I agree with your overall premise. However, where's the equivalent concern about blue collar jobs going to China or India because of environmental and labor regulations. Libertarians always say those moves are justified because those countries have a comparative advantage, and they do, but it's at least partly due to different regulatory environments (as well as sheer number of people), but that's okay with us. It seems like the financially-savvy, white collars among us make the exact same argument about SOX as UAW members make about low wages, lax environmental policies, bad working conditions, etc. in other countries.

Obviously there's a difference in that environmental regulations are supposed to help us all, whereas SOX is just a boon for the accounting and legal sectors. However, labor law is really just a boon for lower income people and generally works against business.
Mike | 03.13.07 - 11:00 am | #

...and against people who buy goods and services from business.

That said, SOX hurts middle to upper income people who invest.

Regulation is basically a way of artificially making a group of people take it in the shorts.
Area Man | 03.13.07 - 12:43 pm | #

However, where's the equivalent concern about blue collar jobs going to China or India because of environmental and labor regulations.

Did you just start reading libertarian literature yesterday? Sheesh, libertarians have been sounding that alarm for decades!
Russ | 03.13.07 - 3:07 pm | #

Maybe, but some libertarians are almost antagonistic about their freedom to buy dirt cheap products from other countries - a freedom that is created, at least in part, by markedly different regulatory environments.

I don't mean to obfuscate the point, and as I said, I agree with the post. It's also important to note that Leo would advocate (I'm assuming, not trying to words in anybody's mouth) correcting this problem by addressing our domestic policy issues instead of restricting trade or forcing our regulations on other nations.

I'm just saying that libertarian blog posts regarding white-collar jobs have more of a "Hey, we have to do something" feel to them than the posts on blue-collar jobs, which have more of a "Let businesses decide where to manufacture so poor people can have cheap clothes at Wal-Mart" kind of feel.

That's not singling out TtP, or even really specifically related to TtP. I'm just saying that about libertarian blogs in general.

Plus, cut me some slack. TtP doesn't seem to have any trolls, and the comment counts are low. I'm just trying to stoke the fire a bit.
Mike | 03.13.07 - 4:14 pm | #

Geez. Low blow on the comment count line.

FYI--Baylen nixed the idea of hiring day-laborers to increase the stats. Put them in a room and click away I say!
Rob | Homepage | 03.13.07 - 5:07 pm | #

In what way is SOX a betrayal of conservative principles? It locks in the advantage of large, established firms, while screwing smaller up-and-comers. The protection of the old order from the new, whether in morals, in business, or abroad, is exactly the first principle of conservatism.

SOX is the nearly the most conservative bill the Republicans passed. That's exactly why it is despicable.
Grant Gould | 03.14.07 - 9:17 am | #

Rob - The problem with that idea is you end up with comment sections like on Kos, where 200 people add to every post insightful bits such as, "Yeah! Plus, Cheney shot his friend in the face, and Bush's mom looks like a man! Yeah!"
Mike | 03.14.07 - 9:48 am | #

SOX is not, in my view, a class issue, i.e. while collar versus blue collar. It is simply a regulatory issue and effects all participants in the economy. Corporations that employ lots of blue-collar workers equally suffer under this law and all Americans suffer when our corporations have reduced access to capital and market value is lost to increase costs.

In terms of international trade, I find the position against free trade in essence seeks to protect high US wages while depriving poor people in other nations of a chance to make a living. If there is a "moral" argument to be made here, I would think it would favor giving desperately poor people an opportunity to survive.

Anyway, thanks for your comments, they were interesting.
Leonardo | 03.14.07 - 11:27 am | #