Comments on: Silly Consensus

By: Tiffany

Tiffany — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:06:58 +0000

It's very interesting to see the argument against licensing for interior design from an economic perspective. I call myself a renegade interior designer because though I have a degree in it I do not have a license. (Oh, the horror!) I think it is important to learn about building codes and ADA requirements and green design to benefit the health and safety of everyone. No sense in designing a beautiful space made of asbestos and coated in lead paint. Design education is important. But I think that the problem is that unlike in some of the other professions listed, there are too many artificial barriers to employment as a designer. I cannot take a licensing exam until I have worked for a few years for a designer who is licensed, but there are so few of them hiring entry-level designers. They want someone with experience. So I don't have experience because no one will hire me, but no one will hire me because I have no experience. Which is how I ended up selling carpet and furniture for a while. But now I say screw it. I'm going to call myself a designer anyway and if they want to sue me, take it up with a lawyer. And speaking of lawyers, at least they get to take the bar exam once they get their degree instead of doing some b.s. "apprenticeship" first. So as someone who is personally affected by these ridiculous laws, I am glad to see that you took the time to use interior design as an example of the useless regulations. Also, you may want to read this report: Designing Cartels by The Institute for Justice

By: JDavies

JDavies — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:28:40 +0000

Though economists may not do too much about it, there are organizations that challenge licensing laws on a regular basis. The public law organization Institute for Justice (a libertarian outfit) has an Economic Liberty division that mounts legal challenges to these types of licensing laws. (http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=557&Itemid=240) Lots of interior design, hair-braiding, and florist cases. I know there are some other, smaller organizations that do similar work as well.

By: frelkins

frelkins — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:18:54 +0000

@Erin

You nearly had me until I went over to the ASID website and was greeted with:

“Michael Alin, ASID Executive Director, Gives Video Address on Legislative Priorities for 2009
Society pledges legislative support to create more opportunities for designers in a down economy.”

and

“How to Report Your CEU Compliance

No course information is required. Simply access your online profile and select “Go to My ASID.” Scroll down to “Report your CEU Compliance,” and you’re all set. The reporting deadline is Dec. 31, 2009, but don’t risk being audited by waiting until the last minute.”

Very rigorous, right, this mandatory continuing education requirement – no course information required!

So I went to see what kind of important continuing education is in fact offered for the requirement. I was greeted with this so-important-for-public-safety online class – American Indian Culture, Southwestern Tradition, and Santa Fe Style. Ah yes, you must pay them to learn how tastefully recognize the cultural importance of bleached cow skulls and fake Indian blankets by Ralph Lauren.

Robin’s right, this is a scam to keep talented gay men down, and make sure all the others pay the regular dues.

By: Erin

Erin — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:35:27 +0000

I don’t think the analogy to the medical field is as relevant as comparing it to architecture.

As much as I disagree with required licensing for interior designers, there is a very large difference between interior designers and interior decorators. The former needs to understand and be able to successfully apply fire and life safety principles, barrier-free design (e.g. ADA)and many standards and codes that most would assume only architects are required to understand/know. The latter just needs to match colors, fabrics and styles together.

By: ad

ad — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:55:47 +0000

My colleagues tell me that it would just seem silly to make a fuss over this; it is just not a serious topic.

They have a point. What you need is a general anti-licencing rule. Then you can say that no licencing regulation should be passed if it violated that rule.

Any ideas about what that rule should be?

By: Kaj Sotala

Kaj Sotala — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:16:32 +0000

James D. Miller: While licenses for interior decoration and being a florist are obviously absurd, you say that one can also make a very strong case against mandated licensing for professions such as teachers and doctors. I’m curious to hear why this is so – could you provide a brief summary, or a reference that’d explain it in more detail?

By: Grant

Grant — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:46:30 +0000

I actually have asked a hair stylist about state licensing. Her opinion was roughly that state-required licensing was absurdly expensive (in Florida). She didn’t know why it existed, only that it was just a silly hurdle to be overcome. However, she did feel that regulation and inspection related to hair styling was useful; mostly because regulators looked for proper antiseptics and procedures that keep hair-borne parasites and diseases from being spread. I have no idea how effective or costly these health-related regulators are, but I’m less concerned about them because there are actual economic arguments for their existence.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:07:10 +0000

Someone says that the debate is dominated by nutjobs, I totally agree. Their attitude is like: “See if you have to license doctors and pilots, next the government is going to go after interior designers!!!!!”
While this works wonders to reinforce already like minded ideologues that they are right, it doesn’t work as a persuasion tool for policy change. Most people would like to think that when they receive a service that involves their life and health that there is some minimum standards backed up by government rules and laws, while they will agree that a botched interior design job should only involve the fashion police… But the absolutist doesn’t make this rational argument, they just thump some Hayek tract.

So yes it is a Silly Consensus because it involves Silly people, and to challenge the “consensus” you will find yourself allied with some very silly people.

By: raivo

raivo — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 03:54:06 +0000

This is a test comment from TypePad Support. Please feel free to delete.

By: Kymberlie R. McGuire

Kymberlie R. McGuire — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:30:19 +0000

This is TypePad Support testing your comments. Please feel free to delete this. ravio