Regulation that Doesn’t Work
Ross Douthat is appropriately skeptical of the idea that running on a platform of opposition to broadly shared prosperity will bring electoral success to conservatives. Look back on Ronald Reagan’s key political successes, and I think you’ll find that explicit advocacy of concentrating wealth more tightly in the hands of the few was not a big part of his political appeal. What’s slightly maddening about this, to me, is that the right-wing keeps stumbling around a much better conservative argument in the neighborhood of Joe the Plumber — namely that there are some solid free market measures we could take that would have the effect of spreading the wealth around. The fact that Joe is not a licensed plumber would be a great opportunity for an enterprising politician to try to make an issue out of the growth of occupational licensing requirements in the United States and the barriers to economic growth and opportunity they create.
And occupational licensing is hardly the only such example. Lots of America’s land use and business licensing regulations are, likewise, measures that do much more to entrench existing privilege than to promote any kind of public interest. Most of this, yes, is not strictly under the purview of federal policy. But state and local politics is where the promising leaders of tomorrow come from. And a President could probably do a lot of good simply by giving a prominent speech about these issues and doing something like appointing a commission of well-respected individuals from across ideological lines to try to take stock of the overall state of play, outline some recommendations and best practices, etc. Your typical city or country government in the United States doesn’t come close to having the resources necessary to do a rigorous study of the impact of its various licensing rules — a federal role in simply creating and sharing information could do a lot of good.
The original wave of deregulation was promoted by conservatives, but also liberals like Ted Kennedy, Steven Breyer, and Ralph Nader. I think we see now that that wave went too far in some respects, but in other areas it hasn’t gone nearly far enough. This is a good cause for progressives to pick up, but also one that would be completely open for a conservatism that was interested in helping the little guy rather than mocking efforts to help him as the second coming of Josef Stalin.
73 Responses to “Regulation that Doesn’t Work”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Ugh. Still on with this. Really? Sigh.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I think it is safe to say that quite bitter (and well funded by developers) battles over zoning will not be impacted in any way by Matt’s fabulous vision of a Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission’s report.
Also, it would be nice if there were any indication Matt read the great defenses of licensing requirements that his readers left last time.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I like it when people broadly assert that occupational licensing is bad but don’t trouble themselves to make any arguments about what the consequences of removing them are, nor how to effectively replace their functions.
It shows that one is an awesome, bold-thinking, independent liberal not beholden to all the old and stupid statists of the past.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
> The fact that Joe is not a licensed plumber would be a great opportunity for an enterprising politician to try to make an issue out of the growth of occupational licensing requirements in the United States and the barriers to economic growth and opportunity they create.
Concurrence.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
One of McCain’s weirdest education proposals was to hire veterans to teach our nation’s classrooms without having to either get an appropriate academic training or accreditation before doing so. Palinology of the first order. Of course, there’s more to any trade than test taking or mere matriculation, and certainly some people are both talented and skilled enough to learn on the job; nonetheless, there really is something to be said for entry level expertise. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t go to a dentist without a requisite certification; would you?
October 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Land use licensing is what partly got Reagan and his buddies popular.
I’m hoping for a Conservatism based around a Ron Paul-esque opposition to government powers.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
licensing is only necessary in corrupt big cities where real Americans don’t live–you know, plain decent folk, those whose word is as good as their bond and who are friendly with all their neigbours….free the honest tradesmen of the real America from the fetters of big liberal government regulation!
October 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Based upon my experience defending citations of unregistered contractors, plumbers and electricians, I can tell that I would no more trust my piping to an unregistered plumber than I would see an unlicensed therapist. I’ve seen too many horror stories. At least with registered contractors there is a bond that can be attached by harmed consumers in my state.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
There are two good reasons for deregulation on this: (1) state laws that prevent a professional from practicing in other states. There have no rationale, apart from reducing competition for the benefit of local service providers (and to the detriment of local consumer), and (2) state laws that prevent lower grade professionals from doing routine stuff without a higher grade professional around. Many of those are also anti-competitive, for example laws that require (in some states) eye doctors to do things that optometrists are perfectly capable to do, or similarly require dentists when a dental nurse would do as well.
