Somewhat. But there's friction from moving jobs around.
An oversimplified way to view it...
Let's say I can get $100/hour of value out of an employee. As long as I can get $100/hour of value from them, I'll hire them. Now let's say that there is $10 of regulatory burden. (Hard to fire, etc) Then I'd need $110/value to hire someone. Now let's say it costs me $5/hour in communications overhead for people out of town.
Then we have 3 scenarios:
1) $110+ in value - I can hire in either place. I prefer the HQ if the resource in CA is $5/hour cheaper. (Or measurably better)
2) $100-$105 in value - I hire in the other place.
3) Up to $105 in value - No hiring.
Lowering the regulatory burden to less than $5/hour adds to the amount of jobs people have.
Note - it's never really this simple, but it illustrates the idea that someone has to bear additional costs. When the employer and employee split it, relationships that used to net out with higher employment can end with higher unemployment.
An oversimplified way to view it...
Let's say I can get $100/hour of value out of an employee. As long as I can get $100/hour of value from them, I'll hire them. Now let's say that there is $10 of regulatory burden. (Hard to fire, etc) Then I'd need $110/value to hire someone. Now let's say it costs me $5/hour in communications overhead for people out of town.
Then we have 3 scenarios: 1) $110+ in value - I can hire in either place. I prefer the HQ if the resource in CA is $5/hour cheaper. (Or measurably better)
2) $100-$105 in value - I hire in the other place.
3) Up to $105 in value - No hiring.
Lowering the regulatory burden to less than $5/hour adds to the amount of jobs people have.
Note - it's never really this simple, but it illustrates the idea that someone has to bear additional costs. When the employer and employee split it, relationships that used to net out with higher employment can end with higher unemployment.