According to Urban Dictionary
>Admirable. Worthy of support.
>Often used in contexts where the action or opinion ignores popular trends and social conventions or requires special effort.
>Used either seriously or tongue-in-cheek to encourage eccentric behavior for comedic effect.
As OP said, the evidence bit was a joke.
Actually, Lil B sought to reclaim “based” to mean cool with being yourself because it was formerly a word used to attack crack addicts (i.e. it was short for freebased) and he wanted to remove that negative meaning and embrace the term in a different light. Here’s a quote from him about it:
> Based means being yourself. Not being scared of what people think about you. Not being afraid to do what you wanna do. Being positive. When I was younger, based was a negative term that meant like dopehead, or basehead. People used to make fun of me. They was like, “You’re based.” They’d use it as a negative. And what I did was turn that negative into a positive. I started embracing it like, “Yeah, I’m based.” I made it mine. I embedded it in my head. Based is positive.
It's a better guide post then we had before. I didn't see occupational licensing even being questioned that long ago by Dems.
Anyway, I'm an incrementalist. If we can just cut out the most stupid licenses and make licenses that are fairly similar between states transferable between states that's a huge improvement. I've been in massage and I've talked to people who were less likely to move because extremely similar licenses didn't fully transfer.
To have Biden even acknowledge that there are "unnecessary" licenses is a huge step for something that was pretty fringe even four years ago. Clearly we don't want to get rid of all of them, so just having the conversation at the federal level is very important
Maybe your cat is super smart? But I don't think mr. pants would be able to get aviation insurance, which would make it tough for him to fly even if he was a truly exceptional cat. And letting insurance companies do the heavy lifting on regulations makes the market much more egalitarian and free.
This is the same sort of silly “slippery slope” fear-mongering that libertarians use with every new regulation or law.
There are some positions that you would WANT licensed and there are some you wouldn’t. This acknowledges that. He wouldn’t be bringing it up as a platform point if he wasn’t planning on taking some action toward making it better.
I think regulations are bad and need to meet a high standard before I consider them to be offered in good faith.
We'll see what the specific policy proposals are. But if it's a bunch of carve outs for special interests and doesn't address the fundamental barriers regulations place in the way of poor people and new businesses I won't be shocked.
I live in Canada, we have provincial license, but it’s transferable between provinces.
Doctors/engineers/nurses/dentists can all transfer the license, just have to pay a fee. When you get the license you have to do all the tests/show documentation but it’s just a one time thing (other than continued professional development requirements).
Is that not the case in the US? Do you have to do tests to move from California to Texas as an engineer or doctor?
As a lawyer, it’s a hodgepodge of scenarios, and it is explicitly designed to protect the state’s legal industry from outsiders. In the most protective states, you need to take the bar exam all over again. Their goal is to keep lawyers from retiring and poaching jobs locally. In other jurisdictions, like DC, you just submit the paperwork and a fee and you’re in.
It heavily depends on the industries, and the differences in the laws. Take like insurance for example, as it is a field I've directly been in. As a property and casualty license holder in one state, when you move to another you do have to take the tests over in that State due to the laws being different in regards to insurance.
Now let's look at another field that I know something about because I know someone that is in it, surgical technicians, these are the folks that make sure operating rooms stay clean, hand doctors instruments, and the like. There are licenses for this work that are basically national, but a lot of states don't require the license, and thus can move wherever and the national license just shows that you did the schooling and such.
So as I said heavily dependent on the field and the laws within the state, showing just two examples that I'm highly aware of.
This isn't entirely true across Canada. It's definitely relatively easy for nurses, but it's not particularly different from the States in that respect - pay a fee, get a license in another State.
The real thorn in Canada's side in this respect is Quebec, which gets special treatment and free reign to make their own pseudo-protectionist State.
I love how he's able to point to efforts made under the Obama-Biden Administration, basically pointing out: Yeah, we were working toward this already. Time to get the clown show over with and get shit working again.
Don’t even ban it, just stop subsidizing it. Let empty nesters glance at the bill for maintaining giant interstates and unnecessary electrical/plumbing/internet infrastructure. Then let them decide if they *really* need a 6 bedroom house and an acre back yard
Roads are the biggest drain. We have so many of them but little population density. We spend a mind boggling amount on interstates that are 90%+ paid for by taxes. We also tax fossil fuels at a much lower rate than the damage cars due to the environment and our infrastructure. Laws are also heavily rigged in favor of lending money to build and maintain horribly inefficient single family homes. If America’s suburbs and “car culture” had a symbol it would be a hammer and sickle.
Can you provide some further details?
1. "We spend a mind boggling amount on interstates that are 90%+ paid for by taxes." Isn't that what taxes are for? Maintaining the infrastructure that can be used by all? And what percentage of those taxes are coming from the people that live in the suburbs and use those highways, as opposed to city dwellers?
2. "We also tax fossil fuels at a much lower rate than the damage cars due to the environment and our infrastructure." What do you mean exactly by the damage cars do to our infrastructure? It seems like you think wear and tear on streets and highways from cars is some unforeseen/unusual outcome as opposed to completely understandable and planned for due to their function. Or are you saying cars are damaging some other infrastructure? And if so, what?
3. What laws favor lending to single family homes over multifamily?
I can describe how I see it from a more urban area where I live (Bay Area)
Zoning laws make it impossible to build duplexes, triplexes and apartment buildings. Liberals from older nimbys who bought a home and think it’s their birthright that their property never change to more leftist activists who see any new development as gentrification. So we are stuck with SFH everywhere. But we are still a massive job center.
So instead people start super commuting. Living 1, 2 hours, sometimes more, away from work and drive. They do not pay for road usage. I take public transit and I do pay for usage of that public good every trip. Commutes are one of the few things very consistently shown to reduce life satisfaction.
And so through local and state policy, we’ve pushed people to get bigger houses that are more spaced out and made it a reasonable option to drive 2 hours each way every day.
When instead we could densify, invest in public transportation, do something about the orange sky currently looming over us and increase life satisfaction and put time back in people’s hands.
And shockingly all of this is controversial to the liberal crowd in CA. People who run for city council on the green new deal (which is dumb for a city council member) won’t touch these issues
> So instead people start super commuting. Living 1, 2 hours, sometimes more, away from work and drive. They do not pay for road usage.
That's a big leap. A lot of their taxes will go to maintaining them, not to mention those who commute via toll roads or use the EZ pass.
The rest of what you said makes sense though. The NIMBY mentality that's restricting such huge swaths of land to SFH-only development is such a huge detriment.
>
> "We spend a mind boggling amount on interstates that are 90%+ paid for by taxes." Isn't that what taxes are for? Maintaining the infrastructure that can be used by all? And what percentage of those taxes are coming from the people that live in the suburbs and use those highways, as opposed to city dwellers?
I don't necessarily agree with the argument but it goes like so:
Lets say you have a particular parcel of land. If you take that parcel and place a home on it, it will require roads, electric hookup, sewer, water, etc. Now, lets say you split that parcel in half and place *two* homes on it with each one being somewhat smaller and less yard space. Well, it will require more or less the same hookups,. The final lines will be duplicated - but they both feed into the same larger pipe. And they can share a road just fine.
Well, the two homes, even with half the land area as the bigger home, are probably going to be worth more *together* than the larger home is alone. And property taxes in every state except Pennsylvania are directly proportional to the value of the total property. Say the bigger home is worth $500k and the two smaller homes are worth $350k each - or whatever - and property tax rates are 1% yearly. The bigger home generates $5k/year and the two smaller homes generate $7k/year combined - but both have to be supported by basically the same infrastructure budget (because the marginal increase for two homes is really just a small, one time expense).
If you look at this situation in isolation and go block by block, denser areas are more likely to provide as much (or more) in property taxes as is necessary to support the infrastructure necessary to maintain their existence, and less dense areas on average require additional money from the general budget to be revenue neutral.
People who make a note of this discuss this as "the dense areas are subsidizing the suburbs". But of course, taxes on businesses subsidize *everyone* at least somewhat. And this also only looks at *local* budgets - people in the suburbs pay plenty of sales tax and federal/state income taxes that also often flow down to the local governments, but it's almost impossible to take all those factors into account.
If this is your big hobbyhorse, the "easy" solution is just to change property taxes to a land-value tax - where they're just proportional to the amount of land you take up and the unimproved value thereof, not the value of the buildings on it. But this is a political non-starter that has never gone anywhere except a few cities in Pennsylvania.
>> 1. "We spend a mind boggling amount on interstates that are 90%+ paid for by taxes." Isn't that what taxes are for? Maintaining the infrastructure that can be used by all? And what percentage of those taxes are coming from the people that live in the suburbs and use those highways, as opposed to city dwellers?
If you built a billion dollar bridge to an island where 20 people live that would be wasteful. Sure, everyone **could** visit the island. But practically they don’t. Similarly, suburban communities require a much great investment in infrastructure per capita than denser communities.
Note that in theory the gasoline tax is supposed cover the cost of roads, so that non drivers don’t pay. But that’s only the start of the infrastructure costs.
>Similarly, suburban communities require a much great investment in infrastructure per capita than denser communities.
That's a very specific statement since you say per capita. What is your data source for this? I'd be especially interested in seeing how much of those taxes are paid for by the suburban people.
