Don't forget about C: companies that propose regulations because they know they can handle them and competitors cannot.

Big companies will have no problem with these regulations. However small and medium sized companies need a bunch more busy work that needs to be done and so will avoid it.

This last is hard to measure - regulations have a cost in this form but it is hard to figure out what would have been done but isn't.

A huge point!

IMHO, the US should have much more "larger than X" laws (and clauses that enfold organized subcontractors working for larger corporations).

Beware of the unintended consequences of those laws (I have no idea what they are, but beware)

On of the consequences of those provisions is often either

1. Companies do weird divisions to keep under the limits

2. Companies are artificially restricted in their growth as they need to add employees but are unable to, for example if the cut of was 50 employees, adding the 49th employee is easy, adding the 50th employee is $$$$$ thus it will not happen, this would mean few companies grow to 50, rather you would see several 50+ employee companies merge as the cost burden for the new 100 employee company would spread over all 100 employees, vs the regulatory cost being hit with the single employee add

Of course B primary motivator and I do not see that as a bad thing

I am not sure why you think anyone or any company would DESIRE to have external actors imposes requirements on their actions or why it would be unpalatable to say you do not want to have regulatory burdens imposes on you

As a culture have we so lost the respect for freedom and liberty that is now bad if you want to have said freedom?

>I am not sure why you think anyone or any company would DESIRE to have external actors imposes requirements on their actions or why it would be unpalatable to say you do not want to have regulatory burdens imposes on you

Of course they desire to have external actors impose requirements on their own actions and other people's actions and other companies' actions. Just so long as they think those requirements benefit their bottom lines.

Ever hear of the business lobby opposing union-busting laws on the basis that they create regulatory burden?

union "busting" laws generally speaking are about REMOVING regulations around who is required by law to negotiate with and/or join a union. So these laws by definition are not imposing any regulatory burden on anyone they are removing regulatory burdens

Freedom and liberty to discriminate is a slippery freedom. For whom? When?

In a choice between maximizing efficiency for good actors, and curtailing behavior by bad actors, I tend to weight the latter.