• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Milton Friedman was warning us about occupational licensing since the early 60s

ataraxia said:
I don’t know. If I need brain surgery and someone is going to open my skull and poke around in there, I want to see that license on the wall.
Click to expand...

I think licensing overall has many positive aspects, but sometimes the requirements are unnecessarily restrictive in some aspects for wrong reasons, commonly as a result of professional greed on the part of those already licensed.
 
bomberfox said:
Friedman would know a thing or two about jackboots. Go ahead and go to an unlicensed pharmacist and see where that gets ya.
Click to expand...

Licensing provides many advantages, guarantees a certain level of experience and training and so forth, but excessive licensing or unnecessary requirements for licenses can also be bad for the economy.

California, for example, requires tree trimmers in business to have four years of occupational training. If an illegal alien cuts down a neighbor's tree for $100 he can go to jail for not having a license. He may not be jailed for being in the country illegally but in some states he had better make sure he arrives with a pocket full of money if he expects to do work for a living, because if he performs a service for which he is not licensed he can face serious consequences. California even licenses lawn care workers. That is government licensing run amok.

Why Occupational Licensing Is Unjust, Unneeded, and Increases Income Inequality | Lawrence J. McQuillan
 
marke said:
I think licensing overall has many positive aspects, but sometimes the requirements are unnecessarily restrictive in some aspects for wrong reasons, commonly as a result of professional greed on the part of those already licensed.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

When it gets to the point that a license is required to do certain braiding of hair, or building of coffins, and so many other ordinary things, it's gone too far.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Agreed!

When it gets to the point that a license is required to do certain braiding of hair, or building of coffins, and so many other ordinary things, it's gone too far.
Click to expand...

But in the OP, Friedman starts out by attacking the licensing of medicine, not hair-braiding. That really makes me question his sanity.

I have never really understood these extreme conservative positions. But I always assumed that it was because I needed to study them more. But listening to this talk above, I’m starting to realize the positions may really be as patently ridiculous and crazy as they sound.
 
ataraxia said:
But in the OP, Friedman starts out by attacking the licensing of medicine, not hair-braiding. That really makes me question his sanity.

I have never really understood these extreme conservative positions. But I always assumed that it was because I needed to study them more. But listening to this talk above, I’m starting to realize the positions may really be as patently ridiculous and crazy as they sound.
Click to expand...

I used to pour all over their literature. They think property rights are the basis for human rights which is why the chicago boys were able to declare victory under Pinochet’s nightmarish regime. Not only was it a hellhole of savagery but it was also economically crappy too for wage earners.
 
bomberfox said:
I used to pour all over their literature. They think property rights are the basis for human rights which is why the chicago boys were able to declare victory under Pinochet’s nightmarish regime. Not only was it a hellhole of savagery but it was also economically crappy too for wage earners.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. Below is a cute little spoof of their position. I used to think this was too much of an oversimplification and caricature of their position. But it's actually not that far off the mark from what they are advocating. It's funny because, like all good comedy, it's uncomfortably close to the truth:

L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department | The New Yorker
 
ataraxia said:
But in the OP, Friedman starts out by attacking the licensing of medicine, not hair-braiding. That really makes me question his sanity.
Click to expand...

He explains why at 3:25 - it's because it's the most difficult one to attack.

Occupational licensing does the same thing unions do: they create labor cartels, which is great for the members of the cartel, but they are really bad for the rest of society.

I'm not going to go into detail here, but there are many, many ways to assess quality beside licensing.
 
ataraxia said:
I don’t know. If I need brain surgery and someone is going to open my skull and poke around in there, I want to see that license on the wall.
Click to expand...

Arguing extremes isn't helpful. Now do Taxi licenses in NYC, or hair dressers.
 
jmotivator said:
Arguing extremes isn't helpful. Now do Taxi licenses in NYC, or hair dressers.
Click to expand...

You are correct that arguing extremes is not helpful. I agree that taxi drivers and hairdressers do not need licensing. And yet by arguing against medical licensure, it seems to me that is exactly what Friedman is doing here.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Agreed!

When it gets to the point that a license is required to do certain braiding of hair, or building of coffins, and so many other ordinary things, it's gone too far.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much California pays its municipal lawn mowing licensing officials each year and if maybe that is contributing to their billions of dollars in debt problems.
 
ataraxia said:
You are correct that arguing extremes is not helpful. I agree that taxi drivers and hairdressers do not need licensing. And yet by arguing against medical licensure, it seems to me that is exactly what Friedman is doing here.
Click to expand...

Well, I also don't know off hand a single time that piece of paper on a wall has saved anyone.

Do you care more that they passed a standardized government test, or the professional associations, college degrees and prestige of colleges?
 
aociswundumho said:
He explains why at 3:25 - it's because it's the most difficult one to attack.

Occupational licensing does the same thing unions do: they create labor cartels, which is great for the members of the cartel, but they are really bad for the rest of society.

I'm not going to go into detail here, but there are many, many ways to assess quality beside licensing.
Click to expand...

