More Libertarians Needed

Nick Confessore and Sarah Kershaw report on fraud in New York State's largely unregulated home health care industry. I don't know anything about that subject except what I read in their article, so you might as well read it rather than pay attention to me. This did, however, kind of leap out:

“To make someone else’s home fabulous, you need a license and your name goes in a state registry,” said Jeffrey Lerner, a spokesman for the state attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo. “But to care for someone in their home who is old and infirm, there is no central registry.”

Doesn't it seem like at least half the problem here is that you need a license to be an interior decorator? In general, the amount of seemingly unnecessary small business regulation on a state and local level is fairly mind-boggling and one suspects that 70 percent or so of it is totally unnecessary and only serves the interests of incumbent operators looking to throw roadblocks in the path of potential competition.

Comments

Uh, no, Matt. This is a really dopey post. I'm sure there are areas where there is too much regulation but asking people to get a liscence and enter their names into a registery when they set up a business really isn't one of them. You'd have to demonstrate that the costs of the liscences is onerous and the liscensing exam not related to some serious state interest. As a person who has employed an interior decorator I can tell you that such a person is in a very good position to commit fraud and embezzlement if they want to. Why *shouldn't* they be liscened if that liscensing is related to
1) introducing them to the concept of fiduciary responsibility when handling private information and credit card information for clients.
2) contractual obligations when handling complex and expensive transactions involving materials, labor, and clients?

etc...etc...etc...?
aimai

Posted by aimai | September 2, 2007 3:48 PM

what aimai said.

Same thing for general contractors licenses.

You can look on the web to see if your potential general is licensed, if he has any claims or liens against him, and if he/she is bonded (at least here in WA state).

Fraud and criminal conduct is what spurned these license requirements, passed by local and state governments (doing what gov. is supposed to do).

You learn these things when you are a homeowner.

Posted by james | September 2, 2007 3:59 PM

There are reasonable arguments for government licensing some fields. But what is the state's interest in licensing an interior decorator? It sounds more like a rent seeking scheme.

Posted by shecky | September 2, 2007 4:05 PM

only serves the interests of incumbent operators looking to throw roadblocks in the path of potential competition.

I don't know anything about interior decorating itself, but I would say in general the point is less about protecting existing businesses and more about generating opportunities for low-level graft and bribes.

Posted by Freddie | September 2, 2007 4:09 PM

james hit on the underlying point here. there is no sense of caveat emptor in the US. no responsibility or risk for consumers is acceptable....why? because they are also voters! one bad general contractor means everyone needs certification to do any job for anybody. government has few other tools to apply and to the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Posted by john | September 2, 2007 4:10 PM

This is Matt's version of 'My commenters are smarter than me.' Aimai is right on target. Matt has obviously never gone through the headaches of trying to any home remodeling work done.

There are, frankly, a surprising number of shady contractors out there, ranging from petty trimming on the work to out right thieves. Wading through them is one of the costly frictions of getting the work done, licensing helps the prospective purchaser avoid some of the worst, as does the internet now, thankfully.

Posted by AJ | September 2, 2007 4:12 PM

Shecky, my guess about why they would license interior decorators is that they often get money from the client before anything is delivered so they can go buy the proper furniture/carpet/artwork/whatever.

Posted by MikeJ | September 2, 2007 4:12 PM

One bad contractor?

One?

Posted by james | September 2, 2007 4:13 PM

A big reason that people use interior decorators is that decorators buy wholesale due to relationships with suppliers and volume of purchases. This makes them buyer's agents for inexperienced consumers -a role that presents tempting opportunites for kickbacks. Licensure and registration are intended to reduce graft and create a recourse short of litigation when it's suspected.

Posted by Bloix | September 2, 2007 4:20 PM

The most important thing about requiring a license that it lets the state weed out people who don't meet a certain trust threshold. The most basic is-- can they pass a criminal or credit check? I think its a reasonable requirement that the state screen out convicted felons from handling client funds (like an interior decorator does) or from being alone with an elderly invalid for days at a time (like a home health worker).

I have the suspicion that some states (particularly in the d Southeast) have only recently ramped up contractor licensing to protect existing contractors from immigrant competition.

An illegal immigrant will have a hard time clearing the criminal and credit checks (if they're using a fake SS number, it will make for an interesting credit report). And passing a written exam in English is pretty tough barrier for an immigrant who isn't comfortable in written English-- or written Spanish for that matter, the average illegal immigrant has less than an 8th grade education.

