Skip to main content

The AP fact-checks claims by Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum that regulations kill jobs and should be repealed. The finding?
Labor Department data show that only a tiny percentage of companies that experience large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason. Since Barack Obama took office, just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs have been due to government regulation, the data show.

Businesses frequently complain about regulation, but there is little evidence that it is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren't hiring because there isn't enough consumer demand.

To be sure, 18 percent of members of a conservative business organization say regulations are a problem for them, but that's not a historically high number—it was higher under both Clinton and the first Bush—and again, members of a conservative business organization. I don't think we should rush to go on what they say is best for the economy.

At least one study has found that stricter environmental regulations would create jobs in the northeast, while such regulations have in fact created jobs in California. Meanwhile, other studies have found that "the overall effect [of regulations] on jobs is minimal" and that "Mostly, they just shift jobs within the economy," in addition to, of course, saving lives and protecting the environment.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Two points (5+ / 0-)

    One, the issue is generally whether regulations inhibit the creation of new jobs.

    Two, the question is so broad as to be meaningless.  

  •  It's ludicrous. 2/10 of 1 percent, let's see: (10+ / 0-)

    Massey Energy:  I'm sorry, I have to lay you off and can't create new jobs because I have to spend money on shoring up the mine so you won't be killed. If they would just do away with that darn regulation and let us kill as many miners as we want, we'd hire more of them.

    BP:  I'm sorry, I have to lay you off and can't create jobs because I have to spend money on safety equipment so that the rig you are working on doesn't blow up. If they would just do away with that darn regulation and let us blow up as many oil rig workers as we want, we'd hire more of them.

    Kraft Foods:  I'm sorry, I have to lay you off and can't create more jobs because I have to spend money keeping the food supply safe.  If they'd just do away with that darn regulation and allow up to 10 cockroaches per package of cheese, we'd hire more workers.

    You know, I guess they are right. Do away with the regulations, allow corporations to create conditions that kill off their current workers, and that will create job openings for new workers.  The Republican Jobs Plan!

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 12:04:24 PM PDT

  •  My whole career has been due to govt. regulation (9+ / 0-)

    I'm an environmental consultant, working with industry and governments to investigate environmental contamination problems and figure out how to mitigate risks posed by contamination.

    While no career is truly "recession-proof," this one comes about as close as possible: 29 years of continuous employment; pay starting in the $50K to $60K range out of college and progressing to the $100K to $200K range over time (current dollars); bonuses over the years that added up to enough to put two children through college (one private, one state) with zero debt.  Plus, you get to work with intellectually challenging people (scientists, engineers, business people, and attorneys) and do work that is pretty rewarding. You can actually see your work making a difference.  Don't get me wrong: some projects are frustrating and seem to go nowhere; but those are the exception in my experience.

    None of that would be possible without government regulations setting standards and promulgating regulations requiring environmental contamination to be addressed. And the good thing is, the environment (and people's health) are better for it.

    •  Yup...spent several years as one (4+ / 0-)

      Doing air quality monitoring, dispersion modeling, NEPA, RCRA, EIS work, etc.  All driven by having regulation on corporations.

      And let me tell you folks, corporations will try to skate as close to the line on this stuff as is humanly possible (although a couple were actually really good about it).  I had an oil & gas company try to get as close to the permit levels as possible, mining companies just blatantly neglect regulations (until we called them on it and warned them of the consequences), etc.

      And the things I saw -- cyanide dust from a tailings pond in Montana blowing across a field where cattle grazed (even though I had written an air quality section in their EIS stating that this was a significant risk), solvents leaking underground from a manufacturing facility toward where a KinderCare was located, mercury spilled out of monometers at gas compression plants onto the ground, fertilizers in the water table...

      There was a joke (not much of one) going around our office that we "help industry pollute to the full extent of the law" -- hence why I quit that job.

      Regulation is the only thing standing between you and being slowly poisoned for profit.  So yeah, it does create jobs on the other side of the equation, just like crime creates a need for a police force -- it's Ying and Yang.

      The Meek Shall Inherit NOTHING -- Frank Zappa

      by LickBush on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:21:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Same for same for any compliance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Powered Grace

      The Patriot Act mandated tighter controls on money laundering so Financial institutions had to scramble and either build or buy new computer systems to scan all transactions looking to patterns indicative of money laundering and hire people to support them.

      Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 mandated a whole new level of audit controls which added additional IT audit in addition to any internal corporate audit. So extra personnel had to be brought in to assist in compliance and others trained(which implicitly is stimulative)

      So it's The Why do you hate this country You're Obsessed with misquoting me out of context while I was in the process of misspeaking with the sun in my eyes while chowing down and bashing Sharia law God Bless America defense.......

      by JML9999 on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 09:40:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  deregulation was about profits before people /nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, emsprater

    I am off my metas! Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03)

    by annieli on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:03:22 AM PDT

  •  What? Republicans lying? Who knew???? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, emsprater

    How can you tell when a Republican is lying?  His or her lips are moving.

  •  Except when they do. Clark Foam, anyone? (0+ / 0-)

    Assent- and you are sane- Demur- you’re straightway dangerous- And handled with a Chain- - Emily Dickinson

    by SpamNunn on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:03:45 AM PDT

  •  Where is this woman (4+ / 0-)

    when we need her to ask the right questions?

    Image Hosting by

    Yeah, that's me... she's a sweetheart.

    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. John F. Kennedy

    by Patriot4peace on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:03:56 AM PDT

  •  It does not make any sense (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, middleagedhousewife

    that business is smart enough to exist, but incapable of doing ti within guidelines that are clean and healthy for America and the world. It's intellectual dishonesty.

    CEO's are the number one job killers. And they do it to "please the share holders" and all that hogwash even though my 401K has lost 15% this year.

    TAX the dirty corporations into non existence. Someone smarter and better will fill their shoes.

    No Jesus, Know Peace

    by plok on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:08:28 AM PDT

  •  A little misleading (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Carnet, WillR, Justanothernyer
    Labor Department data show that only a tiny percentage of companies that experience large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason.

    The key words are are "large layoffs".  Most companies that layoff b/c of regulations are smaller companies, which are not as well able to absorb increased costs associated with regulations as large ones.

    For all the good they do, government regulations are often designed not only with large companies in mind, but in cooperation with those large companies.  It really often amounts to a defacto collusion between government and large corporations that can often squeeze smaller companies out.

    I am the 1% of the the 1% who support the 99%

    by I Am The Top One Percent on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:09:38 AM PDT

    •  You mean like the poor Ma and Pa (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      corner oil refinery next to the Chase bank and Subway sandwich shop?

      In the few cases where you are correct you have made the case for progressive application of enforcement and taxation. In a way it already exists. For example, take my lawn mower. It's a 2-cycle filthy dirty polluter. But the feds don't come to my house and regulate my lawn mower. However, I FULLY expect the Feds to regulate the paint factory across the street from me.

      Oh and btw, you don't do shit to support  me. I'm self made, pay my taxes, don't complain, and consider this country the model of inequality considering it's a modern democracy.

      No Jesus, Know Peace

      by plok on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:35:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a "few cases" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        All small business that are impacted by regulations pay more than large corporations per employee, and are less able to absorb the costs.

        That's just a fact.

        Your last paragraph is non-sensical, unecessarily combative, and I really have no idea what you're saying.

        •  No, your old signature was combative (0+ / 0-)

          And I guess you need to give me examples of regulations that hurt small business that are less hurtful to large business.

          In my world the things that come to mind are OSHA requirements and environmental regulations. Care to start there? Small and large businesses alike deal with these types of regulations everyday on my projects without problems.

          No Jesus, Know Peace

          by plok on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:57:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, you didn't understand the old sig (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It wasn't combative at all.

            Now, understanding why regulations cost more for small business than large ones is basic economics, which anyone who has ever run a small business would understand.  A small business is less able to absorb the costs associated with regulatory compliance.  I'm not saying they should be exempt from regulations (though they sometimes are for that very reason), but it is an economic reality.

            Here's some reading for you summarising a study that the SBA did on the issue:


            This is really patently obvious, and not even worth debating really...the disproportionate impact of regulations on small business over large is just a fact.  I'm not sure why you're so anxious to defend large corporations, but to each her own.

            •  Still no examples (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I'll give you another type of "regulation" that really hurts small business. My family used to operate several small clothing stores. And we had great exposure and customer base. But we lost our businesses because vendors would not sell us product. They would sell only to our larger competitors. We could not even get basic brands like Wrangler or Justin (anchor brands with no markup or profit whatsoever) to draw people in. We had to get these products second hand from "people we knew".

              Yep there are regulations, but the real threat to ma and pa in my experience is mega corporations that define the markets. Mega corporation have mastered pricing their products and pricing out competition.

              Ten years ago when I bought my house I spent $20 on a water hose that I used for 6 or 7 years. It was perfect. It had "torsion" movement, and would not kink. And since then I have not been able to find a replacement for it. Youi know what I do have? I now have 2 Swan brand water hoses. One was $10, the other $20. And they say "America's Finest Water Hose" right on the hose. But they are terrible. They don't even roll up without kinking. Technically, they function more like valves that are always in the "off" position.

