Letters for families based on the book “It Can Be Done” @studentsleadusa
How could smaller government advocates oppose more regulations, many of which have been designed to protect citizens and keep them safe? As usual, we have two sides to the discussion. Neither side is evil and both sides think their approach is best. We write today to present a general case for simpler and fewer regulations, together with some common ground for how to get there.
Think of government rules as things which slow businesses and people down, just like speed limits. If you go 90 miles per hour on the highway, most people would agree that’s too fast. We have common ground that a speed limit lower than 90 miles an hour is a good thing
On the other hand, we would have a hard time getting anywhere if the government issued a new 15-mile-per-hour speed limit on highways. Matters would get even worse if the speed limit changed every mile, with new speed limits coming out every week. We would be confused, and we would have a hard time getting anywhere. In fact, we would probably just decide to stay home. We should have as common ground an understanding that too many rules make businesses stay home by not expanding and not hiring more people.
Too many rules have a big impact on business motivation. People often go into business to have independence, running their business as they see fit, hoping to make as much money as they can. A government with too many rules takes away business liberty. Smaller government advocates believe fewer people will want to start a new business if doing business means having a new boss – the government.
In a free society with businesses competing, consumers can also shut down bad businesses by shopping elsewhere. Smaller government advocates think free-market corrections, such as customers choosing a new, better business, thus putting an old business out of business, can work as well as heavy regulation. Plus, in a large country with complex marketplaces, there’s no way to prevent all harmful behavior. Tens of thousands of new regulations won’t prevent all harm, but they might kill hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Frost Brown Todd LLC Member Rob Hudson is a Past Chair of the Northern Kentucky Chamber and a business lawyer. 2018 Independent Author of the Year Lauren Hudson is a Singletary Scholar at the University of Kentucky. Their next letter will explore common ground about socialism flaws.Many times, government rules and regulations leave businesses with no choice but to make changes that don’t help society. In 2014 the Congressional Budget Office said a proposed law raising minimum wage by 40% would cause the country to lose 500,000 to a million entry-level jobs. New machines, such as Kiosks, can replace entry-level jobs if the jobs become too costly for employers. Businesses would not do this to be mean – they would do it to stay in business.
This hasn’t stopped large government advocates from calling for even higher, mandatory wages through proposed new “living wage.” laws. With a living wage, every employee, no matter their age and skill level, could earn a wage to support themselves with their first job. The idea means people would find less financial incentive to developing and improving their skills to move up. Plus, with a government-mandated, higher living wage, some businesses will have no choice but to do everything possible to hire fewer lower-skilled employees.
For a bright future, we need to be careful when it comes to granting our already large governments more power over citizens’ lives and businesses. Even if a new regulation will help some people, it will erode the newly restricted person’s freedom. Common ground should include refraining from leaping up to support every new law or regulation which has a nice-sounding name. To protect liberties and jobs, our common ground should also include thoughtful decisions based on accurate cost-benefit analyses, rather than regulating based on emotion or politics.