
30% of US Workforce Need License to Perform Their Job - jvrossb
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2015/01/26-time-to-examine-occupational-licensing-practices-kearney-hershbein-boddy
======
fiatmoney
It's easy, but lazy, to look at regulations and say "this is obviously a bad
idea." It's harder and more rewarding to think, "what are the forces that
generate these regulations, and how can we change those forces?"

One explanation is that they're oriented towards businesses that tend to be
sole proprietorships with super low capital requirements - anyone can
potentially start running tours or cutting hair or interior decorating,
without even renting a storefront. So, those kinds of businesses have much
more of an incentive to use legislation to restrict entry, rather than relying
on more "inherent" economic barriers. Relatively speaking, they have a higher
payoff to lobbying than, say, a pizzeria that needs to invest a lot in ovens,
rent, and payroll - if you can afford those, you can afford to either take
Pizza Making 101 under a licensing regime, or more realistically fight the
licensing regime itself.

How do you change that pattern given a democracy that responds to lobbying?
Frankly I'm not sure, but trying to figure it out has a higher payoff than
complaining about it.

~~~
DanBC
Licences for hairdressing has little to do with restricting entry. It's an
attempt to protect people from the harm of incompetent hair dressers - some of
the chemical products used can cause chemical burns, for example.

HN is pretty dismissive when talking about jobs that other people do. Hair
dressing isn't super hard, but it does require some skill and training. That's
why hair dressers are currently on the list of desired professions for
immigration into Australia, allowing people to enter Australia as a skilled
professional.

[http://www.immi.gov.au/Work/Pages/asri/hairdressers.aspx](http://www.immi.gov.au/Work/Pages/asri/hairdressers.aspx)

~~~
mseebach
In that case, the standard is applied extremely, even criminally, unevenly.

I can write and sell books advising you to treat your cancer with organic kale
and meditation. Following that advice will literally kill you. But I can't
give you a tour of the national mall, because... Because what, exactly?

You can't protected all the people all the time, it's simply impossible (or
would result in a dizzyingly oppressive Brave New World style situation). At
some points, people need to take responsibility for what they do to
themselves/let other people do to them, even if some people might suffer a
chemical burn from a back alley untrained hairdresser occasionally as a result
- just like people do all the time when they try to do these things to
themselves at home, which of course is perfectly legal and not to my knowledge
a source of many calls for licensing of the ownership and operation of a
watertap and a plastic bucket?

Also, licencing hairdressers doesn't even prevent fuck ups from happening
there, that's people with nontrivial haircuts (the group of hairdresser
clients formerly known as women) pay so much for haircuts. They know that
they're hard to get right, and that it matters that the hairdresser knows what
they're doing. This is equally true in jurisdictions where hairdressers are
licensed and where they are not.

~~~
nmrm2
_> Because what, exactly?_

The most honest answer to this question is because free speech protections in
the United States are _extremely_ strong, and expressing anti-modern-medicine
viewpoints qualifies as (even political) speech.

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

> A few years ago, Jestina Clayton started a hair braiding business in her
> home in Centerville, Utah. The business let her stay home with her kids, and
> in good months, she made enough to pay for groceries. She even put an ad on
> a local website. Then one day she got an email from a stranger who had seen
> the ad.

> "It is illegal in the state of Utah to do any form of extensions without a
> valid cosmetology license," the e-mail read. "Please delete your ad, or you
> will be reported."

> To get a license, Jestina would have to spend more than a year in
> cosmetology school. Tuition would cost $16,000 dollars or more.

~~~
sago
> Tuition would cost $16,000 dollars or more.

That was my first thought. How many of these licenses have formal requirements
for university or college tuition. Given the money bleeding tactics of
tertiary education, it wouldn't surprise me to find their grubby finger prints
behind legislative action to prop up their monopoly over the workforce.

------
tzs
Out of curiosity, I took a look at the cosmetology program at the local
community college [1] to see what's required. This program prepares students
for the Washington State Cosmetology Licensing Exam.