              So these are the "cheap" hoses that Swan has offered in hopes that I eventually buy their $40 hose. It's a gamble, though, for me. It may not have that "torsion" movement of my first hose. And whether it does or not, in the end I will have spent $70 trying to replace my old $20 hose.

              This is how manufacturers have mastered fleecing customers. Ten dollars at a time. And Swan is the only brand on the shelf. Because they have mastered controlling their distribution. Do you really think I could go out there in a regulation-free environment and compete with Swan? I would love to! I would love to make the truly "World's Finest Water Hose", because I have a passion for taking care of my yard! But I will never be able to compete with them. Never.

              No Jesus, Know Peace

              by plok on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 09:35:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                I linked a study to you, and your answers are really non-responsive and off-point. So I'll just leave it at that and you to you preconceptions.

                Have a good day.

              •  Sorry to hear you've been hosed. (0+ / 0-)

                But don't forget that regulations (even good ones) also add to the cost of opening Plok's Hose Works to compete with Swan.

                Swan (well Tekni-Plex which acquired them in 2001) amortizes the cost of hiring regulatory experts across tens (hundreds?) of million feet of hose annually. Plok's Hose Works needs to amortize these costs over tens (hundreds?) of thousand feet of hose annually the first few years. For regulatory reasons alone, it's going to be very hard for Poor Plok to compete with Swan without a very innovative patented "twist".

                Regulations favor giant corporations.

                For Walmart, opening 50 stores in California costs far less in regulatory overhead than for 50 individual business people to open similar individual stores. Walmart has a cookie cutter solution that deals with all the Cal-OSHA requirements, EPA requirements, OSHA requirements, State and Federal employment regulations, etc so they incur much reduced incremental exploratory and legal costs due to state (or Federal) regulations for the last 49 of the 50 stores (local regs and politics still get them though).

                In this case, Walmart can also afford to fight (with their staff of lawyers) regulatory actions that they think are inappropriate because they benefit from this at 50 stores instead of just one store. This effectively reduces Walmart's cost of fighting the regulatory action by 98% over what the individual store business owner would incur -- leaving the individual store owner little choice but to roll over.

                Indeed, some large companies like some government regulations because they are hard for small competitors to comply with cost effectively (i.e., "rent-seeking").

                •  So the question remains (0+ / 0-)

                  why do Republicans want to deregulate? Large corporations deal with it well enough. And in my family's business example, regulation was not the issue.

                  This is a broad subject. But saving a couple thousand per employee in our small business would not have solved the economic problems the country has now. It would have merely increased our profits marginally for a brief period, when what we really needed was access to more product.

                  Perhaps Swan could lower their prices or maybe even stop this pricing scheme if they did not have to deal with so many regulations. But I don't  really believe Swan is serious about providing a good product at a good price.

                  No Jesus, Know Peace

                  by plok on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 12:22:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Big corporations are the most... (0+ / 0-)

           to outsource to avoid regulation (pesky things like employee safety etc.) and they can amortize the cost of whatever remaining regulations they need to deal with them over more units. The big corporations can also sometimes lobby to make sure the regulations hurt their small competitors (or even their less politically savvy big competitors) more.

                    Certainly some small businesses are not strongly affected by regulations and that sounds like the case in your family business.

                    In some cases (not referencing your case because I know nothing about it) I think this is because many small businesses flaunt regulations much worse than big corporations. Sometimes this is an honest innocent error because a ten person business don't keep lawyers on staff to figure out the nuances of the regulations and inadvertently violate them. Some blatantly sidestep regulations on the (correct) theory that if you have 50,000 employees, all it takes is one to complain and one lawyer to smell a BIG class action suit, but a business with 10 employees is unlikely to even be reported (roughly 10/50,000 or 0.02% as likely) and, even if reported, virtually no lawyer will take a class action suit with minor damages to each employee when there are only five employees impacted.

                    From what you say, Swan seems to be building a crappy product now. That's unfortunate and it drives me nuts also. I doubt that Swan started doing this because of regulations consciously -- my guess is they got to dominate the market and then decided they could save money without losing market share by reducing manufacturing costs. Where regulation comes into the equation is if regulations raise the bar too high for a small business to enter the hose market and work their way up to be the Beautiful Swan Hose Company.

                    •  Well I like your writing (0+ / 0-)

                      but I'll leave it at this. I think Republicans are trying to paint a large company's ability to absorb regulation as regulation being an unfair burden on small companies. It's twisted logic that makes me think that they think I'm pretty damn stupid.