Here's a Wall Street Journal article about a Hilton Head stucco contractor whose own employee (an immigrant from Mexico) started a competing company and ate the old guy's lunch. I bet that guy wished South Carolina had tougher licensing requirements.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:PuYpqu-vc-8J:www.startupjournal.com/runbusiness/hiring/20061214-jordan.html+hilton+head+contractor+immigrant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Posted by beowulf | September 2, 2007 4:57 PM

james - please. are you saying you thought i meant that there is only one bad GC out there? really? sad. the point is that as soon as on consumer is burned, the legistaltion train starts rolling. if you are remodeling your home, that is your business. there is no reason tax dollars need to be spent making sure you have minimal headaches. caveat emptor. like i said, regulation makes sense in many fields - health care, food safety, etc. interior deocrating is not one of them. let the industry self police and certify and let consumers choose. AJ - you have no constitutional (or any other type of) right to a state-sanctioned contractor for every purpose. your house, your money, your risk. the "department of saving consumers from themselves" has other, more important mission to attend to.

Posted by john | September 2, 2007 4:57 PM

there is no sense of caveat emptor in the US. no responsibility or risk for consumers is acceptable.

No amount of risk from fraud is acceptable, IMHO. My job is not to enforce honesty and ferret out the fraudulent. I pay taxes for that. This sort of claim is much like, "we don't need the health code office because the families of people who die from food poisoning can just sue the restaurants, driving them out of business." Well, great, unless you're the dead guy.

Interior decorating is licensed for the same reason that general contractors are licensed. Matt just didn't think about the ways in which being an interior decorator is similar to being a general contractor.

Posted by Tyro | September 2, 2007 5:09 PM

Stick to your guns Matt. Having the option to hire an unlicensed handyman fix your locks, install a new sink, pour a little concrete patio, or paint your garage is a boon to most homeowners. There are risks involved but the caution of some homeowners shouldn't increase the price of work for all homeowners.

As for home healthcare, it's a good idea to have some uniformly recognized standards (basic first aid cert., CPR, bonded) like the Good Housekeeping seal of approval but all too often these 'seals of approval' which help consumers make educated decisions in less time transmogrify into exactly the kind of barriers to entry that make goods and services more expensive for all to placate the few.

Let the buyer beware is good advice.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 2, 2007 5:09 PM

As I recall a few years back, Louisiana has a test for entering florists. It had a fail rate of 50%. The examiners? Current florists.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1626426

Posted by Klug | September 2, 2007 5:10 PM

there is no reason tax dollars need to be spent making sure you have minimal headaches.

Wrong. That is exactly why I pay taxes for business regulations. The government, even from a libertarian perspective, exists to provide a level economic playing field in which the rules are properly enforced and in which people meet a set of standards so that we can ensure that our transactions will proceed smoothly.

Posted by Tyro | September 2, 2007 5:15 PM

whoa tyro - i agree that no fraud is acceptable. but to say the no consumer should have any RISK of any fraud? there can be no omnipotent govenrment reuglation and some risks are appropriate for the individual to take. the government is not able - nor should it try - to protect all its citizens from everything. i've indicated some of the areas that i think it should be involved in. i remain steadfast in my belief that the jones who want a remodeled kitchen and a deck should deal with the costs/benefits of that on their own. let them shop contractors - CAVEAT EMPTOR!

Posted by john | September 2, 2007 5:19 PM

whoa tyro - i agree that no fraud is acceptable. but to say the no consumer should have any RISK of any fraud? there can be no omnipotent govenrment regulation and some risks are appropriate for the individual to take. the government is not able - nor should it try - to protect all its citizens from everything. i've indicated some of the areas that i think it should be involved in. i remain steadfast in my belief that the jones who want a remodeled kitchen and a deck should deal with the costs/benefits of that on their own. let them shop contractors - CAVEAT EMPTOR!

Posted by john | September 2, 2007 5:19 PM

john, for me, it's the same way in which I believe that no amount of risk from getting mugged is acceptable-- in the sense that, if there is a risk of getting mugged in a neighborhood, it means that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. Not that the standard should be "well, pedestrian emptor."

Posted by Tyro | September 2, 2007 5:26 PM

Sigh. Libertarians are morons, pure and simple.

One reason you have licensing is that there is much, much more economic drag from all the duplication of effort from each buyer having to vet each contractor, assuming he would even know how to conduct an audit and criminal background check.

Moreover, uncertainty itself is a drag on economic activity. If people aren't sure whether someone is going to rip them off, they are less likely to engage in business transactions.

This stuff is so basic.

Posted by expatjourno | September 2, 2007 5:28 PM

How do people not realize that "caveat emptor" hurts the economy? When "buyer beware" only means that you can't trust what your buying, then you shouldn't buy things. Or at a minimum, that you can only trust established companies and should always avoid small or new companies. And that's clearly not good for the economy.

