• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Regulations Create Jobs, Too

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
Geez, what happened to this thread...the point is that regualtions need to be examined on thier merit and are not 'job killers' as the GOP claims..is there a cost? of course...

Just another example of how irrational and dishonest the GOP is when discussing an issue...
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Geez, what happened to this thread...the point is that regualtions need to be examined on thier merit and are not 'job killers' as the GOP claims..is there a cost? of course...

Just another example of how irrational and dishonest the GOP is when discussing an issue...
Sorry, but trying to argue against a tautology IS irrational. There is no arguing against the statement "destroying jobs destroys jobs". You can argue about the merit of destroying jobs and wealth and energy for whatever reason. But there is no arguing about the effect.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
Again though, the idea that regulation kills jobs isn't actually supported by the evidence. What regulations do however is increase costs. Some regulations create more benefit than their cost, some don't. If we want to argue about the merit of regulation in that sense it is a perfectly good argument. Arguing that they kill jobs is not, as the empirical evidence shows otherwise.
Small businesses employ 50% of all working adults in this country. There are many burdensome regulations that these small companies are subject to the same as a larger company. a larger company has the resources to comply with these. Corporations can slash costs in other areas like salary and benefits on a larger scale and remain profitable. Small businesses don't have that luxury. Regulatory uncertainty is shown as a major reason for limited growth in hiring.

Here is a fairly recent data from a Harris poll small-business owners who felt that too many regulations were an impediment to more hiring.

http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/reports/1107usc_summit _harrisnteractive.pdf

I figured people leaning to the left would be more supportive of small businesses. I guess you would prefer everyone in this country either work for the government or one of the companies controlled by the 1%.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,607
25,598
136
Small businesses employ 50% of all working adults in this country. There are many burdensome regulations that these small companies are subject to the same as a larger company. a larger company has the resources to comply with these. Corporations can slash costs in other areas like salary and benefits on a larger scale and remain profitable. Small businesses don't have that luxury. Regulatory uncertainty is shown as a major reason for limited growth in hiring.

Here is a fairly recent data from a Harris poll small-business owners who felt that too many regulations were an impediment to more hiring.

http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/reports/1107usc_summit _harrisnteractive.pdf

I figured people leaning to the left would be more supportive of small businesses. I guess you would prefer everyone in this country either work for the government or one of the companies controlled by the 1%.
Thank you for including a report from a right wing lobbying group. The US Chamber of Commerce is not a reliable source when it comes to regulations.

A more recent effort into finding out why small businesses weren't hiring by McClatchy found very different results:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html#ixzz1Wnj4HK00

As for whether or not regulations are burdensome, that is not the topic under discussion. For some reason there seems to be a really big disconnect in this thread. It is NOT that regulations are costless, it is that they tend not to cost JOBS.

EDIT: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/207957-small-business-polls-reject-anti-regulation-rhetoric

Further surveys on regulation.
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
They are job killers for the industry but a boon for the paper pushers(lawyers and compliance officers). Is it a good thing that the steel industry lays off 20,000 steel workers and employs 21,000 lawyers? Which is worse for the middle class the left is so worred about? To its logical conclusion one can regulate an indsutry to the point their company is staffed by paper pushers.
Sounds a lot like the US education system. They throw money at the problem and proudly claim how much money is spent per student, then conveniently forget to say that's because each school has more administrators than teachers and the classes are still packed with 40 students.

"this new regulation will create 5000 new jobs" (all of which are make work jobs that lower the average productivity of the country).
It's not all about jobs. It's about production. Are these jobs providing a useful service like janitors cleaning things or is it useless bullshit jobs like someone following the janitor and writing down all of the things he does?
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
There is a distinct disconnect between reality and perception by many posters to this thread..would it be possible to use actual facts?????
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
From your own article.
The Obama Administration, girding for election-year attacks on its record, is trying to highlight the upside of government rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs claims the net benefits of regulations Obama enacted in his first three years in office total $116 billion. This is a reach. Part of that total comes from projections of how many lives the regulations will save, multiplied by a dollar amount per life. The EPA, for example, puts a life at $8.9 million, a number based on decades-old surveys in which economists tried to assess the value of people’s lives in part by estimating the value of their labor.

