A preface:
Yes, it’s ridiculous that we all now have to know who Joe the Plumber is, as that’s space in my brain that could be put to other (better?) use. I have no interest in debating whether Joe makes $250,000 or whether he should be taxed more or less if he does. Consider Joe a jumping off point to discuss an issue basically unrelated to the election (yay!).
The burly, bald man acknowledged he doesn’t have a plumber’s license, but said he didn’t need one because he works for someone else at a company that does residential work.
But Wurzelbacher still would need to be a licensed apprentice or journeyman to work in Toledo, and he’s not, said David Golis, manager and residential building official for the Toledo Division of Building Inspection.
State and local records show Wurzelbacher has no license, although his employer does. Golis said there are no records of inspectors citing Wurzelbacher for unlicensed work in Toledo.
I’ve read several different columns and plenty of comments on them to the effect of, <smug> “Oh, McCain’s little friend isn’t even really a plumber. Burn!” </smug> I’m not advocating Joe plumbing without a license; he should abide by the law. As a more threshold question, however, shouldn’t the determination of whether someone’s “really” a plumber depend on that person’s substantive ability and competence to plumb, rather than whether he has obtained a particular piece of paper from a government office? When a client walks into one of our offices in the years to come, are we going to reassure them by merely pointing at a diploma and license to practice law on the wall and say, “Look, I passed a bunch of tests and have garnered the correct amount of CLE credits for this calendar year without committing too brazen of a malpractice or breach of my ethical duties, and I am thus able to legally give you legal advice!”
If Joe the Plumber sucks at plumbing, people will sue him when he messes up their pipes and ultimately stop hiring him. At that point, not at the expiration of a license, will he cease to be Joe the Plumber. I’m not advocating for total deregulation of all professions. There are certainly losses that a tort or malpractice remedy can’t make up for in reality, even if torts teaches us that they make up for them legally. Appropriate entry barriers should attempt to protect against those losses, even if the tomes of med-mal cases indicate that they aren’t really that effective. Life and limb are precious enough that it’s worth a little violence to the free market to protect them, from my point of view. But pipes? Flowers? Fortune tellers? Seriously?
Steve Wieland
fsford
timhilton
smahieu
Morgan N. Engling
maryiowa
jaimiesuzi
jarens
kevinjames
brieanne
lcm
Andrew
enwinfield
You know, I do think that it’s important to be licensed to practice a profession. There’s a reason lawyers generally hang out credentials on the wall (other than the fact that we’re all a little braggy, let’s face it). We do it to show that we are qualified. Same with doctors, dentists, physical therapists, nail technicians, hair stylists, etc. I don’t want a non-certified plumber coming through and working on my pipes - certification exists for a reason. Otherwise, I could be standing up to my neck in sewer water. It makes sure that these people are able to mess around with our things without hurting them. I think that’s pretty important. If I didn’t pass the bar or finish CLE hours, I wouldn’t be a lawyer. Period. Same with Joe and his plumbing requirements.
However, I think the whole Joe-the-Plumber issue is ridiculous. I wish they both would stop harping on it/him.
It may technically make you qualified, but “qualified” professionals make mistakes all the time. At the end of the day, is the victim any better off knowing that the person who messed up their pipes, literally or figuratively, was “qualified,” ie possessed a piece of paper declaring them qualified? My point is that certification doesn’t necessarily actually correlate to real qualifications. It also creates a lot of problems in smaller professions of who is making the determination of who gets licensed. If a bunch of florists get together to determine florist licensing regulations, chances are they want to make it as difficult as possible to become a florist to keep down the competition, as is the case in Louisiana.
http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=747&Itemid=165
Tim this is brilliance. Licenses=communism. The end.
If doctors weren’t regulated, it would be much easier for illegal immigrants to perform Sam’s Club abortions on suburban teenagers. The end.
