My thought is that the licensing movement has been a response to the rising insecurity of US capitalism (since the "golden age" of the 1960s) and the general offensive against unionism (along with the stagnation and generally increasing impotence of what's left of unionism). I think that people are not simply responding to Taylorism on the job and insecurity in the job market, but also to the weakening appeal of unionism as an alternative to licensing one's job.
Economists tend to see supply and demand as "natural" and efforts to license hair-dressers and the like as "special interests" who most likely as not violate the laws of nature and impose inefficiencies. But the way that the capitalist labor market is organized also encourages -- as a "natural" result -- the effort by working-class people to create shelters in the storm, to insulate themselves from the reserve army of labor. If unions are increasingly impossible, licensing is the way to go. (Similarly, employee lawsuits are seen as a substitute for unions and for workers' comp.) Of course, insiders in corporate hierarchies insulate themselves from the reserve army in other ways, by playing bureaucratic games (making it hard to fire them, etc.) Academics seek to shore up tenure rights, etc.
> March 2, 2006/New York TIMES
> Economic Scene
> Do You Need a License to Earn a Living? You Might Be Surprised at the Answer
> By ALAN B. KREUGER
>
> IT is well known that doctors, dentists, and lawyers must be licensed
> to practice their professions. But what about occupational therapists,
> manicurists and barbers? How about fortune tellers, massage
> therapists, shampoo assistants, librarians, beekeepers, electrologists
> and movie projector operators? These are just a sampling of the
> hundreds of occupations that require a license in at least some states
> or counties.
--
Jim Devine / Bust Big Brother Bush!
"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence
without civilization in between." -- Oscar Wilde.