Of course, that's not really what these people mean at all. They're just looking for excuses for anti-regulatory policies. But they don't want people to actually stop spending or distrust everything. Nor would they think "Oh well, I should have been more careful" if their interior decorator ripped them off. They just want a bumpersticker phrase to toss out as a substitute for a real solution.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | September 2, 2007 5:33 PM

Tyro- I agree with you completely about the risk of fraud, a license with a back ground check is perfectly reasonable function of government to perform. On the other hand the "correct" Latin paraphrase for pedestrians would be caveat pedestrian. Your way means 'Pedestrian Buyer,' which is commonly known as a 'John.' And, BTW, those kinds of 'pedestrians' should probably be legalized as well as licensed and regulated.

Posted by AJ | September 2, 2007 6:37 PM

As a contractor, I feel able to step into this discussion. Here in Ma, we operate a two tier system of Licensed Contractor and Home Renovator.
The Contractor must be tested fairly rigorously, the Renovator is not. In neither case is the registration any certification of honesty (the oath of office of a legislator or an attorney general should make this obvious), and I would argue that any certification should attempt nothing but to prove minimum competency.

While I can state with authority that most techinical problems I encounter in home repair can be traced to failing to apply best practices of the industry, most of the financial issues I encounter are due to the fraudulant behaviour of the homeowner. Both are intertwined.

Demands for the lowest cost with the highest quality are common. Endless change orders, inabilty to make decisions in a timely fashion, outright fraud and refusal to pay on completion are more prevalent than you know.

What most consumers don't understand is that our registration in Massachusetts also afford us certain rights, and in spelling out how and when a contract must be prepared protects both of us from fraud. All anyone wants is a fair shake and a reasonable path to conflict resolution. God knows I've had enough experiance to be thankful it's so.

As for keeping other people out of the business?
Well, you can look at this two ways.

Us working guys tend to associate and form working partnerships far most extensive than you know. We often share resources and labor amongst peers. While the hacks are irritants for sure, and steal jobs by making unreasonable assurances to customers making unreasonable demands, one might also consider them a work generator, banking future jobs for the profession. Sooner or later they come to us.

Posted by fcc | September 2, 2007 6:49 PM

Okay, so now let's discuss the dangers of being embezzled by an unlicensed florist.

Posted by scarshapedstar | September 2, 2007 7:02 PM

There's nothing wrong with having a contractor certification, even a state-run one. The problem is not letting people to unlicensed work. Also, any sort of licensing skills test for hairdressers, flower arragners, etc, is pure bullshit. You can tell this because, as somebody pointed out above, the test is run by the people who are already in the profession.

It's also important to remember that "licensing" refers to something more than a standard business license with valid address, etc. There's nothing wrong with requiring that.

Posted by too many steves | September 2, 2007 7:08 PM

M.Y. second guesses the wisdom of thousands of workers in an industry and the state legislatures of most of states the country, on a topic he knows nothing about, once again using the tired big guv'ment tropes promoted by the wingnut-welfare "libertarian" think tank crowd he hangs out with.

How about a few posts about those teacher unions who hate inner city kids to follow up? Ya think Social Security privitization just might work? Health Savings Accounts anyone?

As an actual interior decorator here pointed out, decorators routinely are put in positions where they can commit fraud easily and with a low risk of being caught. Screening such people, and placing them in a position where fraud means losing their license (flushing down the drain all their investment of time and money in getting the license) makes the disincentive to fraud much greater.

It also vastly increases the chance that fraud will be remedied. If your decorator rips you off for $500, taking them to court you'll never be able get enough back to justify hiring a lawyer, and criminal prosecutors have bigger crimes to worry about. A state board that specializes in regulating the industry, however, will be able to investigate and punish misconduct far more easily.

Posted by Bob | September 2, 2007 8:06 PM

Yes, I was dumb and I wasn't thinking when I wrote that attempt at Latin. Echoing Bob, to a large degree, with preventing people from practicing without a license, it is likely that the state saves time... they invest extra time in creating licensing procedures and in cracking down on people practicing without a license and in return save time prosecuting fraud, to say nothing of time saved from civil suits that were averted.

Posted by Tyro | September 2, 2007 8:56 PM

Of course "thousands of workers in an industry" are going to be in favor of a restrictive licensing regime. They're the ones who are benefitting! It's the people who don't get licenses, and therefore aren't "in the industry" who are hurt. And the consumers.

If it's all just to prevent fraud, why the skills tests? Why do half the people in some states fail the flower arranger test? And what about hairdressers? They're not coming to your home to possibly rob you. Are we really that worried about the trauma of a bad haircut? Or is it because they use scissors? There are plenty of amatuer barbers out there who cut hair without decapitating anyone.

Posted by too many steves | September 2, 2007 9:10 PM

One reason you have licensing is that there is much, much more economic drag from all the duplication of effort from each buyer having to vet each contractor, assuming he would even know how to conduct an audit and criminal background check.

