14 ms·

Study Reveals U.S. Consumers and Economy Lose Billions to Occupational Licensing

116 points by CryptoPunk 8y ago

jbob2000 8y ago
We just defunded the College of Midwives in Ontario. $800,000 a year to support a professional organization of 900 people. Somehow, the midwifery profession was able to exist for thousands of years before this professional organization existed. I am sure it will be fine without it. The administration, on the other hand....
- djmips 8y ago
  How is this relavent? This story is about licensed professions in the US
  - beauzero 8y ago
    We have the same thing here...CNM...Certified Nurse Midwife
- mywittyname 8y ago
  I feel like this argument should be a class of fallacy. Lots of things have "existed" for a long time, but that doesn't mean previous iterations were effective. All it proves is that a problem has existed for a long time and people have been attempting to address it. Historically, women frequently died from child birth. Modern medicine has made child birth significantly safer for both mother and child. These advancements need to be disseminated to individuals, and society has a need to determine whether or not a person knows the latest scientifically sound techniques. Professional licensing fulfills this role. Of course, it's more expensive to hire a person whose spent years training. But without some verification, there's going to be a race to the bottom as untrained individuals undercut the competition. And yes, it does act as a barrier to entry for people who could do a great job. But, the risks of hiring an poorly trained midwife are much more serious than those of hiring an untrained software developer. Thus, society is okay with having unlicensed people writing software but isn't okay with unlicensed people treating them for injuries.
  - christopheraden 8y ago
    > I feel like this argument should be a class of fallacy. Lots of things have "existed" for a long time, but that doesn't mean previous iterations were effective. This is pretty close to Survivorship Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). Outcomes of midwifery of yore is no different than present midwifery if you ignore the fatalities and only focus on successful deliveries.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - whoopdedo 8y ago
    It's similar to appeal to antiquity[1]. Easy enough to dismiss: humans have been eating beef for thousands of years so why do we need the USDA? [1] https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-t...
ancorevard 8y ago
Occupational licensing has gone way too far, and is in-fact a regressive tax on the poor. Both on the part of the worker and the consumer. In California you need a license to cut hair (Many European countries are actually more free in this aspect compared to the US). However, you are exempt if you only shampoo hair! To get a license you need to enroll in a program that takes at least 9 months, and you need to complete 1,600 hours of training... ...to cut hair.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  Because improperly sanitizing barber tools can absolutely spread disease and you're waving sharp objects near somebodies face, including a child who may not sit still.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    Not wiping your ass properly and washing your hands can absolutely spread disease. I think we need a license for using public toilets.
    - vorpalhex 8y ago
      Yeah, so you might manage to spread the flu through secondary contact and that wouldn't be great. It's not as bad as spreading lice, or several serious bacterial or fungal infections that can do a lot of damage. We should also really encourage people to wash their hands because that's super important, especially in environments like hospitals and daycares.
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      We have restaurant food and safety inspections as the non-hyperbolic implementation of this as applied to preparers.
      - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
        Fine, which is good, but none of those restaurant workers had to go through hundreds/thousands of hours of training to get licensed.
stevenkovar 8y ago
I just had a discussion about this with my physical therapist yesterday. In Texas, only three types of people are allowed to touch patients for healing purposes: doctors, certified therapists, and priests. In many cases, the certification process for therapy is such a time and money sink that people will become priests in small "religions" as a legal workaround to taking 1yr+ of archaic training.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  The priests bit may not be the best example.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    Obviously there are risks involved in occupations involving contact, as your allusion to priest sexual abuse scandals references, but people need human touch. How much depression, suicide and drug-abuse is caused by the desire to tightly control commercial human contact and the resultant dead-weight loss of people not getting enough of it? Unless there is a pressing public health threat from an activity (e.g. someone who doesn't know how to drive, operating a motor vehicle on public roads), society should think very long and hard before restricting people from engaging in that activity. If there is going to be licensing, it should be limited to restricting how people can market their skills, where only those licensed can market themselves as licensed. This gives quality-conscious consumers an easy way to identify licensed practitioners, while giving those who value affordability over safety the option of unlicensed services.
emn13 8y ago
