4940

Lead paint still remains on existing homes. It gets scraped or sandblasted off.

Knowing this and how to handle it is literally part of the CA licensing requirements. You just perfectly demonstrated their necessity.

4941

Cool?

Also here is the licensing requirements:

License Application Fee: $300. Initial License Fee: $180 for 2 years.
Experience Requirement: At least 4 years journey level experience; must be at least 18 years of age.
Exam Requirement: Business/law exam and trade exam.
Exam Frequency: Computerized exams given daily at 8 sites throughout the state.
Re-exam Fee: $60
Additional License Requirements: Fingerprinting, license bond(s), proof of workers’ compensation coverage or exemption therefrom.

Renewal Period: Active: $360 for 2 years; Inactive: $180 for 4 years.

Don’t see anything other than “have worked in the system for 4 years” and an exam.
Literally nothing else.
I wonder who isn’t in the system that might be painting houses for people.

Hmmm…

4942

Guess what the exam covers.

4943

Now, stupidly liberal California is responsible for the regulations on hair braiding in…Texas. Which…prevent people from painting their fence in California. Or something.

4944

No, this was.

4945

Where do those numbers come from?

According to the BLS:

  • only 20% of the workforce holds an occupational license
  • over 10% of those with an occupational license do not need it to do their job
  • the unemployment rate of people with an occupational license was half that of those without one
  • Black people and white people are equally likely to have an occupational license

That sounds like some heavy-duty data massaging. Might need a license for that! Let’s dig deeper.

That report (by the Goldwater Institute, naturally!) found that these 10 states had the highest rate of low-income entrepreneurship:

Colorado
Vermont
New Mexico
Arkansas
Maryland
New Jersey
Washington
Florida
Idaho
Nevada

And these were the 10 lowest:

Connecticut
West Virginia
Lousiana
Missouri
South Carolina
Kansas
Pennsylvania
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Mississippi

If the first thing that comes to mind when comparing those two lists is the liberal jackboot of licensing, then you might be guilty of motivated reasoning.

Finally, let’s take a look at where these licenses are going.

Screenshot 2021-09-22 152558
Screenshot 2021-09-22 152558913×792 22.6 KB

Ah yes. As usual, the libertarians are showing their concern for the downtrodden.

4946

I think this is what some of these folks are essentially betting on.

The idea that they will be identified as someone on the “correct” side, and thus not have their stuff questioned.

Indeed, some of the attacks on concepts like objectivity and scientific rigor are specifically leveraged by folks who do so in order to insulate themselves from having to defend their poor arguments against incoming attacks that point out their flaws.

Just as an aside, for this specific thing I might suggest that PA’s angle is a bit better, in that you do not need to be licensed to be a painting contractor, but you DO need to be specifically certified for lead abatement. So, in cases where lead needs to be removed (which can extend beyond the painting profession, but is certainly not a universal feature of painting in modern homes), you can have people who are specifically trained to perform such tasks in accordance with DEP rules.

4947

The thing I literally cited with an article from Cosmo?

That thing?

The thing I said you did?

What?

“Just get some lawyers and learn a bunch of business laws and stuff. Just 230 questions. Half of them are even about painting!”

I’m sure that easy for a guy who doesn’t speak a whole lot of English. He’ll just get himself a lawyer and learn California business law quick.

Or more in detail:

4948

If I’m not mistaken that’s a thing in CA too for large issues. However painters are the ones to discover and first responders so to speak and need to know what to do and if/when to call in specialists.

4949

If he’s running a painting business, then he better already know California business law.

If he’s hired by someone running a painting business, then he doesn’t need a license.

And you should already know that by now, we’ve been over it countless times.

4950

If you want to argue the current requirements are too much, sure, plenty of arguments to make there that I’d likely agree with.

If you want to argue there should be none, well, you already handily defeated that arguement.

4951

Oh well, if you say so it must be true.

Or you can accuse me of strawmanning when I cite a fact again, that was neat and totally a good faith argument.