Actually, I hear this all the time. And yet I have never seen any convincing alternatives. I would be happy if you could provide at least some basic bullet points for how this could be done.

This reminds me a little bit of the removal of FDA on the over-the-counter drug industry. This was Orrin Hatch’s idea: that if you removed government oversight and regulation of the industry, the free market would ensure quality. Well, the result is that the over-the-counter (OTC) drug market is a complete mess now. More than half of the ingredients now marketed on OTC products at the supermarket are false or misleading. You may think you are buying vitamins or fish oil, but it is not at all clear that’s what’s actually in the bottle. It’s clear the free market alone clearly cannot address these quality control issues.

For the OTC market, it’s not that important. But can you imagine wheeling in a loved one to the emergency room at 2 AM with an acute heart attack, and the drugs that they get are not regulated, and it is not even clear that even the attending physician there is licensed? Is that really the kind of “free” country you want to live in?
 
aociswundumho said:
Here's a hilarious twitter thread explaining why government regulation + local jackboots = a much poorer and less free country.

https://twitter.com/hcsosheriff/status/1224710945911558147


Occupational licensing has always been a racket:


Click to expand...


It really depends on the occupation and who is doing the licensing or certification. General practices shouldn't require a license or certification, but more specific practices should. For example, if you are looking for a software developer to write a program, they should not be required to obtain a license or certification stating that they know programming. However, if you are looking for a software developer who specializes in the Microsoft Operating System then you would be best served to hire a Microsoft Certified Professional to ensure a certain level of competence.

The same is also true for medicine. Anyone with medical knowledge should be able to help others who are in need without a license or certification, but if there is a specific medical complaint then a licensed or certified professional in that specific field would be preferred. If someone doesn't have the required medical knowledge, but attempts to help someone anyway, they could be opening themselves up to a liability suit. Medical licensing sprang into existence in order to combat wide-spread medical malpractice. Personally, I would prefer not to return to the days of the snake-oil salesmen.
 
Glitch said:
It really depends on the occupation and who is doing the licensing or certification.
Click to expand...

Licensing and certification are completely different. I have no problem with certification, even government certification, because it does not restrict entry into the field by non-certified persons.

For example, the government could offer certification for plumbers, perhaps by passing a test, documented experience and/or training etc. and then plumbers who pass could advertise themselves as certified and the market would decide how much more money a certified plumber could charge. But it would not prevent people from hiring plumbers who were not certified.

The same is also true for medicine. Anyone with medical knowledge should be able to help others who are in need without a license or certification, but if there is a specific medical complaint then a licensed or certified professional in that specific field would be preferred. If someone doesn't have the required medical knowledge, but attempts to help someone anyway, they could be opening themselves up to a liability suit. Medical licensing sprang into existence in order to combat wide-spread medical malpractice. Personally, I would prefer not to return to the days of the snake-oil salesmen.
Click to expand...

No, Friedman has done extensive research in this area. It was the AMA who pushed for licensing, not consumers. There's a pdf describing how it all came about, but I can't find it right now, I'm at work. I'll post a link to it when I find it.
 
marke said:
Licensing provides many advantages, guarantees a certain level of experience and training and so forth, but excessive licensing or unnecessary requirements for licenses can also be bad for the economy. California, for example, requires tree trimmers in business to have four years of occupational training. If an illegal alien cuts down a neighbor's tree for $100 he can go to jail for not having a license. He may not be jailed for being in the country illegally but in some states he had better make sure he arrives with a pocket full of money if he expects to do work for a living, because if he performs a service for which he is not licensed he can face serious consequences. California even licenses lawn care workers. That is government licensing run amok.
Click to expand...

How about this, the new tree trimmer apprentices with an experienced tree trimmer as part of his crew for several years to learn the trade, the problems and good solutions. He won't need a pocket full of money, or much in the way of equipment. At the end of the apprenticeship the new tree trimmer gets a certificate and as saved enough money to apply for his own license. Much better than deciding lower standards are the answer.

Hell if I want just some guy with a chain saw showing up to cut down major limbs around my house.

Now I have to ask, you never seem to be on the side of illegal immigrants, but you do seem to want unlicensed workers. An odd combination.

Here in Oklahoma, after major storms, 'gypsy' roofers and minor home repair crews swarm in, get half upfront and leave or fail to get the proper permits, have the proper permits, do unsafe work, leave a hot mess that won't pass inspections, and leave hard working homeowners with a massive mess and a YUGE hole in their bank accounts.

An untrained unlicensed lawn care team can use certain herbicides improperly and blight a large section of the neighborhoods greenery. Here there is a cut off date for using 2,4,D. It can travel miles and blight spouting cotton plants, hurt yield and piss off farmers.

I'll take licensed for 200 Alex... :peace
 
ataraxia said:
Actually, I hear this all the time. And yet I have never seen any convincing alternatives. I would be happy if you could provide at least some basic bullet points for how this could be done.
Click to expand...