Before enrolling in the cosmetology program, you have to complete these
courses (number in parenthesis is number of credits):

    
    
       Business and Personal Mathematics (5)
       Human Relations in the Workplace (3)
       English Composition (5)
    

You can then enroll in the cosmetology program, which takes 5 quarters. Here
are the first quarter courses:

    
    
       Professional Career (2)
       Cosmetology General Sciences (2)
       Hair Care, Hairstyling & Haircutting (3)
       Chemical Texture Services (2)
       Cosmetology Lab Clinic I (12)
    

Second quarter:

    
    
       Hair Color (2)
       Intermediate Haircutting (2)
       Advanced Chemical Texture Services (2)
       Cosmetology Skin Care (2)
       Cosmetology Lab Clinic II (13)
    

Third quarter:

    
    
       Intermediate Hair Color (2)
       Advanced Haircutting (2)
       Nail Care (1)
       Wigs, Braiding/Extensions (1)
       Cosmetology Lab Clinic III (13)
    

Fourth quarter:

    
    
       Facial Makeup (1)
       Cosmetology Lab Clinic IV (13)
       Advanced Hair Coloring (2)
       Business Skills I (1)
    

Fifth quarter:

    
    
       Cosmetology Lab Clinic V (13)
       Business Skills (1)
       State Board Preparation (4)
    

I would not have guessed that many classes were needed.

Tuition is $106.84/credit for Washington state residents. The above listed
classes come to 109 credits, so $11645.56 tuition.

[1] [http://www.olympic.edu/cosmetology-ata-associate-
technical-a...](http://www.olympic.edu/cosmetology-ata-associate-technical-
arts)

------
cm2187
It is very topical. Currently anyone can declare himself a software developer.
That largely explains the number of sql injection vulnerabilities, unencrypted
sensitive data, unintuitive software UI, unpatched servers, cross site
scripting vulnerabilities, and other moronic software design decisions.

For many years there was a sense that what is electronic doesn't matter. That
breaking into someone's computer is at best a game while breaking into
someone's home is a crime. That hacking and disrupting a power plant is an
annoyance while bombing it is an act of war.

But I think it is changing. Non-technical people now realise that software is
massively important in our society, and the alarming pace of data breaches is
giving a bad reputation to the industry. I think a system of licenses for
developers is inevitable.

~~~
raquo
> Currently anyone can declare himself a software developer

And that's great.

> That largely explains the number of sql injection vulnerabilities,
> unencrypted sensitive data, unintuitive software UI, unpatched servers,
> cross site scripting vulnerabilities, and other moronic software design
> decisions.

No, what explains that is market variety. You want a $200 Facebook clone, you
get what you paid for. You want a well built iPhone app for $30000, you'll get
what you paid for, probably. No regulations can protect clients from their
moronic hiring decisions.

~~~
EliRivers
_You want a well built iPhone app for $30000, you 'll get what you paid for,
probably._

Yeah, _probably_. That's not nearly good enough. Not even close. There's an
enormous list of extraordinarily expensive failures in the software industry.
If I pay an actual professional a serious amount of money to do something for
me, and it turns out they did a truly awful job (which is pretty common in the
software industry), I expect to be able to claim recompense from their
professional insurer and/or their professional licencing body. That's part of
why I pay so much; the reassurance. Knowing I can rely on it.

Software, of course, has no such professional body, and exists in a twilight
world of chancers and incompetents. Why should the software industry get away
with knowingly producing crap and charging a fortune for it?

