

Regulation costs small businesses nearly $500 billion in CA [pdf] - cwan
http://www.sba.ca.gov/Cost%20of%20Regulation%20Study%20-%20Final.pdf

======
eggoa
"Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in
California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne
almost completely by small business."

This a non-sequitur. According to www.sba.gov, small businesses account for
about half of private sector employees and 44% of payroll (on a national
level). This is a huge part of the economy but it is not "almost completely"
the whole economy.

~~~
kjn
Whether intentional or not, that is enormously misleading

------
camccann
So... the state famous for Silicon Valley is one of most hostile to
entrepreneurship? Makes sense.

California has high personal and corporate taxes, laws that often favor
employees over employers, lots of burdensome regulations, and is generally
regarded as "economically less free" and hostile to businesses.

It also has an economy larger than all but a handful of _countries_ , is
generally in the top 15 states for income per capita, gross state product per
capita, median household income, etc. On the other hand, the study mentions a
ranking where the state with the most economic freedom was Kansas, which is
average (or a bit below) on those same metrics.

Overall, at first glance it looks to me like there's a moderate _negative_
correlation between what they define as "economically free" and a state being
economically successful. What is it they're arguing for, again?

~~~
richcollins
Or perhaps when businesses become successful, the state is able to take a
bigger cut. If there isn't much activity, the host isn't fat enough to make a
good target for taxes and regulation.

~~~
camccann
Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't seem to be hurting them that much.

Not to mention that at least some of the regulation is probably net-beneficial
even if it inconveniences a few businesses.