I think it's terribly worrisome that anybody is talking this article seriously. To be upfront about my own assumptions: I totally believe that licensing in general is nonsense. But that's not the point! Just because something agrees with our preconceived notions doesn't mean the evidence holds any water whatsoever. And this piece has a few classic "terrible science reporting" features: - It wildly overstates the scope of the original research, making it sound way more broadly applicable that it really is. The research doesn't actually appear to have a solid method for quantifying costs at all, and it doesn't appear to have a method for quantifying benefits either. Sounding like your using statistics https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_WEB.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_W... doesn't make your data any more real-world impactful. The data does appear to reasonably quantify the amount of licensing, and there are some indications as to how much that affects labor costs. That's pretty much it. - It omits key facts that would lead readers to critically examine the evidence, such as the fact that it was funded (at least in part) by an advocacy group (John Templeton Foundation) dedicated to market freedom, and it was performed and published by a thinktank similarly dedicated towards deregulation (Institute for Justice). That doesn't automatically invalidate the research, but insofar as the researchers and publishers have considerable leeway in choosing methods, areas of study and what to publish, you should expect considerable bias - and the fact that their analysis supports their political stance certainly doesn't suggest otherwise. - It's published by and appears to target those who likely already hold similar beliefs; i.e.: this appears to be part of the trend to live in your own bubble. - I don't think they actually linked to the original research? I'm assuming it's https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_WEB.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_W...? If anything, the lack of convincing evidence despite all of that and despite my own assumptions leads me to question if this belief really is valid. But I'm still betting it is, and that this kind of thing is simply hard to measure with means like this. TL;DR: unconvincing, but at least honest-looking research that tries to extrapolate some solid-looking questionnaire into something totally different, which was then regurgitated into trash journalism designed to deceive, not inform. I don't read a lot of Forbes, but clearly they're a publisher to be wary of.
- avs733 8y ago
  Thank you. This is a PERFECT example of one of the things I try to teach students about statistics and science communication. The Forbes articles wildly WILDLY overstates the relatively modest conclusions of the paper. Academic papers take small, almost microscopic steps for a reason - each step in a chain of logic needs to be heavily and clearly supported by evidence. Often they say things like X is correlated with Y and then someone else (intentionally for clicks or from a lack of understanding) implies causality and turns conditional observation into absolutist pronouncements. Academic studies are almost always exercises in nuance...if a news article is not the same don't trust it.
mtberatwork 8y ago
This is an op-ed from a libertarian think tank about a study they conducted themselves. Quite a bit of bias here. Sure, there exists a grey area with the music therapist anecdote they use, but personally, I'm quite fond of electricians, plumbers, etc being licensed.
- knightofmars 8y ago
  This reminds me of a discussion I had with someone who self identified as a libertarian and was on the extreme side of anti-regulation. Their argument was that if regulations didn't exist then in those situations where they had an issue with a company or the government they would sue. Which, for me, raised the immediate question of "Who is going to do the suing?". The response, "A lawyer..." and a look that was supposed to inform me that I was being dense. Then after a few seconds it clicked and they started coming up with any number of criteria by which they'd use to determine who was a "qualified lawyer". All of which were based on their own experiences and knowledge. While obviously this is an anecdote, it was interesting to see how much all of us (even those in the opposition camp) take for granted with regards to the regulatory structures that exist. I can't help but think "CHESTERTON'S FENCE" anytime someone proposes a radical change such as that which is proposed by the extreme anti-regulatory side.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    Self-representation would be the sensible answer here. Just because your friend didn't have a good answer doesn't mean there isn't one.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - knightofmars 8y ago
      Feel free to represent yourself against a multi-hundred-million dollar (or larger) corporation and let me know how that goes.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
Matticus_Rex 8y ago
This article is from a fantastic nonprofit public interest law firm that does GREAT work in this area: the Institute for Justice (https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensing/ https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensin...) They've successfully gotten a number of these stupid licenses struck down. In terms of my perceived ROI for my donations, IJ is one of my favorite/most worthwhile organizations that I support. They're also in Charity Navigator's top 1% of nonprofits. I highly recommend donating! (https://ij.org/support/ https://ij.org/support/)
- bob_theslob646 8y ago
  >They've successfully gotten a number of these stupid licenses struck down. Can you share which ones?
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    Makeup licensing in NC: https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-makeup-schools/ https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-makeup-schools/ Eyebrow threading in Louisiana: https://ij.org/case/louisiana-threading/ https://ij.org/case/louisiana-threading/ Casket sales in Alabama (after the attention on the case, the AL legislature changed the law): https://ij.org/case/alabama-caskets/ https://ij.org/case/alabama-caskets/ Hair braiding in Iowa (after attention on the case, the governor used line-item veto to remove the offending provisions in a bill): https://ij.org/press-release/victory-african-style-hair-braiders-iowa/ https://ij.org/press-release/victory-african-style-hair-brai... Hair braiding in Arkansas (after attention on the case, legislators sponsored new legislation to change the treatment of hair braiding under the law): https://ij.org/case/arkansas-hair-braiding/ https://ij.org/case/arkansas-hair-braiding/ Hair braiding in Washington (the Department of Licensing changed its rules in response to being sued): https://ij.org/case/washington-african-hair-braiding/ https://ij.org/case/washington-african-hair-braiding/ Animal massage therapy in Arizona: https://ij.org/case/azmassage/ https://ij.org/case/azmassage/ Hair braiding in Texas (struck down in Federal court and then fully deregulated by the legislature afterward): https://ij.org/case/txbraiding/ https://ij.org/case/txbraiding/ That's the last 5 years or so of won cases just on this issue. They also take on civil asset forfeiture and legislated monopolies (such as taxi companies that have been given an exclusive license to a city), among a few other issues.
