Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
I've always found it absurd on how so many industries can be subject to required govt' licensing. Thank goodness I'm in an industry that doesn't need one, and where they exist, they're done by the private sector.
Worker's Permit Brian Wingfield, 08.28.07, 6:00 AM ET
Most people want to make sure their doctors and lawyers have the proper credentials to work, but should the same be expected of fortune tellers and florists?
Regulators in some states think so. If you want to read palms in Maryland or sell flower arrangements in Louisiana, you'll need a license to do it.
Funny? It would be if it wasn't increasingly commonplace. A new study by the Reason Foundation, a free-market-oriented think-tank based in Los Angeles, finds the range of professions requiring government is exploding. In the 1950s, less than 5% of the workforce needed a license to work. Today, that figure is more than 20%.
"The real motivation behind most occupational licensing regulations is one of special interest, not the public interest," the report says. "By banding together and convincing governments to impose new or stricter licensing laws, existing practitioners (who typically are exempted from the new laws through grandfather clauses) can raise the cost of doing business for potential competitors."
If so, the apiary industry in Maine is doing quite well--beekeepers in that state are required to obtain government licensing, the report says. So do casket sellers in Oklahoma, jai alai players in Rhode Island, reptile catchers in Michigan and rainmakers--yes, tribal rainmakers--in Arizona.
The report, compiled using information from the Labor Department, state agencies, news articles and trade and professional associations, finds that California is the most regulated place to work, requiring licenses in at least 177 occupations. Missouri comes in at the bottom, regulating only 41 professions.
With the exception of California, employment in western states tends to be far less regulated than in the East and the Midwest. But even among adjacent states, licensing requirements tend to be very different. North Carolina regulates 107 professions; South Carolina just 60. In New Jersey, 114 jobs are licensed; in Pennsylvania, only 62.
According to Adam Summers, a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation and the report's author, the reason for the difference in employment regulation from state to state can be attributed to "the success or strength of the business interests in that state."
In fact, Summers' study says that the boom in employment regulation has had several negative effects on business in local communities.
"Less competition for licensees means less pressure to offer higher quality or lower prices to attract business," the report says. "Thus, licensed businesses will be more inclined to pocket more of their profits." Other effects of too much regulation could be the creation of black markets among those who decide not to get licensed, sub-par work created by a lack of competition and an increase in the number of people who don't follow their dreams simply because they can't afford to get licensed.
Summers believes that all licensing laws should be abolished, letting the market create its own certification system, such as the product-review information offered by Consumer Reports, Amazon.com (nasdaq: AMZN - news - people ) or CNET.
But has the increased licensing of professions really damaged job growth in various states? This doesn't seem to be the case, if the government's employment statistics are to be believed.
The most heavily regulated states--California (where 177 jobs require licenses), Connecticut (155), Maine (134), New Hampshire (130) and Arkansas (128)--have an average unemployment rate of 4.8%, according to the most recent government data.
At the other end of the scale, Missouri, which regulates just 41 jobs, Washington (53), Kansas (56), South Carolina (60) and Idaho (61), have a combined unemployment rate of 5.1%--not much of a difference from those that are heavily regulated.
But within an employment field, these numbers are different, says Morris Kleiner, a professor of economics at the University of Minnesota, who is an expert on occupational licensing.
"Within an occupation, the employment growth rate is approximately 20% higher in states that do not require licensing," he says, quoting from his 2006 book Licensing Occupations: Ensuring Quality or Restricting Competition?
According to the Reason Foundation report, at least 17 states license more than 100 job categories, and many states regulate the same type of work. For example, in every state, you need a license to be a barber, a hearing-aid fitter or a pest-control worker. And in most states, you need government permission to be an athletic trainer, a plumber or a mortician. But in only 15 do you need government permission to be a tattoo artist, and in only 13 is a license required to be a cab driver.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
"The real motivation behind most occupational licensing regulations is one of special interest, not the public interest," the report says. "By banding together and convincing governments to impose new or stricter licensing laws, existing practitioners (who typically are exempted from the new laws through grandfather clauses) can raise the cost of doing business for potential competitors."
"Less competition for licensees means less pressure to offer higher quality or lower prices to attract business,"
I'd say that about sums this kind of thing up. Don't like competition? Call your local representative.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
As someone who had to be tested academically, fingerprinted, photographed, submit my credit report, list every job I've had since I was 18 years old, every residence I've called home for the past ten years, and a list of 3 "personal references" from every locale I've lived in for the past ten years (which could not include any family or former employers, so fortunately I actually HAVE 20 friends) to be licensed for my job, I have little sympathy.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
I figure someone's life or well-being needs to be on the line before you require a license. No one's life is on the line in jai jai, rainmaking, or fortune telling.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
B wrote:
I figure someone's life or well-being needs to be on the line before you require a license. No one's life is on the line in jai jai, rainmaking, or fortune telling.
