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.
Bookmarks