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?"<p>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.<p>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.
<a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo...</a><p>> 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.<p>> "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."<p>> To get a license, Jestina would have to spend more than a year in cosmetology school. Tuition would cost $16,000 dollars or more.
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.<p>Before enrolling in the cosmetology program, you have to complete these courses (number in parenthesis is number of credits):<p><pre><code> Business and Personal Mathematics (5)
Human Relations in the Workplace (3)
English Composition (5)
</code></pre>
You can then enroll in the cosmetology program, which takes 5 quarters. Here are the first quarter courses:<p><pre><code> Professional Career (2)
Cosmetology General Sciences (2)
Hair Care, Hairstyling & Haircutting (3)
Chemical Texture Services (2)
Cosmetology Lab Clinic I (12)
</code></pre>
Second quarter:<p><pre><code> Hair Color (2)
Intermediate Haircutting (2)
Advanced Chemical Texture Services (2)
Cosmetology Skin Care (2)
Cosmetology Lab Clinic II (13)
</code></pre>
Third quarter:<p><pre><code> Intermediate Hair Color (2)
Advanced Haircutting (2)
Nail Care (1)
Wigs, Braiding/Extensions (1)
Cosmetology Lab Clinic III (13)
</code></pre>
Fourth quarter:<p><pre><code> Facial Makeup (1)
Cosmetology Lab Clinic IV (13)
Advanced Hair Coloring (2)
Business Skills I (1)
</code></pre>
Fifth quarter:<p><pre><code> Cosmetology Lab Clinic V (13)
Business Skills (1)
State Board Preparation (4)
</code></pre>
I would not have guessed that many classes were needed.<p>Tuition is $106.84/credit for Washington state residents. The above listed classes come to 109 credits, so $11645.56 tuition.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.olympic.edu/cosmetology-ata-associate-technical-arts" rel="nofollow">http://www.olympic.edu/cosmetology-ata-associate-technical-a...</a>
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
An oldest economist article [1] that appeared on HN [2] opened my eyes to this issue.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18678963?story_id=18678963&fsrc=rss" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/node/18678963?story_id=18678963&fsr...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2548399" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2548399</a>
Doing minimal safety training seems reasonable, I think. If it cost $200 to enter a profession, that wouldn't be so bad.<p>But two years and $10,000? What planet do these legislators think they're on?<p>(Licensingindustrylobbyus, probably)
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].<p>0. <a href="http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/About-to-be-silenced-S-F-tour-bus-operators-not-6185055.php" rel="nofollow">http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/About-to-be-silenced-S-F...</a><p>1. <a href="http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_slides.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_s...</a><p>2. <a href="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" rel="nofollow">http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-offer...</a><p>3. <a href="http://pando.com/2014/01/02/uber-driver-hits-kills-6-year-old-girl-is-not-our-problem-still-an-appropriate-response/" rel="nofollow">http://pando.com/2014/01/02/uber-driver-hits-kills-6-year-ol...</a>
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?
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.<p>So this seems less totally insane than it might.
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.
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".<p>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.<p>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.
Text only cache because site is broken at the moment: <a href="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" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.bro...</a>
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.
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.
<a href="http://fee.org/freeman/detail/does-occupational-licensing-protect-consumers" rel="nofollow">http://fee.org/freeman/detail/does-occupational-licensing-pr...</a><p>"[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."
NEVER read a think tank's opinion before checking out who funds them first:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funders" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funders</a><p>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'.<p>When they try to convince <i>you</i> 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.
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.
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.
Interesting tidbit:<p>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.”
That's the problem with having 52 states having many smaller decentralised legislatures makes it much easier for low level corruption to exist.<p>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.
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.<p>Full of weasels without a doubt.