-
Republicans Dishonor Thatcher
April 26, 2013 | 6 comments
-
At Minimum, a Big Loser
February 28, 2013 | 32 comments
-
The Anti-Democracy Index
February 8, 2013 | 32 comments
-
Needed: Judicial Activism
August 14, 2012 | 11 comments
-
Washington’s Ten Thousand Commandments
June 5, 2012 | 12 comments
Another Perspective
My Job Creation Proposal
It will involve beating regulations into plowshares.
There is a lot of talk lately about how regulation affects the job market. On Monday, the Washington Post ran a front-page opinion piece by Jia Lynn Yang. She argues that regulations have little effect on the number of jobs. Some rules even create jobs. Installing EPA-mandated scrubbers in one coal-fired power plant in Ohio created 1,000 temporary jobs to build the things, and 40 permanent jobs to keep them running.
She makes a good point. It does take a lot of man-hours to comply with Washington’s various commands and controls. Regulatory agencies employ more than 260,000 people to enforce federal rules. Almost every private sector worker spends at least some time complying with regulations. For some people, that’s their full-time job. It all adds up to a lot of jobs.
Not everyone thinks this is the wisest path to full employment. The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, reacting to Yang’s article, points out that power plant scrubbers are not free. The power plant’s Mr. Burns-esque owner passes on the costs to his customers. And when a family pays more money for electricity, that leaves less money left over for other things — clothes, movies, the kids’ college fund, you name it. That means fewer jobs in those sectors.
Maybe scrubbers are worth that cost. Maybe they’re not. The environmental benefits from scrubbers are debatable; that they are economically costly is not. The point is that scrubbers aren’t actually job creators on net. Money and jobs are transferred from other companies to the power plant.
The money that pays 40 scrubber monitors’ salaries could have gone to something else, and created jobs there. One more waiter at a restaurant here, one more investment manager there — someone has to manage that college fund — and so on. Yang has only told half the story.
That is why I am proposing a regulation that really would create jobs. As everyone knows, winter is coming. And many of the nation’s least-employed states will see a lot of snow this year. Already, giant snowplows are beginning to traverse the highways and byways of Michigan, Ohio, and other states going through hard times. With these plows, one man can do the work of a hundred.
I say we ban snowplows and hand out some shovels.
Think about it for a minute. In Michigan alone, nearly 520,000 people are looking for a job and can’t find one. Tens of thousands of miles of roads zig and zag across the state. If this winter lives up to lofty Midwestern standards, it’s possible that every last one of those 520,000 could work at least part time clearing the way for their fellow citizens. And all because of regulation!
My proposal would create white-collar jobs, too. The shovels would be handed out by employers. They would be required to audit the shovelers to make sure they’re putting in an honest day’s work. That requires auditors. More jobs!
Sometime in July, shortly after the temperature climbs above freezing, employers would be required to return the shovels to Washington. That would create jobs at FedEx, UPS, and the USPS. Reimbursing employers for shipping costs would create countless jobs for office managers; someone has to keep track of the receipts.
Some economists out there would no doubt poo-poo the fact that shovels are less efficient than plows. They say spending all that additional money on snow removal leaves less left over for other things, like college funds.
They say it matters whether those jobs are creating products and services that people value, or digging and re-filling regulatory ditches.
They say the best way to increase the number of jobs is to repeal regulations that make it difficult and expensive to start a business or bring a new product to market.
I say that’s hogwash. Why do more with less when you can do the opposite? Jobs are at stake.
Of course, it is possible that my shovel regulation wouldn’t create enough jobs. If that happens, I have another idea that would all but guarantee full employment.
Give them spoons.
About the Author
Ryan Young is Fellow in Regulatory Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ryan Young
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/16/my-job-creation-proposal
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The End of the Castros?
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 11.16.11 @ 6:16AM
Slash spending, regulation, taxes , end the wars, close the overseas bases, bring the troops home and then watch the economy boom. We don't have to cut Social Security or Medicare if we free our economy. Of course we should let the young out of Social Security and it's taxes so that they can have the money to fund their own educations and retirements.