bob_theslob646 8y ago
For anyone that wants to read the study. (https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_WEB.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_W...) I glanced through it and was not impressed.Why would they not show me what are the pros and cons of licensing besides just the cost. Would you not want someone to be able to verify that they have the skills to do what they say they offer. ( I understand that depending on the occupation this may be up for debate, due to verification issues and people gaming the tests, but I bet it becomes paramount where the occupation is related a matter of life or death like a doctor/surgeon. I am sure there are things where getting a license is ridiculous, but for other areas where it is absolutely necessary. What I found interesting is that, those with licenses make more money? It seems if I wanted to lobby an organization to suppress wages, it be at a place such as the " Institute for Justice."
- mywittyname 8y ago
  A lot of people have the luxury of raging against licensing and regulation because they don't remember the world before these existed. It's just assumed that most people are honest about their work and the who aren't will be swiftly punished. But in most cases, it's the opposite: the honest people get driven out because scammers can promise the world for a penny because they know they will never deliver. People were fed up with being swindled left and right, so they decided to get the government to step in. Obviously, they've been highly successful because Libertarians can't even imagine the world as it was 100 years ago.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    I remember an unregulated internet. It was better.
    - trylist 8y ago
      The internet has literally never been unregulated.
      - 8y ago
Consultant32452 8y ago
This primarily impacts the young and/or poor, who are losing their ability to enter the job market with these increased moats. As long as it continues to benefit incumbent wealth who has the power to market FUD to the consumer about "unlicensed" workers, this will remain. Here's another article I recommend from The Atlantic last year which touches on this topic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/the-right-to-earn-a-living/546071/?single_page=true https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/the-rig...
mrnobody_67 8y ago
Planet Money had a good episode on this: Why It's Illegal To Braid Hair Without A License https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/15/356428708/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/15/356428708/epis...
Dowwie 8y ago
While it exists, learn how to use occupational licensing to protect your interests. The next time you need a contractor for work, ask for his license and a certificate of insurance. Using a search engine, confirm that the phone number on the COI corresponds to the insurance company. Once verified, call the insurance company and simply tell the agent who you are and that you're verifying the account. On an estimate for thousands of dollars of roofing work, I caught a property manager colluding with a handyman acting as a roofer with the intent of defrauding a condominium association of thousands of dollars. The license # provided was years expired. Further, the insurance company had no record of the customer. It was a complete fraud.
Animats 8y ago
That's from a front for the Koch brothers.[1] I'm trying to find the source for the 20% or even 30% figure for jobs requiring licenses. The trail leads back to a book published by the Upjohn Institute. The New York Times cites that. That book makes the percentage claim. But when they list the occupations requiring licensing, their toplist is "Accountants, doctors, dentists, elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, lawyers, hairdressers and cosmetologists".[2] Those aren't 20% or 30% of the workforce. The book is paywalled, but there is a free intro. Table 1.1 seems to be where the lobbyists and the press are getting their numbers. The source for that data is "The data for the 1980s are from Kleiner (1990) tabulations, and new estimates were developed for 2000." Kleiner is the author of the book. He's citing himself. I wonder if he's including driving licenses. Looks like you have to pay to find out. [1] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice [2] https://research.upjohn.org/up_press/18/ https://research.upjohn.org/up_press/18/
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Why does it matter that an organization dedicated to political research and philosophy is funded by X, Y, and Z individuals of repute? That's the essence of ad hominem. I'm glad you take on the content of the study in your second point. Imagine if liberal-leaning research papers shared on HN were immediately accosted with comments claiming the publication to be a "front" for George Soros. Not helpful.
sgt101 8y ago
I believe that licenses ensure that employers will struggle to commoditize and exploit their workers. Highly licensed professions manage to capture significant value in their industry value chains, the alternative is that shareholders and the providers of leverage (banks and shadow banks) get everything.
AngryData 8y ago
The problem isn't that the licensing exists, the problem is licensing, once implemented, is almost never critically reexamined and regularly gets pushed for more difficult requirements regardless of those requirement's efficacy or results. Why? Because harder to obtain licenses means anyone who already has a license has much less competition and thus easier and more profits. Why does someone who never uses a straight razor ever in their hair stylist career need to learn all about straight razor shaving? Why does a barber that doesn't apply or even possess any hair dye agents need to learn about hair dyes? The license could easily be split into categories, split into multiple licenses or otherwise be examined, but instead it is all packed into one license that is much harder to get without having money pouring out of your ass already to pay for 'schooling'. I have a beauty school in my town, it doesn't make better stylists, it just pumps them all out of their money and then throws them to the wind with their piece of paper. They just followed some directions on a piece of paper and didn't majorly fuck up, they don't actually have to understand what or why they do certain things and definitely don't need to be skilled. "directions: Shave some hair and clean the razor properly" "Oh wow I managed to do it a single time, now im qualified for it! (yea right) Now I just gotta do 1000 hours of unrelated highlights and buzz cuts, and regardless of quality or fuckups, I still get my license!" Yeah some people do study and become good stylists, the majority of them however are just passed through because they are paid to do so.
- dunmalg 8y ago
  >the problem is licensing, once implemented, is almost never critically reexamined and regularly gets pushed for more difficult requirements regardless of those requirement's efficacy or results. There's also the "license fee" treadmill, where the state sees an easy way to get more money from a captive audience by raising fees. For example in California this year the license renewal fee for being a locksmith went from $45 to $500 every 3 years, and it's still just a paper card they mail you that certifies that you sent them a form and a fingerprint livescan once, usually many years ago.
- mindslight 8y ago
  This is the crux of it - these licensing boards, inspectors, and licensed professionals have become their own little fiefdoms serving their own entrenched power rather than the public good. When it comes down to it, the only thing licensure does is set a bar to keep out the extreme boneheads [0]. And that is necessary for sure - I've been around long enough to see how many indiligent jokers there are in the world. But I still philosophically believe everybody has an inherent right to do their own work. I came across a court case a while ago - Meyer vs Nantucket - of a guy who was building his own house and did his own plumbing in Massachusetts [1]. The ensuing saga reads like scenes from the movie Brazil. He made it all the way to the state supreme court with photo documentation of how the plumbing met code, and how the Nantucket plumbing inspector was not following their own internal regulations. Meyer even found and hired a licensed plumber [2] as an independent inspector. and he found no defects. The court stayed logical through two rounds of appeals, and then suddenly nosedived into nonsense about local boards having ultimate authority of all interpretation, and kicked the case back down - seemingly having gotten the memo that if they were to do the right thing, the status quo would be disrupted. Then the town fiefdom forced him to pay a plumber to destroy the entirety of the work he did and have it redone - basically pure vindictive punishment for thinking he could rock the boat in the first place. This is the attitude that every bureaucratic institution develops after they are taken for granted. The code bodies operate in the same rent-seeking manner. The National Electrical Code - law that we are all bound by - used to be up as a PDF on public.resource.org, until they were bullied through the legal system into taking it down. Now it is only available from magnet URLs. In a just world, it would be published prominently on states' own websites alongside the rest of the law. [0] And just in case you don't know, work being done "to code" is a bare minimum. It implies little about the actual quality or longevity of said work. [1] It's fine to do your own electrical, although many inspectors still become hostile. But plumbing is strictly verboten. [2] Retired, from out of the area. Because any licensed plumber still earning their living would not want to get on the shit list.
Simulacra 8y ago
Check out this other IJ lawsuit about a Health Coach in Florida. This made it into the WSJ. https://ij.org/case/florida-diet-coaching/ https://ij.org/case/florida-diet-coaching/ Why should anyone need a license to help people choose better foods to eat?
- aidenn0 8y ago
  Licensing is one way to deal with the issue where the damage done by an inept practitioner is likely to exceed their abilities to pay[1]. Bad dieting advice can cause serious lifetime health issues. It seems possible (or even likely) to me that Florida's dietician licensing doesn't address this situation well, but there is nothing inherently nonsensical about licensing dieticians. 1: I'm not saying that licensing is the only way. If you want a list of a half-dozen others, consult your local libertarian.
mcguire 8y ago
I don't want to be all ad hominem or anything, but... "Now, thanks to a new report from the Institute for Justice, University of Minnesota economics professor Dr. Morris Kleiner and economist Dr. Evgeny Vorotnikov, those costs have been quantified both nationally and in 36 separate states." The Institute of Justice: "Since 1991, IJ has come to the aid of individuals who want to do the simple things every American has the right to do—including own property, start and grow a business, speak freely about commerce or politics, and provide their children with a good education—but can’t because they find the government in their way. "The Institute for Justice combines cutting-edge litigation, sophisticated media relations, strategic research, boots-on-the-ground advocacy and much more to fight on behalf of those individuals who are denied their constitutional rights."
downrightmike 8y ago
More like they can't pay people less than subsistence wages in certain professions.
davidhyde 8y ago
Is there ever a case we’re lobbying is beneficial to the general public or does it only ever benefit the few?

