Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Want to Reduce Crime? Allow Non-violent Ex-cons to Get a Job.
Want to be a florist in Louisiana? You need government approval. In four other states, you need a license before you can be an interior decorator. Tennessee requires 70 days training, a $140 fee, and two exams before allowing anyone to be a shampooer. I’m unclear how more than two months of class work is needed to lather/rinse/repeat, but government knows best.
All 50 states require millions of would-be workers to go through government-sanctioned professional boards before they can ply their trade. Now this makes sense for a CPA or a lawyer, but do bureaucrats really need to regulate upholsterers, packagers, and gas pumpers? Stephen Slivinski, an economist and researcher at Arizona State University, conducted a first-of-its-kind study on how these boards burden one group more than others. And when they make this group suffer, crime surges. I wrote about the study in this weekend’s Arizona Republic:
Employers often frown on anyone with even a non-violent criminal record, despite having the skills and education required for the job. Where this tendency is most apparent is the byzantine system of professional licenses and certifications required by many states…
These boards often set arbitrary, unnecessary requirements. It’s nice that reformers help prisoners earn GEDs and job training, but how does that help if their state board requires long work experience and a higher education level than is available in their time behind bars?
Worse still, many states have “good character” provisions that prohibit ex-prisoners from ever receiving a license. Other states allow licensing boards to reject applicants at their discretion; if the Louisiana Horticulture Commission doesn’t care for ex-cons, maybe they won’t let one become a retail florist. After all, maybe an unlicensed flower arranger will only use 11 roses instead of a dozen.
Stephen Slivinski, an economist and senior research fellow at Arizona State University’s Center for the Study of Economic Liberty, has studied this issue in detail. He compared states’ three-year recidivism rates for new crimes to their occupational licensing burdens. After crunching the numbers, he found that states with the heaviest occupational licensing burdens saw an average increase in the recidivism rate of more than 9 percent. Meanwhile, the states with the lowest burdens saw an average decline in that recidivism rate of almost 2.5 percent.
You can read the whole thing here. It’s great that criminal justice reformers are bringing education and job training behind bars, especially to non-violent offenders. But if the same government won’t let them get a job after release, what’s the point?
Published in Law
Again, not to speak for @TCK1101 (any many others who have become wary of the label of “Free Trade”). Free Trade has come to be perceived that the Executive/White Collar Class has offices in U.S., the actual production (free from wage, benefit and environmental regulations) goes off shore, and now now with advocate a drop in corp. tax rates (a good thing) – but will those companies move jobs and plants back (or ‘Jerbs’ to whoever the jerk is that started that here) or just pocket that windfall and have both HQ and Production rates & costs where they want them. When Carrier moved from Indiana to Mexico (reportedly due to environmental regulatory reasons) they will also benefit from lower labor costs, HQ will still be here though – is this ‘Free Trade’ and can you understand why people might be wary of it?
That ‘tariff stick’ that Trump espoused for companies like Carrier doesn’t offend me too much.
I used to work as a manufacturing engineer. Each place that I worked at, my company had as their highest priority to reduce headcount. That is, make more widgets using fewer people. Labor was far and away the most expensive cost that could be controlled (raw materials or parts were usually higher but largely fixed).
With today’s technology, it is very feasible to invest in capital improvements that reduce the number of people needed. I worked one place that redesigned their product so machines robots could do the assembly and purposefully made it so that only machines could handle the tiny parts (a Mexican copy cats wouldn’t steal their designs anymore). The result was that they too picked up and moved their robotics to Mexico for the cheaper labor in running the machine.
Until we make labor cost parity with other nations, I fear there are no laws that will change the situation. Other nations will need to be satisfied with higher wages or we need to accept lower wages. Putting fingers in dams doesn’t work.
I think the only thing we can do is reduce the tax and bureaucratic burden on starting new businesses and hope that innovation keeps us going.
I hope I’m not seeing everyone here enthused for the “ban the box” movement. I do like the idea of an employer being allowed to know the background of a prospective employee.
The government licensing guild issue is one of my hot buttons. I’m agnostic on how to treat former convicts entering the workplace after paying their debt to society. I’m big into mercy and second chances, but I recognize that you have to know whether someone has a criminal record for at least some jobs, that’s easy enough. But every job? That’s an interesting question that I haven’t given much thought so threads like these can be instructive.