I'd be happy with a two tier approach; at the moment, if I want a wall built,
I can pay a professional (with the expectations and protections that comes
with the high price) or hire a day-labourer I met in the pub. There is no such
choice in software.

~~~
mtbcoder
> Software, of course, has no such professional body, and exists in a twilight
> world of chancers and incompetents. Why should the software industry get
> away with knowingly producing crap and charging a fortune for it?

This is not really correct. If you are hiring a development firm or an
independent contractor, you stipulate in your contract that the company or
developer must carry some form of errors and omissions insurance. I've never
seen a contract that did not have this line item. Any reputable company or
independent contractor will already carry this regardless. If they do not,
avoid hiring them.

------
fillskills
My jaw hasn't dropped so low in a long time. As stated in the OP I fail to
understand the reasoning behing most of the licenses. Great job bringing this
issue up.

~~~
programmarchy
Why work long, hard, and fairly for your money when you can use the power of
the state (a monopoly on violence) to raise prices by creating artificial
scarcity for your labor (and beget another monopoly)?

~~~
wavefunction
Ah, _you_ can be violent at any time. You can go get a gun with a five minute
waiting period or go to the kitchen for a knife or find a blunt object and go
be as violent as your pretty little heart desires. Of course the rest of us
may react strongly to your violence but that is, of course, as it has always
been. Your freedom to be violent ends where our freedom to be violent begins.

Or perhaps you mean violence === an expectation of pro-social behavior.

~~~
programmarchy
That's not what I meant. Sorry for the sarcastic tone. I'm saying occupational
licenses enforced by the state are a means of granting political privilege to
a group of people, at the expense of another group (usually the poor) through
the use of coercion, i.e. violence.

This may sound dramatic, but it's true. Because if an unlicensed (non-
privileged) person is operating in the market, even if they are reasonably
qualified, they will still be targeted by the state on behalf of the licensed
(privileged) lobby: First, the unlicensed person may be fined. If they refuse
to pay the fine, they may receive a warrant. If they refuse to go to court,
agents of the state will knock at their door, threaten to lock them in a cage
for not paying their tribute, and ultimately use physical violence to force
compliance.

~~~
crdoconnor
>at the expense of another group (usually the poor)

Because hairdressers are some of the richest people you know?

I'm kind of okay with them having some occupational barriers to entry,
actually. It's not like they earn a lot anyway, and it makes up for some of
the absolutely egregious and _enormous_ political privileges granted to the 1%
which are completely ignored _both_ in this article and by the people
commenting on it in this thread.

------
brohoolio
Percentages might help. Out of the 30% how many are teachers, engineers,
skills trades, doctors, nurses, etc? I'm guessing a ton of these positions
everyone would shrug and say yes, I want my doctor to have a license.

For the positions that might not be obvious why they require a license I
wonder how many are because someone fucked up and caused a problem? Probably
more than you might think. They generally just don't make rules up.

So maybe 10% of jobs that require a license (3% of overall jobs) actually need
to be addressed. You'd never know that reading this piece. Reading this piece
you are left with a sense of outrage the government is bad, why are they
messing with people blah blah blah instead of an actionable list.

Let's fix the list, but realize that this is a political body writing this
with specific goals probably paid for by a deep pocket interest.

~~~
steve19
why does your teacher need a license? background check, sure, but license?

~~~
kw71
My teacher needs a license to show that he has completed education that should
make him competent, continues to maintain competency, and has not faced any
questions of conduct or discipline which should rightfully deprive him of such
license.

I would like this strengthened to include that the individual is sound on a
psychological or psychiatric level, since many teachers work with children.
True story, I faced a lot of abuse during my childhood and so was in therapy
to deal with it. Waiting to see the therapist one day, I got to stare down an
abusive former teacher who happened to be in the waiting room, waiting for
psychiatric services. Since her employer manages its own health insurance,
they knew about this person's history of psychiatric problems because they
paid the costs for her services. But the local teachers union has made it so
that unless you actually rape a child during class, there's no chance of being
fired from the school board.

~~~
steve19
That's the core of the problem, the license means little because the union
will generally fight tooth and nail for any teacher that faces discipline.

