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

[Neomalthusian]

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:

The basis of his argument is that cartel tactics should be opposed, and since professional licensing has a restrictive effect on the number of people who could conceivably say they offer a particular service, professional licensing has cartel-like characteristics. I agree in spirit with Friedman's skepticism of professional licensing or any other thing that could serve to constrain the supply of sellers in order to keep prices higher. Labor unions are actual cartels, and they proudly admit that their purpose is to require buyers of their labor to only buy from people they represent. This is decidedly different because unions aren't government agencies looking to regulate the quality or qualifications of a certain type of work. They're private entities admittedly looking to intentionally limit supply to their members in order to push prices as high as possible.

I think Friedman is too skeptical. I think the government has a legitimate interest in regulating the practice of law before its courts, for example, and Supreme Court has agreed with that repeatedly. In terms of enabling the regulation of the practice of medicine via licensing, the government's broad provision for health care (via Medicare and Medicaid) compels it to ensure that it isn't disbursing money from the Treasury to fakers and con-men who are pretending to practice medicine. To provide for health care without regulating it, it would even create an environment ripe for collusion between patients and doctors. "You pretend to be sick, I'll pretend to treat you, we'll split the payout." Without any regulatory power over the practice of medicine, government provision for health care becomes ripe for fraud and waste. Of course, Friedman would just shrug and say "that's why government shouldn't pay for any health care," but this is 2020, good luck convincing the nation to abolish Medicare and Medicaid.

I also think that, just in the interests of reducing the immense volume of court proceedings that would result from consumers feeling wronged by ill-trained, deceptive sellers of certain services, it has some legitimate interests in setting a baseline minimum standard for being able to sell services in its jurisdiction.

If professional associations were starting to become successful at actually capping or limiting the issuance of certain licenses even when prerequisites are met, then I think that would be a more glaring indication of a problem.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Arguing extremes isn't helpful. Now do Taxi licenses in NYC, or hair dressers.

Hairdressers do not need licensing? Seriously?

First, someone flailing around your head, face, and eyes with sharp scissors and razors needs to know what the F*** they are doing. Don't even get me started on the various caustic and dangerous chemicals they use, again around the face and eyes.

Now, if you go to someone who holds themselves out as a competent hairdresser (cosmetologist) and they are not licensed by a regulatory body, if they injure you, your only recourse is to sue the unlicensed practitioner. If they have no assets, you have no recourse whatsoever. You can live with your injuries and pound sand. And that person is free to continue harming others.

If they are licensed, it means that the state has determined that the practitioner has attained the requisite appropriate education, has demonstrated by practical exam that they are indeed knowledgeable and skilled in the essential aspects of their responsibilities and their career is dependent on them adhering to the laws and regulations of the profession. Their license can be revoked and they can otherwise be sanctioned by the state, including criminal charges if the offense warrants. Many states also require cosmetologists to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance to cover any untoward incident. It's about protecting the public.

I realize that many regulatory boards can become little more than protection rackets. This recently came to light in Nevada regarding the state board of dental examiners. Fortunately, we have a free press, and the state's largest newspaper ran an investigative report that showed the board seemed more interested in covering for dentists that were committing malpractice. The governor read the series and looked into it himself. Based on his findings, he fired the entire board and put a new board in place with much more increased scrutiny, including from the state attorney general.

 

[jmotivator]

Hairdressers do not need licensing? Seriously?

First, someone flailing around your head, face, and eyes with sharp scissors and razors needs to know what the F*** they are doing. Don't even get me started on the various caustic and dangerous chemicals they use, again around the face and eyes.

Now, if you go to someone who holds themselves out as a competent hairdresser (cosmetologist) and they are not licensed by a regulatory body, if they injure you, your only recourse is to sue the unlicensed practitioner. If they have no assets, you have no recourse whatsoever. You can live with your injuries and pound sand. And that person is free to continue harming others.

If they are licensed, it means that the state has determined that the practitioner has attained the requisite appropriate education, has demonstrated by practical exam that they are indeed knowledgeable and skilled in the essential aspects of their responsibilities and their career is dependent on them adhering to the laws and regulations of the profession. Their license can be revoked and they can otherwise be sanctioned by the state, including criminal charges if the offense warrants. Many states also require cosmetologists to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance to cover any untoward incident. It's about protecting the public.

The license doesn't make you safe, nor do you have recourse with the state licensing board if they issue a license to someone who injures you. It doesn't help you even a little. It is a conduit for money into the state coffers and that's about it.