I saw a study a few years ago that found that some states require more hours of training for nail technicians than for EMT. I smell rent-seeking weasels.
Agreed. I did fewer hours of training to be a police officer than what someone needed to be a cosmetologist in my state.
No doubt. Now that my old barber closed his home-based shop at age 85, I go to a small shop on the other end of town owned and operated by two middle-aged women, or one closer by that is owned and operated by a relatively young guy who loves golfing and sometimes takes longer lunch breaks than the sign on his door indicates. The price across town is $15, and for seniors the local guy charges only $11 but I always tip and bring it up to $15. If you remove the state training requirements in favor of uniform laws, what is going to happen is that these shops will be replaced by national chains of McHaircuts that are like the big shop at Meijers (a 3rd choice) but writ large. There will be no independent owner-operators. The current owners will be hired back, if they want, as low-skilled laborers. The new shops will be efficient, uniform, and cheap, and we will have lost people with the sense of pride and independence that comes with owning and running their own business. That will be a
shuge loss for our political system and the proles that replace the owner/operators will help lead us more quickly to socialism.The good folks at the Mises Institute covered this some months ago, possibly in the past couple of years. Welcome to Austrian economics.
The thing is that we already have the McHaircuts in Michigan. But in small towns, they don’t need shops with fifteen or twenty chairs. The one-person shops thrive. Not only that, but a lot of folks choose to go to someone they know and can have a personal relationship with. I drive forty-five minutes away to get harassed and get a really good haircut from a barber who takes sanitation seriously.
Yes, and even then, in many cases where there are legitimate public health or safety concerns (manicurist, barber, restaurants) they can be addressed as (or more) effectively by inspections.
All job licensing by the government is a crony profiteering (which others call by the less descriptive name crony capitalism). It is all about keeping the newcomers out and keeping prices up.
In Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman argued against licensing even doctors and lawyers.
I can see some sense in that, given the chemicals that the salons are applying to people’s skin. The chemistry is pretty complicated.
At this point, I guess it would be like handling pesticides.
I suppose with the licensing goes the liability.
On the other hand, the little local restaurant leaves the fish out on the counter an hour longer than it should, and it can kill people too.
We all want folks to be safe. Your underlying assumption is that government licensing accomplishes that. We disagree.
Licensing is always sold to the public as if it is intended to protect the public. The real reasoning underlying all licensing legislation is economic protection of the current practitioners. That is why they always support such bills.
In fact, government fails in its claimed aspiration to protect the public. But it does guarantee that the public will pay higher prices. Is that protection, really?
No, not at all.
I agree with you.
An educated public and a caveat emptor policy would bring down the price of everything and create more jobs than we would know what to do with.
My apologies for being unclear. I was thinking out loud about the complexity of modern life.
In some ways, the regulations are good for business in that the government saying certain products and services are safe allows consumers to buy things and services without worry.
On the other hand, . . .
I can see how we got ourselves into this mess. :)
I want to see the body count of people killed by their barbers.
Well, there is this, but licensing wouldn’t have mattered. ?
The “good for business” regulations I see as a form of cronyism.
I think it is a mistake to believe in the safety of government approval. The FDA gave its approval to Thalidomide which became quite the scandal in the early 60s. The FDA has failed to approve life saving drugs in widespread use elsewhere in the world, no doubt killing untold numbers of Americans deprived of those drugs.
Would Thalidomide have hurt as many people without the FDA? Probably. Would that be any worse off? No.
Would many people have benefited from disapproved drugs? Absolutely.
As the Bible says, “Put not your trust in princes.”
I might be persuaded by some of this if my wife’s beautician was mixing up her own shampoo. Let’s not kid ourselves on that. I can see the need for some basic training on hygiene and fundamental occupational safety. That still strikes me as measured in days and not months. This stuff is just a barrier to entry supported by the trade guild to manage the supply of services.
