We find that in 2006, 29 percent of the workforce was required to hold
an occupational license from a government agency, which is a higher
percentage than that found in studies that rely on state-level
occupational licensing data.
That is from a new paper by Morris Kleiner and Alan Krueger. I am happy to see such respected economists turning their attention to a neglected issue. Here is a non-gated version of the paper.
There is, by the way, an interesting sentence buried near the end of the paper:
In contrast, union members perceive themselves as less competent than other workers.
I have noticed many people practicing economics without any credentials (or skills for that matter.)
Well, Bastiat, clearly the government needs to step in and ensure that only government-licensed and approved persons are allowed to say anything about economics.
“By 2000, the percent of the workforce in occupations licensed by states
was at least 20 percent, according to data gathered from the Department of Labor and the 2000
Census.”
So a jump by 50% in 8 years. And this in an era where the number of college graduates is increasing, no?
But this…oh this is REALLY interesting:
“Both African-
Americans and Hispanics have a higher percentage of licenses than do Whites or Asians.”
Makes you wonder what industries we are talking about here
Will someone please tell the American people if the US government gets into the health insurance business, it will crowd out all the private insurers and we will have one big government insurance company with thousands of patronage workers and bureaucrats. This behemoth will try to fix prices and drive out private health providers and suppliers and massive shortages will result. Is anyone listening? Some hospitals in the Soviet Union didn’t have thread for stitches.
Ape Man, I think Friedman addressed licenses. Unions are bad, I agree. They destroyed mining, textiles, steel, autos and are in process of destroying public education while raping the taxpayers. Licenses are created by government for money and to provide rewards to politically connected individuals. I believe the French know about them…
What part of medical costs are private insurance costs?
At the start of the paper, the authors briefly sketch two interpretations, Milton Friedman’s and Carl Shapiro’s.
I think that the lenses really needs to incorporate:
Gordon Tullock, “The Transitional Gains Trap,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 1975.
Second generation licensees jump through all the hoops and arguably, on average, earn only normal returns, understood in terms of their individual-specific opportunity costs. So, contra the Friedman capsule they provide, no real group of winners beyond the first generation. And then liberalization would hurt the privilege holders, so a wholly sucky situation persists — hence “trap.”
Another major part of the storytelling, I think, though, should be returns and rents in terms of identity and selfhood, not merely pecuniary.
Apparently the “Joe the Plumber” from the debate is unlicensed, and owes a small back tax bill. One less budding entrepreneur…
And the more cheap holic gold is very good for you.
Comments on this entry are closed.