Skip to main content

Same Ol’ Story: Blocking Opportunity, Freedom, Prosperity


I know. Sometimes we sound like a broken record. ANOTHER blog about licensing? Long-term care administration licensing? Seriously? Does this theme not get old?


Well, yeah, it’s old. We wish we could stop writing about what may very well be the stupidest, most onerous, and most disgusting type of regulation on the books. Frankly, until something is done about it, we don’t believe we have a choice. And more should be getting done. This is not a partisan issue, after all. The Obama administration put out a white paper on the over-abundance of licensing in the United States and its deleterious effects.


Nevertheless, Oklahoma has a do-nothing Occupational Licensing Advisory Commission headed by Labor Commissioner Leslie Osborn who clearly couldn’t care less. They rarely meet and almost never recommend that the legislature repeal a license.


Nonetheless, NOTHING is more fundamental to freedom than the ownership of oneself. Therefore, the most basic freedom we have is the right to sell our time – our skills and God-given talents – as we see fit. This ability is a pre-requisite, indeed what it truly means, to have freedom of opportunity – the opportunity to develop talent, to grow income, to obtain property, and to attain prosperity.


Licensing takes this fundamental freedom away. Licensing artificially constructs obstacles to selling skills and talents. Licensing denies opportunity. Licensing denies the ability for many to earn more income and gain greater prosperity for themselves, their families, and their communities. Licensing requires individuals to get permission from government to work in a chosen area, usually with that permission begged from a board with every interest in keeping people from joining their occupation.


Some might say, “Hey, wait a minute, when I got my license, all kinds of opportunity opened up for me!”


Yeah, and the same licensees, no doubt, resent the suggestion that their license be rendered worthless by having the law repealed, especially after the work and money they had to put in to get licensed. But if all that work and effort is rendered worthless by the mere repeal of the law, what does that say about the worth of the education, training, and other hoops required to get a license?


That work and money getting a license is partly the point. Most who have licenses will admit that much of what was required to obtain the license (not the skills, but the license itself) added nothing in value either to the licensee or to future customers. Licensing exams often bear little resemblance or applicability to the real world. Many of the courses required have nothing to do with actual practice.


Why does an electrologist (hair remover) need a 4-year college degree in science (Oklahoma being the only state with that requirement)? Most states don’t even license perfusionists but we do, and we require them to have a college degree! Why? Why do we license athletic trainers when California doesn’t? Why do we make it prohibitively expensive for out-of-state funeral directors and embalmers to move to Oklahoma? Last I checked, the skills needed don’t vary by geography.


Licensing is a mechanism for some who have been fortunate to climb the ladder of opportunity to pull it up behind them. Plumbers and barbers in Britain aren’t licensed. Nor are most lawyers. Meanwhile, we license massage therapists on the pretext that it’s a blow to human trafficking, no doubt a pretext promoted by massage therapists.


So, why are we licensing long-term care facilities administrators? Well, it’s not to make sure the best, most experienced managers in the state get into managing nursing homes. Nope, it’s just to block people from jobs currently occupied by people who’ve leapt the tall and expensive hurdle of getting a college degree in – oh, we don’t care – literally, anything.


Byron Schlomach is 1889 Institute Director; bschlomach@1889institute.org

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

A Teacher Walkout Leader’s Distorted View of School Choice

The Tulsa World recently published a piece by a leader of the teacher walkout a few years ago predictably opposing Governor Stitt’s proposal to expand the Equal Opportunity Education Scholarship program. There is much to take issue with in the piece, which is full of disinformation, but perhaps the most preposterous claim is the following: You’ve probably also heard of “school choice.” The term is extremely misleading because it implies that parents don’t have a choice, when the reality is every parent already has school choice for their child. Parents can choose to send their child to a public school, private school, religious school or even home school. School choice isn’t about giving parents more options. It’s about using taxpayer dollars to give wealthy families a discount on their choice of school. (emphasis added) Try telling that to the truancy officer. The model of public education in America is that we assign every student to a government school base...
Read more

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

No License, Sherlock: Licensing for Private Investigators

What does a private investigator do? Surely, we’re all familiar with various movies and shows featuring the exciting adventures of Sherlock Holmes or Magnum PI. However, reality is often disappointing, and the fact is private investigation is usually dull and relatively safe. Private investigators are tasked with conducting surveillance and fact-finding missions for their clients, but they gain no special powers to do so.  My recent paper deals with the licensing of private investigators. Oklahoma’s private investigator licenses are governed by the Council of Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET), which follows the advice of a committee made up of people who run private investigative agencies. Improved competition is not likely to be in the best interest of these agencies, so it is questionable whether they should be in a gate-keeping position they could easily turn to their advantage. Private Investigators must undergo a series of trainings and pas...
Read more

Spending Big on Public Education

Well, it’s not quite a record, but it’s close. Last school year (2018-19), per-pupil spending on public education in Oklahoma reached $10,000 (rounded by $4 and adjusted to 2015 dollars), only a little behind the zenith reached ten years earlier. That year (2008-2009), the federal government threw money at banks and states in an effort to reverse the beginning of the Great Recession. Across the nation, public education was at first insulated from the recession’s effects while taxpayers suffered job and home losses. But now, despite a gradual decline in public education funding for several years, Oklahoma’s public education spending has speedily and fully recovered, and then some. For several years, per-pupil spending in Oklahoma public schools fell to levels last seen in the 1990s. But then, two years ago, Oklahoma’s legislators apparently resolved to show they could spend as freely as any before them. Funding had recovered almost to the level seen in 2000 (see the chart). ...
Read more