An Employer’s Perspective on Jobs and Regulations

Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 by Sean Patrick Hazlett

Peter Schiff’s Congressional testimony last week provided more support to the argument that excessive government regulation stifles job creation. Agree or disagree, Mr. Schiff’s testimony is certainly entertaining.

About Sean Patrick Hazlett

Finance executive, engineer, former military officer, and science fiction and horror writer. Editor of the Weird World War III anthology.

View all posts by Sean Patrick Hazlett →

This entry was posted in Business, Finance and Economics, Policy, Politics, Socialism, Taxes and tagged Jobs, Peter Schiff, Regulation, Spending. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to An Employer’s Perspective on Jobs and Regulations

Vern R. Kaine says:

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 11:08

Thanks for posting this clip. I saw a portion of it on Fox last night. We need to hear more of these kinds of stories from JOB CREATORS, and not just people from the financial industry.

Reply
- Sean Patrick Hazlett says:
  
  Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 18:50
  
  Agreed.
  
  Reply
Vern R. Kaine says:

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 11:37

So many points of that video to comment on. I love Dr. Boushey telling a taxpayer that him paying almost 50% of his income to the government “can’t be true”, that it is “impossible”, and also dodging the question of what portion of his tax dollars she thinks should be given to the government. (09:35)

Schiff’s comments on what’s coming – so true!!! (14:00). Comments on unions, minimum wage, industry, Henry Ford (21:45) – awesome.

Real businesspeople deal with real dollars and have to deal with the immediate and direct impact of government policy. They are successful in spite of it for a reason – fiscal responsibility – and to not give them at least as much of a voice as academics, economists, or politicians are getting right now is sinful.

Reply
- Sean Patrick Hazlett says:
  
  Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 18:51
  
  Yeah, Dr. Boushey seemed pretty flighty.
  
  Reply
reflectionephemeral says:

Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 07:09

“Job-killing regulations” is definitely a useful talking point for Republicans, and they certainly are good at finding people to say that phrase in public.

It’s worth noting, though, that they aren’t things that are real: http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/whats-the-evidence-that-regulations-kill-jobs

We asked experts, and most told us that while there is relatively little scholarship on the issue, the evidence so far is that the overall effect on jobs is minimal. Regulations do destroy some jobs, but they also create others. Mostly, they just shift jobs within the economy.

“The effects on jobs are negligible. They’re not job-creating or job-destroying on average,” said Richard Morgenstern, who served in the EPA from the Reagan to Clinton years and is now at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank. … Susan Dudley, the former White House regulatory chief under President George W. Bush and now director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, reiterated that point. Regulations can be counterproductive even if they result in more hiring.

“It would be easy to think of a regulation that ‘created jobs’ that didn’t benefit society,” Dudley said via email, such as “requiring that all construction be done with a teaspoon.”

In other words, counting jobs gained or lost is too narrow a prism through which to evaluate whether a regulation is good or bad. The real question is whether it improves waterways or lengthens lives or protects the public as promised.

“The issue in regulation always should be whether it delivers benefits that justify the cost,” said Noll. “The effect of regulation on jobs has nothing to do with the mess we’re in. The current rhetoric about regulation killing jobs is nothing more than not letting a good crisis go to waste.”

Reply
- Sean Patrick Hazlett says:
  
  Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 10:56
  
  I agree that whether a regulation creates or destroys jobs is too narrow a focus. That said, recent regulatory activity I’d certainly not helping. Witness for instance the Gibson Guitar and Boeing cases. In neither is the government being particularly helpful.
  
  BTW, I owe you a response to a comment on your site. I promise to respond, I just haven’t had a chance to yet. 😉
  
  Reply