Out of interest, can you think of any offense by a hair dresser that the state licensing board would bring criminal charges for rather than the police that aren't just self-serving enforcement of the license?

I realize that many regulatory boards can become little more than protection rackets. This recently came to light in Nevada regarding the state board of dental examiners. Fortunately, we have a free press, and the state's largest newspaper ran an investigative report that showed the board seemed more interested in covering for dentists that were committing malpractice. The governor read the series and looked into it himself. Based on his findings, he fired the entire board and put a new board in place with much more increased scrutiny, including from the state attorney general.

I think most of them are a protection racket to some extent.

I think the one license that has the most value is a Law license. That actually has a rigorous practical examination to earn it. Most of them are just sold like a commodity.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The license doesn't make you safe, nor do you have recourse with the state licensing board if they issue a license to someone who injures you. It doesn't help you even a little. It is a conduit for money into the state coffers and that's about it.

Out of interest, can you think of any offense by a hair dresser that the state licensing board would bring criminal charges for rather than the police that aren't just self-serving enforcement of the license?



I think most of them are a protection racket to some extent.

I think the one license that has the most value is a Law license. That actually has a rigorous practical examination to earn it. Most of them are just sold like a commodity.

You're wrong. Licensing boards can and do assess damages for injured parties. Their findings can also be used in support of civil damages. Many licenses require vigorous practical exams. Certified Public Accountants take a very vigorous practical exam, as do dentists and dental hygienists and cosmetologists, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, etc, etc.

We have an attorney in Nevada who is serving a long prison sentence because he absconded with many of his clients' life savings that he was entrusted with. He was referred for prosecution by the state bar. I'm not that familiar with the fiduciary responsibilities of cosmetologists. There was a physician who died in prison after it was found that he was reusing single use vials of medications used during colonoscopies. Several patients contracted hepatitis from his practice and at least one died. Several RNs who were aware of his unethical and irresponsible behavior and did not report it also lost their licenses.

Sorry, but your argument that anyone ought to be allowed to simply hang out a shingle and offer services in fields that potentially could harm the public is weak. You ever had a barber hold a straight razor to your throat? You don't care if he is qualified to wield that blade?

 

[aociswundumho]

Sorry, but your argument that anyone ought to be allowed to simply hang out a shingle and offer services in fields that potentially could harm the public is weak.

Only if you view the state as a metaphorical mommy designed to protect adults from making their own decisions.

You ever had a barber hold a straight razor to your throat? You don't care if he is qualified to wield that blade?

No, I don't. It's my concern, not yours. My guess is you can't even run your own life, so perhaps you should stop trying to control who other people may hire.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You're wrong. Licensing boards can and do assess damages for injured parties. Their findings can also be used in support of civil damages. Many licenses require vigorous practical exams. Certified Public Accountants take a very vigorous practical exam, as do dentists and dental hygienists and cosmetologists, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, etc, etc.

We have an attorney in Nevada who is serving a long prison sentence because he absconded with many of his clients' life savings that he was entrusted with. He was referred for prosecution by the state bar. I'm not that familiar with the fiduciary responsibilities of cosmetologists. There was a physician who died in prison after it was found that he was reusing single use vials of medications used during colonoscopies. Several patients contracted hepatitis from his practice and at least one died. Several RNs who were aware of his unethical and irresponsible behavior and did not report it also lost their licenses.

Sorry, but your argument that anyone ought to be allowed to simply hang out a shingle and offer services in fields that potentially could harm the public is weak. You ever had a barber hold a straight razor to your throat? You don't care if he is qualified to wield that blade?

Just added the links.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Only if you view the state as a metaphorical mommy designed to protect adults from making their own decisions.



No, I don't. It's my concern, not yours. My guess is you can't even run your own life, so perhaps you should stop trying to control who other people may hire.

So you think that the mother who takes her sick child to a physician is not entitled to any protections? If her kid dies because of something the doctor did (or failed to do) that's her problem?

Something tells me you're not a big fan of building codes, either. If a skyscraper collapses with thousands of people inside, you would argue that the state had no business licensing the contractors or establishing construction standards.

 

[aociswundumho]

So you think that the mother who takes her sick child to a physician is not entitled to any protections? If her kid dies because of something the doctor did (or failed to do) that's her problem?

She's entitled to check out the physician's training and experience just like anything else. Government licensing is no guarantee of quality, anyone in any licensed industry will tell you that.

Again, the state isn't your mommy, and it shouldn't be dictating who you may hire. You're an adult, make your own decisions.