Blah.

Anyone who would hire a contractor solely on the basis of their having a state license lives in a fantasy land.

Yes, we spend a minute or two online verifying that a potential contractor is licensed. But, by far the most time and effort will be spent vetting the contractors recent work and references.

Oh, and licensing does not seem to prevent docs, lawyers, roofing contractors, etc., from doing bad things.

There is also no reason why our always so competent government should be the licensing or certifying organization.

Posted by Steve | September 2, 2007 9:18 PM

Steve, do you believe that you should be able to sue someone who defrauds you? And that if you win a judgment that you should be able to collect it? Then you believe that the government should devote tax dollars to protect you from docs, lawyers, and contractors who do bad things. Judges, bailiffs, and marshalls don't work for free. They're government employees paid for by tax dollars.

Perhaps you don't think that you should have legal recourse from cheats and frauds. Perhaps you think the 2nd Amendment gives you all the recourse you need.

But if that's not your view, why does the idea of minimal regulation to limit the amount of fraud bother you so much?

Posted by Bloix | September 2, 2007 9:47 PM

I don't know if those questions are for me or the other Steve, but you're begging the question either way. I don't agree with this type of regulation because I don't think it has anything to do with limiting the amount of fraud. I think it's about limiting the amount of competition.

Posted by too many steves | September 2, 2007 9:50 PM

Too many steves,

The haircut example perfectly illustrates how little thought you have put into your posts. Actually, hairdressing and manicuring, which often go hand in hand, are both areas where uneducated workers and unhealthy practices are a public health nuisance of no mean proportions. We've just forgotten the kinds of epidemic diseases that are quickly spread through contact with other people and their germs. A barber who doesn't clean his or her combs/brushes and razors? A manicurist who doesn't properly clean her tools? These can all spread fungal infections that can be nearly untreatable.

As for the gc in MA. I'm in MA and getting my house renovated right now. The liscencing laws are there to protect both of us. Sure, it costs me more to have a liscenced electrician and plumber and sure I might have been lucky enough to find a guy who could do the work more cheaply. But when I apply for the permi to do the work--work which affects everyone on my street of little wooden houses--I have to certify and they have to certify that they are licensed to do the work properly. Since I want to sell my house eventually, and since I'm planning to live in it for a long time, I actually prefer that the work be done up to code. This is a very complex business with lots of different kinds of rules and regulations to be fulfilled. An unliscened (damn my spelling) contractor won't have insurance to cover any claims I might have against him. He also probably won't work to code which could mean I won't be able to get my occupancy permit. And when it comes time to sell my house and the inspector goes over it to see if the prospective buyer should buy it? I prefer to deal with someone who has great references, long history, good subs, and insurance. All of those things go together.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about these hypothetical jobs or fields in which licenscing prevents entry, or raises prices, or enriches the government, despite the utter moronic ease of doing the job. Other people's jobs aren't easy. They don't take no training. They are often way more complex than an outsider realizes. I never see libertarians arguing that their lawyer or their doctor should be able to hang out a shingle or practice without a licence. Why pick out hairdressers, florists, food prep, nursing home attendants and insult them by assuming the job is so d*&mn easy that any moron can do it? Any business in which you are working physically closely with lots of other people has a health and public safety aspect. Any food prep the same. Any industry (like interior decorating) can have fiduciary responsiblities that must be clear *for the safety of the customer.*

And here's a clue: if you want to find an unliscenced worker and pay them below market and assume all the risks of health, cost, insurance etc... absolutely no one is stopping you. You can find that person in a heartbeat. But the better class of person, the one who has insurance and a track record, is going to cost you money *and they should.* The gov't licencing rules have very little to do with it. YOu might want to ask yourself why you want other people to break the lawto save you a buck when you aren't willing to break the law and take the risk of using unliscened workers to save yourself the money. Could it be that its not worth the risk to you?

aimai

Posted by aimai | September 2, 2007 10:08 PM

I think it's bizzare that in my state, there are HUNDREDS of mandatory state licensed professions/businesses, yet I am an R&D consultant, and it's not even an option for me if I wanted to be licensed. I often deal with stuff that is way more expensive and dangerous than what any home contractor does.

But, whatever...

Posted by winner | September 2, 2007 10:09 PM

Aren't licensing agencies a way for the government to sanction what are basically guilds and cartels?

In a all the debate about health care costs,it is rarely mentioned that the number of doctors is artificially restricted. Likewise lawyers and dentists.

Their professional organizations proclaim the benefits of competition and the free market.
Fair enough. But surely these professions should be undergoing the rigors of competition themselves.

