unless it won't hurt existing cabbies to do so. That's certainly job-killing regulation.