Something tells me you're not a big fan of building codes, either. If a skyscraper collapses with thousands of people inside, you would argue that the state had no business licensing the contractors or establishing construction standards.

Yes. Engineering standards are overwhelmingly a product of the market, not politics.

 

[Vadinho]

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.

You hit it on the head here. Milton was an incredible economist but he was also an ideologue. You cannot separate Milton the economist from Milton the ideologue. I heard a radio debate with him and the Minister of NHS in the UK debate socialized medicine in the early 50s. Milton said it was akin to communism and was unnecessary because the health care industry was something like 3% of GDP at the time. He went on and on about the horrors of nationalized health care saying the markets are better solution providers. IMHO, Milton Friedman was the most dangerous and powerful man in the world for about 20 years or so. His influence upon economics and graduate programs cannot be understated. He said choice solves everything. Well here we are decades later and we do have choices, work for nothing or don't work at all.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

She's entitled to check out the physician's training and experience just like anything else. Government licensing is no guarantee of quality, anyone in any licensed industry will tell you that.

Again, the state isn't your mommy, and it shouldn't be dictating who you may hire. You're an adult, make your own decisions.



Yes. Engineering standards are overwhelmingly a product of the market, not politics.

How might a mother, who has no understanding of medical qualifications, and no means of determining whether a doctor is a quack, particularly if there are no standards for medical training or accreditation of medical schools, check out a doctor?

So my house is built to stringent codes, but my neighbor's house is not. His house explodes due to faulty gas lines, he dies and the inferno destroys my house in the process. I guess that is my problem. I obviously did something wrong. I should have personally educated myself on gas line construction and somehow prevented my neighbor from building his house poorly. Even if he built his house long before I built mine or was even in the neighborhood.

You see no benefit to enforced standards of construction.

Your argument is idiotic.

 

[Geoist]

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.

A fair point. I think the taxi industry racket is a classic example of using licensing to protect favored companies from competition. Licensing has its place but like anything else we should be guarded against abuse.

 

[notquiteright]

She's entitled to check out the physician's training and experience just like anything else. Government licensing is no guarantee of quality, anyone in any licensed industry will tell you that. Again, the state isn't your mommy, and it shouldn't be dictating who you may hire. You're an adult, make your own decisions. Yes. Engineering standards are overwhelmingly a product of the market, not politics.

Typed like a true ideolog who knows full well the regulatory agencies are there due to past abuse and deaths. It is absurd to think you can forgo licensing and do your own research. Stop and think about it. How do you 'check-out' a doctor??? Ask your neighbor??? Ask Yelp??? :roll:

Why not remove federal banking regulators, no FDIC, no certifications. While you are at it, no FEC, no driver's license, no teacher certifications...

Now you are absurdly wrong to claim engineering standards are 'overwhelmingly a product of the market (whatever that means), not politics (think you meant government building codes)

From sea to shining sea building codes are the result of 'politics' government regulation has protected citizens from 'the market'

From fire escape codes for hotels- and we see the difference between more modern buildings and older ones exempt from sprinkler systems, to earthquake standards out west. Back east new engineering standards for hurricane protection, flood zone standards, beach codes, and a myriad of others for wiring, escape windows in bedrooms, fire resistance construction...

All of these are not for the market but by government upping the engineering standards. I get the libertarian ideology, it works best on the internet. In real life none of us have the time, training, or resources to research everyone in our daily lives... eace

 

[aociswundumho]

Typed like a true ideolog who knows full well the regulatory agencies are there due to past abuse and deaths.

No, they are not. Licensing has always come from industry groups lobbying for it in order to restrict competition. There has never been pressure from the general public for licensing. All licensing does is restrict your choices, and you don't benefit when your choices are restricted.

 

[notquiteright]

No, they are not. Licensing has always come from industry groups lobbying for it in order to restrict competition. There has never been pressure from the general public for licensing. All licensing does is restrict your choices, and you don't benefit when your choices are restricted.

No Sir, once again you substitute your own reality to support your ideology. Licensing came about because anyone with a slick line portrayed themselves as experts in their field. Even today we have storm chasing roofers. There can be abuse of any system, but it is simply untrue 'industry lobbying groups' started licensing to limit competition-which it doesn't- the majors still cut into each other, sometimes ruthlessly- it doesn't inhibit NEW players in the game, players like Uber have changed the game- so much for restricting anything. You might say it forces innovation and not blind copying.

If restricting choices keeps you from unsuspectingly making a bad choice then the restriction is a benefit. Ideologs only want you to consider one side of the card, the biggest failing of such folks, the refusal to consider another opinion- and a willingness to invent 'facts' to support a flawed premise.

