Slashdot Mirror
Governator Kills Data Protection Law
eweekhickins writes "The Governator has killed a recent data protection law in California, and it won't be back. Using a tried-and-true argument, that the bill would have 'driven up the costs of compliance, particularly for small businesses,' California Governor Arnold Schwartzenneger vetoed what some are calling one of the nation's most stringent proposed e-tail data breach security laws."
C'mon, I mean, seriously - whether or not you respect the man he has a name and a title, and you've used neither...
Bow-ties are cool.
When you deal with small businesses you are dealing with few employees, few resources, and so on. As such what they can do is limited. Now if you don't like small business, fair enough, but then remember that the alternative is large conglomerates like Microsoft.
So if you do want small businesses around, you have to make sure that you don't pass laws that force them out. For example, suppose you decided that in the interests of accessibility and such all businesses should be required to be able to take phone calls in any language that a sizable minority of Americans speak. So it turns out that companies need to support like 20 languages. For a large company, no problem, they grumble about it, hire more operators, raise prices and are done. A small business just shuts down, since they just cannot hire that many staff, even if they wanted to.
Now that's not to say that small businesses need a free pass on everything, but having the attitude of "They need to do this, I don't care how hard it is," is what leads to them going out of business and you having to shop at Walmart and buy MS. Big companies can play the game and deal with the stupid laws. The small ones can be killed by it.
Football Odds
Your calulations are overly simplistic.
You are assuming that every dollar is of equal value to me. This is not the case. This is an instance of diminishing returns.
As the business earns more money, I can make the decision to either do the work myself or to hire someone to do it. Initially to meet my living expenses, I'll do all the work myself ( yes, there were times when I did 80+ hour weeks ). But, after earning a comfortable living, I am now making the decision: do I want more time or more money. When I hire the new employee, I do less work.
If I had more disposable income, I would buy more time. ( ie: I would hire an additional person )
Furthermore, employees do not exist in a vaccuum. They require places to work. And real estate cannot be allocated piecemeal like ram. One cannot assign a profit-per-person value to an employee and expect to implement it repeatedly. If one could, then every business would be crammed with employees like sardines in a can.
Either you have a use for a new employee, which means that you earn more money from his or her work than it costs you in salary. If you do, then the taxes on your business is irrelevant.
I don't see why it's so difficult for you to understand, if you raise the taxes or regulation cost per employee on a business, then it's easy to cross over the threshhold where you no longer earn more from that employee than it costs you in salary and increase in mandated expenses. In addition to direct expenses per employee, you have to train the employee to deal with the new regulations and bureaucracy grows as the employee base grows and as the regulation burden grows. Second, there's the matter of cash flow. The weaker a business's cash flow the harder it is for them to expand their business. Regulations like this consume cash flow. The business has to spend to stay in compliance.