The Disappearing Right to Earn a Living

[Mott the Hoople]

I agree there is a lot of nonsense out there. But the article is incorrect in how long it takes for an EMT to train up, not to mention the exam they must take.

I don’t disagree that licensing in some cases is probably not warrented but I dispute the articles anticompetitive premise is that a lot of these licensing requirements are implemented largely due to bad behavior, as well as, other public interest such as safety, fraud, etc.

[Althea]

It would be a better article if it spared the hyperbole.

The article is based on the false premise that these occupations are only licensed For anticompetitive reasons and doesn’t even attempt to discuss the actual reasons why these licensing requirements were instituted in the first place so the objectivity of the author is questionable to say the least.

Take for example cosmetology. If there hadn’t have been vast numbers of complaints of unsafe and unhygienic practices licensing wouldn’t be an issue. Tree trimming is another good example. Absolutely there should be licensing requirements given the trades seriously bad history of property damage, injuries and deaths. Now let’s talk about general contractors , whom this article is really supporting. If you don’t think General contractors shouldn’t be bonded and licensed you’re a fool who has never done business with them.

In other words this is more of your free market fundamentalism nonsense Wacko. If you seriously wished to discuss why Florist in Louisiana shouldn’t be licensed you should first discuss the factual basis of why they were required to obtain licensing in that State in the first place. Instead you post an article which poses an argument based on a false premise. I mean do you really believe cosmotologist have that kind of lobbying power in the Statehouse or is it more likely that public complaints prompted licensing requirements?

I tried, but he can't offer any valid argument for/against the issues addressed in this fluff piece.

[Mott the Hoople]

cawacky supports deregulation just like the racist right.

Exactly what experience do you have in regulated sectors? I’ve worked 30 years in one and I’ve seen both extremes of over regulation and deregulation. There will and always should be discussion of what is an appropriate level of regulation and though I’m critical of Wackos tendency towards a knee jerk response towards a pro business deregulation to equate that with racism is an illogical ad hom logical fallacy.

You should give Wacko a break. He’s not a racist. He’s just butt hurt that he couldn’t talk any of the hot sisters into going out with him when he was single.

Then again maybe you shouldn’t. LOL

[Mott the Hoople]

I guess regulations that hurt the working class and minorities aren't racist but wanting to remove them is. Makes total sense.

Except you don’t factually know if that’s true or not.

[Mott the Hoople]

You're putting a lot of faith in the govt to protect you then because many of these requirements are a racket.

Back that argument up with some facts.

[Mott the Hoople]

Isn't that what our country is about? freedom and opportunity to pursue your dreams? Except the govt says you need licenses to do certain things

And that principle is enshrined in our Constitution via the interstate commerce clause.

[cawacko]

I don’t disagree that licensing in some cases is probably not warrented but I dispute the articles anticompetitive premise is that a lot of these licensing requirements are implemented largely due to bad behavior, as well as, other public interest such as safety, fraud, etc.

I remember this from a few years back when the Obama Administration brought this up. They said the same thing, the barriers to entry are anti-competitive behavior.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a26afb41a221

[TTQ64]

Exactly what experience do you have in regulated sectors? I’ve worked 30 years in one and I’ve seen both extremes of over regulation and deregulation. There will and always should be discussion of what is an appropriate level of regulation and though I’m critical of Wackos tendency towards a knee jerk response towards a pro business deregulation to equate that with racism is an illogical ad hom logical fallacy.

You should give Wacko a break. He’s not a racist. He’s just butt hurt that he couldn’t talk any of the hot sisters into going out with him when he was single.

Then again maybe you shouldn’t. LOL

I don't need experience in regulation to know a BS hit piece when I see one.

You can give cawacky all the breaks you want, I won't. I will call out every racist on this board if I want.

You're opinion of him means nothing to me. As long as he supports the right and the racism that comes with it, I will call him a racist.

I'm not fooled by his claims of libertarian or his so called hatred of dump. He will vote right in line with god bless America.

I don't comprise with racist.

So fuck him, and you

[cawacko]

I don’t disagree that licensing in some cases is probably not warrented but I dispute the articles anticompetitive premise is that a lot of these licensing requirements are implemented largely due to bad behavior, as well as, other public interest such as safety, fraud, etc.

Report from the Obama Administrstion

https://nasba.org/blog/2015/08/19/wh...-on-licensing/

[cawacko]

Another one Mott from the Brookings Institute.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bro...ng-reform/amp/


Althea - you need to write these guys and let them know they left our insurance because that's what this is all about right?

[Superfreak]

absolutely it did oh addled one

So you are simply an ignorant troll... understood.

[katzgar]

So you are simply an ignorant troll... understood.

Dude you are one confused fool

[SmarterthanYou]

But the converse is not true. So your first sentence is blatantly false.

In many instances, the reason for licensing is to guarantee insurance. So what would you do when the kid down the block drops your brand new flat screen?

caveat emptor..........a dead policy apparently.

[Mott the Hoople]

I remember this from a few years back when the Obama Administration brought this up. They said the same thing, the barriers to entry are anti-competitive behavior.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a26afb41a221

In some cases I agree but I don’t agree with this as a sweeping generalization.

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't need experience in regulation to know a BS hit piece when I see one.

You can give cawacky all the breaks you want, I won't. I will call out every racist on this board if I want.

You're opinion of him means nothing to me. As long as he supports the right and the racism that comes with it, I will call him a racist.

I'm not fooled by his claims of libertarian or his so called hatred of dump. He will vote right in line with god bless America.

I don't comprise with racist.

So fuck him, and you

We’ll touch you in the morning and walk away!