But you can't defend your 'libertarian' BS. You think the average citizen can take time to wade through a maze of names to find a reliable doctor, teacher, plumber, dentist, contractor, lawyer, banker, investment advisor.... seriously??? Obviously you haven't tried and like the rest of rely on the certification system to cull out the weeds...

You also dodge away from engineering standards that have raised the bar in safety. Most engineering standards are based in advances in technology and safety. DESIGN is influenced by market forces.

Like Milton, to follow your path you have to re-invent history and hope no one calls you on it... eace

 

[aociswundumho]

If restricting choices keeps you from unsuspectingly making a bad choice then the restriction is a benefit.

People make thousands of unsuspectingly bad choices throughout their lives, from choosing unhealthy foods to eat, smoking cigarettes, drinking to much, voting for Democrats, participating in dangerous sports without properly assessing the risks, marrying the wrong person, and on and on and on. Why shouldn't the state restrict their choices in these areas as well if the restrictions will benefit them?

You also dodge away from engineering standards that have raised the bar in safety.

"raising the bar in safety" isn't always worth the trade-offs, which is why you don't want a government bureaucrat determining the height of the bar in the first place.

 

[notquiteright]

People make thousands of unsuspectingly bad choices throughout their lives, from choosing unhealthy foods to eat, smoking cigarettes, drinking to much, voting for Democrats, participating in dangerous sports without properly assessing the risks, marrying the wrong person, and on and on and on. Why shouldn't the state restrict their choices in these areas as well if the restrictions will benefit them? "raising the bar in safety" isn't always worth the trade-offs, which is why you don't want a government bureaucrat determining the height of the bar in the first place.

Now you're just flinging libertarian poop to disguise the real history of regulations, licensing, and certifications. Just because someone smokes doesn't mean it's ok to sell unsafe cars, firetrap buildings, dangerous drugs, sham doctors... :roll:

You want to argue that since there are several ways a person can make an unsuspecting bad choice there should be NO attempt to limit the deliberate attempts to harm such people by conmen- or Republicans- seems same same most days... :2wave:

Realistically no one wants to live in the pre-regulation world we once had. Not even libertarians- which is why their political lean is rarer than hen's teeth with as much bite. While many do carp at 'burdensome red tape' and 'government interference' every time the regulations are reduced to 'free up the invisible hand' the crap hits the fan... eace

 

[aociswundumho]

You want to argue that since there are several ways a person can make an unsuspecting bad choice there should be NO attempt to limit the deliberate attempts to harm such people by conmen- or Republicans- seems same same most days..

You claimed it benefits people when the government prevents them from making bad choices. Do you really believe it, or was it just empty leftist rhetoric?

.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Now you're just flinging libertarian poop to disguise the real history of regulations, licensing, and certifications. Just because someone smokes doesn't mean it's ok to sell unsafe cars, firetrap buildings, dangerous drugs, sham doctors... :roll:

You want to argue that since there are several ways a person can make an unsuspecting bad choice there should be NO attempt to limit the deliberate attempts to harm such people by conmen- or Republicans- seems same same most days... :2wave:

Realistically no one wants to live in the pre-regulation world we once had. Not even libertarians- which is why their political lean is rarer than hen's teeth with as much bite. While many do carp at 'burdensome red tape' and 'government interference' every time the regulations are reduced to 'free up the invisible hand' the crap hits the fan... eace

The majority of libertarians are simply typical Republicans that think its cooler to call themselves Libertarian. That doesn't describe all of them, but its the case with most of them. Personally, I don't trust anyone who's ideology has never been actually implemented in any country on earth. Hell even the communists have a better tract record than that.

Then again, I guess there are some "libertarian paradises" out there. Haiti comes to mind....

 

[Psychoclown]

I'm a libertarian, but when it comes to government licensing and safety regulations, I am a realist. A mistake by a medical professional, a legal professional, and probably a few other areas can seriously ruin a person's life. And its difficult to know for sure who's truly knowledgeable and trained and ethical. Licensing doesn't completely alleviate that, but it does help quite a bit.

But hair dressers, movers, taxi drivers, and tree trimmers. Those are trade skills. Some that could be learned on youtube nowadays. Licensing in these professions often leads to cartel-like practices, limiting who can enter the field (and therefor compete with those who already belong to the cartel). The worst was the state cosmetology board that demanded a woman who did African braiding get a cosmotology license even though their courses did not include any instruction on African braiding. I wonder what their motivation was for such a demand? ($$$$$) The fact is its unlikely anyone's life will be seriously impacted by a bad haircut or a dinged up dresser, but allowing people to freely and easily enter into these low cost, self employment situations can be a significant stepping stone towards economic mobility.