116 points by CryptoPunk 8y ago

jbob2000 8y ago

We just defunded the College of Midwives in Ontario. $800,000 a year to support a professional organization of 900 people. Somehow, the midwifery profession was able to exist for thousands of years before this professional organization existed. I am sure it will be fine without it. The administration, on the other hand....

djmips 8y ago
How is this relavent? This story is about licensed professions in the US
- beauzero 8y ago
  We have the same thing here...CNM...Certified Nurse Midwife
mywittyname 8y ago
I feel like this argument should be a class of fallacy. Lots of things have "existed" for a long time, but that doesn't mean previous iterations were effective. All it proves is that a problem has existed for a long time and people have been attempting to address it. Historically, women frequently died from child birth. Modern medicine has made child birth significantly safer for both mother and child. These advancements need to be disseminated to individuals, and society has a need to determine whether or not a person knows the latest scientifically sound techniques. Professional licensing fulfills this role. Of course, it's more expensive to hire a person whose spent years training. But without some verification, there's going to be a race to the bottom as untrained individuals undercut the competition. And yes, it does act as a barrier to entry for people who could do a great job. But, the risks of hiring an poorly trained midwife are much more serious than those of hiring an untrained software developer. Thus, society is okay with having unlicensed people writing software but isn't okay with unlicensed people treating them for injuries.
- christopheraden 8y ago
  > I feel like this argument should be a class of fallacy. Lots of things have "existed" for a long time, but that doesn't mean previous iterations were effective. This is pretty close to Survivorship Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). Outcomes of midwifery of yore is no different than present midwifery if you ignore the fatalities and only focus on successful deliveries.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- whoopdedo 8y ago
  It's similar to appeal to antiquity[1]. Easy enough to dismiss: humans have been eating beef for thousands of years so why do we need the USDA? [1] https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-t...

ancorevard 8y ago

Occupational licensing has gone way too far, and is in-fact a regressive tax on the poor. Both on the part of the worker and the consumer. In California you need a license to cut hair (Many European countries are actually more free in this aspect compared to the US). However, you are exempt if you only shampoo hair! To get a license you need to enroll in a program that takes at least 9 months, and you need to complete 1,600 hours of training... ...to cut hair.

vorpalhex 8y ago
Because improperly sanitizing barber tools can absolutely spread disease and you're waving sharp objects near somebodies face, including a child who may not sit still.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  Not wiping your ass properly and washing your hands can absolutely spread disease. I think we need a license for using public toilets.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    Yeah, so you might manage to spread the flu through secondary contact and that wouldn't be great. It's not as bad as spreading lice, or several serious bacterial or fungal infections that can do a lot of damage. We should also really encourage people to wash their hands because that's super important, especially in environments like hospitals and daycares.
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    We have restaurant food and safety inspections as the non-hyperbolic implementation of this as applied to preparers.
    - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
      Fine, which is good, but none of those restaurant workers had to go through hundreds/thousands of hours of training to get licensed.

stevenkovar 8y ago

I just had a discussion about this with my physical therapist yesterday. In Texas, only three types of people are allowed to touch patients for healing purposes: doctors, certified therapists, and priests. In many cases, the certification process for therapy is such a time and money sink that people will become priests in small "religions" as a legal workaround to taking 1yr+ of archaic training.

jacquesm 8y ago
The priests bit may not be the best example.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  Obviously there are risks involved in occupations involving contact, as your allusion to priest sexual abuse scandals references, but people need human touch. How much depression, suicide and drug-abuse is caused by the desire to tightly control commercial human contact and the resultant dead-weight loss of people not getting enough of it? Unless there is a pressing public health threat from an activity (e.g. someone who doesn't know how to drive, operating a motor vehicle on public roads), society should think very long and hard before restricting people from engaging in that activity. If there is going to be licensing, it should be limited to restricting how people can market their skills, where only those licensed can market themselves as licensed. This gives quality-conscious consumers an easy way to identify licensed practitioners, while giving those who value affordability over safety the option of unlicensed services.