For labor, consider companies like Cisco, which offers networking certifications:

Cisco certifications - Wikipedia

For products consider private firms like Underwriter Laboratories, which certifies products for safety:

UL (safety organization) - Wikipedia

Both of these organizations rely on reputation for their success. If their certifications stop providing value, the market will soon kill them off. That's as it should be.
 
And almost everybody that complains about licensing then turns around and hires a licensed person to do important things for them.
 
notquiteright said:
How about this, the new tree trimmer apprentices with an experienced tree trimmer as part of his crew for several years to learn the trade, the problems and good solutions. He won't need a pocket full of money, or much in the way of equipment. At the end of the apprenticeship the new tree trimmer gets a certificate and as saved enough money to apply for his own license. Much better than deciding lower standards are the answer.

Hell if I want just some guy with a chain saw showing up to cut down major limbs around my house.

Now I have to ask, you never seem to be on the side of illegal immigrants, but you do seem to want unlicensed workers. An odd combination.

Here in Oklahoma, after major storms, 'gypsy' roofers and minor home repair crews swarm in, get half upfront and leave or fail to get the proper permits, have the proper permits, do unsafe work, leave a hot mess that won't pass inspections, and leave hard working homeowners with a massive mess and a YUGE hole in their bank accounts.

An untrained unlicensed lawn care team can use certain herbicides improperly and blight a large section of the neighborhoods greenery. Here there is a cut off date for using 2,4,D. It can travel miles and blight spouting cotton plants, hurt yield and piss off farmers.

I'll take licensed for 200 Alex... :peace
Click to expand...

There would be no requirements for licenses in some of these crafts if not for those who think those crafts should be licensed. Those who favor licensing of some crafts no doubt do not worry about how those restrictions affect those on the bottom rungs of wages and earnings. Americans have not always required lawn workers to be licensed and very few states require it now.
 
CaughtInThe said:
And almost everybody that complains about licensing then turns around and hires a licensed person to do important things for them.
Click to expand...

The best crane operator I ever had did not have a license when he began operating cranes but when licensing requirements became mandatory he could not get licensed because there was some of the aspects of the math and theory he struggled with. My crane operator never had an accident with a crane in his life. On the other hand, a licensed crane operator for a competitor caused over a million dollars damage in one accident which was his fault.

Many state licensing boards have the good sense to grandfather in old pros who had been in the trade long before the more modern introduction of licensing. That just illustrates the fact that, while licensing may be good, it does not guarantee success or expertise.
 
marke said:
There would be no requirements for licenses in some of these crafts if not for those who think those crafts should be licensed. Those who favor licensing of some crafts no doubt do not worry about how those restrictions affect those on the bottom rungs of wages and earnings. Americans have not always required lawn workers to be licensed and very few states require it now.
Click to expand...

That addresses NONE of the points I made. Making sure the person doing the work is TRAINED, INSURED, and EXPERIENCED is the point. Again the 'lower rungs of wages and earnings' can enter the job market as an apprentice... what's so wrong with working for someone to learn the trade? You think owning a chainsaw makes you a good tree trimmer?

Americans have not always required water be certified safe, but repeated waves of cholera in big cities made the need obvious. Your one drum beat reminds me of Reagan's naïve desire to allow any guy to be a one man taxi company- how regulations stopped enterprise.

Well he quietly dropped that little ditty (he had a bunch of them didn't he???) when it was pointed out the problems like proper insurance and back round checks so the cabbie meets at least the minimum safety check.

Aren't there enough examples of mistaken Uber drivers?

It is more than a couple of lawn mowers and a weed eater to be lawn maintenance. Having had many discussions on a variety of topics I just don't see you as a champion of the 'lower rungs'... :peace
 
aociswundumho said:
Licensing and certification are completely different. I have no problem with certification, even government certification, because it does not restrict entry into the field by non-certified persons.

For example, the government could offer certification for plumbers, perhaps by passing a test, documented experience and/or training etc. and then plumbers who pass could advertise themselves as certified and the market would decide how much more money a certified plumber could charge. But it would not prevent people from hiring plumbers who were not certified.
Click to expand...

Wait what? You can't hire a non-certified plumber now? Huh. I never knew. I have never checked.



No, Friedman has done extensive research in this area. It was the AMA who pushed for licensing, not consumers. There's a pdf describing how it all came about, but I can't find it right now, I'm at work. I'll post a link to it when I find it.
Click to expand...

So if you're being wheeled in to the emergency department at 2 am with crushing chest pain and wondering if it's a heart attack, do you really want to be guessing if the guy in the white coat standing over you with the paddles is licensed or not?
 
ataraxia said:
But in the OP, Friedman starts out by attacking the licensing of medicine, not hair-braiding. That really makes me question his sanity.

I have never really understood these extreme conservative positions. But I always assumed that it was because I needed to study them more. But listening to this talk above, I’m starting to realize the positions may really be as patently ridiculous and crazy as they sound.
Click to expand...

That is a good point you raise.

I support Institute for Justice and therefore receive their quarterly report. They take on many cases, and usually win, regarding unfair and absurd licensing schemes in many local jurisdictions. I support their efforts.

Regarding the licensing of physicians, I agree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom