Congress should limit occupational licensing
Congress should limit occupational licensing. While some types of occupational licensing arguably protect consumers, doctors for example, recent trends have extended occupational licensing to professions with little ability to do serious harm, hair styling, interior decorating, florists, and shampooers being particularly egregious examples. The Institute for Justice, investigating low income occupational licensing, found that they require an average of nine months of training.
The trend in occupational licensing, a White House report found that licensing requirements have quintupled over the past 60 years, harm primarily low income workers and residents. By raising barriers to entry to jobs, the supply of those jobs is decreased, raising the price of the services provided by those jobs. At the same time, the occupational licensing hurdles make it more difficult to find work.
Occupational licensing has become a bi-partisan issue, with the White House criticizing it from the left, and the Institute for Justice, among other groups, criticizing it from the right. However, most discussion has considered licensing a state problem, asking, or suing, state lawmakers to reduce licensing requirements.
I have a different proposal, under the commerce clause, Congress should limit occupational licensing. Traditionally, the commerce clause has been used to prevent states from enacting trade barriers between each other. Congress has the authority to ensure goods flow between states. However, there is no reason to treat services differently. Occupational licensing reduces interstate mobility, especially among low income residents. If being a barber requires a different and costly license in every state, barbers are unlikely to move between states.
In order to ensure services, and their providers, can continue to flow between the states, Congress can and should limit occupational licensing. The law could prevent states from imposing onerous licensing requirements on jobs which have little potential for harm. Alternatively, Congress could legislate that licensing requirements in one state are transmittable to other states. If becoming an interior decorator only requires 10 hours of classes in Maryland, but 500 hours in Mississippi, Mississippi would be forced to recognize the Maryland’s license.
Limiting occupational licensing would primarily benefit lower income members of society. It would decrease the cost of services, increase their career opportunities, and increase their mobility. Given the bipartisan consensus of the harms of occupational licensing, Congress should take this opportunity and prevent states from imposing onerous and unnecessary occupational licensing requirements.
