Freedom of choice is an essential ingredient of prosperity. Money is valuable because of the many ways you can spend it. The growth of government degrades the economy by reducing this valuable freedom. A recent development in the endless health-care saga illustrates another way Big Government weakens the economy: the high cost of evading its worst excesses.
The Associated Press describes a new provision in the health-care bill that will require businesses to count both full and part-time workers when calculating penalties to provide government-mandated health insurance. The original Senate bill only counted full-time workers when assessing penalties, but as the AP puts it, “Democrats feared that businesses would avoid penalties by hiring more part-time workers. But business groups oppose the change as overly burdensome.”
Business managers naturally seek ways to avoid “overly burdensome” costs. They evaluate regulations and mandates by comparing the costs of compliance and evasion. There are always ways to evade the grasp of Big Government… including going out of business. When the cost of compliance is reasonable, evasion becomes less attractive.
A long-standing example of this principle is the Laffer Curve, which demonstrates that rising tax rates eventually reduce income to the treasury, in part because businesses and individuals will dramatically modify their behavior to avoid the higher rates. Behavior which reduces tax exposure is, almost by definition, less economically productive. A wad of undeclared income stuffed in your mattress suffers no taxes… and generates no value through investment, interest, or trade.
As Ed Morrissey pointed out, the original Senate version of this health-care mandate would have encouraged businesses to evade it by reducing full-time staff and hiring more part-time employees. The revised version would have the opposite effect, virtually annihilating part-time employment by making it dramatically more expensive. Employers would have no choice but to provide expensive health-care benefits to their part-time staff, pay stiff penalties… or dodge this swinging pendulum of financial ruin by getting rid of part-timers altogether.
Businesses employ part-time labor to gain flexibility in covering their schedules. If the cost of such labor is greatly increased, they will find ways to do without it. You have no idea how much your life will change, if the tectonic plates of the labor market shift so violently. Many of the services and conveniences you take for granted will disappear. If you think the service and food quality at some restaurants are poor now, wait until the owners eliminate the part-time positions that allow them to beef up their staff for lunch and dinner rushes. We could find ourselves looking back on late-night drive-thrus and pizza delivery as fond memories from a bygone era. The retail sales industry is already reeling from online competition and steep operating costs. Many stores would find it impossible to continue their business model without part-time labor.
This would be annoying to the consumers of those services… and utterly devastating to their owners and employees. It would produce a disastrous ripple effect throughout an already shaky economy with high unemployment. Industries that don’t even rely on part-time labor would be impacted by the collapse of those which do. A lot of truckers are employed hauling food and merchandise to those restaurants and retail outlets.
The level of cost imposed through government mandate sets the level of evasion which becomes first reasonable, and eventually inevitable. The often-reviled practice of outsourcing jobs to other countries did not begin because American businessmen couldn’t wait to put domestic workers on the unemployment lines. Managers don’t want to rely on faraway employees they can’t supervise or control. The technical support industry is keenly aware that its customers don’t like dealing with foreign representatives. Other industries appreciate that being able to advertise their exclusive employment of American workers would provide them with an advantage,. They outsource because the cost of using domestic labor - due in large measure to mandates, regulation, and union interference - is so high that all of the other considerations become secondary. More jobs will fly overseas if the Democrats drop new bricks on the scales of labor cost. If laws are passed to prevent this, businesses will find ways to evade them, and the economy will suffer some more.
Part-time positions are often entry-level, so increasing their cost will hit the most vulnerable sectors of the workforce, including young people… especially those from blighted urban areas that desperately need businesses to form, and take a chance hiring unskilled labor. I suspect the final version of the constantly mutating ObamaCare program would include regulations designed to make it more difficult to fire people – to prevent evil businesses from slashing their workforce ahead of the mandate avalanche. That will only make them even less likely to hire the young and marginal employees who often use part-time work as the first step on the journey to full-time positions.
