One explanation is that they're oriented towards businesses that tend to be sole proprietorships with super low capital requirements - anyone can potentially start running tours or cutting hair or interior decorating, without even renting a storefront. So, those kinds of businesses have much more of an incentive to use legislation to restrict entry, rather than relying on more "inherent" economic barriers. Relatively speaking, they have a higher payoff to lobbying than, say, a pizzeria that needs to invest a lot in ovens, rent, and payroll - if you can afford those, you can afford to either take Pizza Making 101 under a licensing regime, or more realistically fight the licensing regime itself.
How do you change that pattern given a democracy that responds to lobbying? Frankly I'm not sure, but trying to figure it out has a higher payoff than complaining about it.
But seriously, what's wrong with complaining? Maybe the author of the article doesn't have a good plan for fixing the problem, but what if one of their readers does? What if this "lazy complaining" article brought the issue to someone's attention who might not otherwise have thought about it, and that person has a great idea?
I mean, obviously it would better if the author had root-caused the problem with the legislation and suggested a clever way to push it the other direction. But... they didn't. So what?
HN is pretty dismissive when talking about jobs that other people do. Hair dressing isn't super hard, but it does require some skill and training. That's why hair dressers are currently on the list of desired professions for immigration into Australia, allowing people to enter Australia as a skilled professional.
I can write and sell books advising you to treat your cancer with organic kale and meditation. Following that advice will literally kill you. But I can't give you a tour of the national mall, because... Because what, exactly?
You can't protected all the people all the time, it's simply impossible (or would result in a dizzyingly oppressive Brave New World style situation). At some points, people need to take responsibility for what they do to themselves/let other people do to them, even if some people might suffer a chemical burn from a back alley untrained hairdresser occasionally as a result - just like people do all the time when they try to do these things to themselves at home, which of course is perfectly legal and not to my knowledge a source of many calls for licensing of the ownership and operation of a watertap and a plastic bucket?
Also, licencing hairdressers doesn't even prevent fuck ups from happening there, that's people with nontrivial haircuts (the group of hairdresser clients formerly known as women) pay so much for haircuts. They know that they're hard to get right, and that it matters that the hairdresser knows what they're doing. This is equally true in jurisdictions where hairdressers are licensed and where they are not.
When I saw another commenter's report on the two years of college required to get a cosmetology license in a certain US state, though, that level of education seemed to be quite a high requirement for someone who simply wanted to open a barber's shop.
In the UK, searching gov.uk for licenses[1], you need a license for selling alcohol, being a bouncer, driving a limousine, oil and gas exploration, being a gangmaster, dealing in precursor chemicals, having a cinema (in Northern Ireland), disturbing the seabed, various imports and exports eg arms, offshore carbon storage, distilling, taxis, irradiating food (in Scotland), running a betting shop, manufacturing explosives, growing hemp, tattooing, ... etc - most of which are fairly clearly due to specific historical situations, or what are probably fairly evidence based risks (tattooing).
There's an entire field that studies exactly this question: public choice theory.
I would say, band together and disobey the regime. Disobedience is risky at the individual level, but risk can be spread across large groups to make it tolerable, and worth the reward. Ignore, subvert, circumvent, and carry on business as usual to the highest degree possible until the regime collapses.
> A few years ago, Jestina Clayton started a hair braiding business in her home in Centerville, Utah. The business let her stay home with her kids, and in good months, she made enough to pay for groceries. She even put an ad on a local website. Then one day she got an email from a stranger who had seen the ad.
> "It is illegal in the state of Utah to do any form of extensions without a valid cosmetology license," the e-mail read. "Please delete your ad, or you will be reported."
> To get a license, Jestina would have to spend more than a year in cosmetology school. Tuition would cost $16,000 dollars or more.
That was my first thought. How many of these licenses have formal requirements for university or college tuition. Given the money bleeding tactics of tertiary education, it wouldn't surprise me to find their grubby finger prints behind legislative action to prop up their monopoly over the workforce.
Before enrolling in the cosmetology program, you have to complete these courses (number in parenthesis is number of credits):
Business and Personal Mathematics (5)
Human Relations in the Workplace (3)
English Composition (5)
Professional Career (2)
Cosmetology General Sciences (2)
Hair Care, Hairstyling & Haircutting (3)
Chemical Texture Services (2)
Cosmetology Lab Clinic I (12)
Hair Color (2)
Intermediate Haircutting (2)
Advanced Chemical Texture Services (2)
Cosmetology Skin Care (2)
Cosmetology Lab Clinic II (13)
Intermediate Hair Color (2)
Advanced Haircutting (2)
Nail Care (1)
Wigs, Braiding/Extensions (1)
Cosmetology Lab Clinic III (13)
Facial Makeup (1)
Cosmetology Lab Clinic IV (13)
Advanced Hair Coloring (2)
Business Skills I (1)
Cosmetology Lab Clinic V (13)
Business Skills (1)
State Board Preparation (4)
Tuition is $106.84/credit for Washington state residents. The above listed classes come to 109 credits, so $11645.56 tuition.
