
The Disappearing Right to Earn a Living - SQL2219
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/the-right-to-earn-a-living/546071/?single_page=true
======
drewcon
Incumbent business interests colluding with government under the guise of
“public safety” to enact regulation and licensing just to build artificial
moats and protect themselves from competition is such fiendish invisible form
of corruption.

Planet money did a very good and very despressing episode on one woman’s quest
to open a hair braiding salon.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/epis...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-
its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license)

~~~
Consultant32452
It's really shocking how much of "the public" has bought into this "public
safety" nonsense too. I recently had a lengthy debate with someone who was
arguing that I, as a homeowner, should not be able to hire someone to do such
basic plumbing tasks as snake my sewer line unless that person had passed a
plumbing certification with the state. This over-regulation is disastrous to
the poor.

~~~
thaumaturgy
It's not over-regulation to require plumbers to be certified by a competent
agency, and those regulations are usually in place as a result of uncertified
people taking advantage of the poor. They are an effect, not a cause.

For example, terra cotta sewer lines still exist in a lot of places. They are
old, have been invaded by roots (and thus are going to need disproportionately
more attention than modern lines), and fragile. An inexperienced or careless
plumber with typical snaking equipment can easily damage these sewer pipes,
costing homeowners tens of thousands of dollars.

State certification helps to ensure that the plumbers that show up know how to
deal with these systems and can lose their right to work in the industry if
they're careless.

More generally, I see this sentiment a lot, especially on tech forums, where
regulation is somehow a thing that happens all by itself and it's the enemy of
the poor, while we're surrounded by mountains of evidence exactly to the
contrary.

~~~
cgmg
> we're surrounded by mountains of evidence exactly to the contrary

Where can we find such evidence, as opposed to anecdotes?

~~~
cannonedhamster
* Flint, Michigan * The Gulf Coast * Anywhere in coal country * Wall Street * TARP

If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the
poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. The whole
point of regulations is that the collective power of the masses protects
itself against the wealth of the elite and business interests who don't
generally have to live with the results of their actions. Are there stupid
regulations? Of course, lots of them. Are there some that just don't plain
work? Of course, lots of them. That's why you don't make regulations based on
feelings and instead look at what the evidence says.

~~~
wutbrodo
> If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the
> poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you

If you really think that the collective motivations and incentives behind
every regulation can be so easily generalized, then you're no different from
free-market zealots unable to appreciate that markets are suboptimal for
certain tasks. Regulations can be abused just like any other part of
government, and just like any other part of government, this potential for
abuse isn't a blanket indictment of the overall concept.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Yup, you're right. I chose a poor choice of words that didn't convey what I
had meant to say clearly.

------
CydeWeys
If anyone is wondering by barbers require licenses in all 50 states, it's for
both historical and public health reasons. On the historical front, barbers
were previously something akin to doctors, performing a variety of tasks that
we would now say are the responsibility of doctors and dentists. On the public
health front, barbers deal with dangerous chemicals (hair dying), infectious
diseases (lice), and tools that can be deadly if mishandled (razors). Training
is necessary to minimize these risks.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Yeah, the "why" was conspicuously missing from this article.

I looked and could not find any official reference to a home theater
installation license in Connecticut. I would've expected to find it here:
[http://www.ct.gov/dcp/cwp/view.asp?q=461650](http://www.ct.gov/dcp/cwp/view.asp?q=461650).
If the article is referring to licenses required for low voltage work, that's
a license that's required in other states too (including California).

For the Louisiana florist licensing, the best I could find is that it was
enacted in 1939. I couldn't find a reference to the actual law or to whatever
its origins were. I found plenty of articles that were critical of it
([https://gpnmag.com/news/louisiana-florists-need-
license/](https://gpnmag.com/news/louisiana-florists-need-license/),
[https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-
June-2004/scene_joyc...](https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-
June-2004/scene_joyce_mayjun04.msp)), that didn't seem to share a political
bias. Given the age of the law and its uniqueness, it does kinda stink of
protectionism.

Past articles on onerous licensing across the country
([https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/why-license-a-
flo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/why-license-a-
florist.html)), have been written by Morris M. Kleiner, who appears to be
closely related to the Institute for Justice, which is a libertarian law firm
that has been filing lawsuits against states over their licensing laws for
years. The IJ is ultimately the source for the submitted article in The
Atlantic.

So this is a political article, and although that doesn't mean it's wrong,
it'd be really nice to get some more objective background information on these
licenses.

------
killjoywashere
Have you seen tree-trimming gone wrong? I've seen one death and one TBI
(complete with dude hanging from a tree, massive pedunculated scalp lac,
neighbor screaming for help from the ladder, holding the trimmer's unconscious
body up, both of them covered in blood).

As for home entertainment: I've seen lightning strikes where things weren't
properly grounded, blew out whole blocks of network equipment and TVs.

Maybe if our education system was more robust, we wouldn't have to legally
constrain these people. But, as it turns out, society these days requires a
bit more technical know-how and knowledge of risk-assessment than back in the
glory days of the 1930s when digging ditches could earn you an honest living.

People complaining about licensure laws are missing the bigger picture: the
licensure laws are a symptom of the poor education system. We've been slowly
backsliding into autocracy for a long time, and the education system is a
major source of the problem.

