I Repent; I Shall Revise My Labor Econ Notes

Bryan Caplan

PRINT EMAIL

Why Do Politicians Break Their...

Swine Flu and Hand-Shaking: A ...

Home
| EconLog
| Archives
| Permanent Link and Comments

In the latest Econ Journal Watch, Stephenson and Wendt point out that virtually all labor econ textbooks ignore occupational licensing despite its empirical importance. In particular, they show that licensing matters a lot more in the U.S. than the minimum wage or unions. After all, almost 30% of workers now need a license to do their job, and licensed workers earn a 15% wage premium.

I'm embarassed to admit, then, that my labor notes suffer from the same omission - and I don't even use a textbook! I have no defense, so I'm just going to say, "Mea culpa" and repent. The next time I teach labor in Fall, 2010, my lecture will be revised to give occupational licensing the treatment it deserves.

Update: Dan's Klein's PowerPoint presentation on occupational licensing is awesome.

Comments and Sharing

CATEGORIES: Labor Market
Follow Bryan Caplan on Twitter

COMMENTS (5 to date)

Latest Comment

John Fast writes:

Does this mean that the correct answer to Question #6 on Homework #9 is "Neither"?

Posted May 14, 2009 2:15 PM

Troy Camplin, Ph.D. writes:

I"m a good example of this. Someone with a B.A. and certification can teach high school, but I cannot teach high school even though I have a Ph.D., simply because I do not have certification. In the meantime, Texas, where I live, is complaining about having a teacher shortage.

Posted May 14, 2009 3:58 PM

Troy Camplin, Ph.D. writes:

Also, it is actually ILLEGAL for a principal to offer someone a job in Texas if they don't have certification, even if the person plans to get certified. By law, they can only offer a job to someone already certified.

Actually, there are several strange things in regards to education that are illegal in Texas. For example, it is illegal for a teacher to tell a Spanish-speaking parent that they can request to have their child put in an English-only class. It is also illegal to talk about the content of the TAKS test (our standardized tests).

I suspect that the latter one is because if everyone knew what was on the test, they would be outraged that so many fail it -- it is designed so that an IQ 90 taught by a mediocre teacher can pass it. And yet . . .

Posted May 14, 2009 4:03 PM

Ben Scafidi writes:

My paper with JJ Arias sheds light on the issue of teacher licensure.

http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol9/iss1/art4/

Posted May 15, 2009 1:25 PM

Vasco writes:

I think the pdf link is broken.

Posted May 17, 2009 5:39 AM

Comments for this entry have been closed

Read comments

Return to top