Occam's Tool| 11.16.11 @ 5:50PM
"Social Security and its taxes." I keep forgetting how educated you are, Jack.
If you don't think the entitlements need to be cut you are dead wrong. They will need cutting even if we hide under a rock and have a business boom. Assholes like you didn't have enough kids---couldn't attract women with your 4-F physiognomy.
Shamus| 11.16.11 @ 6:24AM
Outlaw farm equipment. That'll create jobs.
MikeBee| 11.16.11 @ 11:49AM
Outlaw computers. More jobs.
Jarvis| 11.16.11 @ 12:48PM
Can openers!
DTOM| 11.16.11 @ 6:36PM
Also solves Social Security, Medicare, and government pension underfunding - as do all childproof and security food closures....
Rob Schapiro| 11.16.11 @ 7:00AM
When I was in the military, the officers had a unique way of creating work for lazy soldiers. Dig a deep hole one day. Fill it in the next day. Repeat.
It's as productive as hiring workers to comply with junk regulations.
c. j. acworth| 11.16.11 @ 7:30AM
I seem to remember an episode in the life of the late great Milton Freidman on this topic. He was visiting a government-funded construction project somewhere in South America and noticed that the men were digging the ditches with shovels, not backhoes. When he asked why, he was told that shovels created more jobs. "So why not give them spoons?" he said, or words to that effect.
rn| 11.16.11 @ 10:23AM
I jog past a year-long construction site a couple of times a week. Not wanting to jog the other day, I chanced on the second in charge at the work site. He didn't seem to mind my questions, so I asked him how it was coming along.
Ultimately I learned that the work project would be late on completion by about 90-100 days.
This did not seem to bother this foreman. My view is that he was exceptionally pleased that safety regulations were extending the project. Means three more months of a solid paycheck for him. He even seemed eager and expectant that foul weather would further push back completion.
By the way, this is about a 50-50 public-privately funded build site, as I understand it.
What I don't think that this man grasped is that regulations hurt him. Yes, surely they help him extend this present work project with cost overruns. They do. But they prevent potential clients from approaching his construction firm for a multitude of other possible projects.
Appleby| 11.16.11 @ 7:56AM
Shoveling sidewalks should be mandatory for all Occupy Valuable Real Estate to No Good Purpose members. It would help them lose weight and tone up their flabby muscles, and would reduce the level of carpal tunnel syndrome due to binkie-slinging. In Toronto we have wasted huge amounts of money on wheel chair accessible buses but the city plows routinely bury the sidewalks so the wheel chair folk cannot use them and the people who usually ride bicycles or skateboards to the danger of the walking public, not to mention the joggers screaming EXCUSE ME! behind us old ladies cautiously treading in the Indian Path stamped by those who walked single file ahead of us. This snow should be shoveled into handcarts which would also be trundled by Occupiers, preferably grotesquely overweight single mothers of more than four illegitimate children, and dumped in the parking lots of government buildings. These folk would be paid in food and shelter at the end of each day (no cash would change hands). Perhaps 2 Thessalonians 3:10 could adorn their hoodies front and back: *For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.*
Moe Blotz| 11.16.11 @ 11:25AM
Make sure the snow removal technicians wear warm, waterproof gloves to avoid the fiasco that happened a couple years ago in Phluffya,PA. After a big snow storm hit town on a Saturday a couple years ago, the Iggles management offered free admission to the Sunday ball game for anyone who would take up a shovel and help clear the stands of that white powder that is so familiar our neighbors to the north. A few of the common sense challenged hose heads worked without gloves and wound up damn near freezing their hands off whilst watching the game later on. Some slip and fall lawyer took up the cause ,then sued the city and football club. I dung remember the outcome, but all the local news (tv and print) bemoaned their plight.
DTOM| 11.16.11 @ 7:58AM
Ryan;
Sarcasm is often accompanied by many unintended consequences. I find your piece snarky to a an entertaining degree. However, at this point, snarky is a luxury that few can afford.
