Comment by mrtksn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrtksn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't think there's a misalignment at all, the complexities come when the governments try to build water tight systems.

For example, let's say that to do some specific work the law says a degree is required. Normally, a degree is something that a university gives to its successful students so it shouldn't be that big of a bureaucracy to hire someone for that job, right?

firts, they start by simply taking the xerox copy of the diploma. Then someone starts hiring people without a diploma and forges a fake xerox copy and gets caught? To solve this, bureaucrats introduce a requirement for diploma registrations so they can check against fakes.

Congratulation, now you have an office visit step where you go show your original diploma.

Unfortunately, some people start showing fake diplomas. Once the bureaucrats catch on, they introduce a protocol with the universities to start checking the diplomas. Unfortunately, some universities say they can't accommodate that, others say they can do it moving forward but can't to for those who graduated more than 5 years ago. Also, some people studied abroad, others have their institutions merged or seized to exits.

Congratulation, now you have multiple ways to accomplish the same thing. You will need to fill the correct form.

What you describe is the exact reason we should question your very premise. "For example, let's say that to do some specific the law says a degree is required."

Why is the government in the business of requiring degrees for financial transactions? Maybe that's valid for a doctor, but it's certainly not valid for a hair dresser.

To be fair, parent mentioned "university", and I'm fairly certain that universities don't train hair dressers, so presumably he was thinking of things like engineers, lawyers, and medical professionals.

I also find the educational requirements for hairdressing to be rather perplexing.

Yep, it's very common to require certain degrees and qualifications to be able to sigh off projects and stuff in some industries. It's a way to make sure that a job is done properly without need for a thorough audit every time.

For certain things yes. But on a more fundamental level there's a fair question of "what's the role of government" and "how much does the government need to do".

I would for instance argue, that only professions where a negative outcome is irreversible should have government standards. E.g. if a surgeon or a civil engineer building bridges is unqualified, the outcome might be irreversible damage. If your cook or hairdresser suck, the market will take care of it.

I agree, just trying to illustrate how seemingly simple things can have very heavy implementations that are not necessarily bureaucratic and complex just for the sake of being bureaucratic and complex.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com