3 ms·

Maybe I should have defined what I meant by certification. The only difference between a license and a certificate is that you must have a license in order to l

by jmckib 11y ago

Maybe I should have defined what I meant by certification. The only difference between a license and a certificate is that you must have a license in order to legally practice, while a certificate is optional. There's no reason that a certificate couldn't be taken away just like a license if, say, someone fails an annual test.

arihant 11y ago
No you can't take away a certification. You can make it certified every year. But a certification exists to certify that you tested OK in 2014, for example. You can't take that away because you can't say he did not pass the test. You can outlaw certifications over a year old, but you cannot take the earned certification away. Besides, you cannot take them away mid-year for malpractice. Once you're certified to pass something, you have passed it. You can't go back in time and unpass it.
- jmckib 11y ago
  You just have a different definition of certification than I do; we're not actually disagreeing on anything substantial.
  - arihant 11y ago
    True. I think we both generically seem to be saying the same thing. The disagreement seem to be on the topic of whether it should be compulsory or not. I do believe that it should be regulated and compulsory. It's much simpler to teach 300 million people to just check for a license than to teach them about how to vet your broker.
    - jmckib 11y ago
      Checking for a certification should be just as easy as checking for a license. The brokers with certifications are damn sure going to let you know they have one! The main reason I oppose licensure is that producer groups (e.g. insurance brokers) will exert political pressure to add more and more irrelevant requirements in order to obtain a license. Take barbering for example: in many states in order to become a barber, you need to complete hundreds of hours of theoretical instruction in the anatomy of the face and head, the elementary chemistry of sterilization, the histology of hair, etc. Just to cut hair! In addition, the professional activities that require a license tend to gradually expand due to political pressure. Doctors spend a lot of time doing things that could be performed by a skilled technician, and the result is unnecessarily expensive medical care, and some people not having access to care at all.
  - zymhan 11y ago
    Or you're just defending your untenable position by redefining words.
LukaAl 11y ago
Sorry, but I've troubles following your argument in this case. What you are basically calling for is one or more certification authorities that certify that person A is capable of performing a certain task. Am I right? This would replace required license. The difference is basically that licenses are mandatory, certifications are optional, and that (but I infer this from your Friedman's quote) certification authorities could compete. If this is your point, sorry but your argument doesn't follow. There's nothing against the certification authority requiring 52 hours of training. And there's nothing against Zenefits cheating if they believe a certified expert is better than an uncertified one (and this is the argument underlying Mr. Friedman discussion). Certification vs. Licensing is a complex discussion topic, I tend to prefer certifications over licensing, but this is definitively not the point with Zenefits.
- jmckib 11y ago
  Ha, maybe I just used this as an opportunity to complain about licensure; it's true that if Zenefits had cheated in order to get a certification it would still be illegal, and Zenefits would still have had a (smaller) incentive to do so. On the other hand, Zenefits might not have bothered with certification since it wouldn't have been legally required, or the requirements might have been less silly if certified professionals had to compete with non-certified.
  - LukaAl 11y ago
    > On the other hand, Zenefits might not have bothered with certification since it wouldn't have been legally required, or the requirements might have been less silly if certified professionals had to compete with non-certified. You have to prove this. Also, you have to consider a problem in the way the market works. Insurance brokers are paid by insurance companies through referral fees, not by the final user. If you know something about economy, this should ring a bell: "moral hazard." Or we change the way the market works, but there could be unintended consequences or external regulation is required to ensure the market is fair.

by jmckib 11y ago

arihant 11y ago

No you can't take away a certification. You can make it certified every year. But a certification exists to certify that you tested OK in 2014, for example. You can't take that away because you can't say he did not pass the test. You can outlaw certifications over a year old, but you cannot take the earned certification away. Besides, you cannot take them away mid-year for malpractice. Once you're certified to pass something, you have passed it. You can't go back in time and unpass it.

jmckib 11y ago
You just have a different definition of certification than I do; we're not actually disagreeing on anything substantial.
- arihant 11y ago
  True. I think we both generically seem to be saying the same thing. The disagreement seem to be on the topic of whether it should be compulsory or not. I do believe that it should be regulated and compulsory. It's much simpler to teach 300 million people to just check for a license than to teach them about how to vet your broker.
  - jmckib 11y ago
    Checking for a certification should be just as easy as checking for a license. The brokers with certifications are damn sure going to let you know they have one! The main reason I oppose licensure is that producer groups (e.g. insurance brokers) will exert political pressure to add more and more irrelevant requirements in order to obtain a license. Take barbering for example: in many states in order to become a barber, you need to complete hundreds of hours of theoretical instruction in the anatomy of the face and head, the elementary chemistry of sterilization, the histology of hair, etc. Just to cut hair! In addition, the professional activities that require a license tend to gradually expand due to political pressure. Doctors spend a lot of time doing things that could be performed by a skilled technician, and the result is unnecessarily expensive medical care, and some people not having access to care at all.
- zymhan 11y ago
  Or you're just defending your untenable position by redefining words.

LukaAl 11y ago

Sorry, but I've troubles following your argument in this case. What you are basically calling for is one or more certification authorities that certify that person A is capable of performing a certain task. Am I right? This would replace required license. The difference is basically that licenses are mandatory, certifications are optional, and that (but I infer this from your Friedman's quote) certification authorities could compete. If this is your point, sorry but your argument doesn't follow. There's nothing against the certification authority requiring 52 hours of training. And there's nothing against Zenefits cheating if they believe a certified expert is better than an uncertified one (and this is the argument underlying Mr. Friedman discussion). Certification vs. Licensing is a complex discussion topic, I tend to prefer certifications over licensing, but this is definitively not the point with Zenefits.

jmckib 11y ago
Ha, maybe I just used this as an opportunity to complain about licensure; it's true that if Zenefits had cheated in order to get a certification it would still be illegal, and Zenefits would still have had a (smaller) incentive to do so. On the other hand, Zenefits might not have bothered with certification since it wouldn't have been legally required, or the requirements might have been less silly if certified professionals had to compete with non-certified.
- LukaAl 11y ago
  > On the other hand, Zenefits might not have bothered with certification since it wouldn't have been legally required, or the requirements might have been less silly if certified professionals had to compete with non-certified. You have to prove this. Also, you have to consider a problem in the way the market works. Insurance brokers are paid by insurance companies through referral fees, not by the final user. If you know something about economy, this should ring a bell: "moral hazard." Or we change the way the market works, but there could be unintended consequences or external regulation is required to ensure the market is fair.