emn13 8y ago

I think it's terribly worrisome that anybody is talking this article seriously. To be upfront about my own assumptions: I totally believe that licensing in general is nonsense. But that's not the point! Just because something agrees with our preconceived notions doesn't mean the evidence holds any water whatsoever. And this piece has a few classic "terrible science reporting" features: - It wildly overstates the scope of the original research, making it sound way more broadly applicable that it really is. The research doesn't actually appear to have a solid method for quantifying costs at all, and it doesn't appear to have a method for quantifying benefits either. Sounding like your using statistics https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_WEB.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_W... doesn't make your data any more real-world impactful. The data does appear to reasonably quantify the amount of licensing, and there are some indications as to how much that affects labor costs. That's pretty much it. - It omits key facts that would lead readers to critically examine the evidence, such as the fact that it was funded (at least in part) by an advocacy group (John Templeton Foundation) dedicated to market freedom, and it was performed and published by a thinktank similarly dedicated towards deregulation (Institute for Justice). That doesn't automatically invalidate the research, but insofar as the researchers and publishers have considerable leeway in choosing methods, areas of study and what to publish, you should expect considerable bias - and the fact that their analysis supports their political stance certainly doesn't suggest otherwise. - It's published by and appears to target those who likely already hold similar beliefs; i.e.: this appears to be part of the trend to live in your own bubble. - I don't think they actually linked to the original research? I'm assuming it's https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_WEB.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_W...? If anything, the lack of convincing evidence despite all of that and despite my own assumptions leads me to question if this belief really is valid. But I'm still betting it is, and that this kind of thing is simply hard to measure with means like this. TL;DR: unconvincing, but at least honest-looking research that tries to extrapolate some solid-looking questionnaire into something totally different, which was then regurgitated into trash journalism designed to deceive, not inform. I don't read a lot of Forbes, but clearly they're a publisher to be wary of.

avs733 8y ago
Thank you. This is a PERFECT example of one of the things I try to teach students about statistics and science communication. The Forbes articles wildly WILDLY overstates the relatively modest conclusions of the paper. Academic papers take small, almost microscopic steps for a reason - each step in a chain of logic needs to be heavily and clearly supported by evidence. Often they say things like X is correlated with Y and then someone else (intentionally for clicks or from a lack of understanding) implies causality and turns conditional observation into absolutist pronouncements. Academic studies are almost always exercises in nuance...if a news article is not the same don't trust it.

mtberatwork 8y ago

This is an op-ed from a libertarian think tank about a study they conducted themselves. Quite a bit of bias here. Sure, there exists a grey area with the music therapist anecdote they use, but personally, I'm quite fond of electricians, plumbers, etc being licensed.

knightofmars 8y ago
This reminds me of a discussion I had with someone who self identified as a libertarian and was on the extreme side of anti-regulation. Their argument was that if regulations didn't exist then in those situations where they had an issue with a company or the government they would sue. Which, for me, raised the immediate question of "Who is going to do the suing?". The response, "A lawyer..." and a look that was supposed to inform me that I was being dense. Then after a few seconds it clicked and they started coming up with any number of criteria by which they'd use to determine who was a "qualified lawyer". All of which were based on their own experiences and knowledge. While obviously this is an anecdote, it was interesting to see how much all of us (even those in the opposition camp) take for granted with regards to the regulatory structures that exist. I can't help but think "CHESTERTON'S FENCE" anytime someone proposes a radical change such as that which is proposed by the extreme anti-regulatory side.
- darkerside 8y ago
  Self-representation would be the sensible answer here. Just because your friend didn't have a good answer doesn't mean there isn't one.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - knightofmars 8y ago
    Feel free to represent yourself against a multi-hundred-million dollar (or larger) corporation and let me know how that goes.
crdoconnor 8y ago

Matticus_Rex 8y ago

This article is from a fantastic nonprofit public interest law firm that does GREAT work in this area: the Institute for Justice (https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensing/ https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensin...) They've successfully gotten a number of these stupid licenses struck down. In terms of my perceived ROI for my donations, IJ is one of my favorite/most worthwhile organizations that I support. They're also in Charity Navigator's top 1% of nonprofits. I highly recommend donating! (https://ij.org/support/ https://ij.org/support/)

bob_theslob646 8y ago
>They've successfully gotten a number of these stupid licenses struck down. Can you share which ones?
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  Makeup licensing in NC: https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-makeup-schools/ https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-makeup-schools/ Eyebrow threading in Louisiana: https://ij.org/case/louisiana-threading/ https://ij.org/case/louisiana-threading/ Casket sales in Alabama (after the attention on the case, the AL legislature changed the law): https://ij.org/case/alabama-caskets/ https://ij.org/case/alabama-caskets/ Hair braiding in Iowa (after attention on the case, the governor used line-item veto to remove the offending provisions in a bill): https://ij.org/press-release/victory-african-style-hair-braiders-iowa/ https://ij.org/press-release/victory-african-style-hair-brai... Hair braiding in Arkansas (after attention on the case, legislators sponsored new legislation to change the treatment of hair braiding under the law): https://ij.org/case/arkansas-hair-braiding/ https://ij.org/case/arkansas-hair-braiding/ Hair braiding in Washington (the Department of Licensing changed its rules in response to being sued): https://ij.org/case/washington-african-hair-braiding/ https://ij.org/case/washington-african-hair-braiding/ Animal massage therapy in Arizona: https://ij.org/case/azmassage/ https://ij.org/case/azmassage/ Hair braiding in Texas (struck down in Federal court and then fully deregulated by the legislature afterward): https://ij.org/case/txbraiding/ https://ij.org/case/txbraiding/ That's the last 5 years or so of won cases just on this issue. They also take on civil asset forfeiture and legislated monopolies (such as taxi companies that have been given an exclusive license to a city), among a few other issues.