As for building codes, that is another good idea turned into a racket. Homes and buildings now are beyond safe, but the codes still get changed and updated, not out of any need for more safety but because new regulations means new work for all sorts of contractors who belong to massive labor unions who donate to the ones who oversee the regulations. Imagine that.

 

[notquiteright]

You claimed it benefits people when the government prevents them from making bad choices. Do you really believe it, or was it just empty leftist rhetoric?

No you attempt to frame it as a simple 'bad choice'. It is far from it. Your 'logic' would have no rules, regulations, safety equipment, stairs quality controls on food, medicine, banks, legal services, drinkable water, and the practice of damn near every profession we depend on but little understand.

People can always make bad choices but to allow open season on honest citizens and expect them to know how to tell a safely built home from a fire trap is asking too much- and that's why we have so few so-called 'libertarians' and even far fewer who practice what they peddle... eace

 

[notquiteright]

I'm a libertarian, but when it comes to government licensing and safety regulations, I am a realist. As for building codes, that is another good idea turned into a racket. Homes and buildings now are beyond safe, but the codes still get changed and updated, not out of any need for more safety but because new regulations means new work for all sorts of contractors who belong to massive labor unions who donate to the ones who oversee the regulations. Imagine that.

Maybe not the realist you think you are. My wife and I are in the process of building a custom home. Having walked through many communities being throw up modern homes can be far from safe. But please tell me how homes are beyond safe? Perhaps you are thinking of a different contractor than I deal with. No union driven 'regulations'. But a few examples of how the massive labor unions have warped the building codes would help here. I know before Hurricane Katrina anyone who could swing a hammer (or more like it a nail gun) could get a job. Insurance companies reviewing the debris discounted many claims due to extremely shoddy construction. New regulations have greatly increased safety- not union driven.

Anyway a few examples and less vague oft repeated claims would be nice... eace

 

[Mr Merble]

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.

Best position ever award
"I'm not going to go into detail here" works ever time

 

[Stealers Wheel]

As for building codes, that is another good idea turned into a racket. Homes and buildings now are beyond safe, but the codes still get changed and updated, not out of any need for more safety but because new regulations means new work for all sorts of contractors who belong to massive labor unions who donate to the ones who oversee the regulations. Imagine that.

November 1980. The MGM Hotel (Now Bally's Hotel) had a fire in which over 70 people died. The hotel was compliant in all current fire safety regulations, nevertheless a tragedy occurred.

They did a forensic analysis of that fire to determine the cause and come up with suggestions on how to avoid such a tragedy from happening in the future. They came to realize that their fire code at that time was inadequate to prevent it from happening again. The results were a significant upgrade to the building fire codes in Las Vegas. The reason those new codes were adopted and the required retrofits happened is because most people agreed that hotel fires that cause dozens of guests to lose their lives is bad for business - everyone's business.

 

[OscarLevant]

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:

yes and no. I think your reaction is borderline hyperbole.

Yes, Milton Friedman, who wrote Free To Choose, pretty much was ignored in the 20th century, living in the shadow of Paul Samuelson. I did a book report on that book in my English essay class back in the early 80s.

I agree with Milton Friedman on some libertarian ideals, such as making victimless crime legal ( drugs, prostitution, etc ) that "licensing" should be pertinent SOLELY to the knowledge and competent practice of the profession, and not done to "limit the number" of professionals. however, in professions that are easy to get into, if you don't license ( cabs, for example ) there will be too many of them such that no one in that profession will be able to make a living. Talk to any cab driver ( or Uber driver of late ) and they will explain it to you. I think, as is the case with many libertarian concepts, he ( and libertarians, in general ) have it about half right.

I don't buy the idea that physicians should not be licensed, but if they are limiting the number of doctors, when more are actually needed, a layman board should have oversight so that they can review whether or not unnecessary limiting is occurring ( but the lay board should not have oversight capability over competence and medical knowledge issues ).

Friedman is also a supporter of a negative income tax, which would replace welfare. I think that idea is worthy of study and serious consideration.

Here is an interesting article on Friedman.
Milton Friedman: a study in failure | Opinion | The Guardian

 

[OscarLevant]

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

Too bad Ayn Rand is not alive, I would have loved to see her reaction to this.