The cost of evasion is one of the most difficult factors for statists to calculate, because they always underestimate their targets’ ingenuity at devising extreme methods to avoid compliance… and their willingness to use them. These methods invariably injure the economy, because they force the private sector to do things it didn’t want to do. Businesses want to grow, expand, and diversify. They will reluctantly compromise these ambitions, to avoid outrageous interference from a government that views them with incomprehension and hostility.
Successful businessmen are usually quite good at anticipating future trends, and will begin the process of evasion early enough to avoid the jaws of hungry legislation. Today, they read the latest in a long string of stories about how the Obama Administration is working feverishly to increase their costs, and regulate their activities. I’m sure tomorrow’s bad employment news will be as “unexpected” as all the previous disasters have been.
Cross-posted at Hot Air.
A very large service subcontractor for the local major cable company in my area, uses nothing but 1099 “employees”. They are hired as individual “sub-subcontractors” and paid on a 1099 non-employee basis. They are expected to pay their own medicare and SSN costs and provide for their own “benefits”. This would be the wave of the future under ObamaCare rules. Can’t outsource/offshore the guy who has to come and wire your cable up to your house.
Holy Hand Grenades: “One, Two, FIVE!” – “Three, sir!”…
There seems to be an issue of being able to count in sequence being articulated in multiple posts today. For example: the latest Hot Air “here’s what they’re sneaking into the bill now” posting – part time jobs are counted…
Thank you Doc, good point. Successful businessmen are long term thinkers, as in my own developer/investor boss. He and his peers are sitting on the fence right now, making no major moves. It is all because of the economy, future taxes, scared lenders and this business-killing administration. He is not developing or investing in businesses as it is too uncertain, which sadly means no job creation.
[...] Wed 10 Mar 2010 The Republican Heretic Leave a comment Go to comments Doctor Zero pens an analysis of a coverage provision in the Obamacare bill that will likely result in a loss of part-time jobs. [...]
As a full-time grad student, I’ve depended upon part-time work to help me get by with a changing college schedule. Think of how a loss of part-time jobs would affect higher education and college attendance and graduation rates, and how that in turn would impact the professional workforce.
But I’m sure that the Obama Administration will develop a program to provide benefits from part-time employees who lost their jobs because of Obamacare. I’m sure that a tax on small business owners would help pay for it …
We’ll be speaking French and/or German in no time. Give Obama another term with a Democratic majority, and we’ll be speaking Italian.
Thanks for the update! Love visiting your blog!!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
I swear that Obama hates working moms or something. It seems like they have a GOAL of making it harder for the lesser-earner of a married couple to work!
Part time work is a godsend for women who have school-age (and younger) children. We are already covered through the major earner – I just want to be able to maintain my skills and earn some money!
We need MORE part time work, not less. I often end up in conversations with other moms bemoaning how incredibly hard it is to find part time jobs.
It never ceases to amaze me how shortsighted liberals can be when blinded by the ‘needs’ of the people. For people that are so ingrained into the minutiae of AGW, for them not to see how unwarranted legislation can lead to the complete distruction of what’s left of our fragile economy is astounding.
Spot on as usual Doc.
What they’re doing positively KILLS me. I’m not yet 24, and I lost my first job fresh out of college after just 8 months due to cutbacks when the recession still had that new car smell. After months of looking, the only job I found was waiting tables. A few months later I found something full-time that was a small step up, but now: 2 years out of college, I’m trapped in this full-time job working for less than the area’s cost of living, struggling to make rent, much less my college loan payments.
What possible hope do I have for the future? I understand lots of people are concerned about their retirement accounts, but they’ve already had their chance! They’ve made most of their major life choices, they know how things turn out. I’ve had my legs taken out from under me before I even began! And looking towards the future– everything I do will be an uphill battle.
What happened to making things better for your kids than you had them? Or is the policy now, screw the next generations while the screwing’s good?