I diagree with the fortune tellers. Those people are fucking crooks, and if they want to practice their "trade" the government should be able to keep track of them so that they don't just steal people's money and disappear.
If drug dealers were licensed, people wouldn't be getting bum shit.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
If you license fortune tellers, you're adding an implication of legitimacy that they do not deserve.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
B wrote:
If you license fortune tellers, you're adding an implication of legitimacy that they do not deserve.
Teenage girls give them legitimacy regardless
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
glorified_version wrote:
B wrote:
If you license fortune tellers, you're adding an implication of legitimacy that they do not deserve.
Teenage girls give them legitimacy regardless
What would the license say?
"The licensee is offering a bullshit service, but the government feels strongly that he or she will not rip you off for more than the stated amount."
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
B wrote:
If you license fortune tellers, you're adding an implication of legitimacy that they do not deserve.
Come on, B. You're smarter than to fall into THAT mindset.
Fortune telling "for entertainment purposes only" is fine. You pay a few bucks, you get entertained for 10 minutes, it's all in good fun. I'll read your tarot cards for free if you want.
But if they are NOT licensed, then they become a "black market" for lack of a better term, and then anyone can do it, and claim powers that they obviously do not have. Many gullible people will be taken for large amounts of money thinking that these people can actually tell the future and affect their lives.
Not to mention, a lot of people in this industry are straight up thieves who will take your wallet or purse while you sit there.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
David had a bad experience with a fortune teller once
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
glorified_version wrote:
David had a bad experience with a fortune teller once
Penn and Teller apparently hate fortune tellers as well; half of their Vegas show was dedicated to explaining how they're all crooks.
If all you want is entertainment, go buy a Ouija board. If you want to be swindled out of your money in the search of spirituality or some such, go see a fortune teller.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
B wrote:
If you license fortune tellers, you're adding an implication of legitimacy that they do not deserve.
Come on, B. You're smarter than to fall into THAT mindset.
Fortune telling "for entertainment purposes only" is fine. You pay a few bucks, you get entertained for 10 minutes, it's all in good fun. I'll read your tarot cards for free if you want.
But if they are NOT licensed, then they become a "black market" for lack of a better term, and then anyone can do it, and claim powers that they obviously do not have. Many gullible people will be taken for large amounts of money thinking that these people can actually tell the future and affect their lives.
Not to mention, a lot of people in this industry are straight up thieves who will take your wallet or purse while you sit there.
A person who is going to be taken by a black market fortune teller, is not the kind of person who is going to know to ask for a license. I don't feel at all convinced that licensing will protect anyone. And for the record, even "legitimate" fortune tellers are claiming to have powers that they obviously do not have.
Government money would be better spent on PSAs that run during daytime talk shows and tell people how stupid and useless fortune tellers are.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 6822 Location: NY Gender: Male
This seems to have veered off into why fortune tellers are bullshit. Whether or not, why should a florist have to be licensed? Is he/she selling poison flowers? There comes a point when the government shouldn't regulate licensing. Coming from a licensed professional.
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
Go_State wrote:
This seems to have veered off into why fortune tellers are bullshit. Whether or not, why should a florist have to be licensed? Is he/she selling poison flowers? There comes a point when the government shouldn't regulate licensing. Coming from a licensed professional.
Even in regards to fortune tellers, there's no reason a professional organization couldn't more effectively license than the government.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
$úñ_DëV|L wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
So anyhoo, anyone care to list the industries that should require gov't licensing?
Medicine Law
We should probably start having the FDA do something.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Without an FDA, how would doctors and patients know which drugs were safe and effective?
The same way we know which computers and restaurants are good -- through newspapers, magazines and word of mouth. In a free, open society, competition gets the information out, and that protects consumers better than government command and control.
Why must we give big government so much power? Couldn't FDA scrutiny be voluntary and advisory? Companies that want government blessing would go through the whole process and, after 10 or 15 years, get the FDA's seal of approval. Those of us who are cautious would take only FDA-approved drugs.
But if you had a terminal illness, you could try something that might save your life. You could try it without having to wait 15 years -- without having to break your country's laws to import it illegally from Europe -- without sneaking into Mexico to experiment in some dubious clinic. If I'm dying, shouldn't my government allow me the right to try whatever I want?
If FDA scrutiny were voluntary, the government agency would soon have competition. Private groups like Consumer Reports and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) might step in to compete with the FDA. The UL symbol is already on thousands of products. No government force was required. Yet even though UL certification is voluntary, its safety standards are so commonly accepted that most stores won't carry products without the UL symbol.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