As an electoral issue you have the standard problem: the consumers who would benefit do not care enough, while the professional who would lose out would vote against you. So making it an electroal issue could well be a vote loser, even if as a policy it’s a no-brainer.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
1) This post is hilarious, given that the Overlords deciding our financial future — and plucking low hanging fruit — are almost all being drawn from Goldmann Sachs by Paulson.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?dbk
2) Even the capitalists on Wall Street are starting to issue scathing denunciations of the “grotesque” conflicts of interests behind Paulson and his “lenient” bitch Bernanke. See
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/98300/Damning-Paulson-and-Bernanke-%27Grotesquely-Conflicted%27-and-%27Most-Lenient%27?tickers=GS,MS,AIG,FNM,JPM,BAC,XLF
3) But Matthew thinks the crisis that we should focus on — the crisis that threatens civilization –is whether our plumbers are licensed.
While Matthew stars at his overflowing toilet, burglar Paulson and his cronies are hauling off Matthew’s Trust Fund.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I figure his aversion to certification comes from where he grew up. The certification that many of us from big cities are used to is that done by various inspectors. The local government sends someone around to collect a bribe and ignore the fire/health/safety violations in your building. It doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in pieces of paper with fancy seals on them. To many of us jaded, skeptical folks, a license isn’t worth as much as a single good recommendation from a passing aquaintance. It is entirely possible that this is a wrong viewpoint, but it is not a totally unfounded one.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I’m tired of all the University professors having to be PhD’s in their subjects.
If some vernacular-taught self-innovators could run our Physics departments, we could probably get more of something done for less.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Personally, I’d like my plumber to be licensed; it increases the likelihood of the job being done right, in my book.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
If some vernacular-taught self-innovators could run our Physics departments, we could probably get more of something done for less.
Don’t give Yglesias any ideas.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Matt, instead of merely asserting that occupation licensing is pointless, why don’t you try doing some research into what occupational licensing requires, and attempt to demonstrate that those requirements are unnecessary? In other words: make an argument here, instead of stamping your feet and doing your best Reason Magazine impression with “boo, regulation bad!”
October 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
As Krugman notes, the average Ohio plumber only makes about $48K. But Matt brings this silliness up again, perhaps feeling that he hasn’t given Petey enough ammunition about his class biases.
As I noted before, in states and cities without regulation, the courts become the de facto licensing board. That is, people rely on tort law for the protections provided by licensing. There’s lots of evidence that such systems are more capricious and less efficient than regulation, at least in trades like plumbing. Moreover, this is common knowledge among serious law-and-economics types. Matt needs to read beyond the pages of Reason Magazine.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I agree with you 100%, Matt. It’s perfectly reasonable to think that some things are over-regulated and some things are under-regulated… and this balance is probably aimed at maintaining status quo rather than creating the most efficient and safe marketplace.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
It sure is easy to dump on the training of a guy/gal lower on the food chain than you.
I’m with El Cid, who needs a PhD anyway? Clearly people with fancy degrees from fancy universities shouldn’t be getting cushy pundit gigs on the tv or internet either. Perhaps you could take up an overpaid plumbing job Matt. In this case the pundit thing isn’t going too well.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Maybe the problem we’re having with the airlines all the time is that we got too many damn overpaid pilots & mechanics, and if we could get out from all these government licenses and tests and requirements and stuff, the pool of people willing to give flying an airliner a try would likely increase.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Matt, I usually adore you, but you’ve gotta get off this kick you have about occupational licensing. Because it makes you sound as stupid as some of the people running around calling Obama a socialist. It’s just a know-nothing talking point. I’ve read both of your blog posts where you make this same argument and it is breathtakingly ignorant.
I don’t know what your background is (yes, I don’t pay a lot of attention to the marginally personal stuff you post), but it’s obvious to me that you have no idea what goes into being an electrician, a plumber, a welder, or any other skilled tradesman. And I’m appalled that you would support non-licensed doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, teachers, and the myriad of other occupations that require licensing.
Ihave to say that I can no longer continue adoring you because I can only assume that you have no practical understanding of the importance of not only the practioner having some way of proving at least a marginal competence in their skill, but the protection of the consumer and society that comes from requiring said practioners to have a minimal level of pre-occupation training and periodic re-training and skill development.