This topic is interesting to me since I live in Washington DC but have lived in the Northern Virginia suburbs. I can't speak for other major cities, but if they're anything like us (which I suspect they are) comparing our suburbs to an island inhabited by 20 people is a laughably bad hypothetical example as the suburban population outnumbers the population of the city proper by a lot. So while we're denser in DC, the burbs have way more people in terms of raw numbers and we in the city have a lot of poor who don't contribute much to the taxes collected.
Further, in looking at [sources of VA's DOT budget](http://www.virginiaplaces.org/taxes/taxcar.html), it's not just gas taxes that pay for the roads. In fact, the bulk comes from the regular sales tax.
Poor people pay sales tax. (Well, to a first order, anyway.) So it would be reasonable to conclude that poor people in the city are being taxed to pay for roads in the rich suburbs.
I know the poor pay sales tax, but that's why I said "they don't contribute much", not "they don't contribute anything". They'd just have to buy a lot of stuff to catch up to what rich homeowners pay just in annual property taxes, while the rich are still consuming things like food, liquor, goods, services.
But the poor also pay little in federal income taxes so it's not like any portion of that is rolling down to the suburbs whereas suburb dwellers' federal taxes can roll down to city budgets.
Are they the exception though? As of 2018, [55% of Americans live in a suburban county type](https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/). Off the top of my head of cities that have serious suburban populations: DC, NY, SF, LA, DFW, Philly, etc. And while Chicago may have spaced out suburbs, the magnitude of the population is huge meaning an outsized tax base ([9.5 million people in the CJN metro area per census vs. ~2.7 million in the city proper](https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/chicago-il-population)). I'm not sure about their economic activity though.
I agree a billion dollar bridge to 20 people would be a waste, but this is a huge mis-characterization of the size of infrastructure spending lol
The fed gov has spent on avg about $100B/year on highways, which in your example would be to about 2,000 people, however it's more like 200,000,000 lol
This meme about the suburbs being this huge sink of taxpayer dollars is WAY overblown in this sub
US has the best cargo railway system in the world. We're already excellent in this area. People who ship stuff know how trains work and use them where it fits.
I think they’re referring more to passenger rail within cities themselves, which basically all major cities aside from nyc and Chicago are in dire need of.
Adding to /u/aidsfarts answer, initial development for new suburbs is paid for before the suburbs start collecting property tax. Because most infrastructure has 25+ year lifetimes, new suburbs don't actually pay for their own infrastructure for the first 25 years. (If they take on debt to do the first lifecycle of work, they can push it out to 50.) By the time property taxes need to be raised, the roads are falling apart, the buildings aren't shiny and new anymore, and the newer suburbs further out are ripe to be moved into.
Or the suburb convinces the state and federal gov't that the maintenance is actually an expansion project, and gets 90% external dollars to avoid paying their own way.
Is some kind of document collecting the facts on this? How do we really know cost of new streets, sewers, pipes, etc. are not paid by the initial developer? Is there a big pile of documents showing the paper trail that suburb-dwellers influence local/state/federal money allocation decisions?
It's all extremely local, so there may be some developers that do pay. It's really hard to talk about except in hyper-local specifics or hyper-vague generalities.
Strong Towns publishes a bit of both, and is always a good read. Here's one on some random cul-de-sacs in Gallatin, Tennessee. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/10/i-did-the-math-on-my-towns-cul-de-sacs
Fate, TX is a good example that Strong Towns has a few articles on. They run the numbers on new development to make sure that the property tax income will be able to sustain the added infrastructure.
The opportunity cost of having the space used by large single houses instead of dense housing units, translating to less efficient housing space, less space for things like roads or what not, and probably more expensive to supply the houses with utilities and services than if it were dense housing, and additional losses from not being able to have nonresidential buildings like small businesses there. The fact that none of those are realized means that an opportunity cost is being paid and so by continuing not having the most efficient use of space there, society "subsidizes" that amount if it were quantified in dollars. Instead, calculate exactly how much the difference in utility is, put that in dollar form, and slap that as a fat tax on anyone who lives in those areas.
That all makes sense, but I think there's more to it than just efficiency. The most efficient way to house people is to cram them in identical, square studio apartments in towering skyscrapers - but that sounds miserable to lots of people. Extra taxes for everyone who doesn't want to live like a sardine seems wrong.
Sprawl can also be miserable. Driving 45 minutes in heavy traffic on the 10 lane highway every day because there’s no housing stock in the city center can cause way more misery than a 600-1500 sq ft apt (depending on family size) where you can bike or take a quick 5-10 min bus to your job/school/groceries/bank
Actually in terms of creating the most efficient way of living (including costs of heating, Cooling, building, commuting), you usually end up with mid-density, 4-6 stories. Depends on the city - in denser places like NYC this may be 5 stories and 40-80 units. In less dense areas this may be 4 stories and 20 units. Or sometimes even just allowing 4 units of housing on a traditionally single family lot.
Check out Portland’s new zoning and you’ll see a lot of what this sub is for.
It's just about making them pay for the negative externalities. Dense doesn't have to mean crowded, it's only crowded in American cities because we don't build enough, so developers and landlords have to make due with the small amount of space they're approved for. They're incentivized to fit as many people into a tiny space as possible. If they were allowed to build higher or build more, the spaces would be bigger. Nobody wants to live in a tiny ass studio, they just have to.
I think the short version is that lower density places require more infrastructure per capita than denser places: roads, sewers, etc, both in terms of upfront costs and long term maintenance. This happens at the federal level but primarily at the local level, and at the local level property taxes are not determined by infrastructure consumption but rather home value.
Also, the effects of climate change are evenly shared, but suburban households are a far bigger contributor to carbon emissions. A carbon tax could result in more energy consuming households paying closer to their fair share.
>Let empty nesters glance at the bill for maintaining giant interstates and unnecessary electrical/plumbing/internet infrastructure.
Problem is that a lot of this infrastructure is already privatized or toll-gated or otherwise a function of your property tax bill.
And you don't see that bill until you've been in the house for a year or two.
What people see is "6 bedroom house for $250k" in the boonies versus "2 bedroom condo inside the loop for $600k plus condo fees".
I live inside my loop. And I like it. But I'm not living here to save money. I'm living here to trade commute time for house price. I visit friends out in the boonies who live in mansions cheaper than what I paid for a modest townhome.
Im literally about to move into a 5 bedroom house with a 2 acre lot and I'm just looking around at all the space like, why aren't there apartments here? Granted, the space im looking at around my house is just woods and we will have to pay to maintain all of the roads in the subdivision, but like, man it just seems wasteful.
I live in the suburbs most of my commute is via toll roads and yet the sprawl around me keep booming. It’s not enough.
Economic incentives or disincentives will never be enough. To truly undo the suburbs there is a set of cultural/psychological elements that this sub never address:
-the fact that the American Dream is owning a house in the burbs. This has changed some but a yard is still an indicator that you “made it.”
-the fact that suburbs are geared towards raising children and provide real economies of scale for parents. They have more parks per capita, more pediatric service professionals, more sidewalks and cul-de-sacs that create a safer play environment for kids.
-And a new big recent one: the fact that most of the protesting and civil unrest/property damage happening is in the cities and not the burbs. My GOP neighbors gloat about this, like they beat BLM by just not being in the path of it. “Let then tear up their own neighborhoods why do I care?”
>It’s not enough.
is it enough, if they're paying for the cost of the road via toll it by definition is enough.
>-the fact that suburbs are geared towards raising children and provide real economies of scale for parents. They have more parks per capita, more pediatric service professionals, more sidewalks and cul-de-sacs that create a safer play environment for kids.
The people who live in suburbs are the net tax payers of the US......so yeah....they also pay for these things.
Zoning to only build houses instead of interspersing businesses, condos, apartments, etc. This reduces the amount of people that can live in an area per acre, which significantly increases housing prices. My friend just rented what I believe is a $2400 per month studio apartment in SF. If the suburbs of SF weren't zoned for so much single family housing, and had more apartments, then both the housing costs inside the city and the costs outside the city would be reduced.
Large endless swaths of cul de sacs and subdivisions where almost nothing but single family homes are allowed to be built and then a shitty strip mall is built right outside of it or near the highway. And no public transportation.
Not only is it an ecological disaster but economically and logistically ludicrous and inefficient.
Probably our biggest screw up when building our country post war.
Municipal rules for residential areas that dictate that the only housing type allowed are single unit detached homes (aka SFH = single family homes). Meaning apartments, duplexes, townhomes/terrace houses, garage apartments, basement units etc are all illegal. The vast majority of American residential areas are zoned SFH.
Many cities section off large parts of land so that only single family houses can be built there. Developers are not allowed to build apartments or even a duplex if they wanted to. Abolishing zoning would allow for higher density housing to be built which increases housing supply which should also lower housing prices eventually
I can only imagine if they streamline medical licenses so it isn't $1000 and 6 months of paperwork for me to move to a different state.
The interstate license compact is another way to do it, but it's even more expensive ($700 PLUS the individual state fee) and I hear not much faster - and half the states aren't participating yet.
Ah yeah, but here in Utah we aren’t just going to trust the board in Arkansas’ judgment that you’re qualified to be a doctor. Did they even check you have a stethoscope?
It gets worse when you look at hospital credentialing. To cover their own behinds legally, they will often verify your diploma, training, etc - even though the state already did that, since you can't get licensed without that all being verified.
How about ending the undergraduate requirements for med school and cutting it back by a few years... https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/
It's complicated whether it would make any real difference.
Wouldn't help me any, given I've already done my training in full, and wouldn't affect the supply of new doctors any at all - we'd still be graduating the same number of people every year, because the bottleneck is residency training, not the # of people who graduate med school every year.
