The Dwindling Right to Earn a Living

Posted in Politics
Fri, Feb 13 - 9:00 am EDT | 2 years ago by
Comments: 4
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Free Radical - The Dwindling Right to Earn a Living

    High schoolers Matt Molinari and Eric Schnepf saw in recent snowstorms an opportunity. In true American entrepreneurial spirit, they printed fliers, canvassed neighborhoods, and offered their services as snow shovelers for those unable, or unwilling, to shovel themselves. Like all voluntary exchanges it offered a win-win for the boys and their customers, who apparently either valued their time above Matt and Eric’s prices or were physically unable to do the job themselves.

    But right on cue, the government – today’s all too typical villain – stepped in to thwart our intrepid heroes. Someone trained in the art of snitching called the police, who ordered the boys to halt their insidious free market practices. In their New Jersey borough, you see, one must first pay the local government henchmen $450 before being allowed to “solicit” door-to-door.

    Police insist they were merely concerned with the boys’ safety because a “state of emergency” had been arbitrarily declared by political authorities, which apparently allows state agents unusual license to restrict freedom of movement. But it would come as little surprise to see widespread clamping down on upstart snow shovelers become the winter version of police and local officials’ annual war on lemonade stands.

    That might not sound like a serious concern, but both are sillier examples of a more disturbing problem. The sad fact is that a most fundamental human right – the right to earn a living – is increasingly being encroached upon by protectionist laws and overzealous regulations.

    Most Americans think license requirements are confined to professionals such as doctors, lawyers and dentists, where highly specialized knowledge is required and poor quality could threaten the health or welfare of consumers. Although it’s arguable if such gatekeeping is desirable even in these cases – Milton Friedman argued, I’d say persuasively, that it’s not – such practice has longstanding acceptance and isn’t overly burdensome for most Americans. Yet few are likely aware of the broad extent to which occupational licensure has been adopted today.

    In the 1950s, it was only deemed necessary for an aspiring worker to first acquire a license in 5% of jobs. Today that figure is closer to 30%, and has come to include work with no significant public safety implications, such as florists, barbers, cosmetologists, tour guides and interior designers, among many others. This process can be extremely expensive and discourages many from pursuing employment in these fields, while raising costs for consumers. The Reason Foundation estimates a total cost from licensing regulations between $34.8 billion and $41.7 billion.

    Pennsylvania, for instance, passed a law in 2006 requiring African hairbraiders to obtain a special license, on the pretense that it would spare them from needing a cosmetology license. But even their supposedly less onerous license required completion of at least 300 hours of training, or 150 hours with three years of experience, before legally being allowed to braid hair. As outrageous as that is, many states are much worse, sometimes requiring thousands of hours in training. These unjust requirements have led to lawsuits in multiple states.

    Rules tend to vary widely from state to state in arbitrary fashion. Even though it’s not mentioned anywhere in state law, Texas regulators require eyebrow threaders to “spend approximately $20,000 obtaining up to 1,500 hours of instruction in government-approved beauty schools that do not even teach threading,” according to the Institute for Justice, which is currently suing to have the requirements declared unconstitutional. Yet a number of nearby states exempt eyebrow threaders entirely. Such wide disparities in the number and type of licensed job categories are common between states, even those in close proximity, which raises an obvious question: If some places work just fine with little to no regulation of a particular field, why must other jurisdictions be so restrictive?

    Rules vary not because consumers in one location are more fragile than those in another, but because special interests have simply been more successful in capturing the political process from place to place. Simply put, the rules have nothing to do with consumer protection.

    Tour guides in DC won a court victory last year against a 108-year-old city code that required any “sightseeing tour guide” to pay a fee and correctly answer 70 out of 100 multiple-choice questions. Demonstrating the disconnect between regulators’ stated motives and their policies, Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote in her decision, “How does memorization of addresses and other, pettifogging data about the District’s points of interest protect tourists from being swindled or harassed by charlatans?”

    Licensure requirements are usually passed under the auspices of helping consumers, but research shows little observable benefit to product quality. Often times they negatively impact quality by reducing competition or supply.

    These obstacles can also come in different forms. A Kentucky judge last year struck down a “certificate of necessity” (CON) regulation that unfairly blocked a moving company from opening. To obtain the CON, which was required before a new company could enter the market, the applicant had to show that not only was it “fit, willing and able properly to perform” moving services, but they also had to demonstrate that existing moving services were “inadequate.” They even had to notify existing companies – their would-be competitors – who then could file protest. It was explicit protectionism.

    The Kentucky regulation was struck down, but there are many more like it throughout the states, thanks in large part to persistent judicial neglect of economic rights since the New Deal.

    Innovative services like Uber and Lyft are learning just how difficult it is to compete against established industries protected by government. Government sanctioned taxi cartels deliberately restrict supply by requiring drivers to posses “medallions,” the number of which are tightly controlled. So restricted is the supply that in major cities a single medallion can cost upwards of one million dollars, pricing out all but major corporate entities from the industry and driving up costs for consumers.

    Toe-to-toe, the taxi industry can’t compete with app-driven services capable of offering lower prices and quicker service. But with government protection, they can keep the competition out all together. And keeping out the competition is what these regulations are best at.

    Faced with legal and political challenges to their blatant cronyism, head of Louisiana’s state horticulture commission snarked at the prospect of even simple reductions to their requirements that, “If [aspiring florists] can’t take the instruction and pass the exam, how can they do an arrangement that you and I want to buy?” One wonders how consumers were ever able to buy flowers before such enlightened thinkers came along to protect them from centuries of respect for the right to work.