[1] http://www.olympic.edu/cosmetology-ata-associate-technical-a...
For many years there was a sense that what is electronic doesn't matter. That breaking into someone's computer is at best a game while breaking into someone's home is a crime. That hacking and disrupting a power plant is an annoyance while bombing it is an act of war.
But I think it is changing. Non-technical people now realise that software is massively important in our society, and the alarming pace of data breaches is giving a bad reputation to the industry. I think a system of licenses for developers is inevitable.
Philip K. Dick was also pretty oracle-like in this regard: "There will come a time when it isn't 'They're spying on me through my phone' anymore. Eventually, it will be 'My phone is spying on me'." He damn near predicted the advent of smartphones+CIQ in the '70s. I imagine he came up with that notion after writing A Scanner Darkly.
The closest I saw in my professional career to fixing this problem was at a shop which implemented ISO9000/TL9000 processes in such a way that anyone who signed off to approve a defect would have his career ruined. It seemed to work well for us.
Now that computers and electronics are directing and controlling processes and operations that have a potential to cause damage to life, property and economics, I think that at least certain areas of these "engineering" fields should require proof of competency before practice. We are drowning in stories about all kinds of defects from information leaks to process failures, and very few of the responsible parties have faced any consequences at all.
I've known people with CS degrees and half of them would throw you a blank stare at those words
> unintuitive software UI
Most licensed engineers are guilty of this
So make sure only those who have a magical paper and studied at fancy schools (where they probably will learn PHP, the basics of sql injection - oh wait, there are new vulnerabilities, but I don't have to worry about these because I didn't learn about them in school) can work on computing, I'm sure quality will shoot right up /s
I'm not looking forward that but do you have a better solution? The way the industry currently works is unsustainable. And I am not even talking about privacy invasion.
And that's great.
> That largely explains the number of sql injection vulnerabilities, unencrypted sensitive data, unintuitive software UI, unpatched servers, cross site scripting vulnerabilities, and other moronic software design decisions.
No, what explains that is market variety. You want a $200 Facebook clone, you get what you paid for. You want a well built iPhone app for $30000, you'll get what you paid for, probably. No regulations can protect clients from their moronic hiring decisions.
Yeah, probably. That's not nearly good enough. Not even close. There's an enormous list of extraordinarily expensive failures in the software industry. If I pay an actual professional a serious amount of money to do something for me, and it turns out they did a truly awful job (which is pretty common in the software industry), I expect to be able to claim recompense from their professional insurer and/or their professional licencing body. That's part of why I pay so much; the reassurance. Knowing I can rely on it.
Software, of course, has no such professional body, and exists in a twilight world of chancers and incompetents. Why should the software industry get away with knowingly producing crap and charging a fortune for it?
I'd be happy with a two tier approach; at the moment, if I want a wall built, I can pay a professional (with the expectations and protections that comes with the high price) or hire a day-labourer I met in the pub. There is no such choice in software.
Fortunately, only a small subset of jobs (radio and TV operations) require it, and the best graduates don't want to work those jobs anyway. Most engineering companies ignore it if it isn't legally required for the position. They instead look at where the applicant got their degree and relevant experience.
A large part of the problem I think is that screening thousands of engineering grads properly for engineering competence would be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming for the government, and no one wants to admit the system is broken.
I suspect any government initiative to regulate software development is going to run into similar problems. I wonder how the medical and legal industries do it.
Do they actually do it with any success? According to this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/2013/09/23/stunning-n..., medical errors represent the third leading cause of death in the United States. Medical licensing makes it hard to enter the industry, but it doesn't seem to do much good of forcing dangerously incompetent practitioners out of the industry.
There's a big problem of money-chasing hacks that spend minimal effort learning the skills they need so they can claim the profession. I don't want these people doing my hair or fixing my plumbing or doing my electricity. Sometimes I wish software engineering had an effective credentialing mechanism (that isn't university), because there's a lot of idiots in this field.
Or perhaps you mean violence === an expectation of pro-social behavior.
For the positions that might not be obvious why they require a license I wonder how many are because someone fucked up and caused a problem? Probably more than you might think. They generally just don't make rules up.
So maybe 10% of jobs that require a license (3% of overall jobs) actually need to be addressed. You'd never know that reading this piece. Reading this piece you are left with a sense of outrage the government is bad, why are they messing with people blah blah blah instead of an actionable list.
Let's fix the list, but realize that this is a political body writing this with specific goals probably paid for by a deep pocket interest.
I'm interested to know why you (I assume) think licensing teachers is a bad idea.