Which would you rather have, a teacher that taught and inspired your 6 year
old kids, or a generic licensed teacher?

~~~
lmm
The union defends their members, that's part of their job. It's what prevents
administrators from arbitrarily firing people they don't like - or, worse,
people who stand up against malpractice on the administrative side. The
administration has access to their own specialists who can and do "fight tooth
and nail" for their side.

When someone is actually incompetent any halfway competent administrator will
be able to fire them. It's not hard - it just requires collecting some actual
evidence and documenting that you followed the processes correctly.

------
latch
An oldest economist article [1] that appeared on HN [2] opened my eyes to this
issue.

[1]
[http://www.economist.com/node/18678963?story_id=18678963&fsr...](http://www.economist.com/node/18678963?story_id=18678963&fsrc=rss)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2548399](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2548399)

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Doing minimal safety training seems reasonable, I think. If it cost $200 to
enter a profession, that wouldn't be so bad.

But two years and $10,000? What planet do these legislators think they're on?

(Licensingindustrylobbyus, probably)

~~~
ProAm
It depends, to cut hair its no biggie, if you are dying/treating hair with
chemicals than can burn the crap out of your skin I can easily see why this is
required. We are litigious in the US, this is the cost of doing business.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> It depends, to cut hair its no biggie

It's a little more dangerous than you might immediately think. You're working
with sharp blades and hot objects.

Edit: Oh, apparently, there's a serious risk of disease transmission. I hadn't
considered that:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2549477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2549477)

~~~
dmix
Couldn't a private trusted 3rd-party company provide certification to verify
my barber went to school for x or knows what he is doing?

Why does the government need to charge outrageous fees under serious threat if
they dont'? (Honest question)

The concepts of trust in x organization is much clearer today thanks to the
internet.

~~~
thrownaway122
The government is the trusted 3rd party.

They price gouge because it turns out that they have a monopoly. The private
company would also price gouge because they would also be a monopoly - only
you would not be able to lobby the private company and vote for a different
one...

~~~
logicchains
>The private company would also price gouge because they would also be a
monopoly - only you would not be able to lobby the private company and vote
for a different one...

They needn't necessarily be a monopoly; there's nothing stopping multiple
certification companies coexisting. Providing certification is not a natural
monopoly.

~~~
anigbrowl
Consumers don't know which certification is worth what. If you run a business
you're always getting calls from bullshit consumer certification companies
trying to extract money from you by playing on your anxiety about which
recommendations consumers trust.

------
jdavis703
Most of these licenses arise because the people practicing them wind up
hurting, or even killing people. Examples include tour guides running over
pedestrians while driving and entertaining [0]. Or software engineers writing
code that has probably killed people [1], or "beauticians" being forced to
work in near-slavery conditions [2], or professional drivers killing people
[3].

0\. [http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/About-to-be-silenced-
S-F...](http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/About-to-be-silenced-S-F-tour-bus-
operators-not-6185055.php)

1\.
[http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_s...](http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_slides.pdf)

2\. [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-
offer...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-
offer-2-measures-to-improve-conditions-in-the-nail-salon-
industry.html?referrer=&_r=0)

3\. [http://pando.com/2014/01/02/uber-driver-hits-kills-6-year-
ol...](http://pando.com/2014/01/02/uber-driver-hits-kills-6-year-old-girl-is-
not-our-problem-still-an-appropriate-response/)

~~~
maratd
> Most of these licenses arise because the people practicing them wind up
> hurting, or even killing people.

Correction: Most of these licenses arise because those in the industry want to
create a barrier to entry and use examples of morons doing their job poorly as
evidence of need.