~~~
grigjd3
Surely though, a month of training is enough to learn to test a socket to see
if it is properly grounded, and thus is enough to install a 5.1 surround sound
system.

~~~
killjoywashere
Knowing what to do makes one a novice. Knowing what not to do makes one
competent.

~~~
cesnja
But surely that's at most a week of training, not 4 years.

------
HarryHirsch
Meanwhile no licensing is required for the Internet of Things. Your plastic
router runs an outdated version of Linux and participates in a DDOS network.
Since no one can assign liability to the manufacturer this means cheaper
routers for the consumer and a demand for IT security professionals and DDOS
mitigation services. GDP rises! A win for capitalism!

~~~
ckuehne
If licensing was required for computer-related goods and services we would
likely neither have Linux today nor a cheap plastic router to run it on.

------
kqr2
Good podcast on this topic:

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/epis...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-
its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license)

"Why it's illegal to braid hair without a license in Utah. And why that rule —
and hundreds of others like it in states all around the country — are a
disaster for the U.S. economy."

~~~
rhizome
I can't find a reference anywhere, probably due to not remembering the exact
title, but in the 70s-80s there was a series of books about goofy laws with
titles like "You Can't Feed an Elephant Peanuts on a Sunday in Kansas" that I
used to get from the library.

~~~
wutbrodo
That seems pretty different, since those collections of wacky laws are almost
universally unenforced. The hair braiding example is an actual policy
discussion, not just a historical quirk.

------
cletus
I'm actually getting tired of this mantra of "freedom" as a defense any kind
of regulation in the US.

Gun rights are on obvious one and everyone throws up their hands in the air
saying there is no solution for the problems no one else in the world has.

Less controversial, AirBnB and many Americans argue "it's my house/apartment,
I should be able to do what I want" yet those wanting to basically run illegal
hotels are exploting a pretty classic case of the tragedy of the commons (in
that their neighbours bear the cost).

The UK has a largely unregulated system for trades to the point that after the
dot-com crash, many former programmers took up plumbing.

In Australia we have a pretty rigid system for licensing of trades to the
point that if you call yourself an electrician or a plumber without a license
you can go to jail. You're free to subcontract for a licensed contractor but
ultimately someone who is licensed needs to be responsible.

When I lived in the UK, I had a friend who was an Australian licensed plumber
(note that plumber here includes natural gas). He said that him and his
Australian tradesmen friends used to call the UK tradesmen "chancers". Maybe
they can do it and maybe they can't but they'll give it a go. He gave me the
advice that if I ever got any work done in the UK get an Australian tradesman.

I don't understand why anyone would argue that you should be able to do what
you want when it comes to things like gas and electricity when any shortcuts,
negligence or mistakes could kill people. It boggles my mind. Just watch any
of the renovation shows on HGTV and you'll see the dodgy things people do. At
least a licensed tradesmen is accountable in that there's a record of their
work and their license can be yanked. More to the point, any such tradesmen
will invoke the permitting and inspection processes that are relevant.

It's the same reason there's a building code. Years ago I heard that
Australian builders had agreed among themselves to bid on international
projects (Asia specifically) and build to Australian rather than local
standards. It's more expensive but at least it'll be much safer.

Laws and regulations can be onerous, sure. But they're also necessary.
Licensing simply makes sure that licensees are aware of those laws.

