Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

phdoofus t1_j9whisc wrote

Gee would I rather my plumbers, electricians, and contractors be licensed and bonded or not? Hmmm.....

79

EconomistPunter t1_j9wnuf2 wrote

The point is that licensing imputing quality signals can and does have a net welfare loss before you take into account changes in quality.

21

tornpentacle t1_j9xga4f wrote

For those who didn't read the paper (let's be real, that's somewhere above 99% of the commenters on any given post), there was only a 12% reduction in total surplus compared to unlicensed entities. Worth noting that trade unions and licensing go hand in hand (i.e., workers generally fare better when licensing is involved, with a higher than average standard of living than that of Uncle Cletus's ragtag band of corner-cutters). Not to mention the significantly reduced risk of shoddy workmanship (which can cause very serious harm), meaning a higher standard of living for consumers.

Not scientific in nature, but Larry David did a great bit about this in one of the more recent seasons of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

39

dcheesi t1_j9y2qk3 wrote

Yeah, I was wondering how they factored in quality of work, but from the abstract it sounds like they just...didn't?

27

signal_lost t1_j9yksqa wrote

For electrical let’s pretend the guy with a J card who did my houses wiring didn’t leave so many shorts I’ve have to replace 1/2 the breaks and it’s a net positive in workmanship. Fine.

What’s the net benefit to preventing a women from braiding hair without a cosmological license. Or arresting the guy repairing a roof in florida who’s a licensed roofer in another state? How about the fact that my board certified wife can’t practice medicine in another state despite being a respected and published MD on the staff of a top medical school?

My nurse isn’t higher quality because her certification is from NYC instead of Jersey.

8

JEaglewing t1_j9ynvco wrote

Its cosmetology for hair, not cosmological which is about space, that's not really helping your arguement, and cosmetologists have to work with sharp implements and chemicals that can be dangerous/ harmful so it is important they know what they are doing.

The issue with not allowing out of state professionals isn't an issue with licensing but with your state not accepting the licensing of other states, some states do recognize the licensing from other states so that is a problem that could be solved by states working together to have similar standards and making their licenses reciprocal.

12

chrispybobispy t1_j9z5waz wrote

I think the issue with it is not all states operate the same. Some will have rules or experience requirements that are very lax

3

JEaglewing t1_j9z6yx4 wrote

That's why I think it should be more standardized, all the trades work off of national codes so I don't see why licensing shouldn't work the same.

5

chrispybobispy t1_j9z8arv wrote

That would be ideal. But there's a political gradient between California and let's say Mississippi that make that difficult to adopt

3

JEaglewing t1_j9z8ws5 wrote

Yeah politics often gets in the way of doing the right thing. To many puppets for established players and not enough common sense.

−2

professorlust t1_j9zvbut wrote

Ish.

It’s more that places like California and Florida have very strict building codes due to Natural disaster mitigation.

How do you guarantee that Mike from Mississippi with his Mississippi license knows how to properly roof to Florida standards if he doesn’t have a Florida license?

Or Alex from Alabama laying concrete on California If he’s not familiar with California building requirements?

4

JEaglewing t1_ja0bmhh wrote

Even for licensed inviduals standards change based on location within a state, so the fact that they have a license SHOULD be the guarantee that they can do it properly, to all applicable specifications no matter where they are working. Part of the job is making sure you are following all specifications regarding to the conditions that you are operating in.

2

Talinoth t1_ja0hazo wrote

In reality that makes getting a license - any license - in the first place a much harder ordeal, and it means that the contractor has to learn extremely location-specific knowledge for places they won't be working just to prove they can work anywhere in the country. This is despite the likely outcome that they'll disregard 90% of that information later because it's not necessary to know in their region, making that study a waste of time. This is not grand and results in the exact opposite of what we want to achieve.

  • A: It'd drive up licensing costs.
  • B: More study time would be required just to pass, and the fail rate would be higher.
  • C: The customer would have to pay more to cover the professional's increased licensing costs OR businesses would absorb losses/simply fail.
  • D: Professions that are already understaffed would be even more so, damaging the economy in various ways. Those jobs exist because somebody needs them done >!(more true of a concrete layer than a cosmetologist though)!<.