~~~
wfo
This "everyone is a moron we don't need regulations if everyone was a genius
LIKE ME" attitude isn't particularly convincing. But it pervades this thread.
It's full of people who can't imagine even the possibility that a regulation
could be created for the good of people instead of with literally evil intent.
If this is the new face of the anti-regulation side of the debate we've really
reached a new low; it's not a debate anymore, it's rabid mindless religious
extremism.

~~~
maratd
> But it pervades this thread. It's full of people who can't imagine even the
> possibility that a regulation could be created for the good of people
> instead of with literally evil intent.

Who writes the regulations? Ask yourself that. It's not the regulators, they
just enforce the rules.

Regulations always start with the best of intentions, but are almost always
co-opted by industry lobbyists to create barriers to entry in the guise of
helping the common good. That hurts the common good and hurts the industry in
the long run, all for the sake of lining the pockets of entrenched players.

I don't see you proposing a solution to this. I just see name calling.

~~~
wfo
I didn't propose a solution because it isn't a problem. Regulations protect
people by forcing corporations, generally, to do something that's more
expensive but better for their workers/customers/the general public because
our society has decided (by voting) that we want certain standards to exist; I
want to be able to walk into a restaurant and know that I won't get food
poisoning and die without having to consult some privately owned and non-
accountable review system. I want workers to be treated decently so they can
support a family and be part of a livable civil society. These are basic,
basic things that we've developed over thousands of years of civilization as
expected common goods that the extremist hyper-libertarians like you see here
are trying to destroy because they get in the way of someone's ability to make
money by exploiting others. Because that's what deregulation does; it allows
people with money to abuse the capitalist system to exploit others and make
more money, since regulation is almost always used to prevent exploitation.

Sure the barrier to entry problem exists but honestly it's minor in comparison
to the value the regulations have. It is HUGELY blown out of proportion by
people here. Maybe it's more expensive to run your business safely and prove
that you are but honestly I don't care, if you can't run a safe business
society doesn't need to allow you to have one. We allow businesses to limit
their liability in exchange for being good citizens; the regulations just make
sure the businesses are holding up their end of the deal because we've seen
through history, without them, businesses are disgustingly exploitative and
destroy the lives of citizens and entire societies (see robber barons).

~~~
maratd
> I didn't propose a solution because it isn't a problem.

How would you know? Do you own a business? Have you ever run one? I have and
do.

Are you talking from experience or are you just talking?

> Regulations protect people by forcing corporations, generally, to do
> something that's more expensive but better for their workers/customers/the
> general public

No, they don't. That's how you want them to work. It's naive to simply assume
that's how it is, while having zero experience with either running a business
or enforcing those same regulations.

Virtually every single regulation on the books right now was written by
industry lobbyists. You don't even address this point? What do you think
they're putting in those regulations?

Almost all the regulations are easy to comply for a large corporation, because
they'll just throw people at it until they're compliant ... and very difficult
for a small business, because they don't have the ability to jump through the
hoops.

This has nothing to do with safety. Businesses which don't do a good job of
whatever it is that they're doing go out of business fairly quickly or learn
how to do it right. Those regulations are almost never enforced.

It's the mountain of paperwork, reporting requirements, licensing
requirements, it's those sorts of things that choke the life out of a small
business and they are _designed_ to do just that.

> general public because our society has decided (by voting)

That is really naive. Your representatives don't write laws. They just sign
them. And they sign whatever is put in front of them and they are told to
sign. Who do you think tells them to sign those laws? Hint: It's not you.

~~~
wfo
In this disaster of a post you assume that all regulations are evil and
conclude that all regulations are evil; there are certainly a lot of words
there, it's too bad you aren't actually saying anything.

I could take your post apart piece by piece but honestly almost every claim
you've made is laughably absurd; your assumption about the level of corruption
that supposedly completely dominates every moment of the lives of every
regulatory decision maker is a joke, super villians like that aren't as common
as you seem to believe. Every discussion starts with some token of good faith;
a willingness to accept that people who disagree with you are not literally
Satan. Without that you cant reasonably communicate with anyone about this
topic so I'd suggest you do away with the extremist rhetoric or stay out and
let the adults talk.

------
deftnerd
Something else of note is that the majority of occupational license
requirements exclude felons. Sometimes they'll put verbiage into the law
saying that once someone has completed the requirements they can petition the
board for an exemption, but what person would put in 1000+ days for a license
to cut hair without knowing if their work was for naught?