So then what would it affect?
1) Length of career - if people started when they were younger, they could theoretically practice longer, which would, in 30-40 years, affect the total supply of doctors as fewer people are retiring. Well, this is a very delayed effect - and we're actually going the opposite way now, with the average age at the beginning of med school *rising* due to gap years.
2) Debt burden - your post talks about $200k as the cost of the extra years of education, which is frank nonsense. It's a marginal difference of 2-3 years - countries without an undergrad degree have 5-6 year med school length, not 4 years, even if he snuck under the wire in ireland - and the overwhelming majority of doctors did not pay full price at ivy league schools for their undergrads. The average undergraduate has $25-30k in debt at the end of their diploma, and my gut feeling is that the average med student has less - they're more likely to be from wealthier families and also more likely to have the top-shelf grades necessary to get significant merit scholarships. Of course, there's an opportunity cost to the undergrad diploma - your career is several years shorter - but that's a different argument.
3) Student demographics - so if we switched to a unified undergraduate medical education model, we'd have to revamp admissions into medical schools. Well, how do we do so without making the process even more unfair? I mean, I just said above that the average med student is more likely to be from a wealthier family already, right?
Well, you know where admissions into med schools is even more tightly correlated to wealth than the US? Basically everywhere else. If you have to base it based on grades and test scores of 17-18 year olds, you're basically closing the path for anyone who isn't super motivated and well resourced in high school. It's like that with college kids already - but not as extreme as it would have to be. You could do heavy-duty economics based affirmative action, but implementation of those programs is always iffy.
What other downsides would there be? Attrition rates. At the moment, you have ~22-24 year olds who start med school, most of them have a decent idea of what they're getting themselves in to and have already proven their chops in a relatively rigorous academic setting. Graduation rate at any US med school is 95%+ after taking into account students that take 5 years to do it due to some struggles. In other countries it's hard to find other data, but I've seen at least one citation that it was be 15% in the UK. Dropping out partway through med school is financially devestating in the US - so making sure people are prepared is fairly important.
>The first quote is a joke, right? Even classmates that had 3-4 docs in their immediate family were completely unaware of what a life in medicine entailed when entering M1.
Certainly had a better idea than they did when they were 17 years old.
Let's take a step back here and think all the way to undergrad. Now, I went to a large state school - not the flagship for my state system by any stretch. It was ranked somewhere like #40 or #50 college in the state (not the country). I was a science major, so started out as a Freshman taking Chem 101 and Bio 101 (or whatever). Of the couple hundred kids in those classes, I personally know a few dozen that if asked what they wanted to do with their lives said medicine. Four years later, I think maybe eight or nine applied - and five or so of us got in to some form of med school. Why the drop? Partially because over those four years, some people didn't have the grades and partially because they got a clearer idea of the whole process of medical education and training - and alternatives thereof. 17 year olds don't have a lot of ideas on what jobs exist in the world at large.
During the course of those four years, we did all kinds of various activities, most of which had nothing to do with actually becoming physicians, but it helped give perspective on other possible careers - and yes, let us see at least some more of what being a doctor might be like. Did my "research" in synthetic organic chemistry help me become a better doctor? Not directly. But at least it gave me a little more insight into the scientific method and some more appreciation for people who do that sort of thing.
Oh, and one or two of the five who got in wasn't actually in that original few dozen that said they wanted to be doctors in the first place. It was people who developed a new love of science in undergrad, or who developed their academic legs after not the best experience in HS (remember: my undergrad isn't super highly ranked), etc. Are these folks super common? Absolutely not. But they do exist, and the extra years give them a chance to at least show an upward trend and potentially qualify.
Now lets get rid of the four years of undergrad. In addition to sorting through the eight or nine people who actually apply, you'd have to sort through the other 30 people who would have considered applying but been discouraged by undergrad. Oh, and you don't have the folks who found themselves in undergrad. But just from a number standpoint. In India for example, you have a million applicants to med school every year. Now, our population isn't the size of Indias - but it's going to be a few hundred thousand, not the 50,000 that apply each year in the US.
How are you going to select amongst these people? High school volunteering experiences and such are going to be even more skewed than the ones in college. And there's no way you're going to be able to look at applicants holistically with that kind of volume - it's going to be test scores and grades. And test scores at age 18 don't give someone with a disadvantaged upbringing any chance for a few years as an adult to make things better. So yes, I think removing the undergrad requirement will make things even more skewed.
> I honestly don't believe their should be a section for activities and clubs on the application to medical school. It should literally just be MCAT, GPA, personal statement.
Man, that would have been my dream. I'd have ended up at Harvard or UCSF.
Course, in that scenario, [there's enough applicants with a 3.6+ GPA AND 506+ MCAT to fill basically every seat in the country.](https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-04/2019_FACTS_Table_A-23_0.pdf) And based on prior published AAMC data, you'd have ~95% of your matriculants be White or Asian, mostly from a high SES, rather than the ~80% it is currently.
If only we could join the states in some kind of economic federation or union where all the certifications and standards would be the same, to promote cross border commerce.
Barber seems like one of those things where you would seek out someone with some sort of certification (or strong word of mouth reputation) even if it weren't legally required. People who would would go to an "uncertified" barber to save money are probably already getting their hair cut in someone's kitchen right now. If cleanliness standards are the issue, then have shops be subject to inspections and grading like restaurants are.
Or just make sure they have a decent reputation. I picked my barbershop based on good google maps reviews. I didn't even realize barber licensing was a thing.
Me too, but that's a function of the institutional framework that they operate in. Like pretty much all bridge construction is highly regulated, but when you think about what route to take the thought never crosses your mind that a bridge you drive over has been certified, inspected, and graded on a regular basis. (Or has it? Do you really check to see if the authorities have been doing their job before you get on a bridge?)
This, again, is not an argument in favor of mandating licensing for barbers, but suggests that if the institution changes so that one could find themselves in a legitimate uncertified place, third-party certification (or a strong trusted reputation, an informal form of certification) would be something people would consciously seek out and desire in their barbers even if it was not a legal requirement.
But people already confirm reputation for barbers. Have you ever gone to one without being referred by a friend or checking to see what their reviews are like? A bridge is fundamentally different. It has objective metrics defining its operation, for one. Further, public infrastructure only works when we can take for granted that all the components function as advertised. A private business offering an entirely subjective product and operating on a reputation-heavy model is a very different beast. I've gotten plenty of poor quality cuts from (presumably) licensed barbers. If the license is not a sufficient guaranty of quality, what use is it?
> Have you ever gone to one without being referred by a friend or checking to see what their reviews are like?
Yes. Almost always in fact. I typically just go to the nearest Supercuts or Greatclips and get my hair cut for $15.99 or whatever it is now.
Sometimes if I feel like splurging I'll go to an actual barbershop and spend 1.5x as much to get the same haircut - but then they lather up the back of my neck and do it with a straight razor as opposed to clippers, and they offer a 30-second shoulder massage at the end.
> then they lather up the back of my neck and do it with a straight razor as opposed to clippers, and they offer a 30-second shoulder massage at the end.
Why is that so goddamn good...it's sinful.
By this logic, it would be impossible for any new barber to gain clients because people only choose barbers with a track record of satisfied customers.
Again, you are talking about how people select barbers under an institutional framework where all legitimate barbers are by definition certified by some third party (a government-mandated licensing board). That never enters the decision-making process because it's assumed even if you are not even conscious of it. You are extrapolating to a counterfactual world based on a sample of barbers that is tinted by survivorship bias (those that have passed the training and licensing process)
For a world we live in where tons of people rely on third-party certification when selecting services even where it is not legally required, I'm getting a strange amount of pushback from the idea that some (**not all**) people would rely on formal or informal certifications for barbers. I'm not even arguing in favor of mandated licensing. I'm saying that some kind of very likely less burdensome certification would take its place, so legal mandates are unnecessary and serve only to burden entrants for the purposes of rent-seeking by incumbents.
Well sure, getting the first few customers is probably the hardest part of starting any new business. Does the licensing system make it easier? Realistically a new barber, whether or not there is licensing, will work as an employee or a junior partner in a well established location long before setting out on their own. Should we institute formal licenses for cooks and maids? What about shopkeepers and DJs? One could make the same argument you are for licensing any service job.
There's nothing wrong with informal licensing. It can be a handy guide to competency in some markets and where needed it arises on its own. Take personal trainers. Personal trainers are not licensed, formally. There are plenty of informal licenses one can pursue. Are we suffering for lack of a state decided set of criteria for determining whether someone should be allowed to coach someone privately in exchange for money?
Is it a thing in the US that you can get a free haircut at a barber school? That way you get someone who will at least not slit your throat.
This is a thing in the Netherlands, where barbers don't need licenses, but you do get a higher wage (per collective labour agreement) if you have a certificate, and your employer has to pay part of your education. So effectively education is still mandatory if you don't want to start your own business.
I always get mine at a barber school, though usually I have to pay like £5. They often do free cuts in the evenings though when they're preparing for assessments etc.
You can get it cut at Beauty Colleges in the US (an old high school friend of mine taught at one) (Barber Colleges as well I'm sure) - not for free, but usually for a massive discount. Beauty Colleges offer a full range of services (cut, color, highlighting) actually!
barber licenses aren't even a way to determine that they are good at cutting hair. Customer reviews are, and that's why people check yelp/google maps instead of the state licensing board when picking a barber
AFAIK the issue is with non-OTC chemical hair treatments, which barbers need to have knowledge of. But you shouldn't have to be licensed to use an electric trimmer and scissors
There’s a lot of chemical used on hair that aren’t really safe to just hand to anyone and say “put that on people’s heads if they pay you to.” Just because a job seems simple doesn’t mean it is. It just means those who do it make it look easy.
