Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

It's not over-regulation to require plumbers to be certified by a competent agency, and those regulations are usually in place as a result of uncertified people taking advantage of the poor. They are an effect, not a cause.

For example, terra cotta sewer lines still exist in a lot of places. They are old, have been invaded by roots (and thus are going to need disproportionately more attention than modern lines), and fragile. An inexperienced or careless plumber with typical snaking equipment can easily damage these sewer pipes, costing homeowners tens of thousands of dollars.

State certification helps to ensure that the plumbers that show up know how to deal with these systems and can lose their right to work in the industry if they're careless.

More generally, I see this sentiment a lot, especially on tech forums, where regulation is somehow a thing that happens all by itself and it's the enemy of the poor, while we're surrounded by mountains of evidence exactly to the contrary.

View on HN

> we're surrounded by mountains of evidence exactly to the contrary

Where can we find such evidence, as opposed to anecdotes?

* Flint, Michigan * The Gulf Coast * Anywhere in coal country * Wall Street * TARP

If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. The whole point of regulations is that the collective power of the masses protects itself against the wealth of the elite and business interests who don't generally have to live with the results of their actions. Are there stupid regulations? Of course, lots of them. Are there some that just don't plain work? Of course, lots of them. That's why you don't make regulations based on feelings and instead look at what the evidence says.

> If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you

If you really think that the collective motivations and incentives behind every regulation can be so easily generalized, then you're no different from free-market zealots unable to appreciate that markets are suboptimal for certain tasks. Regulations can be abused just like any other part of government, and just like any other part of government, this potential for abuse isn't a blanket indictment of the overall concept.

Yup, you're right. I chose a poor choice of words that didn't convey what I had meant to say clearly.

> If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

> The whole point of regulations is that the collective power of the masses...

'The whole point' != what happens in reality.

> That's why you don't make regulations based on feelings and instead look at what the evidence says.

Sure... except that's rarely what happens in politics.

Yes, your points are all valid and correct. My statement was meant about what they are meant to protect not made to protect. Was a bad word choice on my part and I deserve the criticism of my comment I received.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you just listed more anecdotes.

>* Flint, Michigan * The Gulf Coast * Anywhere in coal country * Wall Street * TARP

We've made a really big leap from me suggesting I don't want to force a poor person to get permission from a wealthy person to perform handy-man type jobs around my house to talking about systemic risk problems. That first bit about the poor person requiring permission from a wealthy person is the key factor here, because who do you think is going to push for those regulations? The homeowners? Ehh, maybe the one person who had some bad luck. But the big money pushing those regulations to be written will be monied industry incumbents who don't want poor people to undercut them on easier work.

I've made no leaps about you personally. You're probably a pretty cool person.

The first case that comes immediately to mind is Range Resources, in Pittsburgh, which drilled shale gas wells in poorer neighborhoods because the residents wouldn't have the resources to pursue lawsuits against them (http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource/latest-oil-and-gas/2...). State and federal regulatory agencies help to level the playing field (when they aren't being corrupted -- but that's another matter). In the absence of effective regulation, poorer communities have no recourse against being exploited.

This isn't just happening in one specific location, either. There is a national correlation between poor communities and pollution: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

Deregulation in 1996 was also a major contributing factor -- possibly the key factor -- that led to the California state energy crisis in 2000-2001 ([pdf] https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wec/enron...)

Here's a really interesting insider perspective on the intersection of economics and regulation: http://allegedwisdom.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-story-of-lucky... ... this guy estimates the "trans fats ban" saved a few tens of thousands of lives. The article also opens by describing a case in which proposed regulation would not have made sense, but don't stop there.

Under-regulation has maybe cost the United States 41 million IQ points: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-toxin... ... think about that the next time you wish the people around you were smarter.

And, while lack of regulations have over history cost this country an untold amount of money and lives, it's not at all clear that environmental regulations have a net negative impact on the economy: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/2/14772518/env...