My preference is illumination. It would have been better to focus on the fact that job creation is not what this country needs. It needs to restore wealth creation, accompanied by a the trust that if you create wealth, you'll get to keep some of it.
This government regime has made it perfectly clear that it abhors wealth and its creators. It fosters that belief and those who spread it, thus Obama, Biden, Algore's identification with the OWS thugs and their "Eat the Rich!" theme. Until that changes, we have lost our country. This ain't your World War II winning USA anymore. But I remain optimistic that it can turn on a dime, given the right leadership. And statism ain't leadership.
Bob S| 11.16.11 @ 9:18AM
Wealth creation is indeed the point. However, the do-gooders have declared "wealth" an evil concept. "Wealth" can never be created; it can only be stolen. Of course, if Common Sense had not been invalidated, its application might be providing some help these days.
djtoland| 11.16.11 @ 10:19AM
Government jobs are wealth-destroying jobs, and private sector jobs are wealth-creating jobs.
That is one reason the stimulus failed so miserably - it focused on sustaining government jobs which do not create any wealth.
Pecos Pete| 11.16.11 @ 8:03AM
Excellent! Return to the caves. Liberalism run amuck. How about this: Raise taxes to 100% meaning no one earns anything and the government requires each person to work according to their ability and provides for them according to their needs.
rn| 11.16.11 @ 10:13AM
Anyone who has worked in a hospital over the past 2 or 3 decades can attest to the stymie-effect of regulations. National. State. Local. Corporate. Hospital management. Clinic or ward management. Many layers.
While some may be well intended, the ultimate effect is shaving away continually at the work day, removing the time necessary to focus on Job One which is supposed to be the patient and his or her care.
My firm opinion is that regulations in the medical care environment ratchet up health care costs exponentially. It makes us hire more admin staff (people unqualified to handle patient care but qualified to push paperwork), so this costs you more because we now have much more staff. Regulations steal time and focus away from patient care.
Ultimately they are a complete job killer.
Occam's Tool| 11.16.11 @ 5:52PM
80% of my day is spent filling out paperwork or complying with meetings to meet some regulation. Seeing patients and healing them is something I schedule in desperately between meetings.
Occam's Tool| 11.16.11 @ 5:54PM
RN---completely correct. And the regs eat away at time that can be spent with the patient attending to the patient, because we are too busy documenting what we did with the patient to protect us againbst government audits and malpractice suits.
djtoland| 11.16.11 @ 10:25AM
I read that the CEO of Intel says that it would cost him a Billion dollars more to open a plant here in the USA, as opposed to China.
This is due to all the regulations, NIMBY, taxes, etc.
With a business environment like this, is it any wonder that China is taking all our jobs?
rn| 11.16.11 @ 10:37AM
djtoland, you make the easy point and right. This discusssion is a no-brainer.
How many of us are unable to do a home improvement project because the city/county ordinances either outright deny it, require a costly process to try to attain approval (with only a 20% success rate of approval), or require such expensive measures as to send me away, as I am unwilling to fork over that kind of big money.
I would like to just get it done. But regulations say I cannot. This hurts the building supply industry and the small repair and construction contractors I would use to aid the projects I have in mind.
That hurts jobs, those that have them and those who want them.
DTOM| 11.16.11 @ 12:28PM
rn;
Hope you don't run into the wetlands/floodplain property theft machine...
So do you still think you have "private property?"
We have along way to get back to the Constitution, a very long way.
chuck| 11.16.11 @ 6:46PM
rn
I'm a contractor, and just about everyone I know is in the business. Most of the time we do not get permits. Not that we cut corners, or don't build to code. Everything we do meets or exceeds all the codes. It's just such a hassle dealing with the schmucks at the Building Departments.
Building permit............since when do I have to ask permission from some damned bureaucrat to work on my own damned house?
Screw 'em!
