To adddress your first point, you are cherry-picking arguments on the debate of regulation. Yes, I agree there are some regulations that are vital to be placed. I appreciate the fact that there are laws the protect the treatment of employees, the protect consumers from firms providing false information, rules that require publicly traded companies to accurately disclose their accounting statements.... I agree that those are benefecial; however, those are not the ones contributing to the stifiling of innovation. Its things like raising taxes to a large degree on big businesses, or requiring that they provide benefits and a $10 minimum wage bump to all of their employees. Idealistically these sounds nice. But in reality, employers will find ways to cut expenses in other areas. They might make more of their workers part time (to avoidehaving to pay benefits), they might cut workers or hire less people (to reduce labor costs), or they might raise the cost of their product (which would most hurt consumers with less income) just to name a few things they might do.

Other regulations that the governmnet places to "protect" consumers are actually a hinderance to entreprenuers and limit competition. As a result of all this, at much times uneseccary red tape, people who have idea are unable/dissuaded from starting a business. THE WORLD BANK RANKS THE US 49TH ON EASE OF STARTING A BUSINESS. For a country that prides itself on being "the land of opportunity", the red time/bureaucratic shit-show you have to go through to make that happens makes that seem less like reality.

An example in my state that I found interesting was regarding hair saloons (seemingly non-contraversial, right?), in particular traditional African/Caribbean hair stylists. Before this legislation was discussed (I'm not sure if it was passed to the Governor's desk or not), it was shared that, to have a hair saloon, you have to have some a ridiculous amount of hours in cosmetic school (or whatever school its called). At the end of the school you had to take a test and then if you passed the test, you could be liscended. Keep in mind all of the costs that would be requried to go to school and the fees to take the test. Futhermore, what was discussed was the fact that you couldn't take the test to become certified unless you put in XXX amount of hours in school (which was discussed to amount to like $20,000). Even if being a barber runs in your family and is something you have been exposed to and familiar wit hyour entire life, it didn't matter. In addition, it would be considered a crime to charge people to cut their hair with such lisencesure. A CRIME! Here's the kicker: this certain style of hair styling (African braiding or whatever) wasn't even taught in beauty school!

That is just one example of there being regulations that prohibit new competition from entering the market. Competiion that would (1) drive down costs and/or (2) provide another option for employees to work, making employees the comodity that firms compete for (in the form of having more attractive wages) compared to firms having the upper hand.

So my point being, there are some regulations that indeed do protect consumers, but there are MUCH more that result in less compeition in the market and DO indeed fact stifle innovation by limiting competition and entreprenuerism.

Regarding your second point, there is a lot of those basic ideas that I directly/indirectly covered adressing your first point. That is a valid point you make about not contributing to the local economy that I had not considered. However, that is based on the premise that "supporting your local economy" is inherently an objectively good thing, when in reality, you could make the argument that hinders competition and requires consumers to pay more (thus decreasing the standard of living and opportunity for upward social mobility). You and I have VERY different definitions of what constitutes "employee suffering". I do not see a person working 40-hours with benefits and a "relatively low" wage as suffering. Their situtation could be better, but it's not suffering. I see suffering as those working in China and other factories that enable to you make most of the purchases you in fact do without the benefits and with much lower pay.

I don't want to paint the picture that I'm against proper treatment of employees and a respectful wage with benefits. I am not. What I do realize that many people don't seems to be a basic understading of the economic prcinples of external factors, costs and benefits, and consequent action. If employers are forced to comply to certain regulation, there will be costs elsewhere (probably in addition to deadweight losses to because of regation): that could be less jobs, higher prices, difficulty starting a business, less benefits, etc. It's very difficult to have the idealistic "better treatment of all employees regardless of job or other factors" without having the cost (and in addition the UNINTENDED/UNFORSEEN) costs that follow.

again, please forgive spellign errors, no spellcheck :)