This is truly the stupidest argument I’ve ever seen here. And the fact that you are making it astounds me.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Who needs to know what impacts occupational licensing has on plumbers when the TiVo is so f***ing awesome?
October 20th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
When you’re raised in a bubble you miss some important life lessons, and blogging promotes a tendency to spout off on things that you know very little about. Add in the arrogance of youth and you get posts like this from Matt.
Basically, something is unimportant if it doesn’t impact him and he doesn’t care about it. He’s probably posting all of this junk because he had to pay a plumber 75 bucks to fix his toilet and he thinks the guy made out like a bandit. (Hint: you can fix your toilet all by yourself Matt. Buy a book, read it, practice. If you can’t hack it – pay someone who can.)
October 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Getting rid of licensing requirements completely would clearly have negative side effects. On the other hand, being an attorney means that it’s very difficult to relocate to another state due to licensing requirements.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
AWC,
As I noted before, in states and cities without regulation, the courts become the de facto licensing board. That is, people rely on tort law for the protections provided by licensing. There’s lots of evidence that such systems are more capricious and less efficient than regulation, at least in trades like plumbing. Moreover, this is common knowledge among serious law-and-economics types.
Do please produce your evidence that the benefits from licensing plumbers outweigh the costs.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Matt just bought a condo. Let’s convince him to get some renovations done by unlicensed contractors.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I don’t think Matt or anybody else is saying licensing is bad. They’re generally saying that mandatory licensing is bad. People should not need to jump through a bunch of hoops to be able to unclog toilets. As the consumer, you get to choose either a licensed or unlicensed plumber, presumably based on factors such as the level of difficulty of the task at hand or price.
So, if you would prefer a licensed plumber, YOU CAN HAVE ONE! If I would prefer a cheaper alternative for a more basic job, I CAN HAVE ONE! EVERYBODY WINS!
October 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Also, it would be nice if there were any indication Matt read the great defenses of licensing requirements that his readers left last time.
Yeah. Comment #9 makes a more persuasive, nuanced argument than all of Matt’s posts on the subject put together, and it only took 4 sentences.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Also, it would be nice if there were any indication Matt read the great defenses of licensing requirements that his readers left last time.
Yes, those guesses, wishful thinking, thought experiments and unsubstantiated factual claims from licensing proponents were highly persuasive.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
there are some solid free market measures we could take that would have the effect of spreading the wealth around.
That would assume that a critical mass of conservatives would actually like to see wealth distributed more widely and evenly. I think they’re at the point where they regard as socialism the very desire to see that outcome, completely irrespective of the mechanism by which it would be accomplished.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
As far as occupational licensing is concerned, the key question I’d ask is, what’s the downside of someone really f**king up the job?
I don’t care whether the woman who cuts my hair has a license: even if she totally botches the job, it’ll grow out in a few weeks. But there’s no freakin’ way I’d hire an unlicensed electrician – who wants their house to burn down one night, on account of a wiring fault?
October 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Don’t listen to the naysayers, Matt, and keep up on this point. This is a perfect example of an issue that Democrats (and progressives) could pivot on and capture my libertarian heart.
And it doesn’t have to mean watering down principles, either. You think government is not the enemy and it has a role to play in regulation, fine. But do you really think that people doing African hair-braiding in San Diego need to be shut down because they don’t have a cosmetology license? No you don’t. You just want to oppose crack-pot libertarians.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I think that voluntary, clearly targeted regulations are what is needed on Wall Street right now, which allows good libertarian Americans to decide for themselves scientifically what they prefer to do. Clearly the heavy hand of government is harmful to the economy, since Wall Street does best without oppressive government intervention.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
To all the dimwits who seem to think that all plumbers do all day is unclog toilets or that the government is gonna come in all jackboots and riot gear if you hire some jack of all trades to braid your hair right after he replaces the washer in your faucet, I have news for you.
You can do that if you want regardless of whether or not the people in charge of skilled trades require licensing. You’re an idiot if you do, but go right ahead.
Personally, I prefer a hair dresser that has some knowledge of chemistry and hygeine. I prefer a plumber that understands physics and building codes. I prefer a teacher that actually knows something about pedagogy in addition to expertise in subject matter. But you are perfectly free to leave those things up to amateurs if you like. No one, not even the government, will stop you from hiring them. It will just stop them from advertising themselves as what they are not–experts in their fields.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Gee, it’s just plumbing. How important could doing it well be? I mean, it’s just about unclogging domestic drains and toilets, right?
