Data released late last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicate that regulation is not a drag on employment, reports the Washington Post in “Does government regulation really kill jobs? Economists say overall effect minimal.” The article also notes that, in some cases, regulations actually boost employment in certain sectors.
From the article:
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules. Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts. In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of 'government regulations/intervention.' By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.
—snip—
Economists who have studied the matter say that there is little evidence that regulations cause massive job loss in the economy, and that rolling them back would not lead to a boom in job creation. Firms sometimes hire workers to help them comply with new rules. In some cases, more heavily regulated businesses such as coal shrink, giving an opportunity for cleaner industries such as natural gas to grow.
The study comes as Republicans in Congress continue efforts to eliminate environmental, health, and consumer safety regulations, all under the guise of job creation. However, earlier this fall, Bruce Bartlett, conservative economist and former advisor to President Reagan, dismissed the impact of regulation on job creation, writing in a New York Times blog post:
In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.
Read the complete Washington Post article here.
Find the BLS data here.
Read Bartlett’s blog post here.