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.