                      No Jesus, Know Peace

                      by plok on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:09:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  Right on both counts, but also (3+ / 0-)

      They're not surveying the companies that could've hired 25 people but instead hired 22 people, for example. It's a particularly misleading study for that reason, and a borderline strawman. I don't think even Cain or Romney would say the EPA or OSHA or FDA has done something to suddenly cause "massive layoffs" in the last year. They tend to use terms like "wet blanket", slowing down new hires. Even if a company is flourishing, of course it would flourish more without regulations.

      This doesn't mean regulations are "bad" and should be ended, as most of the presidential candidates want. Nor does it mean that regulations are the primary factor inhibiting the economy. Neither of those things is true. But it should be relatively uncontroversial to say that any company would be able to hire more people if they had no regulations to comply with, and this study is a clumsy way of arguing the opposite.

      "Only idiots believe the earth is getting warmer. Besides, they've proven it's only getting warmer because of sunspots."

      by Carnet on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:51:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It also doesn't count... (0+ / 0-)

        ...businesses that, in part due to regulatory costs, decided to expand overseas instead of domestically to develop and/or produce new products or to meet increased demand.

        Often such decisions are not accompanied by mass layoffs. There may be small layoffs. They may reassign displaced domestic employees to current job openings instead of hiring a new employee and adding to headcount. And, obviously, they won't create the new domestic job openings in the future that would have been associated with the off-shored work. These all result in a net loss of jobs over time.

  •  Maybe it's just me..... (6+ / 0-)

    .....but I kinda like having clean air, clean water, safe workplaces, airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, blahblahblah.

  •  I think it a fair assumption that those companies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that did cite regulation as the reason for layoffs see no issue with our current executive compensation apparati.

  •  Heavier Zombie season than usual this year. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Must be global warming.

  •  Ahem. (0+ / 0-)

    Environmental regulations are not about jobs.

    They are largely about health.   Tens of thousands die each year from cardiopulmonary disease aggravated by high pollution.   How much are those lives worth in terms of jobs?

    False equivalency and we are being diverted from the real reason that we have these regulations.

    "Don't dream it, be it" - Brad, Janet and Frank

    by captainlaser on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:23:28 AM PDT

  •  A fact checking expedition I'd dearly love to see (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stroszek, emsprater

    is on the statement made by several of the GOP contenders during the last debate that

    Obamacare is the number one reason business owners say they aren't hiring.
     Now, I did take econ a long time ago, and hardly majored in it, but I learned it was demand that caused businesses to hire or not.  If demand was up, then supply would need to increase, and businesses would hire to help supply meet increased demand.  
    If the republican contenders are accurately reporting this new finding (and I'd dearly love to see the study and survey that supports it), then I guess we're now in an economy that obeys the laws of health insurance plan, rather than supply and demand, and that deserves some discussion and news.

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:24:22 AM PDT

    •  The number one reason that businesses aren't (0+ / 0-)

      hiring is the lack of available capital to increase their workforce and production.

      Banks are not loaning money.

      "Don't dream it, be it" - Brad, Janet and Frank

      by captainlaser on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:26:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How dull (0+ / 0-)

        Blaming the EPA's a much more exciting talking point.

        "Only idiots believe the earth is getting warmer. Besides, they've proven it's only getting warmer because of sunspots."

        by Carnet on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:57:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't buy that. (0+ / 0-)

        I think if a company had a sure fire plan, banks would stumble all over themselves to lend money (and thereby make money).  If they don't lend, they don't earn.  That's why I still get an average of 3 'pre approved' credit card applications in the mail every week.

        Corporations and banks are sitting on record setting levels of cash because they want to see the  present administration fail.  Democratic ideals threaten CEO pay, so the CEOs are banking on making sure the GOP completes their take over of America.

        The number 1 reason that businesses aren't hiring is because there's no market for their products in the current climate with the added benefit that the workers they already have will bend over backwards to produce more in order to keep the jobs they have.

        In other words, corporations under mega buck CEOs are squeezing America at both ends and in the middle at the same time in order to take home record pay packages.

        'Destroying America, One middle class family and one civil liberty at a time: Today's GOP'

        by emsprater on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:04:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I wouldn't be surprised (0+ / 0-)

      if it was detrimental to employment, especially if one associates the premium hikes with Obamacare. The right answer would be to get employers out of the insurance game altogether, but Obama really missed the boat on that. Maybe he hopes the exchanges will take over in the long run, but I don't know.