Are you really convinced the economy would buzz along a whole lot better if, instead of skilled and licensed plumbers, the owners of whatever in the hell facility is providing power to your region just picked some itinerants off the street?
Or is it just your ignorance of, or lack of concern for, how much our vital and sophisticated infrastructure depends on highly skilled craftsmen, and classist disrespect for the people who practice those crafts showing?
October 20th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Jesus Fuckin’ Christ Matt — you’re starting to worry me.
I understand a Harvard education can be a handicap in thw wrong hands, but this is just stupid beyond belief.
You seem to have no sense of what plumbers do and its impact on public health and safety. (Unlike blogging where any clown can do it.) Do you really want any asshole with a monkey wrench to be able to screw up sewer and gas lines (yes plumbers also hook up gas stoves, heaters, etc.). At least learn a little bit about what you’re posting about before spouting off like this. It’s fucking embarrassing.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Matt seems to think that if we would just loosen up licensing laws and land-use regulations, we might spur some increase in prosperity that would spawn millions of new acres of housing and buildings. Which would be, like, totally different from what we’ve seen over the past ten years.
This is really teh awesome. NYC to Washington DC is like ignorance cubed, if you have enough money.
Maybe the strangest part is that Matt thinks publicly endorsing the legalization of marijuana would make him look like a total looney, but endorsing a central tenet of rightwing crackerbarrel philosophy makes him look fresh and original.
Matt, we’ve heard a duck fart underwater before.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I don’t care whether the woman who cuts my hair has a license: even if she totally botches the job, it’ll grow out in a few weeks.
Actually a lot of cosmetology school is learning the requirements for keeping things clean and not transmitting infections, lice, etc. It’s a public health thing — precisely the sort of activity whose externalities are kept under control by government licensing.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Citizen E,
I agree with you about the importance of licencing for the most part, but the bit about teachers is just silly. Look, no one is denying that teaching high school is a tough job that demands certain skills and talents. I’m just not confident that the current system of training and licencing teachers does much to transmit those relevant skills.
The reason we have the system for training doctors that we do, is because several hundred years of experience has taught us that scientific medicine does a better job of healing sick people than things like phrenology, homepathy or untested remedies. If you can give me any reason to believe that ‘licenced’ high school teachers do a better job than non-certified teachers in charter schools, then I’m ready to listen.
The virtues of licencing systems in general do not prove that one particular licencing system is efficacious.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Sir Charles
Do you really want any asshole with a monkey wrench to be able to screw up sewer and gas lines (yes plumbers also hook up gas stoves, heaters, etc.).
Er, any asshole with a monkey wrench can already screw up sewer and gas lines. Do you have any, you know, e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e that mandatory licensing of plumbers makes this any less likely to happen? Any evidence that mandatory plumber licensing produces any public safety benefits at all? Any evidence that the benefits, if any, of mandatory plumber licensing outweigh he costs?
No, of course you don’t.
At least learn a little bit about what you’re posting about before spouting off like this. It’s fucking embarrassing.
Ah yes. Argument by bluster. Very compelling, that.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Geg6,
_No one_ knows much about pedagogy, because the whole field is largely the blind leading the blind, and is a morass of nonsense theories peddled by anti-hereditarian ideologues and second-wave feminists. I’m friends with a lot of high school teachers and there’s a reason why some refer to a Masters of Education as a “Masters in Uselessness.”
October 20th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Gee, it’s just plumbing. How important could doing it well be? I mean, it’s just about unclogging domestic drains and toilets, right?
The vast majority of plumbing jobs do involve relatively simple tasks. Installing, replacing or repairing common fixtures like faucets, showerheads, dishwashers, washing machines, disposals, toilets, supply lines, shut-off valves, sump pumps, etc. No particular skills or training are required to do these jobs. They don’t involve any risk to public health and safety. They’re just messy and uncomfortable and time-consuming, so a lot of people would probably rather hire someone else to do them than do them themselves. The parts are readily available at stores like Home Depot. D-I-Y plumbing books, videos and other instructional materials are also readily available. Millions of homeowners with no plumbing license or training do jobs like this in their own homes every year.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Never Certain writes:
Be careful what you ask for sirrah. The same reasoning could be used to license all attorneys in all 50 states. I’m sure you would not want that. For many, many reasons.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Mixie–
Hey, I didn’t know this was a refereed journal! I presented about as much evidence as you or Matt. In fact, I gave more, in the form of the average income of plumbers.