Because I think criticism is a poor substitute for offering solutions, here's an alternative:

  • Certifications for general knowledge in a profession should be nationalised, whereas location-specific knowledge should be localised. This in practice should mean that you don't have to re-do your whole license again when you move state, but you do a two or three week course that gets you up to speed with a particular type of soil/weather condition/set of local regulations.
1

RedditUser91805 t1_j9z0us9 wrote

You can judge things by vibes, or you can judge things by evidence. The evidence doesn't indicate an improvement in safety or quality from licensing

2

ascandalia t1_j9zjv2z wrote

The article only looks at marginal licensing in some states but not others. I doubt there's a state where plumbers, electricians and contractors aren't licensed.

6

RedditUser91805 t1_j9zmbna wrote

You inspired me to find out, so here are US states that do not require occupational licensing at the state level for:

Plumbers: Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming

Electricians: Arizona, Florida, Illinois (except coal mine electricians), Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina

Contractors: Florida, Louisiana, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wyoming

Apparently Ontario de jure requires licenses, but hasn't been enforcing it, and therefore de facto doesn't.

Interesting!

More on topic, the data I had on mind but did not cite when I posted this comment was:

Kleiner, M. M., & Park, K. W. (2014, January). Life, limbs, and licensing: Occupational Regulation, wages ... Bureau of Labor statistics. Retrieved December 7, 2021, from https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/pdf/life-limbs-and-licensing.pdf.

2

ascandalia t1_j9zobr4 wrote

Well, I live in Florida, and I know for a fact that contactor and electrical licensing is required. There may be some things you can do without a license from state to state, but that doesn't mean the license doesn't exist and isn't necessary for some or most work, so this list missing important context

2

Kombucha1 t1_ja6dxh1 wrote

It says state level but most likely local regs require it.

1

GoGoBitch t1_j9zq9vt wrote

I agree on all three of those, but I think there are also some professions that require licensing in at least some states that maybe don’t need to, such as nail technicians, makeup artists, travel agents, unarmed security guards, and florists.

2

psychicpilot t1_j9xt03e wrote

But your hairdresser?

1

dcheesi t1_j9y2axh wrote

There's a significant safety & liability concern there. Hairdressers routinely apply potentially toxic and/or caustic chemicals directly to people's hair and scalp. Not to mention sharp cutting tools and very hot implements (curling irons, etc.). All in close proximity to, or even direct contact with, a person's face and neck.

24

unicornbomb t1_j9ynn5y wrote

There’s also a huge potential for blood borne pathogen spread due to the use of straight razors, waxing, etc that requires appropriate training in technique, single use implements, blood spill procedure and sanitation.

Along with the potential to spread things like lice if the stylist isn’t trained on what to look for and appropriately cleaning and sterilizing tools.

16

stanolshefski t1_j9yep1o wrote

That’s a fair argument for streamlining the required training.

It’s been a while since I read the studies, but in every state that licenses barbers and cosmetologists, the safety aspects of training typically took up between 5-15% of the required training.

Instead of 1000-2000 hours of training at a typical cost of $15k-20k, you could probably do it in a few weeks for a couple hundred dollars.

Many states required you to spend more time being trained on how to market your trade than they required for safety.

9

psychicpilot t1_j9y2ffn wrote

Some states want hundreds of hours and dollars for this- give me a break. Same with interior decorators.

0

whatweshouldcallyou t1_j9yjeml wrote

If this created a serious issue that licensing solves then surely we should find a discernible difference in cases of injuries sustained in salons in states that do not require licensing vs. those that do, right?

Because I doubt there are.

−7

unicornbomb t1_j9ynqjq wrote

Every state in the US requires licensing for hairstylists and barbers.

6

Sea-Intention6698 t1_ja09jtx wrote

Yet the UK doesn’t. Surely people are getting lice and ears cut off because of this wild wild approach to cutting hair.

0

unicornbomb t1_ja0p80u wrote

UK has the NVQ system, and you aren’t going to be hired without first doing an apprenticeship or having nvq level 2 in hairdressing.

1

Athene_cunicularia23 t1_ja088f9 wrote

I remember my mom studying for her cosmetology licensing exam when I was a kid. Lots of questions pertained to safe dilution and mixture of the various chemicals hairdressers regularly use. Others had to do with hygiene and sanitation of implements like razors. Seems pretty important to me.

4