As Cory Doctorow points out, modern software has changed the rules around regulation and cheating, and there are lots of incentives to cheat: http://locusmag.com/2017/09/cory-doctorow-demon-haunted-worl.... In cases like these, we're simply getting a glimpse at how the various actors involved would behave in a completely unregulated environment. Too many people now are too young to know first-hand what an unegulated country looked like: http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-america-before-epa-doc...

As the blog from the economist alludes to, there are bad regulations too. I'd be quick to agree with that. But while it's far too simplistic to merely say, "regulations are good" or "regulations are bad", it's not hard to find evidence that our lives are overall much better off with many of the regulations we have in place now.

I see this sentiment a lot, especially on tech forums

I agree this is common especially in such settings, yet you are here on a tech forum arguing for the necessity of professional certification. Assuming I'm not confusing your username with another, I usually agree with your comments here on HN, but not this one.

Do you think there are differences in your background that might explain why you hold the less common view here? For example, are you involved in the legislative process? Do you hold some certifications that you feel are societally beneficial? Have you personally been hurt by the lack of regulation?

those regulations are usually in place as a result of uncertified people taking advantage of the poor

While I'm sure this is often the case, I assume you'd agree that there can be an incentive for established players to want to lock in their positions by excluding competitors? Since few consumers care enough about any particular issue to get legislation passed, the impetus for new laws often comes from industry. How do you distinguish legitimate public safety issues from protectionism by entrenched businesses?

while we're surrounded by mountains of evidence exactly to the contrary

Are there some particularly strong pieces of evidence that you can offer, especially those that might compare the situation between otherwise comparable countries with higher or lower degrees of professional certification requirements?

Do you think the US benefit from greater certification for professionals? I was surprised to learn that Switzerland requires apprenticeship and training for almost all jobs, including retail cashiers. This strikes me as overkill, but apparently has the benefit of keeping very low unemployment rates: https://www.e-tas.ch/swiss-apprentices-get-new-futures.

> yet you are here on a tech forum arguing for the necessity of professional certification

? I'm not sure if you're implying that there's some hypocrisy here; I would be in favor of some kinds of certification process for software developers, for what it's worth, especially given the vast amounts of personal information that many developers have access to, even if they don't have any background in adequately keeping that data secure.

> Do you think there are differences in your background that might explain why you hold the less common view here?

My personal views have become less ideological and more data-driven as I've gotten older. I've shifted from approximately Republican, in the 90s, to more democratic, to more libertarian during the first Ron Paul cycle, to more ... honestly, I'm not sure what bucket it would be now. Mostly socially liberal, a little bit fiscally conservative, but most of all, data-driven. I'll accept whatever point of view that has the most evidence for promoting egalitarianism and humanism.

Tech forums today appear to be broadly developing a strong libertarian politic. Or, maybe a vocal minority. dang is more circumspect on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15701584

The most compelling stuff I've seen in recent years has suggested that regulation is a net positive on society, and that more regulated societies tend to be wealthier, healthier, and happier.

This is not to say that all regulations are beneficial, of course.

> I assume you'd agree that there can be an incentive for established players to want to lock in their positions by excluding competitors?

Oh, sure. That's a thing that happens, and when it does, it should be fought against. It cannot, however, be used as a stick against all forms of regulation.

> Since few consumers care enough about any particular issue to get legislation passed, the impetus for new laws often comes from industry.

The causes behind various forms of regulation can be interesting. The EPA, for instance, exists in spite of the rather large amount of lobbying and marketing against it from businesses which it regulates. The FCC was up until recently in a similar position; the current administration has managed to effectively neuter it, for the time being.

Lots of new laws come from industry lobbying. Lots of other laws come from legislators doing what they think is right, even if their morals don't agree with someone else's, or they're not particularly knowledgeable on the subject they're legislating. But, lots of other laws also come from science, or panels of experts providing consultation on a subject.

