Quote Originally Posted by mwilbert View Post
I am always suspicious of anything from the Mackinac Center [[or the WSJ opinion pages, for that matter), and frankly the specific examples they listed didn't seem unreasonable candidates for licensing. But I am also suspicious of occupational licensing. In some cases, licensing seems like a reasonable way to maintain standards and public safety, as in the much-discussed case of elevator operators, although I would like to understand why it serves the public interest to have separate city and state licensing. But frequently they are simply a way to restrict entry to various professions.

For example, at the moment it appears that interior decorators are trying to get Michigan to require their profession to be licensed, as they already are required to be in about half of the states in the US. I have not seen a good justification for this, and I doubt that there is one other than that interior decorators would like to restrict competition. But while I'd be happy to see the city review all of its regulations, including occupational licensing, it is hard to believe that you could remove enough occupational licensing requirements to make a noticeable difference in the city job market.
I think you underestimate the desire of occupations erect 'barriers to entry' for potential competitors.

Today, you only need to look as far as AirBNB or Uber. Interior decorators will command a higher price if you must kiss the ring of their trade association to practice. Doctors vs. Midwives, Metro Cars vs. airport busses, Union Labor vs. low-wager workers [[minimum wage rules), Homeowners vs. Renters [[zoning restrictions)... what they all have in common is a desire to protect their market and maintain pricing power.

Of course in almost all cases, there are justifications. Uber is bad because their driver's don't undergo exactly the same background checks are taxi drivers. Valid question... but local licensing isn't the only answer.

In the end, the overall public good should be the goal. Uber is proving to help the underserved working poor get around. Is this not also a worthy goal? Uber has increased the total market for transportation, and increased overall employment. The new drivers are often those who need jobs. You really think the Taxi industry is that concerned about background checks? No -- its a straw man.

Back to your point.... yes.... removing occupational licensing can make a noticeable difference in the city and its job market.