I would like this strengthened to include that the individual is sound on a psychological or psychiatric level, since many teachers work with children. True story, I faced a lot of abuse during my childhood and so was in therapy to deal with it. Waiting to see the therapist one day, I got to stare down an abusive former teacher who happened to be in the waiting room, waiting for psychiatric services. Since her employer manages its own health insurance, they knew about this person's history of psychiatric problems because they paid the costs for her services. But the local teachers union has made it so that unless you actually rape a child during class, there's no chance of being fired from the school board.
[1] http://www.economist.com/node/18678963?story_id=18678963&fsr...
But two years and $10,000? What planet do these legislators think they're on?
(Licensingindustrylobbyus, probably)
I think the argument for some of these licenses is that if the licensee screws up you can report them to a proper government agency who will investigate them. If a cab driver refuses service for a discriminatory reason in my town he can be reported to the the taxi cab bureau, or if my barber has unsanitary practices to health and human services.
It's a little more dangerous than you might immediately think. You're working with sharp blades and hot objects.
Edit: Oh, apparently, there's a serious risk of disease transmission. I hadn't considered that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2549477
0. http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/About-to-be-silenced-S-F...
1. http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_s...
2. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-offer...
3. http://pando.com/2014/01/02/uber-driver-hits-kills-6-year-ol...
Correction: Most of these licenses arise because those in the industry want to create a barrier to entry and use examples of morons doing their job poorly as evidence of need.
In many of these cases, the public has a strong enough interest to justify licensing requirements. E.g., it would be impractical to eliminate CDLs, licensing for food prep/barbers, etc.
Once these licensing requirements exist, it's easier to justify increasing requirements as a way of increasing the barrier to entry.
From the article: "In fact, across all states, interior designers, barbers, cosmetologists, and manicurists all face greater average licensing requirements than do EMTs".
Three useful questions to ask when situations like this arise are: - As opposed to what? - At what cost? - Is there any evidence?
Do the regulations actually protect both sides of the agreement?
So this seems less totally insane than it might.
Any additional checks are above and beyond this and other basic requirements.
Of course, there's a good reason that both exist in food prep. Downgrading a restaurant only after the typhoid outbreak isn't really serving the best interest of the public. And continuous monitoring/enforcement is too expensive.
You would not believe the number of unnecessary holes in my house directly caused by a single plumber's mate (defined: guy willing to work for £8/hr) attempting to do his profession before we could physically remove him from the property.
Same goes for "builder", and to an extent even "electrician." It's amazing to watch, coming from America where people are required to be qualified for their jobs.
I'd expect that there are private certifications or organizations that guarantee a certain level of competency. Otherwise some sort of review site for contractors like Angies list should either exist or be a massive opportunity in a market like you describe.
[1] http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/find-an-electrician/
The worst thing is that even these idiots are in demand and struggle to return calls.
We have a total government system the size of Japan's entire economy. What else could come out of something that massive, other than extreme regulation, and eventual suffocation? It's not like they're just going to suddenly stop passing thousands of new regulations each year. The professional political class has nothing else to do, it's partially how they justify their existence.
This article isn't 'people' complaining. It's a mouthpiece mainly for a group of select US corporations.
You know they don't give two shits about hairdresser barriers to entry, either. Judging by the list of members, they want deregulation for the finance industry.
"[A]n Oregon board regulating cosmetology raised the number of training hours required for entry from 1,500 to 2,500. According to Cato Institute author David Young, pressure for the change came not from disgruntled cosmetology consumers but from beauty schools that were able to charge more tuition and serve more consumers in school training salons."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funders
In this case, the fact that JP Morgan is a major funder should make you more than a little suspicious that they're proposing tearing down 'regulations'.
When they try to convince you it's a good idea they talk about hairdressers. When they start writing bills to give to Congress it becomes about reducing capital requirements and deregulating derivatives.
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation surveyed over 12,000 small business owners in 38 states and 82 metropolitan regions to determine how friendly cities and states are towards small businesses. Licensing was “the most important regulatory issue” and “second only to the strength of the local economy in determining how friendly a state is to small business.”
Look at the dodgy court in Texas the "specialises" in patent law and the cases of tiny hamlets with massive police forces and speed traps.
His system if anything quite strongly restricted what people could do in the economic sphere. The "producers" were one of the three classes kept strictly separate (the other two being warriors and rulers), and must follow the directions of the rulers, as enforced by the warriors, in order to ensure that production is in keeping with the needs and morals of the polis.
The people become more impoverished
The more laws are posted
The more robbers and thieves there are"
- Lao Tzu
Full of weasels without a doubt.
Moreover, the assumptions they're making are charitable. I think most people agree with licensing engineers, electricians, doctors and the like where doing their job wrong has serious consequences. But for the same reason, it's less clear what public benefit there is behind requiring florists, interior designers or ballroom dancers to be licensed in order to practice their craft.