ReasonableViews | 11.16.11 @ 12:53PM
We've been 10 years in this Great Stagnation. I think great forces have aligned against our economy. Stifling regulation is one of them. There are only so many years that the government can produce truckloads of new regulations before the resulting spiderweb is impenetrable. Lousy education, churning out 45% dropouts in urban areas, can't help. Government now consumes 40% of the economy (at all levels), compared to 20% several decades ago. We need dramatic change to undo these fetters. http://bit.ly/sSCZjN
Pat| 11.16.11 @ 3:48PM
How many government regulations does America export to other countries? Sure, we can sell Boeing 787’s to the Japanese or the Arabs but how many EPA or tax regs would they also buy from us - $500 million or $1 billion annually for some “made in the USA” government regs? And how much does Washington or your home state or your hometown compensate businesses to prepare government information reports or file income, sales, use, excise or property tax returns? Or provide sexual harassment training to all manager level employees? Or require their employees to learn export control regs governing “restricted” materials? Why, nothing is paid of course. So, how do businesses comply with these regs at no additional cost to themselves?
And if adding a new employee costs several thousand dollars annually in additional, but useless, regulatory costs would you also suppose businesses seriously consider that fact prior to hiring? And during an economic downturn, how many regs does the government allow private businesses to ignore in order to ease the country’s economic pain – why none of course, we never cut back on regs. So, if you can’t cut back on regulatory costs during harsh economic times, is it maybe easier to layoff existing employees? Yes, safety regs save mangled arms and avoid amputated legs, but does mandatory sexual harassment training avoid unnecessary rapes?
Why anyone would choose America over China or Mexico when selecting a site for a new plant is hard to understand. We could claim American workers are the most productive in the world – we could claim that but then wouldn’t we also need to claim they are the most expensive workers in the world once you include all the government mandated and regulatory costs related to hiring? So, vote Democrat and “stimulate” more new regulations – your grandchildren will thank you for it - not.
cicero| 11.16.11 @ 4:35PM
As long as the purposeof business is job creation, we can sit back and enjoy the current climate. After all, didn't our government "save General Motors and Chrysler"? Oh, the shareholders? Well, the fact that they lost 100% of their interest and investment shouldn't bother anyone. After all, the managers and workers who ran the companies into a ditch didn't lose anything. Thank god for the government.
As long as we keep filling washington with regulators, they will continue to regulate. The only was to stop the madness is to stop feeding the beast. Stop the insane spending. Get the government out of health care, leave education up to the states, and let students pay for all the college they can afford.
Pat| 11.16.11 @ 6:43PM
Imagine a career in consulting, your very own one man firm, your office is Malibu beach and you work on your wireless connection from a beach chair to the tune of gently breaking waves. Idyllic no doubt, but how many consulting firms can California support? But if instead you imagined a large factory, employing thousands of workers building fighter jets or commercial aircraft, then California’s answer would be “been there, done that, so drop dead”.
Voted the most toxic business climate in CEO magazine, California has regulated itself to a degree never achieved in nearby Utah or Nevada. Which has the good folks of Utah and Nevada rubbing their hands in anticipation. You could move your firm to Salt Lake City or Reno tomorrow, welcomed by smiling local officials. Back in southern California, your building permit for that new factory might be approved by the time your grandkids have kids of their own.
Steve Malanga, over at City Journal, has penned an article explaining all this in gruesome detail. Looks like it’s no Oscar for California among the business community, but what’s not to like about California – except for the government and their regulations and their taxes and their permits. Ranking dead last among favorable American business climates, California is Europe without that moribund euro.
But are we Californians alarmed? Not in the slightest, so long as we can move to another state, taking our retirement savings and our future consumer spending to a more regulatory free climate. Your new neighbor could be a former Californian, suntanned and thinking he or she has finally found a safe haven. And why not? All of us Californians were originally from somewhere else so where’s the loyalty – probably in the same zipcode as the loyalty of California’s politicians for the state’s taxpayers.
bluecollarbytes| 11.16.11 @ 9:56PM
Behind every regulation lies a special self-interest. Republicans don't yet have the stomach for a full-scale war that would certainly ensue from any attempt at a wide scale reduction of regulations. I'm going to guess that any puny reductions will be far surpassed by thousands of new regulations each and every year.