bob_theslob646 8y ago

For anyone that wants to read the study. (https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_WEB.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_W...) I glanced through it and was not impressed.Why would they not show me what are the pros and cons of licensing besides just the cost. Would you not want someone to be able to verify that they have the skills to do what they say they offer. ( I understand that depending on the occupation this may be up for debate, due to verification issues and people gaming the tests, but I bet it becomes paramount where the occupation is related a matter of life or death like a doctor/surgeon. I am sure there are things where getting a license is ridiculous, but for other areas where it is absolutely necessary. What I found interesting is that, those with licenses make more money? It seems if I wanted to lobby an organization to suppress wages, it be at a place such as the " Institute for Justice."

mywittyname 8y ago
A lot of people have the luxury of raging against licensing and regulation because they don't remember the world before these existed. It's just assumed that most people are honest about their work and the who aren't will be swiftly punished. But in most cases, it's the opposite: the honest people get driven out because scammers can promise the world for a penny because they know they will never deliver. People were fed up with being swindled left and right, so they decided to get the government to step in. Obviously, they've been highly successful because Libertarians can't even imagine the world as it was 100 years ago.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I remember an unregulated internet. It was better.
  - trylist 8y ago
    The internet has literally never been unregulated.
    - 8y ago

Consultant32452 8y ago

This primarily impacts the young and/or poor, who are losing their ability to enter the job market with these increased moats. As long as it continues to benefit incumbent wealth who has the power to market FUD to the consumer about "unlicensed" workers, this will remain. Here's another article I recommend from The Atlantic last year which touches on this topic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/the-right-to-earn-a-living/546071/?single_page=true https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/the-rig...

mrnobody_67 8y ago

Planet Money had a good episode on this: Why It's Illegal To Braid Hair Without A License https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/15/356428708/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/15/356428708/epis...

Dowwie 8y ago

While it exists, learn how to use occupational licensing to protect your interests. The next time you need a contractor for work, ask for his license and a certificate of insurance. Using a search engine, confirm that the phone number on the COI corresponds to the insurance company. Once verified, call the insurance company and simply tell the agent who you are and that you're verifying the account. On an estimate for thousands of dollars of roofing work, I caught a property manager colluding with a handyman acting as a roofer with the intent of defrauding a condominium association of thousands of dollars. The license # provided was years expired. Further, the insurance company had no record of the customer. It was a complete fraud.

Animats 8y ago

That's from a front for the Koch brothers.[1] I'm trying to find the source for the 20% or even 30% figure for jobs requiring licenses. The trail leads back to a book published by the Upjohn Institute. The New York Times cites that. That book makes the percentage claim. But when they list the occupations requiring licensing, their toplist is "Accountants, doctors, dentists, elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, lawyers, hairdressers and cosmetologists".[2] Those aren't 20% or 30% of the workforce. The book is paywalled, but there is a free intro. Table 1.1 seems to be where the lobbyists and the press are getting their numbers. The source for that data is "The data for the 1980s are from Kleiner (1990) tabulations, and new estimates were developed for 2000." Kleiner is the author of the book. He's citing himself. I wonder if he's including driving licenses. Looks like you have to pay to find out. [1] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice [2] https://research.upjohn.org/up_press/18/ https://research.upjohn.org/up_press/18/

drak0n1c 8y ago
Why does it matter that an organization dedicated to political research and philosophy is funded by X, Y, and Z individuals of repute? That's the essence of ad hominem. I'm glad you take on the content of the study in your second point. Imagine if liberal-leaning research papers shared on HN were immediately accosted with comments claiming the publication to be a "front" for George Soros. Not helpful.

sgt101 8y ago

I believe that licenses ensure that employers will struggle to commoditize and exploit their workers. Highly licensed professions manage to capture significant value in their industry value chains, the alternative is that shareholders and the providers of leverage (banks and shadow banks) get everything.