Posted by Pwerk | September 2, 2007 10:31 PM

In a all the debate about health care costs,it is rarely mentioned that the number of doctors is artificially restricted. Likewise lawyers and dentists. -- Pwerk
----------------

I've logged into many discussions over the years, but this comment has to be one of the dumbest I've ever read!
Isn't it a shame that we the public are being abused by the "artificial" restriction of the medical profession to those who can pass state medical exams? And I really would like to have my teeth pulled by someone who wasn't burdened by the need to demonstrate that he knew a molar from a canine!

Posted by normalvision | September 2, 2007 11:09 PM

Aimai is absolutely right. Try living in a country where strict licensing laws allow you to hire a builder or go to a hairdresser with complete confidence that they know what they're doing. I don't understand why Americans are so contemptuous of the training that goes into becoming a skilled worker.

Posted by ks | September 2, 2007 11:12 PM

There are reasonable arguments for government licensing some fields. But what is the state's interest in licensing an interior decorator? It sounds more like a rent seeking scheme.

Surely it is a rent seeking scheme.

There are clearly certain fields that just cry out for the heavy hand of government regulation. I got a haircut the other day for instance, and I'd just as soon that people holding blades near vital arteries face some sort of government vetting.

But there's nothing critical in the world of interior design that can't be handled by professional associations, or by hiring only those who come with the ringing endorsements of trusted friends.

There are, frankly, a surprising number of shady contractors out there, ranging from petty trimming on the work to out right thieves.

There's nothing surprising about the existence of shady professionals in any field. What's so surprising is people's touching faith in politicians to weed out the good from the bad.

I think the problem with the omnipresent, all-regulating government that requires licenses for, well, everything, is that it places unrealistic expectations upon its own expertise. Government can't possibly be good at regulating everybody. It ought to confine its role to those instances where there's a clear and compelling public interest (public safety, integrity of financial markets, etc.). When government fails to cub its desire to boss us around, it ultimately undermines public confidence in its abilities. And that breeds cynicism, which in turn further undermines public confidence.

Posted by Jasper | September 2, 2007 11:12 PM

It sounds more like a rent seeking scheme.

Surely it is a rent seeking scheme.
-------------------------

So, here are two contributors who feel the state is getting rich on licensing fees.
I challenge them to supply the numbers--is it millions or billions?
Over to you ...

Posted by normalvision | September 2, 2007 11:27 PM

normalvision, that term, "rent seeking" ... I do not think it means what you think it means. It doesn't have anything to do with the state getting rich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Posted by too many steves | September 2, 2007 11:34 PM

normalvision, that term, "rent seeking" ... I do not think it means what you think it means. It doesn't have anything to do with the state getting rich.

-----------------------
OK, so enlighten me.

Posted by normalvision | September 2, 2007 11:40 PM

Well, I posted a wikipedia link so you could read it for yourself. But if you must, here's the intro to the wiki article: "In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization, or firm seeks to make money by manipulating the economic environment rather than by making a profit through trade and production of wealth. The term comes from the notion of economic rent, but in modern use of the term, rent seeking is more often associated with government regulation than with land rents."

(end wikipedia quote)
So, "rent seeking" means lobbying the government to change the rules so that your profits increase. It's one of the downsides of large-scale regulation -- most regulations have winners and losers, so there's always an incentive for somebody to try to game the system. Meanwhile, consumers aren't terribly organized, and they're usually out-lobbied by industry organizations.

Posted by too many steves | September 2, 2007 11:45 PM

Normalvision:

Perhaps my post is not quite as dumb as you think. It's not about the number of people passing a state medical exam; it's about the number of people admitted into medical school in the first place; it's about the impediments placed on foreign-trained doctors; it's about restrictions on the procedures nurses are allowed to carry out. I could go on in the same vein about lawyers, dentists, accountants etc.

Milton Friedman (surely no dummy) described the Hippocratic Oath as something akin to a union oath.

I have an open mind about this licensing debate which is also a debate about credentialism. At what point does society's demand for credentials and letters beside our name (usually very expensive to procure)prevent the less privileged from competing in the marketplace?

Posted by Pwerl | September 3, 2007 12:02 AM

Ah ha!
Let's all bow down to the altar of Milton Freidman!

Posted by normalvision | September 3, 2007 12:14 AM

Ah ha!
Let's all bow down to the altar of Milton Friedman!

Posted by normalvision | September 3, 2007 12:15 AM

Certification through professional organizations sounds like a compelling way to cut through government bureaucracy, doesn't it? It'll make it easier for the little guy just starting out. Sign up, hang out your shingle, and wait for the customers to pour in, right?

But what happens when the professional organizations start competing? Get two of them, and one'll be the bargain basement org, while the other is the ritzy one. Get three, and there'll be the ritzy one, the bargain one, and the edgy one. And then the bargain one will start look for ways to move upmarket (that's where the money is, don't ya know).

