Good-paying jobs allowing people to support families should be the focus of economic policy. So argues Oren Cass of American Compass.

In The Once and Future Worker, Mr. Cass discussed what jobs-centered policy might mean: “creating an economy in which workers of all kinds can sustain strong families and communities. And that requires a policy emphasis on meaningful work.”

As an economist, I get nervous when people emphasize jobs. Jobs serve two roles in the economy. They provide the means for people to support themselves and their families and are also a source of earned accomplishment. But labor is also an input to produce goods and services.

We need to use all factors of production, especially labor, very carefully. Using up a scarce resource is not the goal. Mr. Cass often criticizes economists for viewing exclusively through the factor of production role. But economists correctly observe that prosperity depends on people having the right jobs.

Government does not create prosperity. Free enterprise is the only economic system to ever create sustained prosperity. Good jobs capable of supporting families require a healthy market economy.

Mr. Cass argues for government intervention when profit maximization does not align with jobs. Today I will expand on his criticisms of how policy increases the costs for businesses to hire in the U.S.

Taxes, regulations, and mandates all make hiring expensive. Businesses pay taxes on their operations (besides the sales taxes we pay on purchases) plus corporate taxes. We impose an array of mandates as well. Businesses must pay a minimum wage, time and a half for overtime, provide medical insurance, sick leave, family leave, and other benefits.

Lawmakers place further mandates on employer-provided health insurance. The Affordable Care Act imposed ten categories of coverage mandates. States impose an average of 43 mandates.

Each mandate creates costs. Market exchange is voluntary, so businesses will not operate if unable to charge a price covering all costs. Consumers ultimately pay for taxes and mandates.

Suppose that mandates create $3 million in additional costs annually for a business employing 100 people. This amounts to an extra $30,000 per worker, ultimately yielding fewer jobs.

But cutting mandated benefits seemingly makes workers worse off, no? Not necessarily, because many do not use all the benefits. A worker might value a $30,000 benefit package at perhaps $20,000. Workers would prefer an extra $30,000 in salary.

To make hiring in the U.S. more affordable, we must reduce the taxes and mandates. The perception that rich businesses can afford taxes and benefits makes such reforms difficult. Americans must view business as the source of jobs supporting families and communities, not the source of free stuff.

Elected officials benefit from business taxes and mandates. Our representatives exploit voters’ belief that “rich businesses” can afford these and businesses’ ability to adjust to a mandate.

Total employee compensation, or salary plus benefits, cannot exceed the value workers create for a business. Lower pay can offset costly benefits. If the reduction in pay occurs through raises never received, workers may never recognize the offset.

Imagine a benefit that costs $500 per worker with $400 offset by reduced pay (or fewer other job benefits). Workers as voters reward a politician with support for a benefit seemingly worth $500. Businesses oppose the politicians for a $100 cost. Turning $100 in opposition into $500 in support gets representatives reelected.

Lather, rinse, and repeat for decades and American jobs get offshored due to the cost of hiring. And workers who would prefer higher salaries over benefits they rarely use.

Some mandates reflect a public decision to ensure access to coverage or treatment. Consider therapy for autistic children. If the public decides that children should get this therapy even if their parents cannot afford it, government could pay for this using taxes. An insurance mandate makes workers and companies pay for the therapy.

I applaud Oren Cass for emphasizing jobs and families. Yet reducing the tax and mandate burden on business will require a reshaping of Americans’ perceptions. Americans should celebrate businesses for providing jobs and sustaining communities and not force them to provide “free” stuff.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.