Marian Wang at ProPublica looks into whether regulations
kill or create jobs and finds that it's just not that simple:
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.
That's partly because when you just ask what effect "regulations" have, you're covering a huge range. There are ones that cause a safety sign to be put up in a workplace, which may save lives but have negligible effect on employment, and there are ones that force major changes in an industry. Forcing major changes in a specific industry may cut jobs in one industry while creating ones in another industry; for instance, cutting jobs in oil while creating jobs in wind and solar. Typically, though, there's a great deal more information about jobs that will be cut (and corporate public relations muscle pushing the news out) than there is about jobs that will be created.
That's not the only question, though. As Wang concludes:
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.”
Republicans aren't much for conservation and re-use, but that has it right: If there's one thing they do oppose wasting, it's the opportunity to turn crisis to ideological use.