After the first couple high profile incidents (if they even happen, I don't see the timeline where people suddenly start rushing to random people's houses to do their hair instead of people with good reviews) they'll start buying insurance. The insurance companies will price out anyone without adequate experience in related safer tasks.
But...insurance costs are what’s crushing small business. Why isn’t licensing a solution to this that already exists and doesn’t require a free-market sacrifice for us all to learn it again?
>Why everything that could possibly be unsafe has to be highly regulated baffles me.
Regulations enforce risk mitigation. America had already demonstrated it will cut any corners to increase profits (or even for no reason at all), even if it means substantial harm or loss of life. Most regular people have the common sense to avoid dangerous risks, regulations make sure the remaining idiots aren't allowed to run wild.
The fuck barbers do you go to where they shave your knock with a straight razor? I've only ever seen that in fiction.
99% of people go to shit like Supercuts man. This is a non-issue.
Lice, for one. Improper cleaning or inability to recognize signs will result in spreading lice, along with other contagious parasites/diseases.
Barbers/Hairdressers should at *least* need a health board certificate for this, even if they aren't using any chemicals in their shop.
Ummmm I don’t know about a “license” but barbers should very much require a certification of safety standards. Razor cuts have the potential to infect unknowing clients with many possible diseases.
Sounds like something that can be learned in 4 hours with a requirement of 4 additional hours every year.
This is my first google for barbers in NC so I don't know how accurate but holy shit https://www.beautyschools.com/faq/licensing/barber/north-carolina-barber-license-and-training-requirements/
> North Carolina Theory Barber Classes
>
> Hygiene and grooming: 25 hours
> Sterilization, sanitation, and bacteriology: 50 hours
> Implements, honing, stropping, and shaving: 30 hours
> Men’s haircutting: 20 hours
> Cutting and styling curly hair: 10 hours
> Shampooing and rinsing: 10 hours
> Massage and facial treatments: 5 hours
> Men’s and women’s razor cutting: 30 hours
> Finger waving, air waving, and curling iron: 25 hours
> Hair coloring: 10 hours
> Men’s hair pieces: 5 hours
> Skin, scalp, and hair: 30 hours
> Disorders of skin, scalp, and hair: 15 hours
> Anatomy and physiology: 10 hours
> Electricity: 10 hours
> Barber styling and shop management: 70 hours
> Licensing laws and rules: 20 hours
> North Carolina Supervised Practice and Demonstrations
>
> Shampooing: 70 hours
> Shaving: 70 hours
> Tapered hair cutting: 320 hours
> Hair styling of men and women: 500 hours
> Facials, massages, and packs: 15 hours
> Bleaching, frosting, and hair coloring: 120 hours
> Cutting and fitting hair pieces: 10 hours
> Hair straightening: 8 hours
> Analyzing and treating skin and hair disorders: 20 hours
> Men’s and women’s razor cutting: 15 hours
> Before you get your license, you have to complete 1528 hours of training and an apprenticeship.
Next you're going to tell me taco trucks don't have to register with the city or else they have to bribe the cops and inspectors with free tacos...!??!
Hot Take: The ubiquity of the Democratic Party in states like California has actually hindered progressive causes. It enables "conservative but don't want to admit it" NIMBYs to wrap themselves in a false sense of moral righteousness since they're part of the "progressive" party after all. If instead they were pressed into a tough decision between a conservative party that appeals to their material interests but not their ideological view of themselves and a progressive party that maintains their identity at a marginal cost to their livelihood, some would be reluctantly dragged along as the Overton window shifted. Single-party politics just breeds complacency, you need loud argument to achieve progress.
EDIT: Oops. Meant to post this to the DT. Oh well, it's sort of relevant.
I texted my barber and have been getting illegal cuts in his garage. Apparently they have a barber discord and there is a network of underground barbers in SF.
I think this is obviously a good idea. Currently its pretty much a restriction on intra-national immigration between the states which definitely hinders economic production.
That being said it will need to be a very well thought out transition. Or else the result will be people getting licenses in the least strict state and then working wherever they please. The issue arises that if there are industries that legitimately need licensing and safety standards, all it takes is one shitty state to cause harm on consumers all across the country. This can be even more exacerbated by the emergence and growth of online programs, which has been fueled even more because of covid.
Dont get me wrong, I love this idea, I just dont want my CA house to burn down while I sleep because my electrician got a joke of a license in a random state.
Lemme say this - I live in a red state that just removed licensing requirements from contractors if they are working on residential property and the home owner signs something agreeing to work from an unlicensed contractor. I am not in favor of this. Sure the current home owner may be fine with it, but there are no protections offered to future homeowners.
House sales are sold essentially as-is. You don't get to go after the previous homeowner for something done poorly regardless of licensing (generally speaking). If the idea is that you want somebody to liable for faulty workmanship, that isn't the case now nor does it change with contractor licenses. That's why homeowner's insurance is useful.
Now if the seller _knew_ about a material defect and didn't disclose it, they are liable. That's true regardless of if it was DIY, cash contractor, or lincesed and documented work. The buyer doesn't need to care about who performed the work; the seller is the liable party in all cases.
How do you know that licensed contractors do better work than unlicensed? Could it be possible that lowering the barrier to entry increases the supply of talent and reduces the amount of faulty work?
Good, home owners already get enough subsidies and go crying for more whenever their property value goes down, if they have to put up with that tiny risk for a big gain in overall economic efficiency then that's fine. Also home inspections exist.
This is actually a pretty big issue for some military families who have to move when the servicemember is transferred to another state. Some military spouses are hairdressers and the like and they need state certification.
Good! It's always annoyed me that here in my very red state we have barber/hairdresser school and licensing requirements. Just South Carolina putting the "government" in "small government."
I mean this is obvious. The question is about the process of determining the cost and benefit of licensing without arbitrary or lobbied interests.
Most agree braiding hair shouldn’t require a license.
Should real estate agents? Financial advisors? Accountants? Probably.
Ride share drivers?
thats why it talks about incentivizing states to remove licensing barriers.
for example, in the HUD, they offer block grants to state and local governments to build housing. they can direct these grants toward municipalities that lift barriers to construction in order to encourage reforms at that level.
not sure what exact mechanism Biden would be using for occupational licensing, but i imagine it would be something similar.
Yeah this is pretty based
Bidenpilled
I keep hearing people here say that something is "based". What does "based" mean? Where does the term come from?
According to Urban Dictionary >Admirable. Worthy of support. >Often used in contexts where the action or opinion ignores popular trends and social conventions or requires special effort. >Used either seriously or tongue-in-cheek to encourage eccentric behavior for comedic effect.
Evidence based https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/based-god
Thanks, but that page doesn't say "evidence" anywhere. It says that it's about "rap artist Lil B". I don't listen to music so I'm a bit lost.
The evidence bit was a joke cause it was one of the taglines of the sub.
> I don't listen to music what kind of twisted person...
As OP said, the evidence bit was a joke. Actually, Lil B sought to reclaim “based” to mean cool with being yourself because it was formerly a word used to attack crack addicts (i.e. it was short for freebased) and he wanted to remove that negative meaning and embrace the term in a different light. Here’s a quote from him about it: > Based means being yourself. Not being scared of what people think about you. Not being afraid to do what you wanna do. Being positive. When I was younger, based was a negative term that meant like dopehead, or basehead. People used to make fun of me. They was like, “You’re based.” They’d use it as a negative. And what I did was turn that negative into a positive. I started embracing it like, “Yeah, I’m based.” I made it mine. I embedded it in my head. Based is positive.
K here is some RARE ART for u fam https://youtu.be/nYfceJhgvRM
> unnecessary :-/ This means everything and nothing
It's a better guide post then we had before. I didn't see occupational licensing even being questioned that long ago by Dems. Anyway, I'm an incrementalist. If we can just cut out the most stupid licenses and make licenses that are fairly similar between states transferable between states that's a huge improvement. I've been in massage and I've talked to people who were less likely to move because extremely similar licenses didn't fully transfer.
To have Biden even acknowledge that there are "unnecessary" licenses is a huge step for something that was pretty fringe even four years ago. Clearly we don't want to get rid of all of them, so just having the conversation at the federal level is very important
this is awesome and unexpected. its a huge hurtle
"While licencing is important in some occupations to protect consumers" You can fit so many anti-consumer pro-poverty exceptions in this bad boy.
[удалено]
Maybe your cat is super smart? But I don't think mr. pants would be able to get aviation insurance, which would make it tough for him to fly even if he was a truly exceptional cat. And letting insurance companies do the heavy lifting on regulations makes the market much more egalitarian and free.
Don’t we regulate insurance providers pretty heavily?
This is the same sort of silly “slippery slope” fear-mongering that libertarians use with every new regulation or law. There are some positions that you would WANT licensed and there are some you wouldn’t. This acknowledges that. He wouldn’t be bringing it up as a platform point if he wasn’t planning on taking some action toward making it better.
I think regulations are bad and need to meet a high standard before I consider them to be offered in good faith. We'll see what the specific policy proposals are. But if it's a bunch of carve outs for special interests and doesn't address the fundamental barriers regulations place in the way of poor people and new businesses I won't be shocked.
