Regulations Create Jobs, Too

[tydas]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/regulations-create-jobs-too-02092012.html

Interesting article, one of the keypoints I see is:

"Numerous studies across many years show that lower levels of pollutants in the air and water around power plants led to a decrease in illness, medical tests, missed days of work, and hospitalizations."

Funny how hard numbers seem to get in the way of the GOP arguments...

 

[Genx87]

Which GOP argument does your quote get in way?

 

[Anarchist420]

The government destroys the environment not only in foreign countries, but also here just as much as the ecoNazis say it protects it. Mary Ruwart is a good source for the latter. In addition to that, the Gulf oil spill may have been planned by the government.

How many property owners do you think would allow their property to be polluted?

 

[tydas]

In additon to the net job loss being zero...there is also another benefit that is a little harder to quantify..the GOP claim that regs are 'job killers' is not factual..

Now, if you want to say that regs increase costs than just say that...

 

[QuantumPion]

I'm pretty sure those 10 coal power plants in Ohio that are slated to be shut down due to new EPA regulations will result in a lost job or two.

Also, correlation does not imply causation. There are so many issues with large social studies involving health and environmental effects. I can, without an ounce of doubt, 100% guarantee you that any study which makes such claims are either being mischaracterized for political purposes or are outright lying.

 

[Genx87]

In additon to the net job loss being zero...there is also another benefit that is a little harder to quantify..the GOP claim that regs are 'job killers' is not factual..

Now, if you want to say that regs increase costs than just say that...

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.

 

[spidey07]

In additon to the net job loss being zero...there is also another benefit that is a little harder to quantify..the GOP claim that regs are 'job killers' is not factual..

Now, if you want to say that regs increase costs than just say that...

Tell that to all the coal plants that shut down specifically because of the EPA. That's a job killer, those jobs are gone never to come back.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

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.

 

[tydas]

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.

Did you read the article? Paper pushers? So people working in an industry to create equipement to clean power plants are paper pushers?

Also, I guess you like having X% more lung cancers and related diseases?

 

[Genx87]

Did you read the article? Paper pushers? So people working in an industry to create equipement to clean power plants are paper pushers?

Also, I guess you like having X% more lung cancers and related diseases?

Of course I read the article. They mention the loss of jobs being replaced with jobs required to comply with regulation. I will ask you, is it better for the steel industry to be shedding steel workers and employing people outside of the steel industry?

Nice strawman at the end.

 

[Genx87]

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.

It kills jobs within that specific industry. Placing a new regulation on a car manufacturer and they shed 5,000 jobs because of the increase in cost is losing 5,000 jobs in that industry. You can try to make the argument to those 5,000 workers that more paper pushers and people were employed to comply with that regulation and it was a net benefit for the economy. Good luck.

And of course the level and benefit of regulation is a constant debate that needs to be made.

 

[Bowfinger]

Tell that to all the coal plants that shut down specifically because of the EPA. That's a job killer, those jobs are gone never to come back.

Nonsense, more ideological drivel. While those specific coal plant jobs are gone, the demand for energy is not. That means those jobs just moved to a different source of energy. There may or may not have been an overall reduction in jobs depending on how people-efficient the new energy source is.

 

[fskimospy]

It kills jobs within that specific industry. Placing a new regulation on a car manufacturer and they shed 5,000 jobs because of the increase in cost is losing 5,000 jobs in that industry. You can try to make the argument to those 5,000 workers that more paper pushers and people were employed to comply with that regulation and it was a net benefit for the economy. Good luck.

And of course the level and benefit of regulation is a constant debate that needs to be made.

There's really no evidence to support this. I'm not saying all regulations are a benefit to the economy, but there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that it is a net jobs killer, even within a specific industry.

 

[QuantumPion]

Nonsense, more ideological drivel. While those specific coal plant jobs are gone, the demand for energy is not. That means those jobs just moved to a different source of energy. There may or may not have been an overall reduction in jobs depending on how people-efficient the new energy source is.

No. The replacement power comes from peak load natural gas plants which already exist. The only difference is that the residents of the state have to pay more for electricity since natural gas is more expensive. Ask me how I know.

 

[QuantumPion]

There's really no evidence to support this. I'm not saying all regulations are a benefit to the economy, but there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that it is a net jobs killer, even within a specific industry.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[Anarchist420]

There's really no evidence to support this. I'm not saying all regulations are a benefit to the economy, but there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that it is a net jobs killer, even within a specific industry.

Minimum wage is a regulation and that increases the costs of hiring people. If the costs of hiring people is too high, then that will cut jobs. One could argue that a maximum wage would offset the minimum wage effects. However, that's also a fallacy because centralization of power doesn't know how to maximize peace and harmony.

 

[Throckmorton]

Tell that to all the coal plants that shut down specifically because of the EPA. That's a job killer, those jobs are gone never to come back.

Really? So who works at the gas, solar, and wind powerplants? Unicorns?

 

[MovingTarget]

In addition to that, the Gulf oil spill may have been planned by the government.

How many property owners do you think would allow their property to be polluted?

 

[bfdd]

Throckmorton, the amount of people required to work a wind farm is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of people that work at a coal plant or a gas plant. Have you any experience with them? I've actually worked on a wind turbine before. Not to mention you have to hire more people to do clean up and safety things. There is just more jobs with dirty work, period. Just like there are more jobs when you take tractors out of the mix.

Regulations tend to shift jobs and job growth, they don't usually spark new growth. I also do not count new Government jobs as new jobs since they must be financed with tax payer money and that means there is less money in the private sector, less money for private citizens. What I like to call "bullshit".

 

[Darwin333]

Which GOP argument does your quote get in way?

I know this is nitpicking but imo it gets in the way of the GOPs "we shouldn't subsidize alternative energy, let them win in the free market" when we do in fact subsidize all other forms of energy just some not directly.

 

[Darwin333]

No. The replacement power comes from peak load natural gas plants which already exist. The only difference is that the residents of the state have to pay more for electricity since natural gas is more expensive. Ask me how I know.

I thought electricity from nat. gas was rather cheap? I haven't personally done any comparison to coal, could you please elaborate?

 

[bfdd]

I thought electricity from nat. gas was rather cheap? I haven't personally done any comparison to coal, could you please elaborate?

depends on state to state. in california it is dirt cheap.

 

[MovingTarget]

No. The replacement power comes from peak load natural gas plants which already exist. The only difference is that the residents of the state have to pay more for electricity since natural gas is more expensive. Ask me how I know.

Then there was an excess capacity that wasn't needed. Older dirty coal plants either need to be upgraded to modern pollution controls or phased out. :thumbsup:

 

[bfdd]

Then there was an excess capacity that wasn't needed. Older dirty coal plants either need to be upgraded to modern pollution controls or phased out. :thumbsup:

I don't think you can run any sort of cogeneration off of coal either. You're already using coal in a burner to heat steam and turn a turbine, with a gas plant you have a gas powered turbine which uses the exhaust to steam water for a steam turbine. Much more efficient systems. Though obviously a gas plant won't always be economical or practical.