I spent my working life as a licensed professional but I question whether licensing still serves the public or if it is just a tool for maintaining a monopoly.Presumably, licensing is to protect the public from unqualified practitioners but is that protection worth the higher costs of restricting the supply of services?
In this day of reputation monitoring services and active litigation, what does licensing by the State do that Liability Insurers cannot do better? Insurers profit best by insuring as many qualified professionals as possible(more premiums) but by not insuring those who will cause them malpractice losses. That would seem to align with the public’s interest better than State licensing, which is typically captured by those already licensed.
I’m going fishing but it will be interesting to see what people think when I get back.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“During my working years, I benefited from the state enforcing rigorous standards and barriers to entry for my profession. Now that I enjoy what appears to be a comfortable retirement, maybe we should go back to the days of the barber/dentist/surgeon, which will necessarily lead to pain and suffering, but it would be cheaper, and the invisible hand will eventually sort all that out. Anyway, I’m off to go fishing!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reasons for occupational licensing are justified in “some” instances, but the excessive application of such requirements is a money making scam that blocks way too many people, particularly the poor, from being able to make a living or progress in their use of a money making skill (cutting hair as an example, high school degree; really??).
Many of the requirements are pure nonsense that defy reason or rational explanation.
LikeLike
My wife is a hair stylist. The licensing is mostly hygiene related. They mix chemicals, dispose of a ton of human hair, and have to be able to spot contagious skin conditions. You would not want to go to an unlicensed salon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve gone to many unlicensed “salons” and to suggest that one has to be licensed to be hygienic is simply not true. Nor is licensing any type of guarantee that protocols will be followed.
As many as two-thirds of those who visit “licensed” salons report resulting health impacts that included skin problems, fungal infections and respiratory symptoms.
LikeLike
How does licensing accomplish those ends better, or as well as, liability insurance?
You would not want to go to an uninsured salon. Absent licensing, salons would want to display their insurance certificate, as that is proof that the insurer, who would have to pay damages were someone harmed, has determined their practices are safe.
As an example, I have a Pilot’s Certificate, though I haven’t flown in years. But all I would have to do to be licensed to fly, with non-paying passengers, would be to take a check ride with an instructor,and demonstrate that I remember how to fly and have him note that in my logbook.
But to get insurance for an airplane I would fly, I would have to demonstrate many hours of recent experience and recurrent training. The requirements for getting insurance as a pilot are many times more strict than the licensing requirements, because the insurer has money at risk while the flight instructor does not.
LikeLike
You brought up an interesting point.
Suppose you needed proof of insurance to own a gun. The background check by the insurance company would be pretty comprehensive. And I would think that proof of competency would involve a bit more than just which end the bullet exits. Safe storage in the home would be checked out as well. Finally, the insurer would damn well make sure that whomever you sold or gave the gun to would be approved by them just in case it was used in a crime or picked up by a child and you did not report it missing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Suppose you needed proof of insurance to post a blog.
But you don’t, because that would infringe on your freedom of speech.
LikeLike
The experience I have has to do with a customer. About 2 years ago a lady came in who was relamping her entire house. She had the specifications for all of the fixtures she was having installed with a list of bulbs for each fixture (All LED’s). I tried to explain to her that some of the bulbs she was ordering were too soft in light color temperature to be suitable for the application. She explained the list came from a “lighting designer” and would not deviate from what was listed. The customer is always right, so I processed what she wanted, special ordered what was not normal stock and she paid over $1,100 for her bulbs. Two weeks after she got everything installed, she came back and told me that she hated the light bulbs and would I take any of the back. No can do. I also tried to explain I told her so without saying I told her so. She left in a huff when it was the “lighting designer” who was at fault.
Now I don’t believe that lighting designers require licensing. You could print up a bunch of business cards claiming to be one and the consumer is stuck when you have no clue.
I am not saying that ALL professions should be licensed by the state. But the idea is to protect consumers. While some of the current required professions could probably be left off, the general idea is consumer protection. Not necessarily a bad idea. – IMHO
LikeLike
The main benefit of licensing v. insurability is faster response for consumer protection. The state can close down an unlicensed business quickly.
In the other hand, if someone unqualified, insured or not, does damage it could years of civil litigation and others damaged too.
Reality plays a hand also. The online reputation sites are not that reliable. Plus, most working Americans with families have little time to verify every service they might need.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My question would be, What public good does professional licensing serve?
Supposedly, there’s a public benefit such that licensing improves the efficiency of commerce: Where buyers can assume that all licensed suppliers meet common standards of competency, markets will operate more efficiently. But it is not obvious that the benefit is worth the cost, or that the public should pay more in taxes to receive it.
After all, there are many ways professionals can demonstrate their competence without licensing: college degrees, training certifications, membership in professional societies, experience, word of mouth, etc. The benefit of more efficient markets is probably an illusion.
Supposedly, too, there’s a public benefit such that licensing deters undesirable outcomes in the marketplace. But this, too, is probably an illusion, since the ratio of good professionals to bad ones is likely the same with or without licensing.
Ultimately, professional licensing is nothing more than the use of force to control the means of production. As such it is prone to abuse in all the same ways that all government licensing is. Think of marriage licenses, for example. It’s not hard to imagine all kind of public benefits associated with marriage licenses, but the government has a long history of abusing them.
LikeLike