AngryData 8y ago

The problem isn't that the licensing exists, the problem is licensing, once implemented, is almost never critically reexamined and regularly gets pushed for more difficult requirements regardless of those requirement's efficacy or results. Why? Because harder to obtain licenses means anyone who already has a license has much less competition and thus easier and more profits. Why does someone who never uses a straight razor ever in their hair stylist career need to learn all about straight razor shaving? Why does a barber that doesn't apply or even possess any hair dye agents need to learn about hair dyes? The license could easily be split into categories, split into multiple licenses or otherwise be examined, but instead it is all packed into one license that is much harder to get without having money pouring out of your ass already to pay for 'schooling'. I have a beauty school in my town, it doesn't make better stylists, it just pumps them all out of their money and then throws them to the wind with their piece of paper. They just followed some directions on a piece of paper and didn't majorly fuck up, they don't actually have to understand what or why they do certain things and definitely don't need to be skilled. "directions: Shave some hair and clean the razor properly" "Oh wow I managed to do it a single time, now im qualified for it! (yea right) Now I just gotta do 1000 hours of unrelated highlights and buzz cuts, and regardless of quality or fuckups, I still get my license!" Yeah some people do study and become good stylists, the majority of them however are just passed through because they are paid to do so.

dunmalg 8y ago
>the problem is licensing, once implemented, is almost never critically reexamined and regularly gets pushed for more difficult requirements regardless of those requirement's efficacy or results. There's also the "license fee" treadmill, where the state sees an easy way to get more money from a captive audience by raising fees. For example in California this year the license renewal fee for being a locksmith went from $45 to $500 every 3 years, and it's still just a paper card they mail you that certifies that you sent them a form and a fingerprint livescan once, usually many years ago.
mindslight 8y ago
This is the crux of it - these licensing boards, inspectors, and licensed professionals have become their own little fiefdoms serving their own entrenched power rather than the public good. When it comes down to it, the only thing licensure does is set a bar to keep out the extreme boneheads [0]. And that is necessary for sure - I've been around long enough to see how many indiligent jokers there are in the world. But I still philosophically believe everybody has an inherent right to do their own work. I came across a court case a while ago - Meyer vs Nantucket - of a guy who was building his own house and did his own plumbing in Massachusetts [1]. The ensuing saga reads like scenes from the movie Brazil. He made it all the way to the state supreme court with photo documentation of how the plumbing met code, and how the Nantucket plumbing inspector was not following their own internal regulations. Meyer even found and hired a licensed plumber [2] as an independent inspector. and he found no defects. The court stayed logical through two rounds of appeals, and then suddenly nosedived into nonsense about local boards having ultimate authority of all interpretation, and kicked the case back down - seemingly having gotten the memo that if they were to do the right thing, the status quo would be disrupted. Then the town fiefdom forced him to pay a plumber to destroy the entirety of the work he did and have it redone - basically pure vindictive punishment for thinking he could rock the boat in the first place. This is the attitude that every bureaucratic institution develops after they are taken for granted. The code bodies operate in the same rent-seeking manner. The National Electrical Code - law that we are all bound by - used to be up as a PDF on public.resource.org, until they were bullied through the legal system into taking it down. Now it is only available from magnet URLs. In a just world, it would be published prominently on states' own websites alongside the rest of the law. [0] And just in case you don't know, work being done "to code" is a bare minimum. It implies little about the actual quality or longevity of said work. [1] It's fine to do your own electrical, although many inspectors still become hostile. But plumbing is strictly verboten. [2] Retired, from out of the area. Because any licensed plumber still earning their living would not want to get on the shit list.

Simulacra 8y ago

Check out this other IJ lawsuit about a Health Coach in Florida. This made it into the WSJ. https://ij.org/case/florida-diet-coaching/ https://ij.org/case/florida-diet-coaching/ Why should anyone need a license to help people choose better foods to eat?

aidenn0 8y ago
Licensing is one way to deal with the issue where the damage done by an inept practitioner is likely to exceed their abilities to pay[1]. Bad dieting advice can cause serious lifetime health issues. It seems possible (or even likely) to me that Florida's dietician licensing doesn't address this situation well, but there is nothing inherently nonsensical about licensing dieticians. 1: I'm not saying that licensing is the only way. If you want a list of a half-dozen others, consult your local libertarian.

mcguire 8y ago

I don't want to be all ad hominem or anything, but... "Now, thanks to a new report from the Institute for Justice, University of Minnesota economics professor Dr. Morris Kleiner and economist Dr. Evgeny Vorotnikov, those costs have been quantified both nationally and in 36 separate states." The Institute of Justice: "Since 1991, IJ has come to the aid of individuals who want to do the simple things every American has the right to do—including own property, start and grow a business, speak freely about commerce or politics, and provide their children with a good education—but can’t because they find the government in their way. "The Institute for Justice combines cutting-edge litigation, sophisticated media relations, strategic research, boots-on-the-ground advocacy and much more to fight on behalf of those individuals who are denied their constitutional rights."

downrightmike 8y ago

More like they can't pay people less than subsistence wages in certain professions.

davidhyde 8y ago

Is there ever a case we’re lobbying is beneficial to the general public or does it only ever benefit the few?