The number, adjusted for income growth through the years, has been controversial since the Reagan Administration first used it to justify regulations. “To say it’s not a precise science would be the world’s greatest understatement,” says Sidney Shapiro, a professor at Wake Forest University School of Law who specializes in government regulation. He advises skepticism when figures start flying in the heat of the campaign. “The numbers get politicized because no one knows what they mean,” he says. “So people pick a number that suits their viewpoint.”

The bottom line: New coal rules could force thousands of layoffs while creating thousands of cleanup industry jobs.
You are equating jobs that produce energy and should be permanent to jobs that are temporary and produce nothing. No shit that Obama is trying to "highlight the upside of government rules"
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,744
53
91
so you rob revenue out of the private sector resulting in lay off's to create non producing regulators which will be a permanent drag on the tax payer.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
“The job creation and the job destruction roughly cancel each other out.”
So by regulation, the government moves jobs from one industry which is market-driven, to another which is regulation-driven.

Those firms which are now created to help other firms comply with regulations; what is their product? Their products are ostensibly those things which help the latter firm comply with regulations. So the latter firm is now not only faced with rising costs and the cutting of its workforce, but now must pay another firm to help it comply with regulations. Sure, that's job creation. Like previously said, it's no different than having to hire tax lawyers to keep the IRS at bay.

What this amounts to is simply the creation of a government agency in an indirect way. That the firms are private doesn't change the fact that they're serving a government mandate, and leaching from firms which sustain themselves by catering to the whims of the consumer.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,607
25,598
136
So by regulation, the government moves jobs from one industry which is market-driven, to another which is regulation-driven.

Those firms which are now created to help other firms comply with regulations; what is their product? Their products are ostensibly those things which help the latter firm comply with regulations. So the latter firm is now not only faced with rising costs and the cutting of its workforce, but now must pay another firm to help it comply with regulations. Sure, that's job creation. Like previously said, it's no different than having to hire tax lawyers to keep the IRS at bay.

What this amounts to is simply the creation of a government agency in an indirect way. That the firms are private doesn't change the fact that they're serving a government mandate, and leaching from firms which sustain themselves by catering to the whims of the consumer.
Such an effect is created by all regulation. I assume you are not claiming that all regulation is bad. Regulation creates compliance costs, and that's a drag on the economy. What regulations on air quality and mercury content and other things like that do however is lower medical costs from cancer patients, deformed children, etc, etc. This is a boost to the economy. Good regulations create greater benefits than their compliance costs. Bad ones don't. The fact of jobs being shuffled around to accomplish this is basically irrelevant as to the worth of a regulation.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Such an effect is created by all regulation. I assume you are not claiming that all regulation is bad. Regulation creates compliance costs, and that's a drag on the economy. What regulations on air quality and mercury content and other things like that do however is lower medical costs from cancer patients, deformed children, etc, etc. This is a boost to the economy. Good regulations create greater benefits than their compliance costs. Bad ones don't. The fact of jobs being shuffled around to accomplish this is basically irrelevant as to the worth of a regulation.
I wish there was some data on the state of people's health, air quality, water quality and whatnot before the EPA. Googling seems only to turn up EPA sources.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Such an effect is created by all regulation. I assume you are not claiming that all regulation is bad. Regulation creates compliance costs, and that's a drag on the economy. What regulations on air quality and mercury content and other things like that do however is lower medical costs from cancer patients, deformed children, etc, etc. This is a boost to the economy. Good regulations create greater benefits than their compliance costs. Bad ones don't. The fact of jobs being shuffled around to accomplish this is basically irrelevant as to the worth of a regulation.
Then evaluate regulatory effectiveness based on it's intended results and not on it's ability to create jobs. If regulation was all that was required to create jobs then we could regulate ourselves to 100% employment. For some reason, that hasn't happened...
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
I wish there was some data on the state of people's health, air quality, water quality and whatnot before the EPA. Googling seems only to turn up EPA sources.
Seems I am a tad more superior in Internets 101

How bout people used to die here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Steel

Between October 26 and October 31, 1948 an air inversion trapped industrial effluent (air pollution) from the American Steel and Wire plant and U.S. Steel's Donora Zinc Works in Donora, Pennsylvania. "In three days, 20 people died..

