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.


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


RedditUser91805 t1_j9z3glj wrote

A hundred times this

People don't realize that nearly a quarter of jobs in the US require occupational licenses (thank god, it's finally going down after decades of increases) because states have been progressively increasing the number of jobs that require licensure.


RedditUser91805 t1_j9z0us9 wrote


RedditUser91805 t1_iyxy7y4 wrote

Per Capita isn't the right approach, but per household is also the wrong approach. Household size is effected by, well, the number of housing units. A state that has historically suppressed the number of housing units will have higher housing production per household than a state with equivalent population and housing production that historically hasn't suppressed housing units.

Adult population is a better approach

Personally, I'd measure change in housing stock relative relative to change in adult population (completions - demotions) / change in population 18+