There’s a big “ban the box” movement to restrict the ability of employers to ask about criminal convictions. Unfortunately this initiative jumped to state and local lawmaking without giving voluntary efforts a chance. I can support the overall philosophy without supporting ham fisted solutions. Basically they try to regulate when or if at all the employer can ask about criminal background as part of the interview process. Of course they carve out exceptions for companies that provide services to government agencies that restrict using ex-cons. The solution of allowing employers to ask questions at one stage of the interview process (after a conditional offer is made) but not an earlier stage is the stuff of nightmares for small businesses to sort out and effectively manage.
On the hiring of non-violent felons, a relative of mine with a business in the home improvement field hired a recently released convicted burglar. He wanted to give the guy a chance. This guy proceeded to steal from a customer’s home.
One must be careful, even with those who have “paid their debt to society.” That is not the same as rehabilitated.
It is problematic. I want to see ex-felons become productive members of society. But, one must be very careful with them.
My default setting when it comes to questions like these is telling government to mind its own business and keep its hands to itself so it would take quite a bit to convince me that prohibiting employers to ask about past convictions is a good idea particularly since criminal convictions are public record. Still open to arguments to the contrary, but in general, it’s good policy to tell the government to pound sand.
The prohibition on people with criminal records getting certain employment licenses is something I’m much more agnostic on. I think my answer is that I’d rather just make it a moot point by getting rid of any licensing scheme in the first place unless there is some really compelling public health or safety interest which likely solves most of the problem right there.
Absolutely a “ban the box” law is a bad idea.
In the end, the real solution to hiring convicts is to improve the job market. And to end the criminalization of drug use. Laws do not stop addicts. They ruin their lives quite nicely without putting them in jail.
Let it be a state issue.
It is something that I am exploring in terms of antitrust law. The basic premise to antitrust law is that big businesses use various market tools to restrict entry into certain markets and then charge higher prices when monopoly (simplifying some of the terms with that one) is achieved. The problem is that in a truly free market, entrants can enter and leave markets when the atmosphere provides the most beneficial to the owner. So, if a monopolist attempts to undercut smaller competitors with lower prices that are below the profitability dictated by the market, the smaller firms can wait them out until the larger firm gives in, or the smaller firm can sell out to someone who can run things more efficiently than before. If a monopolist achieves a dominant market share and raises prices, new entrants can come in and charge lower prices and still make a profit based on the market’s natural profit line. The only way for monopolists to truly achieve monopoly is to use the force of government to prevent new entrants and close off markets. That is what I am going to try to solve as an antitrust lawyer.
I don’t know if anybody has said this yet, but I’m gonna be that guy.
I am 100% opposed to all government occupation licensing. If you’re concerned about who is qualified to practice a trade, that is best handled by private entities, not a government.
How are you on federalism?
Does it? I would agree that it makes more sense to license a CPA than a florists, but all professional licensure is unnecessary government meddling and harmful to the market, even if only modestly so. If the government didn’t do this the market would fill the gap with certifications. But the market would respond to consumers, whereas elected officials and regulators are more responsive to industry reps primarily intent on achieving an advantage. If any particular certifying organization becomes too self-serving or loses its credibility, one or more others can take its place. Unfortunately, there’s only one government to provide licenses.
If we can’t be rid of all licensing at once, by all means let’s start with the most ridiculous cases – but let’s not stop until it’s all gone.
I wish that were true, but our esteemed trade negotiators and enforcers of trade infractions let entire high skill industry that we were among the best in the world in go away due to illegal subsidies, unenforced because the affected were not donors to the parties on power. They also allow our large companies to have to negotiate with entire countries who force giving away intellectual property and hard won process knowledge just for the right to sell. It is a fantasy that all that left were t shirts.
I watched the brand new CNC lathes being crated up and shipped to China for ten cents on the dollar at bankruptcy sales after the steel subsidy killed company after company.
It has happened in mid sized and small, unconcentrated industry after industry.
Why does the US trade bureau allow other countries to force all Pharma development costs on the US consumer as their government run cartels demand prices below cost or they will infringe patents?
If we do nothing all manufacture will be gone or captive with the wealth of value adding flowing elsewhere.
What does one have to do with the other?
I want to know if Fred Cole would be willing to override state laws to ban occupational licensing. There is recent precedent in which the GOP Congress has done something similar, so it’s not just a theoretical question.