Academics assign risk based on statistical outcomes and probabilities. But as individuals we corrupt risk models with emotion. We look at risk as a combination of hazard plus outrage. We will spend much more to protect ourselves from terrorists than swimming pools even though swimming pools kill more people.
This is also why legislation has effects far greater than anyone thinks, and why so many lawmakers mistake the impact of their acts.
The chance that the union Card Check Bill which passed the House will impact a small business is probably small. Yet a small business owner is so outraged that the government may have the right to dictate employment terms, wages and benefits to their private companies that the impact of such legislation will kill more jobs than one would think if they only examined the predicted impact statistically.
People will avoid risk profiles that offer good chances of success if they think the game is rigged. Opportunities will be ignored if participants believe rules are unfairly applied. This is why so many drastic changes will have a negative impact on employment. When the government now seeks to rewrite mortgage loan contracts, usurp authority from the bankruptcy court (in the case of GM and Chrysler), openly side with unions over employers, or raise taxes on producers they are doing more than redistributing income and wealth.
They are creating both a real increased cost on business and a multiplier in the form of outrage. Anyone who knows small business owners understand this. They will also understand why this activity reduces small business investment and kills job creation. Unfortunately this administration has the lowest percentage of people from the private sector (by far) of any president since 1900.
That is the real outrage