Courtesy of the New York Times
Of course, that protection comes at a price, and that price is at least 15%.
And everyone should be concerned that those licensing requirements do nothing to help a moribund economy recover. Seven years of "any day now" promises of economic recovery around the corner should be enough for anybody. Is the return of medieval guilds really the direction we want our economy headed?
What say you?
Why, the public needs to be protected! Of course florists, hair braiders, and coffin salesmen should be licensed. Otherwise somebody might put their eye out on an un-dethorned rose. A hair-braider might braid too tightly, popping someone's eyes from their head! And some poor schmo might get buried in a coffin where the fabric doesn't match their tie color.IN Minnesota, more classroom time is required to become a cosmetologist than to become a lawyer. Becoming a manicurist takes double the number of hours of instruction as a paramedic. In Louisiana, the only state in the country that requires licenses for florists, monks were until recently forbidden to sell coffins because they were not licensed funeral directors.
...
In the 1970s, about 10 percent of individuals who worked had to have licenses, but by 2008, almost 30 percent of the work force needed them.
With this explosion of licensing laws has come a national patchwork of stealth regulation that has, among other things, restricted labor markets, innovation and worker mobility.
Of course, that protection comes at a price, and that price is at least 15%.
At least there's some opposition from both sides of the aisle.There is good reason for workers in licensed fields to push for the laws. Jobs in a service-oriented economy are more likely to be licensed, which raises wages by about 15 percent, as I found in research with the Princeton economist Alan B. Krueger, the former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. This is largely because of the ability of regulated professions working through state legislators and regulatory boards to limit the supply of practitioners and to drive up costs to consumers.
OTOH, those on the right side of the aisle are relatively more concerned with economic freedom for individuals and the barriers to entry represented by occupational licensing.On the left, there are concerns about inflated prices for essential services like plumbers and the availability of those services for people in or near poverty. Many of the jobs that require licenses are relatively low-skilled, like barbers and nurse’s aides, and licensing creates a barrier that might keep low-income people out of those positions.
Occupational licensing, moreover, does nothing to close the inequality gap in the United States. For consumers, there is likely to be a redistribution effect in the “wrong” direction, as higher income consumers have more choice among higher quality purveyors of a service and lower income individuals are left with fewer affordable service options.
And everyone should be concerned that those licensing requirements do nothing to help a moribund economy recover. Seven years of "any day now" promises of economic recovery around the corner should be enough for anybody. Is the return of medieval guilds really the direction we want our economy headed?
What say you?
Last edited: