Comments on: Occupational licensure pays off for the licensed

By: Tom Paine 3

Tom Paine 3 — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:17:20 +0000

sorry for omitting the tag. thought that was implicit in the precision estimate.

Nice touch with the surname reference, CarLitGuy.

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:12:43 +0000

So, the licensed members of the guild are ensured employment at rates they collectively set by restricting competition/access to the profession, all others effectively barred from the profession by increasingly higher barriers to entry. Can’t imagine that might have any negative effects on unemployment or class stratification. Nope, none at all… Why don’t you simply suggest everyone be unionized, or better yet, you can be born into your union and for ease of identification, the state will make sure your last name matches – baker, carpenter, cook, fisher, miller, smith, tanner…

By: MattS

MattS — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 03:30:35 +0000

In reply to Tom Paine 3. Or, the added costs will drive companies out of business, GDP will fall and so will property values. Lose/lose/lose.

By: Tom Paine 3

Tom Paine 3 — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 23:15:18 +0000

What good news! What is to be done is clear: require licenses for ALL occupations, not just the ~50% where now required.

If my estimate of 50% is accurate, then average wages will increase by 4.2%, GDP will rise, and so will property values. Win/win/win.