4952

Really dude. WTF?

Okay, great, quote me as saying these are the problems:

Complex problems like “black people are braiding their hair” and “Latinos are painting people’s houses”?

And yes, by not even realizing painters might have to deal with lead paint you pointed out the type of general ignorance that there should be some training and testing to get out of people before they are allowed to get paid significant sums on contracts that deal with things that might harm their employees, the environment, and other people in general. Which has been my sole position in support of licensing.

4953

It’s not Cesium-137. I’m aware of lead paint. Considering that 22% of half of the test these people take is “safety” which includes all safety I’m guessing there are like 4-6 questions tops on stuff like lead paint.

Or, you know, you could just inspect the site and see if they’re dealing with it properly. Save a lot of money and paperwork. But it would also let a lot of undesirables open their own businesses.

You called painting and hair care “complex problems”. Complex problems?
What part of hair braiding is complex?
What part of painting?
Or countless other regulated jobs in California (spoilers it’s basically everything)?

Not everything is complex and almost nothing needs to government adding red tape to exclude people from even trying. It’s like you’re making the assumption that a painter is going to screw everything up so completely that you need the government to make sure of it. Only… the license doesn’t make sure of any of that. It just says they have a license. It’s onerous, anti-competitive and often racist.

If you care about someone doing something that’s illegal, well… it’s illegal. Arrest or fine people who break the law. “He might get lead paint all over.” I’m assuming that’s not legal. So… if someone does that, get them on it. Don’t make them run an obstacle course of bureaucracy that weeds out those of less means. Because that’s the point of the bureaucracy. To kill competition.

As far as black people braiding hair, I cited it.
And Latinos painting houses?
I’m pretty sure that’s the point of C-33. You need a SSN and to take a 330 question test over 6 hours then pay the state lots of money. What does that accomplish? Well, it certainly keeps some first generation (or illegal) Latino immigrant from starting his own business fairly well. Guess he’ll have to sign on as labor for someone.

Unless you think some laws don’t have racist origins or bases, in which case that’s a whole other ball of wax.

Now you can claim my beliefs, based on other racists laws from basically everywhere, is a “strawman” if you want. But it’s not and the hair braiding thing assuredly isn’t. You disagreeing with my premise is not “a strawman”. My premise is that barber laws and painting laws and landscaping laws and a whole shit load of laws are: anti-competitive, government overreach for no gain, often racist. You can disagree. You can disagree vehemently. That doesn’t make them strawmen, especially not when one of them is an actual thing that multiple articles were written about.

4954

Hair care has sanitary concerns.
Painting, as has been pointed out over and over and over and over again, has employee safety and environmental safety concerns.

Those were clearly the types of things I was talking about because those were the only things I had been talking about. Not that the painters were Latino or the beauticians were black. You going there was incredibly rude. I mean that was fucking egregious.

Look, you aren’t arguing here. You’re screaming at the room. You’ve decided because I said I support minimal safety training and testing I must justify every intracity of every licensing law. Even those in the liberal bastion of Texas apparently. Sorry, shake the bush harder and maybe you’ll get another huckleberry.

4955

“Pointing out racist laws and racism is rude.”

Noted.

I mean the origin was “this is excessive and stupid” and you rode to it’s defense instead of just saying “that is a bit much”. But the person I cited mentioned Texas and by God Texas is always bad and California never is and think of the ground water and children or whatever.

Also I’m not sure “this law in Texas is racist, but this same law in California definitely isn’t and how dare you say so” is a winning argument, but whatever.

4956

No, implying that was my concern was.

4957

Sanitary concerns for barbering would be covered by the establishment permit and inspection of the business.

I do not think there is a particularly legitimate argument for why individual barbers need to be licensed themselves.

4958

Great, if you can find someone willing go ahead have that argument. Perhaps in a separate thread.

4959

I never did. I was pointing out how the laws were fundamentally used for racist ends.

Now you support those laws, does that make you a racist? No. It means you might have been overlooking a big problem with said laws.