IT is well known that doctors, dentists, and lawyers must be licensed to practice their professions. But what about occupational therapists, manicurists and barbers? How about fortune tellers, massage therapists, shampoo assistants, librarians, beekeepers, electrologists and movie projector operators? These are just a sampling of the hundreds of occupations that require a license in at least some states or counties.In a new book, “Licensing Occupations: Ensuring Quality or Restricting Competition?” (Upjohn Institute, 2006), Morris M. Kleiner, an economist at the University of Minnesota, questions whether occupational licensing has gone too far. He provides much evidence that the balance of occupational licensing has shifted away from protecting consumers and toward limiting the supply of workers in various professions. A result is that services provided by licensed workers are more expensive than necessary and that quality is not noticeably affected.
This state-by-state list of the occupations covered by licensing requirements is very interesting.
Chuck Huckaby on March 3rd, 2006 at 8:55 am
Licensing normally results in raising prices to consumers and creating a barrier to entry to a given field.
It’s justification is ALWAYS “protecting the public”… while only guaranteeing the protection of the income of the practitioners, the licensing bodies, and the training institutions.
I have asthma and have to constantly remind family practitioners not to prescribe non-steroidal anti inflammatories because they can increase symptoms… did their license protect me? No.
Am I still responsible for myself and my choices?
If I hadn’t been, who knows how sick I might have gotten?