Licenses are there to provide information to consumers in an area where the market sometimes breaks down. If I don’t know any lawyers or doctors, at least I can start by ruling out people who do not have licenses. All else being equal, someone who has passed the bar is more likely to be a more competent lawyer than someone who hasn’t.
Licenses can be an unnecessary barrier to a profession, and your florist example is certainly an instance of people conspiring to reduce competition. But to condemn all license schemes as “communism” is painting with too broad of a brush, especially where the professional has your health or money in their hands.
PS - I have actually had to find a lawyer for myself where I knew no lawyers and had no other way to evaluate them.
Tim- You forgot to mention that “Joe” compared Obama to Sammy Davis Jr., owes thousands in unpaid taxes to the IRS, advocates the abolition of Social Security, and that McCain didn’t even get his name right at the debate.
While I agree that these details about “Joe” don’t matter, McCain’s use of him just shows the absolute desperation of his campaign. The Republicans have figured out that telling the American people that we shouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s “Muslim,” “anti-American,” or even a “terrorist” has not worked. Now they are becoming delusional in their campaigning.
McCain has run an utterly dishonorable campaign, and he should be absolutely ashamed of the hate-speech his party is pushing. One word to describe McCain, Palin, their campaign, and the state of the Republican party? Pathetic.
Mahieu,
While your comment has really nothing to do with what I was actually talking about, I will offer a (quick?) response. I can only hope that the first paragraph of your comment was intended as satire, given the second two paragraphs. Otherwise, the cognitive dissonance evinced by criticizing McCain’s alleged negative campaign in one paragraph and harping on the tax problems and opinions of a private citizen who had the gall to ask Obama a question and even implying that he’s a racist in another is truly, epically staggering.
On another point, I challenge you to name for me a prominent Republican, or even one that in any way figures on the national scene, who has said or implied that Obama is a Muslim. This is a legitimate question, I’m not saying that none have, but I would be curious to hear about it if you can cite, because I’ve not heard of a specific example. Note: Free Republic posters and local unknown people who give an introduction or something do not count. I’m talking about someone with any level of actual power or influence in the party who is trying to make people think that Obama’s a Muslim.
As I noted, I could care less about any details regarding “Joe” the pretend plumber, and I understand that was your point. McCain can make reference to any deadbeat he wishes. The whole thing just smacks of McCain’s desperation.
As for the “Muslim” comment, in addition to many local Republican officials referring to Obama by his middle name, “Hussein” (code for “Muslim”), I would note that my comment is entirely consistent with a statement made today by the longtime Republican, Gen. Colin Powell.
Here’s an excerpt from the AP:
Powell said he was also troubled that some members of the Republican Party — not McCain — have said, “‘Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’”
“He is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian,” Powell said. “But the really right answer is ‘what if he is?’ Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no.”
Of course a Muslim could be president, an admirable sentiment expressed coherently by Powell. However, the fact remains that he provided no examples of accusations of Obama being a Muslim. McCain explicitly repudiated the emphasis being placed on “Hussein” a while back. It seems to me that the media pick up a few examples of some powerless, local nutcase bellowing “Barack Hussein Obama” and run with it, declaring the entire party to be in on this, just like they did with the largely debunked claims of death threats to Obama at Palin rallies.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
But whatever, the point of this blog was intended to be that licensing is generally bad and that the market should determine who’s a qualified professional.
I know that the perceived silliness of licensing was your point. I disagree with the premise, but more importantly did not want to pass up an opportunity to call out McCain and company.
Maybe the real discussion at this point should be not the presidential election, but whether the Dems will hit 60 in the Senate. If they don’t I can’t wait until they kick Lieberman out of the caucus and take away his chairmanship.
It turns out that “‘Joe’ the Plumber” has been a welfare recipient twice in his life. Haha. Perfect.
Man, I hope I never have the misfortune of having something stupid said to me by a presidential candidate. But whatever, he’s clearly trying to milk it.