Occupational Licensing

Free the Horse Masseuses!

Occupational licensing must go.

|

Celeste Kelly, Grace Granatelli, and Stacey Kollman make their living by providing massage services to horses and other animals. For more than a decade, these three women have supported themselves by doing what they love while alleviating the pain of animals and bringing comfort to their owners. But if established veterinarians and bureaucrats in the state of Arizona and Maryland have their way, Kelly, Granatelli, and Kollman will not only be barred from their chosen livelihood, they could face up to $3,500 in fines and six months in jail.

The therapists are in trouble because they lack official licenses from their local State Veterinary Medical Examining Boards. But obtaining a license is absurdly difficult. "To become licensed, applicants must graduate from an accredited veterinary school, pass rigorous national and state licensing examinations and pay a $400 fee," the Institute for Justice (I.J.), a nonprofit public interest law firm representing the women, explains on its website.

None of the 28 fully accredited veterinary schools in the United States are in Arizona, and getting a diploma from any of them requires several years and thousands of dollars. Adding insult to injury, the schools are not required to teach animal massage, "nor is it necessary to demonstrate knowledge of or proficiency in massage to graduate or become licensed."

Unfortunately, this abusive treatment of American entrepreneurs isn't confined to horse masseuses. Unlicensed hairdressers, barbers, and hair braiders, too, were under attack in Washington, Utah, the District of Columbia, California, Mississippi, Minnesota, and Ohio before I.J. secured justice.

Cosmetology boards around the country tried to lock in the advantages of incumbent salons by requiring hairstylists to undergo months of training and pay thousands of dollars in fees before they could legally work. Many unlicensed hairstylists were immigrants hoping to bring their tradition of African hair braiding to the United States. Infuriatingly, many states' educational and experience requirements did not address African hair braiding at all, thus undermining the safety rationale altogether. After shelling out money and wasting time, would-be hair braiders would emerge into the market with no additional knowledge about how to perform the service they planned to sell. The fight to defend unlicensed hairstylists still rages on in Texas.

Taxi drivers face similar barriers to entry. In many cities, taxi medallion and certification boards are plainly in the pockets of the industry they ostensibly regulate. These bodies restrict the supply of hired cars to raise prices and profits for incumbents. I.J. challenged the taxi cartels in Denver and Minneapolis in court and won. Milwaukee is next.

Even interior designers have been targeted by unfair licensing regimes in Florida, Texas, New Mexico, and Connecticut. The villain in this industry showdown was the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), probably the world's only interior design-centered mafia.

This protectionist industry association has engaged in a decades-long campaign to push licensing and titling laws for interior designers on several states. (Who else will save us from avocado appliances and bad feng shui?) I.J. has been victorious in these cases as well, but unfortunately this sampling is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Licensing requirements are often justified on the grounds of consumer protection and public safety. Supporters point to the early history of licensing, when many of the first requirements targeted high-risk (and often high-income) professions such as medicine and surgery. But at least these early schemes were limited to a short list of occupations.

Times have changed since then. A 2009 National Bureau of Economics paper by economists Alan Krueger and Morris Kleiner titled "Analyzing the Extent and Influence of Occupational Licensing on the Labor Market" measured that in 2008, nearly 30 percent of the workforce was required to hold a license, up from around 10 percent in 1970. "More than 800 occupations were licensed in at least one state," the authors write. According to I.J., in the 1950s only 5 percent of workers were required to obtain a government license.

The practice has spread to so many harmless professions that paternalist justifications hold less and less water. The potential for serious harm during a haircut or manicure is miniscule, and it's not clear licenses do much to prevent even the limited list of potentially serious screw-ups.

Occupational licensing is just another product of the ugly marriage between powerful private sector interests and the even more powerful government. The phenomenon is called cronyism and its origins are in the dislike of competition that many private businesses share. Competition may be good for consumers, because it keeps prices low while increasing the quality and choice of products and services, but it's hard work for businesses. They have to fight for customers by innovating and evolving in ways that consumers demand.

To avoid the gritty work of fighting it out in a free market, organized private interests, such as Arizona's licensed veterinarians, lobby the government for special regulations, preferential tax treatment, and laws that discourage competitors. They pay lawmakers to constrain the same free markets in which they originally achieved success.

Given the right incentives-campaign contributions, for instance-politicians are more than happy to elevate narrow, special interests over the broad general public and offer them protections from competition. This practice has been around for as long as there have been businesses and governments. The great economist Milton Friedman in his 1980 book Free to Choose cited the example of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which ended being captured by existing railroad interests and used to strengthen their grip on the industry to prevent competition from other forms of transportation.

Incumbent firms and workers in licensed industries are highly motivated to help their systems endure. According to Krueger and Kleiner, government-imposed barriers create a de facto government-sustained monopoly by restricting entry into licensed occupations. The end result: a 14 percent wage hike for licensed workers.

Customers lose, of course, thanks to fewer choices and higher prices. But the biggest losers of all are those workers who never get a chance to enter their chosen occupations because of government-enforced barriers. Many of these occupations -like working as a transit driver or librarian-traditionally offered low-income Americans their first rungs on the ladder to upward mobility. By making entry into the work force more expensive and time consuming, we are making their climb out of poverty that much more difficult.

Economist and Econlog blogger David Henderson did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation in January to determine how many people are worse off because of occupational licensing laws. "If the laws kept the number of people in those occupations lower by even ten percent (which, along with a 14 percent higher wage, would imply an elasticity of demand of only 0.7)," Henderson wrote, "then 4 million people are worse off and possibly substantially worse off. With a higher elasticity of demand, you get an even bigger number of people who are worse off."

By protecting entrenched interests from competition, occupational licensing makes millions of people worse off, hinders income mobility, and lowers economic growth.

