The article compared licensing of occupations and professions with trade-union collective bargaining to fix and raise income of union members and stated that the issue of job growth and factors preventing job growth (such as occupational regulation and licensing) has become lately an issue of national importance.
It is also remarkable that de-licensing met with resistance of the licensed professions and not consumers, and that practically all efforts at de-licensing were defeated by market-player lobbyists for the "self-regulated" guilds which was definitely not in the interests of consumers.
One of the described efforts to deregulate, a House Bill 1006 of 2012 in the State of Indiana, that was seeking to eliminate mandatory licensing for barbers and cosmetologists, as well as for dieticians, hearing aid dealers, PIs, and security guards, was quickly dubbed the "right to work for less" bill - which pinpoints exactly the purpose of occupational licensing to cut off competition and raise prices for services, not, as it is declared for purposes of licensing, to protect health, safety and well-being of consumers.
So, while consumers continue to hurt, while labor market in the U.S. continues to deteriorate and people who can earn their own living continue to be unable to find suitable jobs in the heavily regulated job market, those who already have regulated jobs are resisting entry of competitors into the labor market - to the detriment of consumers and without any regard to any consumers' well-being.
Yet, as I reported on this blog, the situation in the job market may be becoming so critical in terms of contributing to income disparity that causes social unrest that deregulation will be at some point mandated as a matter of national safety.
I think, we are moving in that direction since the article already reported that over 30% of the U.S. work force is in regulated jobs, that occupational regulation is killing small business, preventing geographic and upwards (income) mobility, increases costs of services to consumers while reducing variety and supply of such services - and the lobbying efforts to increase rather than decrease occupational regulation are coming from the regulated professions, clearly showing "who benefits".
It is time for consumers of various services from currently regulated professions, on the one hand, and those who cannot enter the labor market and properly provide for themselves and their families because of restraints through occupational regulation that has nothing to do with protection of consumers, on the other hand, to demand, through lawsuits or pressure on their elected public officials:
- to start aggressive legislative audits of all regulated professions on the subject of
- whether the declared purpose of consumer protection is actually what happens in the regulated profession, or is the main actual purpose of such regulation, per each regulation profession, is establishing "a right to work for more" in the regulated jobs, and protection of consumers be d**d, well, kissed good-bye.