> Are there some particularly strong pieces of evidence that you can offer, especially those that might compare the situation between otherwise comparable countries with higher or lower degrees of professional certification requirements?

I didn't hit on this point in particular, but I did provide a small handful of links in another comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15731261

My "regulation" tag in pinboard is still a bit light though, so I don't have an immediate reply for you and it's late and I don't want to start nerding on statistics right now. :-)

I'm not sure if you're implying that there's some hypocrisy here

No, I was just wondering whether there was a particular reason that you'd take what appears to be the minority position within tech circles. I'm mostly in the possibly-more-common "the US is over-regulated" camp, tend to be moving farther in that direction, and was wondering what perspective I might be missing.

I'm strongly for greater governmental regulation regarding environmental issues (and in general, biased toward regulations that protect the commons from individuals) but generally against regulations that mandate government involvement in what would otherwise be person-to-person interactions.

In both cases, though, I worry that new laws are often created for some hidden private agenda rather than for the stated public good, even if the benefit to the public might be real. Usually, I'd prefer that we improve enforcement of our existing rules rather than adding more.

Thanks for your excellent answer, and I'll read the links you provided tomorrow.

>where regulation is somehow a thing that happens all by itself

Regulation certainly doesn't happen all by itself. An incident happens, like 9/11, and then suddenly Dropout Joe down at the TSA is groping my barefoot grandma in front of hundreds of looky-loos.

I'm not completely anti-regulation, but I think people are perfectly capable of assessing the amount of risk they want to take for day to day maintenance on their house. I can literally drive 15 mins down the road to the local Home Depot and rent a plumbing snake for the day and do it myself. The fact that some people screwed up their own sewer lines almost certainly does not justify raising the costs for millions of other homes who need basic handy-man type services done in their homes. If I really feel like I want added protection, there's lots of options available. I can make sure my plumber is bonded, check references, for larger jobs I may want to make sure my plumber is certified by some form of trade union, etc.

Well, good for you.

Meanwhile, countless other people get bilked, scammed, and exploited, and laws are written to try to protect them. Some of them are good laws, and some of them aren't.

I realize these laws create a terrible hardship for you, but they apply to everyone and that's just the way things are until we live in a society where you can carry a card certifying you as a person so competent that you may be exempted from your choice of laws.

>I realize these laws create a terrible hardship for you

It's not me who needs protection from over-regulation, I'm doing just fine. It's the poor your ideology is hurting. And you're doing it in the name of protecting the wealthy, which I don't understand. If what people might be doing carries systemic risk, then sure, regulate away. But let the poor snake my sewer line if that's what he wants to do to make a buck.

You seem to be approaching this strictly from, "regulations make it harder for the poor to provide cheap services to the rich". I'm coming at this from, "regulations make it harder for the rich to exploit the poor".

Poor people need infrastructure maintenance too. (I'd expect them to need a disproportionately greater amount of it.) Poor people have fewer resources at hand for dealing with costly negligence. They can't afford a hotel for a few nights, they don't have an attorney in the contacts list that can write a mean letter, they can't just pay out of pocket to remediate the problem and then sue the service provider (or their insurance) later. When an under-trained, unregulated, uncertified professional comes out and doesn't happen to be one of those flawless gems that people like to point to as examples of everything working out in an unregulated environment, when they screw up and cause damage, poor people are left far worse off.

As this article points out that I linked in another comment, it's unlikely that regulation reduces aggregate employment: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/2/14772518/env...

Most non-partisan sources I can find suggest that professional licensing increases wages; some sources find a decrease in niche growth rates, others don't: [pdf, paywalled; sorry] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irel.12190/pdf; http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing#Evidenc...

So you can look at it as, now the poor have to pay 15 to 20% more for professional services, or they can pay less but are more likely to be financially harmed by those services to an extent that would vastly exceed their initial savings. I take the view that spending $20 more for a plumber is worth having a certified and licensed professional.

