Study proves regulations killed practically no jobs

[vminfla]

Source: Raw Story

In three straight recent weekly addresses, Republicans have asserted that “excessive government regulations” are keeping businesses from creating jobs.

On the contrary, recent government data proves that in the third quarter of 2010 only 0.4 percent of jobs were lost due to government regulations or intervention.

“With our economy struggling and red tape still piling up, these nuisances have become full-blown government barriers to job creation,” Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) said in an early October video.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) asks executives to report the biggest reasons for layoffs. Data released last week showed that out of 1,870 layoffs, only six — or about 0.4 percent — in the third quarter of 2010 were due to “Governmental regulations/intervention.” That number dropped even further in the first two quarters of 2011.


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/14/study-proves-regulations-killed-practically-no-jobs/

---

Shocking. You mean businesses want customers more than they want the EPA to be defunded?

[Turbineguy]

1. Well yes, but....

".... job-killing regulations...." just rolls off the tongue so nicely. That and a good hairdo.

[EvilMonsanto]

2. We Need To Be Skeptics!

Listen man, I think regulations are important however.....
We can't just sit back and paint unicorns and rainbows, we have to address the threat of Cronyism before just jumping the gun and supporting more regulations.

Lobbyists throw money and then execs from that company get appointed to as head of some regulatory body, then what?
The rich get richer that's what!

Why do you think Big Pharma is so big?
Why do you think Monsanto is so strong?

This must ALWAYS be part of the conversation!!!!

[AlbertCat]

5. Why do you think Big Pharma is so big?

Well, it ain't because of government regulations.

Your concerns are minor.... especially if the regulations are designed correctly.

[librechik]

3. of course the 1%ers are furious becasue complying with regulations forces them to hire

people to help them comply, people to administer the compliance, etc. I'm assuming that having fewer staff would make it harder to comply with certain regulations. This whole notion of regulations leading to loss of jobs is totally backward from logic and the facts.

[rfranklin]

4. Even more is the issue of control...they want to be bosses of everything...

and feel it is their right since they have money--he who has the gold makes the rules.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Which actually negates the loss of jobs in the study...

...because they had to hire compliance officers.

It's a jobs winner! :woohoo:

[Divine Discontent]

6. the GOP hate it when things like this are presented!

Get it now, or one of a million other designs! http://www.zazzle.com/republicans_2012_keeping_millions_out_of_work_bumper_sticker-128659602907896843?rf=238107662556833486

[ShockediSay]

7. "Regulations don't kill jobs-The unregulated kill people and their livelihood"

e.g.
BP
Massey Energy
Wall Street
Big Banks

Shout it from the rooftops, often
and forget tying it to proofs -
They don't
Just like their horseshit about tax cuts and job creators.
How many jobs did BushCheney tax cuts produce?

[unblock]

8. regulations CREATE jobs, which is why businesses hate them.

it's "overhead". why pay people to PROVE to the government (and your employees and customers and neighbors) that you're not polluting, that you're keeping employees and consumers safe, that you're not discriminating, etc., when you just get the government to remove or ignore those pesky regulations and fire all those silly expenses? er, i mean people?

[yodermon]

9. How do increased regulations *decrease* jobs??? also stated upthread

but it bears repeating. To come into compliance with regulations requires more effort, therefore more jobs.
I'd be curious as to how those 6 jobs were lost due to "Governmental regulations/intervention".

Only exception might be loss of oil drilling jobs due to Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium, or similar scenarios where a whole segment is shut down completely due to non-compliance.

[Igel]

12. You answer your question.

Compliance reqires greater effort; but the effort doesn't produce anything that's saleable.

This simply increases overhead. If I need 8 to produce and sell what 7 used to produce and sell, then my labor costs have increased. If my supplies cost more because of expenses passed along to me, my supply costs have increased.

At some point the increase in price for my goods or services exceeds what people are willing to pay. Or I'm forced to eat the cost of that additional employee myself, with the result that I have less money for infrastructure or training.


The study is tautological: It says that since long-standing regulations had no impact in the 3rd quarter of a given year, it had no impact; however, all the regulations would have had their effect years before, so the default hypothesis is that these regulations would have already had any serious deleterious effect. Those who were affected would mostly be those not in compliance or whose growth led to the application of a different set of regs. By now the regs would have just been part of the cost of doing business.

What's needed would be a model that showed what the level of employment in a given industry would be without the regulations--except that the regulations are so complicated and interrelated, they'd so distorted what a pure laissez faire economy would look like for such a long time producing the model would itself be a massive undertaking the results of which few would agree on.

[meow2u3]

10. Regulations kill jobs: snow jobs, hit jobs, and con jobs!

My, that's a good bumper sticker slogan. :)

[Viva_Daddy]

11. Don't worry. Republicans have never let facts interfere with a...

good sound-bite.

[surrealAmerican]

13. ... and yet, the press will never call them on this.

They can spout whatever lies they want, so long as they "believe" them.

[jmowreader]

14. You know why regulations are always "job killing"

The hyper-rich want to run their businesses like Durham's in "The Jungle."

It could be worse for them, though: they could be forced to endure regulations like Mexico's meatpacking regulation that says when you use "meat byproducts" in your product you have to list which ones they are...which is why chorizo that can be exported to Mexico lists lips, blood vessels, intestines and snouts, and chorizo intended to sell only in the US says "pork byproducts."

[Laelth]

16. k&r for the truth. n/t

-Laelth

[JackRiddler]

17. They've been murder on the mafia, though.

[BlueIris]

18. Kick. For sanity. nt