------
joe_the_user
A lot of the examples seem to involve professions involving grooming people -
barbers, manicurists, etc. While the required training amount might be out of
line, it seems like some state supervision for these professions is needed
because unhygienic or unsafe practices could serious consequences - ie,
spreading disease.

So this seems less totally insane than it might.

~~~
caseysoftware
This is licensing based on paying fees and completing classes, not - as in
health codes for restaurants - based on the cleanliness or safety of the work
place.

~~~
nmrm2
Most states require food prep employees to carry some form of food safety
certification.

Any additional checks are above and beyond this and other basic requirements.

Of course, there's a good reason that both exist in food prep. Downgrading a
restaurant only _after_ the typhoid outbreak isn't really serving the best
interest of the public. And continuous monitoring/enforcement is too
expensive.

------
tsomctl
Although not directly related to the article, in some fields you just need to
work under someone that has a contractors license. Many plumbers,
electricians, builders, etc, aren't licensed, but they are employed by someone
that is, and the owner of the company signs off on their work saying it is
acceptable.

------
jasonkester
If you'd like to see the fantasy paradise that would exist if we abolished
these foolish regulations, come to England some time. Then hire the first guy
in the phone book who calls himself a "plumber".

You would not believe the number of unnecessary holes in my house directly
caused by a single plumber's mate (defined: guy willing to work for £8/hr)
attempting to do his profession before we could physically remove him from the
property.

Same goes for "builder", and to an extent even "electrician." It's amazing to
watch, coming from America where people are required to be qualified for their
jobs.

~~~
krrrh
I've never lived in London, but I find this story intriguing, esp given the
stories of the rigorous exams needed to become a black cab drive in Lomdon.

I'd expect that there are private certifications or organizations that
guarantee a certain level of competency. Otherwise some sort of review site
for contractors like Angies list should either exist or be a massive
opportunity in a market like you describe.

~~~
justincormack
There are private certifications eg [1] and review sites eg [2].

[1] [http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/find-an-
electrician/](http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/find-an-electrician/)

[2] [http://www.mybuilder.com/](http://www.mybuilder.com/)

------
dm2
Text only cache because site is broken at the moment:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.bro...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-
front/posts/2015/01/26-time-to-examine-occupational-licensing-practices-
kearney-hershbein-boddy&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1)

------
makeitsuckless
This has always baffled me about the US. Always complaining about the
bureaucracy and lack of freedom of "socialist" countries, yet maintaining this
absurd professional licensing that defies parody.

~~~
adventured
People in the US complain about the lack of freedom and bureaucracy in the US
as well, a lot. The US isn't a Capitalist, low tax, low regulation, small
government system (and hasn't been in a very long time); it's a highly
regulated welfare state, with mid-upper tier taxation.

We have a total government system the size of Japan's entire economy. What
else could come out of something that massive, other than extreme regulation,
and eventual suffocation? It's not like they're just going to suddenly stop
passing thousands of new regulations each year. The professional political
class has nothing else to do, it's partially how they justify their existence.

~~~
crdoconnor
>People in the US complain

This article isn't 'people' complaining. It's a mouthpiece mainly for a group
of select US corporations.

You know they don't give two shits about hairdresser barriers to entry,
either. Judging by the list of members, they want deregulation for the finance
industry.

------
marcusgarvey
Funny. The Greek economy has been criticized by many economic commentators for
also having this kind of "closed-shop" paradigm. Not sure what their
percentage is in comparison to the U.S.

------
jwineinger
[http://fee.org/freeman/detail/does-occupational-licensing-
pr...](http://fee.org/freeman/detail/does-occupational-licensing-protect-
consumers)

"[A]n Oregon board regulating cosmetology raised the number of training hours
required for entry from 1,500 to 2,500. According to Cato Institute author
David Young, pressure for the change came not from disgruntled cosmetology
consumers but from beauty schools that were able to charge more tuition and
serve more consumers in school training salons."