Pretty soon, the little guy starting a business will be forced to join five or six professional organizations, just to make sure all the bases are covered. The customer will have to spend as much time checking out the credentials of the organization as they do the contractor. Chaos, chaos will reign!

Seriously, though... In order for credentially through professional organizations to work, the professional organizations themselves need to be credentialled, or given a regulated monopoly by the state. (Alternatively, if the fundamental resources being supplied and regulated by the organization are of a fixed value, e.g. DNS entries, simple compliance with basic standards and metrics are sufficient.)

Posted by John | September 3, 2007 12:24 AM

"I don't think it has anything to do with limiting the amount of fraud. I think it's about limiting the amount of competition."

i.e., I don't have a clue what the facts are and I can't be bothered to find out, but I have this handy-dandy ideology that explains everything so who cares what's really going on.

Posted by bloix | September 3, 2007 12:34 AM

I suppose the important issue is what activities should or should not be "credentialized." The state should carefully balance consumer safety with consumer choice.

The bridge that thousands of people drive over every day should be designed by experts with credentials provided by a state sanctioned regulatory body.

However, does one really need a teaching degree to teach someone competently? And what about those afore-mentioned florists and interior designers?

Isn't higher-education in some ways something of a racket? It has created the psychology of "qualifications." These qualifications, time-consuming and expensive to obtain, often have little practical application but are deemed necessary in order to advance in the socio-economic hierarchy.

Posted by Pwerk | September 3, 2007 1:00 AM

Matt, please do even a minimal amount of research before you pontificate on matters you don't understand.

http://www.op.nysed.gov/interiorbroch.htm

There is no license required in New York to "make someone else's house fabulous". Anyone can do so.

Someone only needs a license if he/she wishes to describe him/herself as a "Certified Interior Designer". It's frankly appalling that Jeffrey Lerner, spokesman for the NY Attorney General, apparently doesn't understand the difference and is misleading the public of New York by making ridiculous statments.

Further, I fail to really see what the argument would be against public certifications such as this.
Certifications provide a useful service to the public looking for qualified people without preventing anyone from providing any services they want. They can even call themselves an "interior designer". The only thing that an unlicensed person cannot do is call him/herself a "certified interior designer". Isn't it funny how many cases of the onerous regulations that libertarians rail against are simply made up?

Posted by Bernard Ortcutt | September 3, 2007 1:24 AM

Does anyone else get the feeling that posts like this one, and the one where DaltonHarvardMatt declared he was to the right of Dirty Fucking Hippie Glenn Greenwald, go into a little special section on DaltonHarvardMatt's resume, to prove he is a good little contrarian pundit to his presumptive next employer?

Posted by Inevitable | September 3, 2007 1:44 AM

Here's my question...(and I don't know alot about economics, so forgive me...)

Why does it have to be against the law for an unlicensed person to work? Can't they still work without a license, and let the person who's purchasing the service decide if they want license or unlicensed workers?

Posted by LnGrrrR | September 3, 2007 2:29 AM

Here's my question...(and I don't know alot about economics, so forgive me...)

Why does it have to be against the law for an unlicensed person to work? Can't they still work without a license, and let the person who's purchasing the service decide if they want license or unlicensed workers?

It isn't against the law in New York for an unlicensed interior designer to design interiors. The only thing that an unlicensed interior designer can't do is describe him/herself as a "certified interior designer". Why Matt objects to that is really beyond me although I suspect that he just never bothered to do any research on the subject before mouthing off.

Posted by Bernard Ortcutt | September 3, 2007 2:35 AM

It's been said by some others, but mostly in secondary points: you can ALWAYS find an unlicensed someone who will do your electrical work or plumbing or roofing. What in the world makes anyone think that any laws are currently restricting your access to unlicensed laborers!?!?

I've had substandard work done by licensed contractors (in one case a company with great references had been bought up and destroyed AFTER I signed the contract...), so it's no guarantee. But I can always go with cheaper unlicensed types.

Posted by tubino | September 3, 2007 9:02 AM

People have made a number of good points and treated Matt fairly roughly.

But I sympathize with Matt's perspective. Once an occupation becomes a "licensed occupation" then professionalized, I wonder the degree to which the licensors, rather than the state and its citizens control the process. That is, can the idea that it may have been a mistake to force licensing on occupation X be effectively loosened or revoked?

I"m not speaking from much knowledge here, but two occupations come to mind:

1. barbering in New Jersey. I've been told that, to get a hair cutting license in NJ, you must be certified to cut male and female hair. No more barber shops; no more cheap hair cuts.