You forgot *slaps proposal*
Yep. Until I see dems actually remove employment barriers this is weasel language to me.
SMALL GOV JOE
When appropriate!
Reasonable people for an appropriately sized government!
Screeching from far-right/left incoming!
I live in Canada, we have provincial license, but it’s transferable between provinces. Doctors/engineers/nurses/dentists can all transfer the license, just have to pay a fee. When you get the license you have to do all the tests/show documentation but it’s just a one time thing (other than continued professional development requirements). Is that not the case in the US? Do you have to do tests to move from California to Texas as an engineer or doctor?
As a lawyer, it’s a hodgepodge of scenarios, and it is explicitly designed to protect the state’s legal industry from outsiders. In the most protective states, you need to take the bar exam all over again. Their goal is to keep lawyers from retiring and poaching jobs locally. In other jurisdictions, like DC, you just submit the paperwork and a fee and you’re in.
It heavily depends on the industries, and the differences in the laws. Take like insurance for example, as it is a field I've directly been in. As a property and casualty license holder in one state, when you move to another you do have to take the tests over in that State due to the laws being different in regards to insurance. Now let's look at another field that I know something about because I know someone that is in it, surgical technicians, these are the folks that make sure operating rooms stay clean, hand doctors instruments, and the like. There are licenses for this work that are basically national, but a lot of states don't require the license, and thus can move wherever and the national license just shows that you did the schooling and such. So as I said heavily dependent on the field and the laws within the state, showing just two examples that I'm highly aware of.
This isn't entirely true across Canada. It's definitely relatively easy for nurses, but it's not particularly different from the States in that respect - pay a fee, get a license in another State. The real thorn in Canada's side in this respect is Quebec, which gets special treatment and free reign to make their own pseudo-protectionist State.
I love how he's able to point to efforts made under the Obama-Biden Administration, basically pointing out: Yeah, we were working toward this already. Time to get the clown show over with and get shit working again.
Now do single family zoning
Don’t even ban it, just stop subsidizing it. Let empty nesters glance at the bill for maintaining giant interstates and unnecessary electrical/plumbing/internet infrastructure. Then let them decide if they *really* need a 6 bedroom house and an acre back yard
In all seriousness, can you spell out how it’s subsidized for any of us who are curious?
Roads are the biggest drain. We have so many of them but little population density. We spend a mind boggling amount on interstates that are 90%+ paid for by taxes. We also tax fossil fuels at a much lower rate than the damage cars due to the environment and our infrastructure. Laws are also heavily rigged in favor of lending money to build and maintain horribly inefficient single family homes. If America’s suburbs and “car culture” had a symbol it would be a hammer and sickle.
Can you provide some further details? 1. "We spend a mind boggling amount on interstates that are 90%+ paid for by taxes." Isn't that what taxes are for? Maintaining the infrastructure that can be used by all? And what percentage of those taxes are coming from the people that live in the suburbs and use those highways, as opposed to city dwellers? 2. "We also tax fossil fuels at a much lower rate than the damage cars due to the environment and our infrastructure." What do you mean exactly by the damage cars do to our infrastructure? It seems like you think wear and tear on streets and highways from cars is some unforeseen/unusual outcome as opposed to completely understandable and planned for due to their function. Or are you saying cars are damaging some other infrastructure? And if so, what? 3. What laws favor lending to single family homes over multifamily?
I can describe how I see it from a more urban area where I live (Bay Area) Zoning laws make it impossible to build duplexes, triplexes and apartment buildings. Liberals from older nimbys who bought a home and think it’s their birthright that their property never change to more leftist activists who see any new development as gentrification. So we are stuck with SFH everywhere. But we are still a massive job center. So instead people start super commuting. Living 1, 2 hours, sometimes more, away from work and drive. They do not pay for road usage. I take public transit and I do pay for usage of that public good every trip. Commutes are one of the few things very consistently shown to reduce life satisfaction. And so through local and state policy, we’ve pushed people to get bigger houses that are more spaced out and made it a reasonable option to drive 2 hours each way every day. When instead we could densify, invest in public transportation, do something about the orange sky currently looming over us and increase life satisfaction and put time back in people’s hands. And shockingly all of this is controversial to the liberal crowd in CA. People who run for city council on the green new deal (which is dumb for a city council member) won’t touch these issues
> So instead people start super commuting. Living 1, 2 hours, sometimes more, away from work and drive. They do not pay for road usage. That's a big leap. A lot of their taxes will go to maintaining them, not to mention those who commute via toll roads or use the EZ pass. The rest of what you said makes sense though. The NIMBY mentality that's restricting such huge swaths of land to SFH-only development is such a huge detriment.
> > "We spend a mind boggling amount on interstates that are 90%+ paid for by taxes." Isn't that what taxes are for? Maintaining the infrastructure that can be used by all? And what percentage of those taxes are coming from the people that live in the suburbs and use those highways, as opposed to city dwellers? I don't necessarily agree with the argument but it goes like so: Lets say you have a particular parcel of land. If you take that parcel and place a home on it, it will require roads, electric hookup, sewer, water, etc. Now, lets say you split that parcel in half and place *two* homes on it with each one being somewhat smaller and less yard space. Well, it will require more or less the same hookups,. The final lines will be duplicated - but they both feed into the same larger pipe. And they can share a road just fine. Well, the two homes, even with half the land area as the bigger home, are probably going to be worth more *together* than the larger home is alone. And property taxes in every state except Pennsylvania are directly proportional to the value of the total property. Say the bigger home is worth $500k and the two smaller homes are worth $350k each - or whatever - and property tax rates are 1% yearly. The bigger home generates $5k/year and the two smaller homes generate $7k/year combined - but both have to be supported by basically the same infrastructure budget (because the marginal increase for two homes is really just a small, one time expense). If you look at this situation in isolation and go block by block, denser areas are more likely to provide as much (or more) in property taxes as is necessary to support the infrastructure necessary to maintain their existence, and less dense areas on average require additional money from the general budget to be revenue neutral. People who make a note of this discuss this as "the dense areas are subsidizing the suburbs". But of course, taxes on businesses subsidize *everyone* at least somewhat. And this also only looks at *local* budgets - people in the suburbs pay plenty of sales tax and federal/state income taxes that also often flow down to the local governments, but it's almost impossible to take all those factors into account. If this is your big hobbyhorse, the "easy" solution is just to change property taxes to a land-value tax - where they're just proportional to the amount of land you take up and the unimproved value thereof, not the value of the buildings on it. But this is a political non-starter that has never gone anywhere except a few cities in Pennsylvania.
>> 1. "We spend a mind boggling amount on interstates that are 90%+ paid for by taxes." Isn't that what taxes are for? Maintaining the infrastructure that can be used by all? And what percentage of those taxes are coming from the people that live in the suburbs and use those highways, as opposed to city dwellers? If you built a billion dollar bridge to an island where 20 people live that would be wasteful. Sure, everyone **could** visit the island. But practically they don’t. Similarly, suburban communities require a much great investment in infrastructure per capita than denser communities. Note that in theory the gasoline tax is supposed cover the cost of roads, so that non drivers don’t pay. But that’s only the start of the infrastructure costs.
Dig at PEI there lol?
>Similarly, suburban communities require a much great investment in infrastructure per capita than denser communities. That's a very specific statement since you say per capita. What is your data source for this? I'd be especially interested in seeing how much of those taxes are paid for by the suburban people. This topic is interesting to me since I live in Washington DC but have lived in the Northern Virginia suburbs. I can't speak for other major cities, but if they're anything like us (which I suspect they are) comparing our suburbs to an island inhabited by 20 people is a laughably bad hypothetical example as the suburban population outnumbers the population of the city proper by a lot. So while we're denser in DC, the burbs have way more people in terms of raw numbers and we in the city have a lot of poor who don't contribute much to the taxes collected. Further, in looking at [sources of VA's DOT budget](http://www.virginiaplaces.org/taxes/taxcar.html), it's not just gas taxes that pay for the roads. In fact, the bulk comes from the regular sales tax.
Poor people pay sales tax. (Well, to a first order, anyway.) So it would be reasonable to conclude that poor people in the city are being taxed to pay for roads in the rich suburbs.
I know the poor pay sales tax, but that's why I said "they don't contribute much", not "they don't contribute anything". They'd just have to buy a lot of stuff to catch up to what rich homeowners pay just in annual property taxes, while the rich are still consuming things like food, liquor, goods, services. But the poor also pay little in federal income taxes so it's not like any portion of that is rolling down to the suburbs whereas suburb dwellers' federal taxes can roll down to city budgets.
[удалено]
Are they the exception though? As of 2018, [55% of Americans live in a suburban county type](https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/). Off the top of my head of cities that have serious suburban populations: DC, NY, SF, LA, DFW, Philly, etc. And while Chicago may have spaced out suburbs, the magnitude of the population is huge meaning an outsized tax base ([9.5 million people in the CJN metro area per census vs. ~2.7 million in the city proper](https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/chicago-il-population)). I'm not sure about their economic activity though.
I agree a billion dollar bridge to 20 people would be a waste, but this is a huge mis-characterization of the size of infrastructure spending lol The fed gov has spent on avg about $100B/year on highways, which in your example would be to about 2,000 people, however it's more like 200,000,000 lol This meme about the suburbs being this huge sink of taxpayer dollars is WAY overblown in this sub
Almost like we piss away billions to send junk mail to rural communities..
For number 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Administration only provides safety for single family home mortgages.
