The Unseen Consequences of Occupational Licensing | Intellections

Occupational licensing is supposed to protect consumers, but instead it inhibits competition and further entrenches incumbents in the market. Under the guise of consumer safety, occupational licenses require costly classes or fees before workers may join certain professions. Many professions now require licenses even though they do not put consumers at risk.

Additional resources:

[jamesalvarez]

You should do a study on the licensing laws surrounding the construction industry in the country, since it’s the largest industry in the country it would be important to study the impacts and negative results licensing has on the industry across states, right now there is no level playing field or single standard regulatory system for construction, in California there is licensing laws coming with stiff entry and testing requirements, in Washington or Montana it is registration and there far less entry requirements and no testing, and in others like Maine Vermont or Texas there is no license laws for construction contractors, but this doesn’t or hasn’t made mainstream yet, despite the obvious fact that housing is in a shortage a cost burdening many Americans, a change in the regulations could bring relief to many Americans and overburdened homeowners or potential homeowners, renters, ect. I have made a video covers the topic but it’s a general review of the issue

[SH-dojm]

I would have to agree with @akariel. The licensing process is a revenue-generating mechanism for the city, county, and state.

[libraryofpangea]

Ok.. so the video puts forth nothing but assertions & assumes the conclusion without looking at additional co-factors or going into deeper economics.

This is just lazy, licensing also ensures the collection of tax revenue from select industry.

You get rid of that and you are going to have to re adjust many state balances- which means programs & projects dependant on the allocation of state licensing funds will also be put at risk. The amount of people who gain employment may not off set this loss of revenue. Especially in the first several years of this policy change. Or from the loss of jobs that was connected to or dependant upon that revenue.

Assertion: licensing is a barrier to employment.

I Live in WA state, who requires care takers to get certified. This actually helped Grow and encourage people to become caregivers, it grew the standard of care & helped provide the structure & education to legitimize the profession. It helped grow the job market. Not the other way around.

Now WA state has the best caregivers in the country, its a gold standard.

Requiring licensing does NOT always provide a barrier, it depends on the state, the thing being regulated & *How* it is regulated.

Lobbyist tho is *Not* a strong enough argument on its own to argue that licensing ought to be abolished.
You can only argue for specific industry to be deregulated on a case by case basis and it doesn't support your ending assertion that it would grow the job market.

Your "policeyEd" is overly simplistic, you act like licensing is in a select bubble were other co factors are not affected by it, only cherry picking consequences that support your base assertion.

not once did you even address legal liabilities and how that's going to change/affect these industries once you deregulate.

You may have a lobbyist driven industry you just deregulated but there may also have been regulation tied to it that prevented harm to either consumer or practitioner & you just wiped out the presidence for courts to base their rulings upon.
Someone ignorant of hair braiding may not see any inherent risk in having zero state backed standards, until their kid comes home with an injury because the person wasn't properly trained.

Generalizing in such a broad manner the discussion of these sorts of issues, is not an honest discussion of the topic. No better than the industry lobbyist you criticize.