2. Nursing. Nursing seems to have undergone a transformation from a licensed occupation to a profession. Hospital-based programs have been replaced with BA, MA and Ph.D. programs. To be a respected, and fairly paid, teacher of nursing, you must have a Ph.D. in nursing. There is stuff called "nursing theory" that's become standard and that I've heard several nurses and nursing students complain about. Is this transition really good for nursing, good for economy and good for health care? What is a Ph.D. in nursing other than a difficult and expensive requirement?

From the perspective of this post, once these requirements are set, do they have such bureaucratic momentum that its impossible to reverse the process?

Posted by johnk | September 3, 2007 9:15 AM

does one really need a teaching degree to teach someone competently?

No, but ideally, one wouldn't be able to get a teaching degree if one were incapable of teaching someone competently. Hence, this process would ensure that no incompetents were teaching.

In the real world, obviously, this isn't working out very well right now. But in other countries, and in the US at other times, it has worked, and reforming the process seems like a more logical idea than scrapping it. I have plenty of "caveat emptor" going on in my attempts to get a decent education for my kids already, thank you very much; I really don't need more reasons to have to beware of my kids' teachers.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 3, 2007 9:25 AM

Mmmm... okay then, you just have to have the state license in order to call yourself a "Certified Interior Designer" in New York. What on earth is the state doing licensing aesthetics? And there are states (either Nevada or New Mexico for one -- I'm too lazy to look it up on Labor Day) that require a license with an exam to call yourself an interior designer.

Then there's the inevitable regulatory creep -- for example Arizona requiring one to be a licensed exterminator knowledgeable in handling poisons to install wire mesh on chimneys to keep out the critters. Or requiring one to be a licensed funeral director to sell coffins.

Look, I'm willing to concede a case for licensing of occupations where public safety is involved (doctors, dentists, electricians, for example). Those on the left who seem unwilling to concede there's any regulation that's too much justify the stereotype of liberals as people who want more government for its own sake.

Posted by Don K | September 3, 2007 10:36 AM

John K: It is my understanding that one of the issues with the nursing shortage is the lack of nursing teachers. Perhaps the "nursing theory" and other requirements are part of the issue.

Posted by Klug | September 3, 2007 10:49 AM

Just read Pwerk's note, and I agree with it. His comment, "isn't higher education something of a racket" is right on the mark. And it's much better written than my post.

Ironically, in most cases you don't need certification to teach in higher education. Educational certification is needed to teach in k-12 education. I have a Ph.D. and teach in a medical school. When I volunteered to teach a course in my local high school, on a subject in which I am an expert, I was told that I couldn't without teaching certification. In an extreme, Nobel prize winners are not permitted to teach their area of expertise. Something is screwy here.

But there is no formal certification to teach in my medical school. The criterion is that you are good enough to be hired to teach.

Posted by johnk | September 3, 2007 10:57 AM

I'm with matt on this one. No-one has argued contractors don't need licenses (HUGE straw man there, commenters), just that is is foolish to regulate interior decorators that way. What next? Car stereo installers? dog walkers? bikini models?

How does one lose a decorators license? Cross over the stripe / plaid barrier?

Would that particular money (and a lot of other monies) not be spent better regulating the sort of nursing/medical care given by home health aides?

Beware your own straw men, fellow commenters, you've built an army in this thread.

Posted by mdhatter | September 3, 2007 11:45 AM

So, here are two contributors who feel the state is getting rich on licensing fees.
I challenge them to supply the numbers--is it millions or billions?
Over to you .

The "rent seeking" is being sought not by the government but by those who want to erect barriers to entry -- in other words, those who are already ensconced in the profession in question. Lessened competition=higher prices. This is hardly controversial. One of the more potent criticisms of US healthcare delivery, for example, is that it's more difficult to become a licensed physician in the United States. This obviously tends to raise the price of the services of doctors. And no, this is not an argument for doing away with licensing requirements for MDs -- it's just an example of a widely studied, non-controversial case where restrictions on entry into a profession hurt consumers (in the case of medicine, the obvious move would be to subsidize medical education à la the French model). Pretty clearly in this one instance, the extra costs associated with physician "rent seeking" would indeed tally into the billions.

Posted by Jasper | September 3, 2007 12:39 PM

To Johnk and MDHatter: I don't think the intent of the statute is to regulate the profession in the sense that the government regulates lawyers, doctors, or nurses. Its just a truth in advertising regulation when you get down to it. It doesn't prevent non-certified interior designers from practicing their trade at all, it just sets the standard for those who voluntarily choose to call themselves 'certified'.

Posted by Jamaal | September 3, 2007 12:50 PM

As a homeowner, I understand the concern of those who are worried about getting screwed by a contractor. As a do-it-yourselfer, though, I find that the myriad rules and regulations make it a total PITA to do any work on one's own dwelling, and yet complaints about crappy contractors still abound.

