July 14, 2016
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: Rethinking Occupational Licensing
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the American labor force – one of the economy’s core building blocks – faces many structural challenges today. Millions of Americans are out of work, and for a longer period of time – six months on average – than in recent economic recoveries. Millions more are underemployed, working in part-time jobs even though what they want and need is full-time work. And the share of Americans participating in the labor market is hovering near its lowest point since 1977.
Meanwhile, there’s a growing sense that today’s economic challenges are somehow different – more intractable – than those that we have overcome in the past. Americans aren’t just losing jobs, they’re losing faith in the future and in the basic fairness of the American economy.
A recent survey of than 1,500 unemployed Americans found that a full 83 of respondents agree that “The way the economic system is set up in the United States only benefits the rich.” And the worst part is, they’re not entirely wrong.
One of the most pernicious forms of economic privilege today is the proliferation of occupational licensing requirements imposed on American workers by state governments. Occupational licensing laws require individuals to meet particular qualifications – like passing an exam, obtaining a professional certification, or completing a training course – in order to work in certain jobs.
Ostensibly, the purpose of licensing requirements is to protect public health and safety. For certain occupations – like physicians or lawyers – this makes perfect sense. But what about truck drivers, athletic trainers, hair stylists, florists, preschool teachers, or pest exterminators? It’s hard to see why people who want to work in these jobs should be required to pass exams, complete extensive training, and obtain government permission before they can legally be hired. And yet that’s exactly what has happened in states across the country.
In 1950, fewer than 5 percent of American workers were subject to licensing requirements. Today, that figure stands at around 30 percent. And in many cases, would-be workers have to pay large sums of money or wait long periods of time – or both – just to obtain the government’s permission to work.
The specific requirements vary across states and occupations. They range from the sensible to – more often – the absurd. But the upshot is always the same: by making it more difficult to enter an occupation, licensing requirements block younger and less fortunate workers from better and higher-paying jobs.
That’s why Senator Sasse and I recently introduced the Alternatives to Licensing that Lower Obstacles to Work (ALLOW) Act, a bill that leverages Congress’s Article I authority over federal enclaves – including the District of Columbia, military bases, and certain National Parks – to advance several models for licensing reform that state governments can follow.
The best part about this bill is that states can follow any one of these models right away. And at a time when the American worker is losing confidence in the future and the fairness of our economy, governors and state legislators should waste no time in implementing their own versions of these reforms.
The spirit of enterprise is still alive and well in this country. But too often misguided government policies stifle it before it can grow and fulfill its potential. Sadly, this is especially true for the most disadvantaged among us.
Rethinking our approach to occupational licensing laws – so that our economy has room for the full range of human talents, aspirations, and imaginations to flourish – is a modest but important step in making sure that our economy is set up to benefit the hard work of all Americans.
Issue in Focus: China and the Law of the Sea Treaty
For the past several years, the Chinese government has aggressively laid claim to important waterways and small island chains in the South China Sea that are contested by many countries in the region. This week, an international arbitration court in The Hague ruled against many of the Chinese claims, rebuking their antagonistic actions, in a suit brought by the Philippines through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST). The ruling was not a surprise to anyone, as China has been brazenly violating international maritime norms for years. China’s response was also predictable: Beijing immediately dismissed the court’s ruling as biased, stating that they will not abide by it.
In response, many have called on the United States to ratify LOST, which U.S. policymakers have repeatedly rejected since its creation in the early 1980s. But this week’s ruling and its aftermath prove that the prudent course is exactly the opposite: the United States has no need to ratify the LOST treaty and should avoid becoming a member of its organization.
Proponents of treaty ratification believe that it will improve the United States’ ability to engage in and peacefully resolve maritime disputes by granting the U.S. a “seat at the table” in the international bureaucracy that the agreement creates. But does the United States currently lack the legitimacy and authority necessary to influence the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes?
Of course not. The reality is that our Navy and Air Force’s “command of the commons” – the sea and air lanes through which foreign nations commercially interact with one another – gives the United States a very prominent seat at the proverbial table. We have achieved this influence through the sacrifice of American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen over the past two centuries, not by a piece of paper that attempts to empower international bureaucrats.
Moreover, China’s casual repudiation of the court’s ruling shows what kind of dilemmas would await the United States if we were to ratify the LOST treaty. China is a party to LOST, but everyone knew that the Chinese government never had any intention of following a ruling that was not consistent with their territorial interests. Why would the United States want to ratify a treaty whose signatories completely ignore its rules? Doing so would only make the United States appear weak in the face of such flagrant violations, and it could potentially put us in the position of playing enforcer even when it is against our interests.
The LOST treaty is also an expansive document that would bind the United States to provisions that were written by international bureaucrats and that would affect domestic U.S. law, including policies that establish environmental and energy standards, govern the adjudication and exercise of mineral rights, and call for international economic redistribution. Adopting this far-reaching treaty would do great damage to U.S. sovereignty.
Around the world, we are witnessing a rejection of the centralized, bureaucratic institutions developed in the 20th Century that have never had the capacity to represent and address the varying interests of free and independent peoples. The Law of the Sea Convention is one of those institutions, and this week’s events prove once again that the United States is better served by pursuing our economic and security interests around the world without ceding sovereignty to an unaccountable international body.
