Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.


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?


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


professorlust t1_j9zvbut wrote


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?


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.


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.