3 ms·

The florist example reads as the most egregious: https://ij.org/report/blooming-nonsense-2/ https://ij.org/report/blooming-nonsense-2/ You have to pass a writt

by sbov 8y ago

The florist example reads as the most egregious: https://ij.org/report/blooming-nonsense-2/ https://ij.org/report/blooming-nonsense-2/ You have to pass a written and practical test (aka subjective test) - administered by other licensed florists (aka your competitors). Licenses should be about public safety. There's no reason to have a subjective test when it comes to this.

iamdave 8y ago
Licenses should be about public safety. It seems though in some industries (not all), as you allude to in the floral industry, that licensing is just another manifestation of rent seeking and ever encroaching regulatory capture. Would you concur? Curious to hear what you think there could (or should) be done about it in your opinion? In the case of selling floral products-caveat lector: I know nothing about flowers other than they are pretty and smell nice-would it make sense to replace licensing with some sort of rating system for businesses to aid consumers in deciding who they want to procure professional services from based on assessed expertise and past services rendered (not Yelp, an assessment from your industry peers)?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ethbro 8y ago
Imho, licenses should only be used in situations where (1) there are cost externalities to be considered that the free market doesn't expose+ or (2) it's better for society as a whole if supply is managed (e.g. capped licenses / quotas) + E.g. a cheap electrician using aluminum wiring that may short in 10 years and burn the house down. But of which the customer may not be aware / informed.
- bluGill 8y ago
  We have codes and laws about what wiring you are allowed to use, and independent inspections to ensure that things were done right. (even the best person makes a mistake). Adding a license doesn't really do much. I can teach a smart person how to write a house in a couple days (this includes looking up what size wire to use on the charts - the NEC is actually very readable once you figure out which section applies), from there on some experience will make you faster. Yet to become licensed requires years of experience, mostly to keep people out of the job.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Hypothetically we have code enforcement. In reality, the chance of getting caught on a non-obvious building defect is much lower than certain. I see licensing as buying into the system and aligning interests. Suddenly, it's in a tradesperson's personal interest to follow regulations, as they otherwise risk their right to practice. That said... as was mentioned upthread, there's a happy balance. If there's limited long term harm, it's probably not justifiable to require licensure.

by sbov 8y ago

iamdave 8y ago

Licenses should be about public safety. It seems though in some industries (not all), as you allude to in the floral industry, that licensing is just another manifestation of rent seeking and ever encroaching regulatory capture. Would you concur? Curious to hear what you think there could (or should) be done about it in your opinion? In the case of selling floral products-caveat lector: I know nothing about flowers other than they are pretty and smell nice-would it make sense to replace licensing with some sort of rating system for businesses to aid consumers in deciding who they want to procure professional services from based on assessed expertise and past services rendered (not Yelp, an assessment from your industry peers)?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ethbro 8y ago

Imho, licenses should only be used in situations where (1) there are cost externalities to be considered that the free market doesn't expose+ or (2) it's better for society as a whole if supply is managed (e.g. capped licenses / quotas) + E.g. a cheap electrician using aluminum wiring that may short in 10 years and burn the house down. But of which the customer may not be aware / informed.

bluGill 8y ago
We have codes and laws about what wiring you are allowed to use, and independent inspections to ensure that things were done right. (even the best person makes a mistake). Adding a license doesn't really do much. I can teach a smart person how to write a house in a couple days (this includes looking up what size wire to use on the charts - the NEC is actually very readable once you figure out which section applies), from there on some experience will make you faster. Yet to become licensed requires years of experience, mostly to keep people out of the job.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ethbro 8y ago
  Hypothetically we have code enforcement. In reality, the chance of getting caught on a non-obvious building defect is much lower than certain. I see licensing as buying into the system and aligning interests. Suddenly, it's in a tradesperson's personal interest to follow regulations, as they otherwise risk their right to practice. That said... as was mentioned upthread, there's a happy balance. If there's limited long term harm, it's probably not justifiable to require licensure.