That said, the inverse correlation between common regulation and tort claims is pretty well established. To be very glib, this is why there are so many rich plaintiff’s attorneys in the South.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Gee Mixner,
I’ve only worked with plumbing apprenticeship training programs for the last 25 years. I’ve seen the curricula involved in a trade that requires 5 years of class room and on the job training to master. I’ve looked at the continuing education requirements for things like medical gas lines at hospitals. I am aware of the problems that can occur when sewer gases are not properly vented, when lines are not properly welded or connected, when people who don’t know the craft are allowed to work without proper training and supervision.
So yes, in fact, I know a fuck load more about the subject than a libertarian clown like yourself.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Taller buildings and fewer plumbing licensing requirements = disaster at the co-op board meeting.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
AWC,
I presented about as much evidence as you or Matt.
I’m not the one advocating mandatory licensing of plumbers. You are. You haven’t produced a shred of evidence that licensing produces any benefits at all, let alone that the benefits exceed the costs.
Sir Charles,
I’ve only worked with plumbing apprenticeship training programs for the last 25 years.
Yes, of course you have. Tell me, does saying “fuck” over and over again also help fix a toilet?
October 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Mixner,
Yes – I have spent twenty five years working with many building trades union and apprenticeship programs, including various plumbers union apprenticeship funds. I am meeting with one such group this week. In that capacity I have a pretty good sense of the curicula, akills taught, potential pitfalls, etc. that go with the trade, which I dare say puts me substantially ahead of you in this realm.
I find that saying “fuck” helps fix a multitude of things.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Sir Charles,
I dare say puts me substantially ahead of you in this realm.
Since it has apparently led you to the absurd belief that licensing somehow prevents “any asshole with a monkey wrench” from damaging public utility lines, and the equally absurd belief that common plumbing tasks of the kind I listed above pose any serious risk to public health and safety, I’d say your understanding of the nature of plumbing is not only substantially behind mine, but virtually non-existent.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
This was interesting. A historical & statistical look at the rise of professions & licensing in the United States, and yet not simply the dull repetition of mindless Milton Friedmanisms.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Licensure is a good thing. Licensing standards divorced from reality can block qualified people from working as often as they ensure it.
Moe99 made a point about seeing an unlicensed therapist. When I moved from Pennsylvania to Ohio, I went from being a licensed therapist to an unlicensed therapist. In order to meet Ohio’s requirements, I had to take a course on “Diagnosis of Mental Health Disorders” and another on “Treatment of Mental Health Disorders” (among other things). I learned about diagnosis and treatment in every grad school course I ever took, but still had to spend thousands in order to take more courses with those exact words in the title. And I’m one of the lucky ones. Counselors whose degrees are in clinical psychology instead of counseling psychology have to get second masters’ degrees or a doctorate in order to practice here.
The reasons for all this have to do with in-fighting between psychologists and social workers on the state board (so I’m told). A nation-wide review of standards would get around this. Taking a national view would lead to greater reciprocity among state standards. Right now, either Pennsylvanians are getting unqualified therapists, or else Buckeyes who need therapy aren’t getting it, because qualified transplants can’t practice. Getting it away from departmental in-fighting would also lead to greater practicality in setting standards. Therapists need to be able to diagnose and treat mental health disorders. They also should be allow to show that they can, some way besides pointing to the names of the courses in their curriculum.
October 21st, 2008 at 12:54 am
I am an attorney, and occupational licensing for lawyers is mostly a waste. Law school doesn’t teach you much by way of useful lawyering skills, substantive knowledge, or even have to pass the bar exam. The best that can be said for it is that it teaches you to “think like a lawyer,” a task that doesn’t require three years of graduate school.
Lots of relatively straightfoward legal issues could be handled by an experienced paralegal faster, better, and cheaper. In fact, many of them are, but a licensed attorney has to be around to charge $300 an hour for talking to the client and rubber-stamping the paralegal’s work. The situation is similar with medical licensing rules requiring the involvement of a doctor rather than a nurse or P.A. for basic medical care.