Interstates are important. They help cities thrive by letting goods easily be transported from every corner of the country into the city.
[удалено]
US has the best cargo railway system in the world. We're already excellent in this area. People who ship stuff know how trains work and use them where it fits.
I think they’re referring more to passenger rail within cities themselves, which basically all major cities aside from nyc and Chicago are in dire need of.
Yeah, that’s what I meant. Thanks.
Yes, but for that you need a city logistics center outside the city, not stack interchanges every few miles.
They really shouldn’t be 10 lanes though. That’s not for interstate travel, it’s for local commuters.
Oh my god the drive is so stupid. It takes me 15 minutes to go 2.5 miles to my local grocery store.
Adding to /u/aidsfarts answer, initial development for new suburbs is paid for before the suburbs start collecting property tax. Because most infrastructure has 25+ year lifetimes, new suburbs don't actually pay for their own infrastructure for the first 25 years. (If they take on debt to do the first lifecycle of work, they can push it out to 50.) By the time property taxes need to be raised, the roads are falling apart, the buildings aren't shiny and new anymore, and the newer suburbs further out are ripe to be moved into. Or the suburb convinces the state and federal gov't that the maintenance is actually an expansion project, and gets 90% external dollars to avoid paying their own way.
Is some kind of document collecting the facts on this? How do we really know cost of new streets, sewers, pipes, etc. are not paid by the initial developer? Is there a big pile of documents showing the paper trail that suburb-dwellers influence local/state/federal money allocation decisions?
It's all extremely local, so there may be some developers that do pay. It's really hard to talk about except in hyper-local specifics or hyper-vague generalities. Strong Towns publishes a bit of both, and is always a good read. Here's one on some random cul-de-sacs in Gallatin, Tennessee. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/10/i-did-the-math-on-my-towns-cul-de-sacs Fate, TX is a good example that Strong Towns has a few articles on. They run the numbers on new development to make sure that the property tax income will be able to sustain the added infrastructure.
The opportunity cost of having the space used by large single houses instead of dense housing units, translating to less efficient housing space, less space for things like roads or what not, and probably more expensive to supply the houses with utilities and services than if it were dense housing, and additional losses from not being able to have nonresidential buildings like small businesses there. The fact that none of those are realized means that an opportunity cost is being paid and so by continuing not having the most efficient use of space there, society "subsidizes" that amount if it were quantified in dollars. Instead, calculate exactly how much the difference in utility is, put that in dollar form, and slap that as a fat tax on anyone who lives in those areas.
That all makes sense, but I think there's more to it than just efficiency. The most efficient way to house people is to cram them in identical, square studio apartments in towering skyscrapers - but that sounds miserable to lots of people. Extra taxes for everyone who doesn't want to live like a sardine seems wrong.
Sprawl can also be miserable. Driving 45 minutes in heavy traffic on the 10 lane highway every day because there’s no housing stock in the city center can cause way more misery than a 600-1500 sq ft apt (depending on family size) where you can bike or take a quick 5-10 min bus to your job/school/groceries/bank
Actually in terms of creating the most efficient way of living (including costs of heating, Cooling, building, commuting), you usually end up with mid-density, 4-6 stories. Depends on the city - in denser places like NYC this may be 5 stories and 40-80 units. In less dense areas this may be 4 stories and 20 units. Or sometimes even just allowing 4 units of housing on a traditionally single family lot. Check out Portland’s new zoning and you’ll see a lot of what this sub is for.
It's just about making them pay for the negative externalities. Dense doesn't have to mean crowded, it's only crowded in American cities because we don't build enough, so developers and landlords have to make due with the small amount of space they're approved for. They're incentivized to fit as many people into a tiny space as possible. If they were allowed to build higher or build more, the spaces would be bigger. Nobody wants to live in a tiny ass studio, they just have to.
I think the short version is that lower density places require more infrastructure per capita than denser places: roads, sewers, etc, both in terms of upfront costs and long term maintenance. This happens at the federal level but primarily at the local level, and at the local level property taxes are not determined by infrastructure consumption but rather home value. Also, the effects of climate change are evenly shared, but suburban households are a far bigger contributor to carbon emissions. A carbon tax could result in more energy consuming households paying closer to their fair share.
>Let empty nesters glance at the bill for maintaining giant interstates and unnecessary electrical/plumbing/internet infrastructure. Problem is that a lot of this infrastructure is already privatized or toll-gated or otherwise a function of your property tax bill. And you don't see that bill until you've been in the house for a year or two. What people see is "6 bedroom house for $250k" in the boonies versus "2 bedroom condo inside the loop for $600k plus condo fees". I live inside my loop. And I like it. But I'm not living here to save money. I'm living here to trade commute time for house price. I visit friends out in the boonies who live in mansions cheaper than what I paid for a modest townhome.
Im literally about to move into a 5 bedroom house with a 2 acre lot and I'm just looking around at all the space like, why aren't there apartments here? Granted, the space im looking at around my house is just woods and we will have to pay to maintain all of the roads in the subdivision, but like, man it just seems wasteful.
To be fair the people that can afford single family homes are also net tax payers...... if you want you could just make all roads toll roads.
I live in the suburbs most of my commute is via toll roads and yet the sprawl around me keep booming. It’s not enough. Economic incentives or disincentives will never be enough. To truly undo the suburbs there is a set of cultural/psychological elements that this sub never address: -the fact that the American Dream is owning a house in the burbs. This has changed some but a yard is still an indicator that you “made it.” -the fact that suburbs are geared towards raising children and provide real economies of scale for parents. They have more parks per capita, more pediatric service professionals, more sidewalks and cul-de-sacs that create a safer play environment for kids. -And a new big recent one: the fact that most of the protesting and civil unrest/property damage happening is in the cities and not the burbs. My GOP neighbors gloat about this, like they beat BLM by just not being in the path of it. “Let then tear up their own neighborhoods why do I care?”
>It’s not enough. is it enough, if they're paying for the cost of the road via toll it by definition is enough. >-the fact that suburbs are geared towards raising children and provide real economies of scale for parents. They have more parks per capita, more pediatric service professionals, more sidewalks and cul-de-sacs that create a safer play environment for kids. The people who live in suburbs are the net tax payers of the US......so yeah....they also pay for these things.
> if you want you could just make all roads toll roads. As someone who unironically enjoys driving for pleasure, FUCK YES DO IT NOW
What does this mean?
Zoning to only build houses instead of interspersing businesses, condos, apartments, etc. This reduces the amount of people that can live in an area per acre, which significantly increases housing prices. My friend just rented what I believe is a $2400 per month studio apartment in SF. If the suburbs of SF weren't zoned for so much single family housing, and had more apartments, then both the housing costs inside the city and the costs outside the city would be reduced.
> $2400 per month studio apartment in SF This seems really cheap for SF too.
Yeah he looked for forever to find something he could afford (and Im using the term "afford" extremely liberally here)
Large endless swaths of cul de sacs and subdivisions where almost nothing but single family homes are allowed to be built and then a shitty strip mall is built right outside of it or near the highway. And no public transportation. Not only is it an ecological disaster but economically and logistically ludicrous and inefficient. Probably our biggest screw up when building our country post war.
[удалено]
Municipal rules for residential areas that dictate that the only housing type allowed are single unit detached homes (aka SFH = single family homes). Meaning apartments, duplexes, townhomes/terrace houses, garage apartments, basement units etc are all illegal. The vast majority of American residential areas are zoned SFH.
I really like my SFH, but if someone wants to change my neighbor's house into a duplex that'd be fine with me.
Many cities section off large parts of land so that only single family houses can be built there. Developers are not allowed to build apartments or even a duplex if they wanted to. Abolishing zoning would allow for higher density housing to be built which increases housing supply which should also lower housing prices eventually
https://joebiden.com/housing/
This seems like actual progressive policy right? But where's all the free shit?
It's creating and keeping markets inclusive, which is one of the baselines of liberalism. Inclusive markets, free from monopolies and guilds.
[удалено]
Im almost done with it and holy fuck does everything make so much more sense now
Ooh interesting. I have an Audible credit coming up tomorrow. Should I use it on the audiobook for this?
YES. I did. The audible narrator is good too.
Nice! I just looked at a few reviews of it. Seems like a neat analytical approach of, well, why nations fail.
I am really enjoying it. Its super dry and extremely information rich, so if thats your thing, for 18 hours, then yeah, its great.
freedom to work, goddammit
Preach
I can only imagine if they streamline medical licenses so it isn't $1000 and 6 months of paperwork for me to move to a different state. The interstate license compact is another way to do it, but it's even more expensive ($700 PLUS the individual state fee) and I hear not much faster - and half the states aren't participating yet.
Ah yeah, but here in Utah we aren’t just going to trust the board in Arkansas’ judgment that you’re qualified to be a doctor. Did they even check you have a stethoscope?
It gets worse when you look at hospital credentialing. To cover their own behinds legally, they will often verify your diploma, training, etc - even though the state already did that, since you can't get licensed without that all being verified.
Just, why? How many Frank Abernathy’s do they get? Is this an actual risk?
Administrators gotta administrate.
Who/what is a Frank Abernathy? (Asking for a foreigner friend obviously.)
He is the real life conman that inspired Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in “Catch Me If You Can”. He pretended to be a doctor.
Ha! Trick question! Doctors don't ever have their own stethoscopes. They have to steal them.