In 2008, the company released more than one million kg (2.2 million pounds) of toxins, chiefly ammonia, hydrochloric acid, ethylene, zinc compounds, methanol, and benzene, but including manganese, cyanide, and chromium compounds.[12] In 2004, the city of River Rouge, Michigan and the residents of River Rouge and the nearby city of Ecorse filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for "the release and discharge of air particulate matter...and other toxic and hazardous substances"[13] at its River Rouge plant.[14] In 2005, the Illinois Attorney General brought suit against U.S. Steel for alleged air pollution in Granite City, Illinois.[15] The Company has also been implicated in generating water pollution and toxic waste. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an order for U.S. Steel to clean up a site in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, on the Delaware River, where the soil had been contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals, as well as naphthalene; groundwater at the site was found to be polluted with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and trichloroethylene (TCE).[16] In 2005, the EPA, United States Department of Justice, and the State of Ohio reached a settlement requiring U.S. Steel to pay more than $100,000 in penalties and $294,000 in reparations in answer to allegations that the company illegally released pollutants into Ohio waters.[17] U.S. Steel's Gary, Indiana facility has been repeatedly charged with discharging polluted wastewater into Lake Michigan and the Grand Calumet River, and in 1998 agreed to a $30 million settlement to clean up contaminated sediments from a five-mile (8 km) stretch of the river.[18]
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I wish there was some data on the state of people's health, air quality, water quality and whatnot before the EPA. Googling seems only to turn up EPA sources.
EPA's a great source for that info though. In CA, as just one example, there were quite a severe amount of PM (particulate matter) warnings in CA in the 70's and 80's, something that was driven into non-existence by the 00's. Though CA is a special case due to us being able to enact tighter laws than the federal standards.

EPA-driven catalytic converter laws were fought too. Everything is fought until people want them.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
His customers are wary of talking publicly, fearing the FDA will come after them.

"I can't believe in 2012 the federal government is raiding Amish farmers at gunpoint all over a basic human right to eat natural food," said one, who asked not to be named but who got weekly shipments of eggs, milk, honey and butter from Rainbow Acres. "In Maryland, they force taxpayers to pay for abortions, but God forbid we want the same milk our grandparents drank."

The FDA, though, said the judge made the right call in halting Mr. Allgyer's cross-border sales.
Creates jobs for law enforcement, judges and the FDA. I'm sure glad they stopped this evil farmer from selling raw milk to people that want it.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/13/feds-shut-down-amish-farm-selling-fresh-milk/print/
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
We don't need to provide evidence because it is a logically self-evident fundamental truth about reality. It's called the broken window fallacy.
No, I'm sorry. If you believe this has something to do with the broken window fallacy, you do not understand either the topic or the broken window fallacy itself.

You most certainly must provide evidence. Please do so, and you might want to review what the broken window fallacy actually says.
I love how quantumRetard ignores this.

hahaha. fucking idiot.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
lol troll. Do you even realize unpasteurized milk can be harmful to pregnant women and carries with it all sorts of potential negative side effects? You fake conservatives are funny.
in the perfect conservative world that is her choice to make :confused:

until they see that abortion by raw milk becomes the new standard after they outlaw regular abortion. :cool:
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
lol troll. Do you even realize unpasteurized milk can be harmful to pregnant women and carries with it all sorts of potential negative side effects? You fake conservatives are funny.
What a tool you fucking idiot.

I gave a Jstorm style answer.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
What a tool you fucking idiot.

I gave a Jstorm style answer.
normally I have a 2 prong approach unless someone is truly stupid.

also quantum did totally ignore his challenge. He could have nothing challenge his cognitive dissonance to the point of his total refusal to even acknowledge its existence. That does make him a fucking idiot.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
lol troll. Do you even realize unpasteurized milk can be harmful to pregnant women and carries with it all sorts of potential negative side effects? You fake conservatives are funny.
I gave a flippant answer earlier, but there's just not much of a point if you feel that the FDA is perfectly justified in persecuting people that think drinking raw milk is a good thing. To me it always comes down to people knowing what they want and be willing to take the informed risk. To you it comes down to the government does what it thinks best whether the citizen wants it or not.
It's just a different philosophy that basically separates those on the left and those on the right.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
I gave a flippant answer earlier, but there's just not much of a point if you feel that the FDA is perfectly justified in persecuting people that think drinking raw milk is a good thing. To me it always comes down to people knowing what they want and be willing to take the informed risk. To you it comes down to the government does what it thinks best whether the citizen wants it or not.
It's just a different philosophy that basically separates those on the left and those on the right.
like abortion yeah?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY