I believe this credentialist industry is mainly driven by insurance companies and anti-competitive megacorps.
No, no I don't.
the irony is that in locales that require licenses, more unlicensed non-code compliant work is often done because there is no diy path. in many locales, building inspectors are readily available and happy to inspect homeowner work.
The fear is that without licensed professionals doing the work, the work will be done wrong. That’s absurd. To bring it a little closer to HN’s readership, those of us who program know that programmers, regardless of their formal education, can be amazing or terrible, and everything in-between.
Training and licensure only promise that time has been spent by the individual, and the latter only really promises that someone can be legally paid for the work.
The biggest issue we have here in not whether construction workers are skilled in their job, but whether they are reliable enough to turn up at the right time - but as I understand that's the same in the US too.
Credentials are rarely required by law; rather "relevant experience and/or qualifications" is the usual bar. Of course some professions are heavily regulated, I'm not talking about those.
But then, insurance is often required, or de facto required, and to get that, you need a qualification.
IME this leads to a lot of professions staffed with poorly-trained people, often not much bothered by the job, with one piece of paper showing a low-quality qualification, and another showing professional indemnity.
It also pushes actual regulation onto private entities with their own agendas, which possibly bothers me even more.
I can respect the value of having a barbers license two people that want to assure a minimum quality and training in their haircuts. I also find it absurd that as a consenting adult I can't pay someone to cut my hair without a year-long training and apprenticeship program.