Those of you who have listened to my show for a while will know that I am not a fan of government licensing.  Interior decorators, manicurists, barbers … even doctors.  I don’t believe that these people should be forced to be licensed by the government in order to practice in their field.  It’s the people’s responsibility to find reputable products and services, not the government.  But as our Republic swells with government bureaucrats, licensing becomes something that government hacks do in order to prove their existence on the job.

To give you an idea … in the 1950s, only one out of every twenty occupations required a license.  Today, that number is an astounding one out of every three occupations. 

These figures, by the way, are coming from a study conducted by the Institute for Justice.  One of the co-authors, Lisa Knepper, gets it exactly right: “Unnecessary and needlessly high licensing hurdles don’t protect public health and safety — they protect those who already have licenses from competition, keeping newcomers out and prices high.”  That’s exactly what I’ve been saying for years.  Many of the folks who support occupational licensing are those who already have licenses in their industries, and they like it because it limits new competition.

The most widely licensed professionals are occupations like cosmetologist, bus and truck drivers, and pest control.  The most difficult profession to enter into because of licensing is … interior design.  However, it is only licensed in three states.  Remember when Florida Governor Rick Scott tried to remove the licensing requirement for interior decorators?  It was an outrage!  There was an insipid woman by the name of Michelle Earley (herself a licensed interior decorator in Florida) who claimed that an improper selection of fabrics would contribute to the death of 88,000 every year.  Seriously!  This is the type of woman who the co-authors were describing.

Other random professions that require a license in at least one state are taxidermists, funeral attendants, shampooers and florists.

At the end of the day, the purpose of the study was to show how burdensome occupational licensing requirements make it more difficult for minorities and entrepreneurs to break into industries.