    The right to earn a living can be traced in common law back to the Magna Carta, and was appreciated by our nation’s founders. James Madison wrote “that is not a just government … where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations.” By that measure, unjustness is in abundant supply.

    In a free society where the right to earn a living is respected, you shouldn’t need to convince an arbitrary panel of judges, likely made up of industry practitioners with an interest in preventing you from competing, of your skill and ability to perform. You should only need to convince consumers.

    Brian Garst is a political scientist, commentator, and advocate for free markets and individual liberty. He also blogs at BrianGarst.com and you can find him on Twitter @BrianGarst.

    Keep up with the best of Free Radical below. Click through the gallery to read more from Brian Garst.


    Election 2016

    Garst writes about the presidential election and the impact of Donald Trump's authoritarian moment.

    Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Sharing Economy

    Brian Garst discusses why the Left should fear the sharing economy.

    Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images

    Censorship

    The right to be forgotten is censorship by another name.

    Photo by BartekSzewczyk / Getty Images

    Pope Francis

    Brian Garst explores why the pope needs a glass of STFU.

    Photo by Vatican Pool/Getty Images

    Reining in Abusive Prosecutors

    We need to acknowledge the role that unaccountable and out of control prosecutors play in contributing to the system’s worst failures and abuses.

    Private Lives in a Digital Age

    If society is going to survive in this new age, it may need to learn how to forget, or at the very least, to pretend like it didn’t notice. Read more...

    Photo by Bartłomiej Szewczyk / Getty Images

    SCOTUS

    Why do Republicans suck at picking Supreme Court justices?

    Title IX

    Garst sounds off on how Title IX became an abomination.

    Amtrak

    Garst explores why Amtrak is a government failure.

    Robot Workers

    Don't worry, the robots are not going to take away all the good jobs.

    Taxes

    Brian Garst explores why you aren't supposed to understand the tax code.

    King v. Burwell

    Brian Garst talks about the fact that there's much more at stake than just Obamacare.

    Online Gaming

    Republicans captured by billionaire have abandoned principle to stop online poker.

    Dwindling Rights

    Brian Garst discusses one of our many dwindling rights in this country -- the right to earn a living.

    Government Theft

    You would think the idea that government shouldn’t steal would be as uncontroversial as the notion that citizens shouldn’t steal. Alas, it is not. Can we put an end to government theft?

    Also read: This Land is [Government] Land.

    Carbon Tax

    Many on the Right are talking now about instituting a carbon tax. If Republicans all hate taxes, then what gives? Read about conservatives and the carbon tax.

    Gridlock

    Everyone complains when Congress doesn't meet some arbitrary threshold of activity, but gridlock isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    Rape Culture

    EveryJoe columnist Brian Garst believes that the moral panic of "rape culture" is a threat to liberty.

    Ideological Surrender

    EveryJoe columnist Brian Garst discusses how Republican failure to reform the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) would be ideological surrender.

    Net Neutrality

    While some people think net neutrality is a positive thing, Brian Garst believes that government-imposed net neutrality would choke the internet.

    Criminal Justice Reform

    Recognition of serious problems in the criminal justice system spans the ideological spectrum -- Left, Right and in between. Read about why and how criminal justice reform may define the 114th Congress.
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • Kasimir Urbanski

        A good article! What you perhaps under-state here is that in many of these cases, the push to create these artificial barriers to doing business is coming from the people already in that business (the taxi-drivers, the hair-stylists, the professional sidewalk-cleaners or whatever) who are trying to keep customers hostage to high prices, bad service, and other abuses. They are, in those cases, manipulating a situation of government getting involved in something it shouldn’t be as a way to keep their stranglehold on a market.

        So I find it interesting, given that, that you’ve previously come out against net neutrality, when Comcast, Verizon and the rest of the ISP-Mafia are trying to do largely the same thing. Is the ‘government’ part of it the only difference to you? What I mean is, if an association of sidewalk-shovelers took advantage of some theoretical resource-limit to collectively act as the only game in town, charging exorbitant sidewalk-shoveling prices while giving terrible customer-service, would that be OK just because the government is not involved?

        • http://www.briangarst.com/ Brian Garst

          On the first point, you’re right. I could and probably should have made that connection more forcefully. There are similar, related issues I intend to explore in the future, however, so I’m sure I’ll have the opportunity to expand upon that.

          On the second question, I tentatively answer both yes and no (bold, I know). I’m not sure I’m entirely understanding your scenario, but I can say that there are many things I think government should not do, but that private entities should not be prevented from doing (which is not the same thing as endorsing or condoning that behavior; my requirements for outlawing something go beyond merely thinking it is bad). On net neutrality specifically, it’s obviously convoluted. I’m against most all of the proposed federal rules claiming to promote net neutrality (which I don’t really believe they will/are intended to do), but that doesn’t necessarily mean I see no problems with the current regulatory regime. There are a lot of instances where the companies you mention may have abused government and titled things in their favor and against competition, particularly at local levels, where I’d be in favor of rule changes.

        • Kasimir Urbanski

          O.K., that’s a reasonable answer.

        • WhoHasMyChange

          The only thing that needs to be changed in the arena of internet service providers is to break the local monopolies. Sure, I have a ‘choice’ where I live – I’m at the far end of a DSL connection, which is not broadband in any sense of the term, or the one and only cable internet provider on my street. And it’s not like I’m living in rural America – I’m in a rapidly growing suburb of Dallas that has 155,000 people. Verizon, Charter, AT&T, and Time Warner have carved up the cities such that most areas have only one viable option for high-speed internet. The only token gesture of ‘competition’ they have colluded to is very very VERY small areas of overlap where they can proudly point and say “See, we compete!”.

      Be Sociable, Share!