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 gen

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.