      "Only idiots believe the earth is getting warmer. Besides, they've proven it's only getting warmer because of sunspots."

      by Carnet on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:55:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Plus these "thousands of regulations" supposedly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      middleagedhousewife, emsprater

      introduced by the Obama administration.  Just what are these regulations they keep referring to?

      Hey Herman: "Nein! Nein! Nein!"

      by here4tehbeer on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 09:58:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  but it's not the EXISTING regulations (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    no no no, it's the fear of what regulations that omnipotent Obama MIGHT pass that prevents employers from hiring!

    This is why the GOP's jobs plan amounts to "electing a Republican President."

    Well... that and a total lack of any real ideas.

  •  A Fact Check Logo for Republicans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, emsprater

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:33:24 AM PDT

  •  Businessmen who complain about Regulations (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is like burglars complaining about home owners installing locks.  

  •  On the other hand... (0+ / 0-)

    The lack of regulations kills jobs.  Certain Congressional jobs, that is.  Carbon copy to GOP.

  •  Since tax cuts for the wealthy don't create jobs - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the republicans have moved on to this new talking point.  That it's those onerous regulations that are preventing corporations and businesses from hiring.  Or they cite "economic uncertainty".  If you want economic certainty you shouldn't be in business to begin with.

  •  I like oversight and regulations (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I like the idea that the government is inspecting our food to ensure that it's safe to eat.  The idea that government is inspecting our air and water to ensure that it's safe to breathe and drink. I like that government provides air traffic controller­s to guide planes safely.

    I like the idea of having government watchdogs to ensure that toys are safe for our children, that products are safe for consumers, and that predatory financial institutions are not taking advantage of customers. I like the idea of government holding businesses and corporations accountable and preventing them from harming our environment and riding roughshod over citizens.

    Why an entire political party would be opposed to these ideas is beyond me.

  •  Regulations Also Create Jobs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Kaib

    Where I live, in Dubai, the "Made in USA" label means trust. I saw a good example of that today at my doctor's office. The office has a large cosmetic surgery practice which sells "cosmetic medical products" as an adjunct. The commercial they were running prominently announced that the products were "Made in USA and FDA approved."

    Those are American jobs because of regulation. I see that often where people choose an American or European product because those countries regulate the production of that product. Remember too that the UAE is not a third world country with tainted food like China. In the third world countries, the trustworthiness of products made in countries with reliable regulatory regimes is even more important. Those who can afford to buy products made under American regulation will choose them over local untrustworthy products.

  •  Lobbyist Driven (0+ / 0-)

    One thing that one learns after watching/being involved in the legislative process is much of it is completely made up out of whole cloth to make money for lobbyists. When the legislature is not in session and even when it is, lobbyists gin up fake problems and gather contributions from businesses to fix this fake existing problem or prevent some mythical problem that is going to happen if you don't give them money. They split that money keeping some for themselves and lining the pockets of politicians with the rest. To justify the millions they are getting they get legislation passed or repealed that supposedly fixes or prevents this problem.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:45:36 AM PDT

  •  But, but, but there wasn't supposed to be any math (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans don't "believe" in math, you know.

  •  Sarbanes-Oxley (0+ / 0-)

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was responsible for a whole lot of jobs. New regulations, especially those that threaten the upper rungs of the corporate hierarchy cause corporations to spend massive amounts of money and it is generally money well spent.  And its not only government regulations that add jobs. Self-imposed regulations like the company's that choose to be ISO-9000 certified also generate a lot of jobs. I get lots of panicked calls from clients after they have their annual visit from the ISO Auditors needing me to amend their custom software.

    Having to comply with well thought out regulations is actually very helpful for many companies that aren't very well run. It forces them to do things that actually make them a more successful business. Many of the companies that whine that regulations are hurting their bottom line are like little kids crying that Mommy is crimping their style by forcing them to brush their teeth and change their underwear.

    The best companies would naturally do many of the things government forces them to do on their own. Many regulations actually just save the bad companies from themselves. Of course some regulations may be unnecessarily cumbersome to follow or arbitrary in their specific reporting requirements, but by and large most of them are based on solid ground.

    •  Board of Health Another Great Example (0+ / 0-)

      My husband used to run a popular restaurant/deli in Manhattan. He told me that when the Board of Health visited them they had had a whole of violations, all out of ignorance about best practices for handling and preparing food. They  implemented everything they were told to do. It wasn't so much about doing a lot of extra things, but just doing things differently. Shortly after that the Owner told him that he used to get a lot of letters complaining about the food and they dropped to next to nothing.

      So here we clearly have an establishment not be running as well as could be they benefited from government regulations.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site