Video: Asking “Big Brother may I?” in order to work

posted at 8:21 pm on May 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Should people require government permission before being allowed to work?  That’s the question today from the Institute for Justice, which fights excessive licensing regulations in many states.  In this video, they identify the worst states for licensing low-income jobs, and those might surprise readers.  However, the comparison between professions will stun everyone:

License to Work: A National Study of Burdens from Occupational Licensing is the first national study to measure how burdensome occupational licensing laws are for lower-income workers and aspiring entrepreneurs.

The report documents the license requirements for 102 low- and moderate-income occupations—such as barber, massage therapist and preschool teacher—across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It finds that occupational licensing is not only widespread, but also overly burdensome and frequently irrational.

On average, these licenses force aspiring workers to spend nine months in education or training, pass one exam and pay more than $200 in fees. One third of the licenses take more than a year to earn. At least one exam is required for 79 of the occupations.

Barriers like these make it harder for people to find jobs and build new businesses that create jobs, particularly minorities, those of lesser means and those with less education.

The dirty little secret in licensing, which I’ve mentioned in the past, is that it’s usually pushed by the biggest players in the industries to which they apply.  Why?  As someone who worked in a significantly-licensed industry (burg/fire alarm installation and monitoring), I can speak from personal experience when I say this: the bigger companies want to burden smaller and emerging competitors with overwhelming compliance costs.  It gets even worse when firms work across state lines, as I did in my career, as compliance often means having to get dozens of licenses for each employee, with varying prerequisites and education requirements.  Even for small outfits in a single state, though, keeping up with licensing often requires having someone handling compliance as a full-time job.  That cost ends up getting applied to a much lower sales volume, which keeps prices higher than a smaller, nimbler competitor might otherwise provide — and allows the bigger players to avoid competing on price or responsiveness as a result.

What does that mean?  It means consumers have to pay more than they otherwise would, since licensing artificially suppresses competition.  That may be a good trade-off in certain jobs — like EMTs, for instance, as mentioned in the video, and other industries with life-or-death implications.   Most of the licensing requirements don’t have anything to do with safety, though, as seen by the ridiculous licensing requirements for interior designers.  Perhaps IJ will lead a movement to rethink the assumptions that go into licensing requirements, because it’s an area that badly needs reform.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That didn’t take long, did it?

Liam on April 8, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Any alternative plan proposed by a Democrat is simply going to be “raise and create more taxes”, not reform or reduce them.

catmman on April 8, 2013 at 7:27 PM

speaking as the resident Jindalista….Coward

annoyinglittletwerp on April 8, 2013 at 7:28 PM

OT: Drudge Headline: THE 1,500-PAGE IMMIGRATION BILL?
—–

On Jindal, keep it up Bobby, I’m still with ya. You’re moving the Overton window and that’s all to the good.

Dusty on April 8, 2013 at 7:29 PM

GONE: TAX REFORM AND PERFORM

HERE: TAX COMPROMISE AND DEMISE

Varchild on April 8, 2013 at 7:32 PM

State Rep. Katrina Jackson, D-Monroe, said she and other members of the Black Caucus would propose an alternative plan.

LMAO – taxing whitey to add to Obama’s stash doesn’t qualify as a serious plan.

Daemonocracy on April 8, 2013 at 7:35 PM

People just do not like the idea of swapping income tax for sales tax.

It feels like a con, and you’re going to pay more via sales than income.

budfox on April 8, 2013 at 7:35 PM

And I am disappointed Jindal has backed off so soon, but who knows, maybe he’s asking for what he knew he couldn’t get to force some kind of reform.

Daemonocracy on April 8, 2013 at 7:36 PM

5.88% is less sales tax than Michigan’s 6%

Varchild on April 8, 2013 at 7:37 PM

“Working together” with demorats means one thing to them: Bend over.

Bishop on April 8, 2013 at 7:37 PM

I know plenty of people who would love to swap a sales tax for an income tax.

At least you can control the amount of money you give to the state with a sales tax. Most day to day stuff is exempted (food primarily). With a sales tax you at least have control of where and how much.

With an income tax, it’s involuntarily confiscated and most of it is wasted.

Don’t see what the big deal would be.

catmman on April 8, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Steel Bendy Straw Spine.

portlandon on April 8, 2013 at 7:40 PM

“State Rep. Katrina Jackson, D-Monroe, said she and other members of the Black Caucus would propose an alternative plan.”

I suppose there isn’t a White Caucus in the Louisiana Legislature or I would have seen an expose of the endemic racism of the South.

Drained Brain on April 8, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Jindal backs off of his tax reform plan: “Let’s work together”

lolololololololololol.

Even the crazy fringe conservatives who live in LA are seeing the light. For a while i could have sworn they were for paying their bosses taxes as long as said bosses promised to keep them on the job.

HotAirLib on April 8, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Bobby, Bobby, you must at least start on the “Right” side, then you can move closer to the center. If, as most of you tend to do, start in the middle, you always move left…always!

rgranger on April 8, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a boon for Louisiana. His critics were just that critical of any idea as they have none of their own.

Grunt on April 8, 2013 at 8:29 PM

job.

HotAirLib on April 8, 2013 at 8:06 PM

…BLOW

KOOLAID2 on April 8, 2013 at 10:14 PM

…so how is he different?

KOOLAID2 on April 8, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Just for shits’n'giggles, I did an experiment with the taxes where I live.

I used an online tax tool to fill out annual income taxes as if I were a single mom with two kids making $40,000 per year, living in Toronto (Ontario, Canada), and paying $950 per month in rent. I took advantage of every deduction that she could get for her kids. I then assumed that all money left after income tax and rent is spent on taxable goods at our current sales tax rate of 13%. I did not try to take into account items that don’t have sales taxes, like basic groceries.

I then calculated what would happen if there was no income tax and, instead, just a 20% sales tax. Assuming that the mom spends everything after rent on taxable goods (again, not trying to account for non-taxable items like staple foods), she pays a total of… $2000 a year less in total taxes with the sales tax-only approach.

Whenever I argue for eliminating income taxes and moving to a higher sales tax, my left-leaning cow-orkers always freak out and call me a racist, a Nazi, and so on.

Then I show them the math.

Then I ask them why they hate single moms.

Then they stop talking to me.

Lickmuffin on April 8, 2013 at 11:49 PM