[narraturgy]

This is a very naive statement! You are implying that the benefits of businesses and states are somehow exclusive to each other, but I believe there is plenty of historical precedent of situations where the "benefits" to a business prompt (in)action by states! The "benefits" to a state are so nebulous of a concept that I would argue that it is impossible to pin down any meaningful definition which we would be able to quantitatively use as a predictor for (in)action, except a cynical case where we define the "state" as "the groups/individuals in charge of governing a state," at which point it becomes trivial to reason out what the "benefits" to that "state" would be.

[LordDragonfang]

It's telling that the only parties that they're considering the benefit for are the state and businesses, with no mention of workers, who are the clear beneficiaries of this policy.