And, by the way, I've lived both sides of this. I've never been wealthy. I am right now in an "uncertain" housing situation -- my landlords have decided to terminate my tenancy because the median rental market in this region has gone up 27% in the last 12 months and the paperwork we signed doesn't allow them to raise the rent that much. I also owned and operated a technical business for 10 years, occasionally doing work that I really should have had some licenses for. I know, first-hand, what effect a stricter regulatory and licensing environment would have had on me as a low-cost service provider.

>"regulations make it harder for the rich to exploit the poor".

How is a poor person starting their own business being exploited by the rich? This isn't the Uber gig economy, this is a guy selling his labor on Craigslist or something because he lacks better options.

>Most non-partisan sources I can find suggest that professional licensing increases wages;

Yes of course it increases wages, by forcing out the little guy who is not educated enough to complete the full course of licensing, or lacks the resources to take a lower wage as an 'apprentice', or doesn't speak the language, etc.

>I take the view that spending $20 more for a plumber is worth having a certified and licensed professional.

I'm not trying to stop you from hiring whomever you'd like. You are the one being the authoritarian.

>occasionally doing work that I really should have had some licenses for... I know, first-hand, what effect a stricter regulatory and licensing environment would have had on me as a low-cost service provider.

Apparently it wouldn't have had any effect on you since you were willing to ignore the law anyways.

Strangely on point ancedata:

My father worked as a drain cleaning specialist for many decades without a plumbing certificate. When he started his business drain cleaning was not regulated under the local plumbing trade. He knew vastly more about how to locate sewerage pipes, clean difficult lines (tight corners), which trees/shrubs were likely to be causing problems through invasive roots or causing movement of the pipes than any of the certified plumbers. He had knowledge of the types of pipes that a house within a suburb was likely to have (terra cotta, cast iron, PVC etc) and the right way to deal with blockages in each type.

He did work for many plumbers who knew they didn't have the right equipment or knowledge required for some of the larger jobs (sewerage lines vs sinks for example). Many plumbers were not interested in drain cleaning as it often involved dealing with unpleasant waste, jobs were typically only an hour or two in length while construction plumbing or gas fitting was cleaner work with more billable time. He also coordinated with the local water authority when a blockage was suspected to be in the sewer main.

My father would not do any pipe repair or fittings replacement. As he was not a licensed plumber he was not even permitted to change a tap washer.

The Plumbers Association eventually lobbied to have drain cleaning included under their certification. This came in when my father was about 50 years old. He did not want to do an apprenticeship to become a licensed plumber. An apprenticeship would have taken quite a few years at low pay to learn plumbing construction, gas fitting and a bunch of other stuff that he was not interested in doing.

So my father had to then be "supervised" by a licensed plumber. Luckily "supervised" was interpreted quite loosely for a long time.

My fathers rates for drain cleaning were substantially less per hour than a licensed plumber charged. By capturing drain cleaning under the plumbing certification - prices for drain cleaning did go up for most people.

From my perspective my father was not an "uncertified person taking advantage of the poor". An organised group (the Plumbers Association) instead lobbied to capture exclusive access to work via regulation. None of my father's associates who held plumbing licences thought it was a good change - so they helped him through "supervision" to keep working.

Generally, I see certification and regulation as a good thing. I am skeptical, however, of organised groups lobbying to increase their power/exclusive access etc through more regulation. Any such regulatory capture should be backed by solid risk analysis.

As you pointed out, the risk in drain cleaning includes damaged pipework. This could be mitigated by professional insurance, which my father carried - it does not require regulation and licensing.

I could tell a similar story about my grandfather, who built MATV and CATV distribution systems around the Bay Area for a very long time. He had the appropriate licenses, but hated having to have them.

I get that there are exceptions, and those exceptions are the stories we like to tell -- the same way that this site tends towards the startup success stories and not the more mundane startup failure stories.

I would really rather not live in a society where insurance companies were the sole adjudicators of professional misconduct, given that they are primarily in the business of finding ways to not write checks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com