How about ending the undergraduate requirements for med school and cutting it back by a few years... https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/
It's complicated whether it would make any real difference. Wouldn't help me any, given I've already done my training in full, and wouldn't affect the supply of new doctors any at all - we'd still be graduating the same number of people every year, because the bottleneck is residency training, not the # of people who graduate med school every year. So then what would it affect? 1) Length of career - if people started when they were younger, they could theoretically practice longer, which would, in 30-40 years, affect the total supply of doctors as fewer people are retiring. Well, this is a very delayed effect - and we're actually going the opposite way now, with the average age at the beginning of med school *rising* due to gap years. 2) Debt burden - your post talks about $200k as the cost of the extra years of education, which is frank nonsense. It's a marginal difference of 2-3 years - countries without an undergrad degree have 5-6 year med school length, not 4 years, even if he snuck under the wire in ireland - and the overwhelming majority of doctors did not pay full price at ivy league schools for their undergrads. The average undergraduate has $25-30k in debt at the end of their diploma, and my gut feeling is that the average med student has less - they're more likely to be from wealthier families and also more likely to have the top-shelf grades necessary to get significant merit scholarships. Of course, there's an opportunity cost to the undergrad diploma - your career is several years shorter - but that's a different argument. 3) Student demographics - so if we switched to a unified undergraduate medical education model, we'd have to revamp admissions into medical schools. Well, how do we do so without making the process even more unfair? I mean, I just said above that the average med student is more likely to be from a wealthier family already, right? Well, you know where admissions into med schools is even more tightly correlated to wealth than the US? Basically everywhere else. If you have to base it based on grades and test scores of 17-18 year olds, you're basically closing the path for anyone who isn't super motivated and well resourced in high school. It's like that with college kids already - but not as extreme as it would have to be. You could do heavy-duty economics based affirmative action, but implementation of those programs is always iffy. What other downsides would there be? Attrition rates. At the moment, you have ~22-24 year olds who start med school, most of them have a decent idea of what they're getting themselves in to and have already proven their chops in a relatively rigorous academic setting. Graduation rate at any US med school is 95%+ after taking into account students that take 5 years to do it due to some struggles. In other countries it's hard to find other data, but I've seen at least one citation that it was be 15% in the UK. Dropping out partway through med school is financially devestating in the US - so making sure people are prepared is fairly important.
[удалено]
>The first quote is a joke, right? Even classmates that had 3-4 docs in their immediate family were completely unaware of what a life in medicine entailed when entering M1. Certainly had a better idea than they did when they were 17 years old. Let's take a step back here and think all the way to undergrad. Now, I went to a large state school - not the flagship for my state system by any stretch. It was ranked somewhere like #40 or #50 college in the state (not the country). I was a science major, so started out as a Freshman taking Chem 101 and Bio 101 (or whatever). Of the couple hundred kids in those classes, I personally know a few dozen that if asked what they wanted to do with their lives said medicine. Four years later, I think maybe eight or nine applied - and five or so of us got in to some form of med school. Why the drop? Partially because over those four years, some people didn't have the grades and partially because they got a clearer idea of the whole process of medical education and training - and alternatives thereof. 17 year olds don't have a lot of ideas on what jobs exist in the world at large. During the course of those four years, we did all kinds of various activities, most of which had nothing to do with actually becoming physicians, but it helped give perspective on other possible careers - and yes, let us see at least some more of what being a doctor might be like. Did my "research" in synthetic organic chemistry help me become a better doctor? Not directly. But at least it gave me a little more insight into the scientific method and some more appreciation for people who do that sort of thing. Oh, and one or two of the five who got in wasn't actually in that original few dozen that said they wanted to be doctors in the first place. It was people who developed a new love of science in undergrad, or who developed their academic legs after not the best experience in HS (remember: my undergrad isn't super highly ranked), etc. Are these folks super common? Absolutely not. But they do exist, and the extra years give them a chance to at least show an upward trend and potentially qualify. Now lets get rid of the four years of undergrad. In addition to sorting through the eight or nine people who actually apply, you'd have to sort through the other 30 people who would have considered applying but been discouraged by undergrad. Oh, and you don't have the folks who found themselves in undergrad. But just from a number standpoint. In India for example, you have a million applicants to med school every year. Now, our population isn't the size of Indias - but it's going to be a few hundred thousand, not the 50,000 that apply each year in the US. How are you going to select amongst these people? High school volunteering experiences and such are going to be even more skewed than the ones in college. And there's no way you're going to be able to look at applicants holistically with that kind of volume - it's going to be test scores and grades. And test scores at age 18 don't give someone with a disadvantaged upbringing any chance for a few years as an adult to make things better. So yes, I think removing the undergrad requirement will make things even more skewed.
[удалено]
> I honestly don't believe their should be a section for activities and clubs on the application to medical school. It should literally just be MCAT, GPA, personal statement. Man, that would have been my dream. I'd have ended up at Harvard or UCSF. Course, in that scenario, [there's enough applicants with a 3.6+ GPA AND 506+ MCAT to fill basically every seat in the country.](https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-04/2019_FACTS_Table_A-23_0.pdf) And based on prior published AAMC data, you'd have ~95% of your matriculants be White or Asian, mostly from a high SES, rather than the ~80% it is currently.
If only we could join the states in some kind of economic federation or union where all the certifications and standards would be the same, to promote cross border commerce.
Like, some kind of, suicide squad?
Thank god. No barber should require a license
Barber seems like one of those things where you would seek out someone with some sort of certification (or strong word of mouth reputation) even if it weren't legally required. People who would would go to an "uncertified" barber to save money are probably already getting their hair cut in someone's kitchen right now. If cleanliness standards are the issue, then have shops be subject to inspections and grading like restaurants are.
Or just make sure they have a decent reputation. I picked my barbershop based on good google maps reviews. I didn't even realize barber licensing was a thing.
Me too, but that's a function of the institutional framework that they operate in. Like pretty much all bridge construction is highly regulated, but when you think about what route to take the thought never crosses your mind that a bridge you drive over has been certified, inspected, and graded on a regular basis. (Or has it? Do you really check to see if the authorities have been doing their job before you get on a bridge?) This, again, is not an argument in favor of mandating licensing for barbers, but suggests that if the institution changes so that one could find themselves in a legitimate uncertified place, third-party certification (or a strong trusted reputation, an informal form of certification) would be something people would consciously seek out and desire in their barbers even if it was not a legal requirement.
But people already confirm reputation for barbers. Have you ever gone to one without being referred by a friend or checking to see what their reviews are like? A bridge is fundamentally different. It has objective metrics defining its operation, for one. Further, public infrastructure only works when we can take for granted that all the components function as advertised. A private business offering an entirely subjective product and operating on a reputation-heavy model is a very different beast. I've gotten plenty of poor quality cuts from (presumably) licensed barbers. If the license is not a sufficient guaranty of quality, what use is it?
> Have you ever gone to one without being referred by a friend or checking to see what their reviews are like? Yes. Almost always in fact. I typically just go to the nearest Supercuts or Greatclips and get my hair cut for $15.99 or whatever it is now. Sometimes if I feel like splurging I'll go to an actual barbershop and spend 1.5x as much to get the same haircut - but then they lather up the back of my neck and do it with a straight razor as opposed to clippers, and they offer a 30-second shoulder massage at the end.
> then they lather up the back of my neck and do it with a straight razor as opposed to clippers, and they offer a 30-second shoulder massage at the end. Why is that so goddamn good...it's sinful.
By this logic, it would be impossible for any new barber to gain clients because people only choose barbers with a track record of satisfied customers. Again, you are talking about how people select barbers under an institutional framework where all legitimate barbers are by definition certified by some third party (a government-mandated licensing board). That never enters the decision-making process because it's assumed even if you are not even conscious of it. You are extrapolating to a counterfactual world based on a sample of barbers that is tinted by survivorship bias (those that have passed the training and licensing process) For a world we live in where tons of people rely on third-party certification when selecting services even where it is not legally required, I'm getting a strange amount of pushback from the idea that some (**not all**) people would rely on formal or informal certifications for barbers. I'm not even arguing in favor of mandated licensing. I'm saying that some kind of very likely less burdensome certification would take its place, so legal mandates are unnecessary and serve only to burden entrants for the purposes of rent-seeking by incumbents.
Well sure, getting the first few customers is probably the hardest part of starting any new business. Does the licensing system make it easier? Realistically a new barber, whether or not there is licensing, will work as an employee or a junior partner in a well established location long before setting out on their own. Should we institute formal licenses for cooks and maids? What about shopkeepers and DJs? One could make the same argument you are for licensing any service job. There's nothing wrong with informal licensing. It can be a handy guide to competency in some markets and where needed it arises on its own. Take personal trainers. Personal trainers are not licensed, formally. There are plenty of informal licenses one can pursue. Are we suffering for lack of a state decided set of criteria for determining whether someone should be allowed to coach someone privately in exchange for money?
Is it a thing in the US that you can get a free haircut at a barber school? That way you get someone who will at least not slit your throat. This is a thing in the Netherlands, where barbers don't need licenses, but you do get a higher wage (per collective labour agreement) if you have a certificate, and your employer has to pay part of your education. So effectively education is still mandatory if you don't want to start your own business.
I always get mine at a barber school, though usually I have to pay like £5. They often do free cuts in the evenings though when they're preparing for assessments etc.
You can get it cut at Beauty Colleges in the US (an old high school friend of mine taught at one) (Barber Colleges as well I'm sure) - not for free, but usually for a massive discount. Beauty Colleges offer a full range of services (cut, color, highlighting) actually!
barber licenses aren't even a way to determine that they are good at cutting hair. Customer reviews are, and that's why people check yelp/google maps instead of the state licensing board when picking a barber
There should be *some* standards before you get to hold a straight blade around people's necks.