I live in a rural farming township on a decent-sized chunk of land (10 acres), and yet I find it difficult to erect a fence or build a new polebarn without running afoul of a huge number of zoning restrictions. Once I've jumped through those hurdles, then I can look forward to building regulations - roughly half of which will keep me and my family safe, and the other half will simply cost me a lot of time and money.

I don't necessarily want to see the zoning and building regs wiped clean, but damn, it'd be nice if I didn't have to spend tens of hours at the township hall every time I want to tackle a project.

Posted by Angry Engineer | September 3, 2007 8:36 PM

In an extreme, Nobel prize winners are not permitted to teach their area of expertise. Something is screwy here.

Teaching at a school requires that one can manage the behaviour of kids, and break down complex concepts to a level sufficiently simple for kids to understand.

At university, it is understood that poor behaviour and (to a certain extent) lack of understanding are the problem of the student, not of the lecturer.

Different skillsets, and no reason to assume a Nobel prize winner will have the skillset required to teach well at a school level. Heck, many good researchers are terrible lecturers.

Posted by slightly_peeved | September 3, 2007 10:12 PM

slightly_peeved:

Overall, I had better teachers, who knew more about teaching, in college and grad school than in high school or jr high. I sure had plenty of awful teachers who had certification. Certainly, there is a skill set for teaching, and certainly much can be learned from courses and master teachers. But the rigidity of the current k-12 system is helping keep our school k-12 schools second-rate.

I'm sort of flabbergasted that you take the Nobel prize winner example seriously. Would you actually deprive kids of the opportunity to interact with a Nobel Prize winner because this person had no teaching credentials? My point is not that certification is without merit, but that the rigidity and pseudo-professionalization of the current system stifles experimentation, flexibility and change. If we are satisfied with the current system, then the arguments for change are blunted. But we're not. Avenues for change must be opened.

In my mind, one of the things that is messed up in our teacher-training paradigm is the barrier between the collegiate system and the k-12 system. These are two completely separate cultures. In my area, science, the gap is profound. On the one hand, there are many Ph.D. students and candidates, doing science and training for academe and the private sector. On the other hand are science teacher-training programs that are far removed from everyday science. I acknowledge that Ph.D. training rarely involves teaching skills, but, on the whole, it is far superior to the science-teacher training provided in educational tracks.

Posted by johnk | September 4, 2007 12:14 AM

This is an interesting point that johnk makes: for pre-undergraduate teachers, it appears that the ability to "teach" (that is, make students enjoy/listen to/learn a subject) is far more important than the material being taught. Thus, the teacher certification.

However, in university settings, it is clear that it is far, far more important to have people who clearly and without question have the material being taught down pat and not so important to have the relevant communication skills. (However, those who can do both are recognized and go much, much further.)

I might note that it is ultimately the "customers" (the parents, that is) to demand both skills from their primary/secondary educations.

Posted by Klug | September 4, 2007 2:10 AM

What is it about having a nationally read blog at the Atlantic that encourages a blogger to read that article and go "the thing that sticks out to me is that there is too much regulation of interior decorators!"

Posted by Xanthippas | September 4, 2007 9:49 AM

One way to mitigate the anti-competitive effects of professional licensure is to replace the state as the sole licensing authority with competing private acredidation organizations who meet and maintain an open, general, rule-based criteria set down by the state. That would transform the state from inspector general of dog groomers and flower arrangers into an inspector general of standards organizations. Certainly this would be a step in the right direction?

yours/
peter.

Posted by peter jackson | September 5, 2007 12:28 AM

Peter Jackson suggests private accreditation organizations might offer more equitable administration of licensing requirements. I would have to disagree, and would offer that such a step would increase the likelyhood of rent seeking driven rules. At least the state is (formally at least) obligated to entertain the opinions of all interested parties, whereas the professional organizations are not, and make no pretense otherwise. You only have to look at the lobbying and policy history of such groups as the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Homebuilders and the Farm Bureau to see the potential effects.

As many have here, I had regarded the hairdresser licensing rules as ridiculous until I remembered some of the home hair coloring antics my daughter and her cohorts had gotten up to in their teens, and the catastrophic and longlasting results of some of them, to come to the conclusion that those rules made a lot of sense. Colerants both caustic and acidic, organic solvents galore (walk into a nail parlor sometime). My only complaint might be that the rules are directed to protect the consumer, while the worker goes ignored.

As for home decorators, my limited experiance marks them as experts of the art of the kickback. Like some of our Senators; oaths, ethics rules, and pledges of honesty operate to little or no effect.

fcc

Posted by fcc | September 5, 2007 8:48 PM