------
crdoconnor
NEVER read a think tank's opinion before checking out who funds them first:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funders)

In this case, the fact that JP Morgan is a major funder should make you more
than a little suspicious that they're proposing tearing down 'regulations'.

When they try to convince _you_ it's a good idea they talk about hairdressers.
When they start writing bills to give to Congress it becomes about reducing
capital requirements and deregulating derivatives.

~~~
randomname2
Companies like JP Morgan _love_ regulation. They have the regulators in their
pocket and it helps keep out competition.

~~~
crdoconnor
So explain why they are fighting tooth and nail to deregulate derivatives, if
they love it so much.

------
MrTonyD
Brookings has a long history of very biased studies. They seem to decide the
outcome first, and then carefully craft a study to get the desired outcome.
And since Brookings is constantly advocating for less regulation and "free
markets" \- no matter the cost to society - I'm not surprised that they found
some way to find that most people need licenses. Honestly, it isn't even worth
my time to read the study to figure out how they gamed the data. I'm just
posting this comment in case readers aren't familiar with Brookings reality
distortions.

~~~
daniel-levin
Can you substantiate your comment?

------
normand1
Anytime you purchase a permit for anything from the government you should stop
and realize the government has confiscated your right to perform that task and
it's selling your rights back to you.

------
randomname2
Interesting tidbit:

The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation surveyed over 12,000 small business
owners in 38 states and 82 metropolitan regions to determine how friendly
cities and states are towards small businesses. Licensing was “the most
important regulatory issue” and “second only to the strength of the local
economy in determining how friendly a state is to small business.”

------
jphilip147
Working in US is getting difficult for us.

------
walshemj
That's the problem with having 52 states having many smaller decentralised
legislatures makes it much easier for low level corruption to exist.

Look at the dodgy court in Texas the "specialises" in patent law and the cases
of tiny hamlets with massive police forces and speed traps.

------
randomname2
Just as a comparison, in the 1950s, only 5% of workers needed a government
license to work.

------
adrianhoward
I'm a licensed CSSTWP [http://csstwp.com/](http://csstwp.com/) ;-)

------
brudgers
Citation for the 30% figure?

------
ccvannorman
"The more plentiful the laws, the more corrupt the state." -Plato

~~~
_delirium
I don't think Plato's critique there is necessarily getting at what you're
intending. Plato is arguing that direct commands by a ruler are superior to
written statute laws, because they allow for the use of good judgment and have
less scope for bureaucratic idiocy and corruption than a lengthy statute book
does. He's not against the state imposing restrictions on anyone, he just
thinks it should be done by direct command of wise philosopher-kings, rather
than by codified law.

His system if anything quite strongly restricted what people could do in the
economic sphere. The "producers" were one of the three classes kept strictly
separate (the other two being warriors and rulers), and must follow the
directions of the rulers, as enforced by the warriors, in order to ensure that
production is in keeping with the needs and morals of the _polis_.

------
tkyjonathan
This is probably a good thing.. mainly for people to have job security.

------
javajosh
John Oliver rant about this in 3..2..1..

------
techbio
License licenses license license.

------
liveoneggs
this article makes a lot of broad assumptions ("If licensing an electrician is
for public safety then...") and relatively shallow conclusions ("upholsterers
need a license, wtf?") based on them.

Full of weasels without a doubt.

~~~
Natsu
Why did you cut off the quote? The full quote is: "If the rationale for
licensing an electrician is to protect public safety, it is difficult to see
what rationale supports licensing travel guides."

Moreover, the assumptions they're making are charitable. I think most people
agree with licensing engineers, electricians, doctors and the like where doing
their job wrong has serious consequences. But for the same reason, it's less
clear what public benefit there is behind requiring florists, interior
designers or ballroom dancers to be licensed in order to practice their craft.