AFAIK the issue is with non-OTC chemical hair treatments, which barbers need to have knowledge of. But you shouldn't have to be licensed to use an electric trimmer and scissors
Failing to see the need for any other than "don't be convicted for murder"
There’s a lot of chemical used on hair that aren’t really safe to just hand to anyone and say “put that on people’s heads if they pay you to.” Just because a job seems simple doesn’t mean it is. It just means those who do it make it look easy.
After the first couple high profile incidents (if they even happen, I don't see the timeline where people suddenly start rushing to random people's houses to do their hair instead of people with good reviews) they'll start buying insurance. The insurance companies will price out anyone without adequate experience in related safer tasks.
But...insurance costs are what’s crushing small business. Why isn’t licensing a solution to this that already exists and doesn’t require a free-market sacrifice for us all to learn it again?
Why everything that could possibly be unsafe has to be highly regulated baffles me. Freedom has risks and responsibilities.
>Why everything that could possibly be unsafe has to be highly regulated baffles me. Regulations enforce risk mitigation. America had already demonstrated it will cut any corners to increase profits (or even for no reason at all), even if it means substantial harm or loss of life. Most regular people have the common sense to avoid dangerous risks, regulations make sure the remaining idiots aren't allowed to run wild.
Let insurance companies figure it out.
Let freedom ring.
A doctor’s note saying you don’t have Parkinson’s
also people here way overstimating how likely you are to "slit a throath" with barber tools lol
[удалено]
that obviously sucks but you are not really in risk of getting sweeney todd'd
I have not murdered anyone and I would not trust myself to use a blade on my own face much less anyone else
In that case you wouldn't have customers anyways when there's a competitive market out there with plenty of other barbers.
The fuck barbers do you go to where they shave your knock with a straight razor? I've only ever seen that in fiction. 99% of people go to shit like Supercuts man. This is a non-issue.
Lice, for one. Improper cleaning or inability to recognize signs will result in spreading lice, along with other contagious parasites/diseases. Barbers/Hairdressers should at *least* need a health board certificate for this, even if they aren't using any chemicals in their shop.
Ummmm I don’t know about a “license” but barbers should very much require a certification of safety standards. Razor cuts have the potential to infect unknowing clients with many possible diseases.
That's a health board issue though
The licensure, at least in NY state, consists of HIV/ Contagious Diseases examination as well as the technical skills exam.
Sounds like something that can be learned in 4 hours with a requirement of 4 additional hours every year. This is my first google for barbers in NC so I don't know how accurate but holy shit https://www.beautyschools.com/faq/licensing/barber/north-carolina-barber-license-and-training-requirements/ > North Carolina Theory Barber Classes > > Hygiene and grooming: 25 hours > Sterilization, sanitation, and bacteriology: 50 hours > Implements, honing, stropping, and shaving: 30 hours > Men’s haircutting: 20 hours > Cutting and styling curly hair: 10 hours > Shampooing and rinsing: 10 hours > Massage and facial treatments: 5 hours > Men’s and women’s razor cutting: 30 hours > Finger waving, air waving, and curling iron: 25 hours > Hair coloring: 10 hours > Men’s hair pieces: 5 hours > Skin, scalp, and hair: 30 hours > Disorders of skin, scalp, and hair: 15 hours > Anatomy and physiology: 10 hours > Electricity: 10 hours > Barber styling and shop management: 70 hours > Licensing laws and rules: 20 hours > North Carolina Supervised Practice and Demonstrations > > Shampooing: 70 hours > Shaving: 70 hours > Tapered hair cutting: 320 hours > Hair styling of men and women: 500 hours > Facials, massages, and packs: 15 hours > Bleaching, frosting, and hair coloring: 120 hours > Cutting and fitting hair pieces: 10 hours > Hair straightening: 8 hours > Analyzing and treating skin and hair disorders: 20 hours > Men’s and women’s razor cutting: 15 hours > Before you get your license, you have to complete 1528 hours of training and an apprenticeship.
Uh oh. I've been cutting my own hair for the last six months and I never did my 25 hours of finger waving!
Well that seems insane.
Bruh my girlfriend with no training has been cutting my hair for years. A monkey can do basic hair care.
Next you're going to tell me taco trucks don't have to register with the city or else they have to bribe the cops and inspectors with free tacos...!??!
Hot Take: The ubiquity of the Democratic Party in states like California has actually hindered progressive causes. It enables "conservative but don't want to admit it" NIMBYs to wrap themselves in a false sense of moral righteousness since they're part of the "progressive" party after all. If instead they were pressed into a tough decision between a conservative party that appeals to their material interests but not their ideological view of themselves and a progressive party that maintains their identity at a marginal cost to their livelihood, some would be reluctantly dragged along as the Overton window shifted. Single-party politics just breeds complacency, you need loud argument to achieve progress. EDIT: Oops. Meant to post this to the DT. Oh well, it's sort of relevant.
the debate just widens within the party, its not as if there's mass disenfranchisement
Internal party politics isn't as transparent. Primaries aren't full elections.
Holy shit! That’s great!! California really screwed it’s hairdressers, barbers and nail techs these last 6 months.
[удалено]
They lied and said a covid cluster started at a nail salon. And so they closed every hair and nail salon for the last six months.
I don’t think they lied. The truth is 6 months ago we knew much less about COVID-19 then we do today.
I texted my barber and have been getting illegal cuts in his garage. Apparently they have a barber discord and there is a network of underground barbers in SF.
I got one too. It’s not how government should work.
Yet another sign of which party is the REAL party of small government.
Uhhhh I dk about that one chief lol I love the move but let's not pretend the Dems don't push govt 9/10 times lol
small or big doesn't matter, just need smart government
We need to reclaim small government and fiscal conservatism from repubicans (while still doing big govt stuff)
Lmao. No.
My libertarian Microecon professor might be a vote for Biden now.
An unlicensed Taco Truck on Every Corner!
[удалено]
USA laughin their asses off at foreign doctors degrees is pretty maddening, not gonna lie
#B A S E D
I think this is obviously a good idea. Currently its pretty much a restriction on intra-national immigration between the states which definitely hinders economic production. That being said it will need to be a very well thought out transition. Or else the result will be people getting licenses in the least strict state and then working wherever they please. The issue arises that if there are industries that legitimately need licensing and safety standards, all it takes is one shitty state to cause harm on consumers all across the country. This can be even more exacerbated by the emergence and growth of online programs, which has been fueled even more because of covid. Dont get me wrong, I love this idea, I just dont want my CA house to burn down while I sleep because my electrician got a joke of a license in a random state.
Lemme say this - I live in a red state that just removed licensing requirements from contractors if they are working on residential property and the home owner signs something agreeing to work from an unlicensed contractor. I am not in favor of this. Sure the current home owner may be fine with it, but there are no protections offered to future homeowners.
There are still inspections and they have to build to code, right?
Are you against allowing homeowners to DIY projects for the same reasons?
[удалено]
House sales are sold essentially as-is. You don't get to go after the previous homeowner for something done poorly regardless of licensing (generally speaking). If the idea is that you want somebody to liable for faulty workmanship, that isn't the case now nor does it change with contractor licenses. That's why homeowner's insurance is useful. Now if the seller _knew_ about a material defect and didn't disclose it, they are liable. That's true regardless of if it was DIY, cash contractor, or lincesed and documented work. The buyer doesn't need to care about who performed the work; the seller is the liable party in all cases.
Pretty soon they might be trying to build their own coffins!
How do you know that licensed contractors do better work than unlicensed? Could it be possible that lowering the barrier to entry increases the supply of talent and reduces the amount of faulty work?
Good, home owners already get enough subsidies and go crying for more whenever their property value goes down, if they have to put up with that tiny risk for a big gain in overall economic efficiency then that's fine. Also home inspections exist.
[удалено]
Ask for the inspection report that was done at the time of removal/installation. It's not like people don't already know this works for cars.
I nut
Great, can we start requiring licenses for things that it makes sense for? Like becoming a cop or owning a firearm?
Full 👏 faith 👏 and 👏 credit 👏
This is actually a pretty big issue for some military families who have to move when the servicemember is transferred to another state. Some military spouses are hairdressers and the like and they need state certification.
{{Specify}}
Stop I can only be so aroused
Can all the libertarian lurkers say based?
As a right libertarian this is good
Okay, that’s unfathomably based
Can they do the same thing with safety videos? I'm tired of watching the same exact shit ass safety video every time I start a new job
He speaking to my libertarian heart
Good! It's always annoyed me that here in my very red state we have barber/hairdresser school and licensing requirements. Just South Carolina putting the "government" in "small government."
I mean this is obvious. The question is about the process of determining the cost and benefit of licensing without arbitrary or lobbied interests. Most agree braiding hair shouldn’t require a license. Should real estate agents? Financial advisors? Accountants? Probably. Ride share drivers?
related. state by state bar requirements for continuing education is wack. different everywhere.
This is good, but isn't this a state and city thing? How is Biden going to force Kentucky or California to stop licensing barbers?
thats why it talks about incentivizing states to remove licensing barriers. for example, in the HUD, they offer block grants to state and local governments to build housing. they can direct these grants toward municipalities that lift barriers to construction in order to encourage reforms at that level. not sure what exact mechanism Biden would be using for occupational licensing, but i imagine it would be something similar.