I don’t think I’d get rid of occupational licensing for lawyers completely, but I’d cut most of the requirements for the license and vastly expand the stuff paralegals can do without the involvement of a licensed attorney.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:11 am
Gee, Mixner, is there anything your amazing knowledge of economics *doesn’t* give you unassailable authority in?
October 21st, 2008 at 8:04 am
I initially questioned Matt’s judgement, but I see now it was a clever ploy to get Mixner to lose his mind in public.
Well played, Matt!
October 21st, 2008 at 10:01 am
To Hector…
If your friends the teachers have found their graduate level work non-enlightening and useless, that is their problem.
I happen to have an MEd. I found my graduate level work to be extremely useful and practical, enlightening and challenging. I don’t know when your friends got their degrees or where they got them, but the university that I attended had a curriculum for my program that is top notch and greatly respected worldwide. I learned a lot in that program, I worked hard to do well in it, and I have used what I learned there on the job every single day in the 10 years since I got my MEd. Even though I have moved out of the classroom and into administration in post-secondary education, the pedagogy, curriculum creation, classroom management, education law and policy, and statistical analysis I learned in it for use in the classroom is directly applicable to my administrative position. If your friends did not have that experience, I am sorry but that is not a valid argument for throwing away teacher certification as a requirement. I would, instead, be more determined than ever to work to make sure the certification requirements for that state are rigorous and that the colleges and universities that your friends attended are held to high standards in their academic programs.
Oh. And by the way, pedagogy is much like any other art or science in that it has many viewpoints and each hypothesis must be tested in order to stand up critical examination. The fact that different types or theories of pedagogy exist does not somehow make pedagogy an invalid area of study or practice. A field that counts among its leading lights the names of Bloom, Dewey, Froebel, Montessori, and Piaget isn’t exactly some sort of vaporous silliness.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 am
This is quite some thread. It took me the entire day, in between other obligations to read it from
the beginning.
I happened across this blog while cruising for unlicensed contractor data relating to
the Home Depot and day labor mess. I must say, there are great points on both sides. And well penned
I might add. I am the president of the United Contractors Association in Sacramento. In and of itself the name correctly
implies that I am on the side of pro licenser. This is a hotly debated topic in our legislature, compounded
by the only thing that has the moxy to do so. Illegal immigration in construction.
Yes, consumers have the right to choose the contractor for their project, be it licensed or unlicensed.
Yes, there are trades in which this will be more or less dangerous, expensive or intrusive. The fact is, according
to Einstein, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Dreaded consequences. If you hire Johnny from next door
to ‘paint your bathroom’ your house will not burn down unless he is smoking a fatty and carelessly ignites a
roll of TP. Conversely, an unlicensed electrician unfamiliar with code no matter the level of experience would
be subject to more scrutiny should this unfortunate event occur, not to mention the homeowners insurance
provider would be hesitant to sign over a check if the cause were deemed electrical and it was an unlicensed
contractor.
To coin a phrase, it’s a cluster-fuck.
If you are going to advertise in this state to do work of home improvement, and folks are allowing you into their homes,
the law is clear, concise, and mandatory. You must be licensed. Until this law no longer exists, you blowhards
on the side of ‘anything goes’ should show some measure of respect for those who have taken the time and initiative
to put themselves out there as professionals. They are bonded, and in most cases insured.
Can the hair braid lady do that. It is an additional layer of security for the homeowner, in a time where it is precious.
If you have the skill, and the tools, and the experience, why not have a license? A few questions, about $200
bucks…
T.Roosevelt said once:
It is both foolish and wicked to teach the average man who is not well off that some wrong or injustice has
been done him, and that he should hope for redress elsewhere than in his own industry, honesty,
and intelligence.
If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.
- Review of Reviews
January 1897
March 1st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 am
levitraI want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:23 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:06 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 20th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Truly enjoyed your post! Steve ~ http://www.HowIGrowTaller.com webmaster
March 20th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Hi, I can
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I REALLY liked your post and blog! It took me a little bit to find your site…but I book marked it. Would you mind if I but a link back to my site?
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Great site, Good info viagra