It is high time to let Americans work. Abolish all occupational licensing laws and end the practice of entrenched businesses using government to impose higher costs on consumers while thwarting upstart entrepreneurs.

NEXT: Baylen Linnekin on New York City's Loser Soda Ban

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Free the Horse Masseuses!

  2. They’re worried it’s a front for you-know-what.

    1. Big Masseuse?

      1. We hoof to stop making jokes like this.

        1. By which I mean we need to rein in our impulses.

        2. Our amusement won’t last furlong.

        3. In the mane, though, they’re funny.

          1. That joke is full of whinny

            1. I either canter won’t stop.

              1. Damn your silly puns!

              2. I say “neigh” to entrenched interests and crony capitalism.

    2. For more than a decade, these three women have supported themselves by doing what they love while alleviating the pain of animals and bringing comfort to their owners.

      Sounds like happy endings all around.

    3. You should all feel bad about yourselves.

  3. Dennis Marx, the shooter who attempted to occupy a Forsyth County court house Friday, has been identified by law enforcement officials as a member of the Sovereign Citizens Movement.

    Marx represents a still-small percentage of the anti-government organization that escalates from “paper terrorism” to acts of violence. The group, classified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a domestic terrorist organization, maintains the belief that they are not subject to municipal, state and federal systems of law, instead following only “common law.”

    Members of this group consider the United States government illegitimate and do not believe in paying taxes, needing a valid driver’s license or even the government’s right to tell them which laws to follow, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/news/b…..r-t/ngF3X/

    1. A guy named Marx believes in violence? Say it isn’t so!

      1. A chick named Hayek says no to bikini capitalism. No way.

    2. Butplug by posting that here are you pointing out that this was a unlicensed domestic terrorist ?

      If he were a liberal Eco-terrorist would you still require him to be licensed ?

    3. “Paper terrorism”, refering to filing bogus documents and generally being a nuisance. Really? We’ve stretched the term.

      1. Just like the fourteenth amendment.

  4. I hear shrieking. It sounds like

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!11!

    1. And peanuts

    1. We can only hope that one of them hits Washington, D.C.

  5. http://www.nj.com/politics/ind…..rders.html

    State Sen. Richard Codey wants friends and family to be able to have guns temporarily taken away from loved ones they believe are mentally unstable.

    The veteran lawmaker said he will propose legislation that was spurred by the recent mass shooting in California, when a 22-year-old college student Elliot Rodger shot or stabbed six people to death before killing himself.

    Veteran lawmaker is one of those phrases that send a chill down the spine of honest men.

    1. Will people at least be able to make a list of enemies who cannot accuse them? Might as well adopt all of the rules around the Inquisition.

    2. “Veteran lawmaker is one of those phrases that send a chill down the spine of honest men.”

      It focus-grouped better than “professional politician.”

    3. Won’t it be fun when your progtard relative or “friend” just declares every gun owner he knows mentally unstable?

      1. We’re only concerned about your safety, friend. So, do you often feel as though your friends and relatives are scheming against you? And do you have any firearms?

  6. Who else will save us from avocado appliances and bad feng shui?

    You joke, but I’m pretty sure either could induce uncontrollable vomiting and/or dishonored ancestors.

  7. You left out just regular human massage as needing liberation. My masseuse of choice had to basically quit because it’s too expensive to get certified if you’re doing it part time. And the certification is of course total bullshit. I’d love to see I.J. take on that nonsense in every state.

    1. That’s a big problem that’s underestimated in these analyses: how credentialism is killing career flexibility, not just keeping people out of their chosen profession. They make it so you’ve got to commit to a career; can’t take some time to try things out, fill in a dry spot, or work part time, because it’d cost more than it’s worth. Better to work off the books.

      Guildism is a large part of the motiv’n for this movement, restricting compet’n, but it wouldn’t’ve gotten far were it not for the widespread sentiment, “This is a rich country, nobody should be getting 2nd class service, and professional educ’n, along with educ’n of all kinds, should be encouraged.” So these edicts are enacted largely by people who really think they’re doing a good thing for consumers, rather than propping up the incomes of a sector of providers. There’s no other reason for the horse masseur licensure, because veterinarians don’t want that business and aren’t in competition with anyone for it; it just destroys a service category to nobody‘s benefit.

  8. Alternate alt-text for story art:

    “Here’s Tulpa!”

  9. its awesome,,, Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. http://www.Fox81.com

    1. Halt and Catch Fire, bot.

  10. Require journalists to acquire difficult to acquire licenses and don’t grandfather clause in any of them – then attach the regulation to a bounded regulation for all other commonplace occupations. That would solve the problem.

  11. I have a suggestion; to maintain quality standards in any trade, let the practitioners themselves set the standards — and the competency tests. No government need be involved. This wouldn’t eliminate all in-trade divisions (like the difference between “cordwainers” and “cobblers”), but without government power to enforce those divisions, the practitioners could argue, adjust, and even abolish the differences themselves.

    Meanwhile, those Arizona horse-masseurs could simply describe themselves as “massage therapists” in general, treat humans as a general rule and horses (or other animals) officially as a sideline. Or they could take quick courses in horseshoeing and describe themselves as “farriers’ assistants”. Heheheheh. “What’s in a name?” Sidestepping a stupid law, that’s what!

  12. I have never heard of horse masseuses. this is just insane i think the name needs to be changed like people have pointed out here that it shouldnt be horse masseuses but horse therapists lol
    but hey thats just me hopefully this is not an old wives tail here but its actually true
    however i cant accept that there are horse masseuses only what about all the animals that need this like dogs, camels,
    Lily P.

  13. This too is the first I hear of a horse masseuse (if that is how you spell it even … I’m surprised other animals don’t have them too, or do they?

  14. living by providing massage services to horses and other animals.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.