~~~
wutbrodo
> Gun rights are on obvious one and everyone throws up their hands in the air
> saying there is no solution for the problems no one else in the world has.

My position on 2A is probably that I wish it didn't exist, but _given_ that it
exists, I'd want to tread very cautiously around violating constitutional
rights. People take for granted how much better society is than it was for
most of human history, and part of the credit for the incredible advance of
human rights (from a historical perspective) of the last couple hundred years
goes to advancement in governance that I think people are often too quick to
take for granted. Reductively dismissing this baseline as ill-considered,
hollow support for "freedom" just means you don't understand the conversation
that's taking place.

Again, you and I probably substantially agree on every gun control policy you
could imagine. The difference is that I don't need to reduce my opponents to
shallow caricatures in order to feel secure in my beliefs.

You're also being extremely dishonest in pretending that your gas and electric
example is even remotely relevant to the article or the discussion. Neither
the study, the article, nor this thread is making the claim that regulations
need to be entirely done away with. They're making the claim that the current
state is one of excessive regulation: that florists and barbers[1] are
unnecessarily regulated, not that we should allow anyone to do any job,
regardless of safety concerns.

Again, if you can't make a counterargument without having to grossly
misrepresent the opposite side, you should probably seriously examine your
views on an issue.

[1] There are dangers in barbering that mostly avoid proper use of chemicals,
but those can easily have their sale controlled instead of just requiring all
barbers to be licensed.

~~~
orf
> There are dangers in barbering that mostly avoid proper use of chemicals,

Ignoring of course the use of sharp, bladed instruments around peoples head
and neck areas.

~~~
wutbrodo
To be honest, this doesn't seem like that realistic a concern to me. It's a
lot harder to prepare lots of food without making people sick than it is to
shave and cut hair without stabbing someone, and yet chefs aren't under
occupational licensing. I'm not against literally any regulation, but
occupational licensing is a pretty heavy-duty instrument of regulation and I'm
really skeptical that it needs to be applied to every barber.

------
MichailP
This is so sad. Every time I read something like this a naive question appears
in my head: "Why can't people just get along?". Because in the end it comes
down to this: "we" against "them", where "we" have the licence or some other
bureaucratic nonsense, and "they" don't.

------
thomastjeffery
Specifically, the problem is not regulation, but _implementation of_
regulation.

If it costs significant time and money to acquire a license, that in itself is
an unnecessary hindrance.

In my opinion, a better implementation of regulation would be reaction, rather
than precaution. Everyone can be free to do work without licensing, but they
are liable for causing harm. The only difference being that work is not
immediately illegal.

------
jpindar
You can lose your occupational license (as well as your driver's license) for
getting behind on your student loan payments.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/business/student-loans-
li...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/business/student-loans-
licenses.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)

------
Overtonwindow
I think occupational licensure is a step too far, and done so often it's
creating entrenched monopolies. We should pull back from this and use
certification instead.

------
qbaqbaqba
In Europe you have to pay your social security fee. In many countries even if
you don't have any income, just for running a business.

------
jrs95
Is the issue that the right to earn a living is disappearing, or is the issue
that we never really had a right to earn a living?

~~~
thomastjeffery
The former.

------
crdoconnor
>These figures are drawn from License to Work, a report released this week by
the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm

This article appears to have been seeded by a lobby group started by Kochs
seemingly dedicated to deregulating... just about everything:

[https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice)

The weird obsession with eliminating $185 hairdresser licensing and the like
also crops up in their other lobby groups - e.g. CATO -
[https://www.cato.org/blog/occupational-licensing-
bad](https://www.cato.org/blog/occupational-licensing-bad)

~~~
cgmg
> The weird obsession

Your comment is basically an ad hominem.

Maybe, just _maybe_ , they genuinely believe these regulations do more harm
than good. No need to fetch your tinfoil hat.

~~~
emj
It is important to know from whom the message comes, or just who has said the
same things in the past. It's a good way to get your bearings on where the
ideas might lead. Ideas should not be historyless.

~~~
throwanem
No, but in this instance you (GP, anyway, at least) appear to be evaluating an
idea on the basis of an opinion about some people who happen to share it,
rather than by its own merits. This does not strike me as a useful rubric.

