« Best Sentence I Read Today | Main | Assorted links »
Joe the Illegal Plumber
I do not think that either candidate will come out against the mandatory licensing of plumbers, but here is the real scoop on Joe:
Thomas Joseph, the business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, based in Toledo, said Thursday that Mr. Wurzelbacher had never held a plumber’s license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities. He also never completed an apprenticeship and does not belong to the plumber’s union, which has endorsed Mr. Obama. On Thursday, he acknowledged that he does plumbing work even though he does not have a license.
Not only that, he calls himself Joe but his real name is Samuel. He also owes back taxes. I wonder if he has ever hired illegal immigrants to help him out. Yes the Republican Party is ******* and I will not vote for them, but how many Democratic politicians will speak out against the coercive restraints placed on Joe (Samuel)? That's a serious question.
Addendum: As is often the case, those few of you who are mad at me simply haven't read the post carefully enough. Just for a start, I'm not at all criticizing the guy for calling himself Joe rather than Samuel. I was making fun of those people who are upset by this. Some of you are committing other misunderstandings as well. By the way, here are details on Toledo and licensing.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 16, 2008 at 10:53 PM in Law | Permalink
Comments
I think you overlook the real lesson here: ordinary Americans must not ask Barack Obama any questions. The power of the press and state will be used to crush you if your question proves inconvenient. I understand that Obama himself also publicly ridiculed the man while speaking to supporters today. You get a temporary pass for now, Tyler, but your day will probably come as well.
Posted by: RW Rogers at Oct 16, 2008 11:06:13 PM
I am not a plumber. I suspect that no-one on this blog is a plumber, either. Perhaps there are some plumbers reading this blog (and maybe one or two of them worked for Liddy in 1972).
But, if I want a pipe fixed in my house, I want a licensed plumber. I want someone that has received the training to become a plumber and who has been certified as having the skills by some organization.
I can see arguing against licenses for some professions, but not plumbers and electricians.
{Snark alert} As you know, it takes no certificate or licensing to be an economist and look where that has gotten us. {end snark alert} However, if I want an economist, I will take the time to look at his education and make a judgment on qualifications. It is worth the investment, as an economist's opinion might make a huge difference and I will pay the economist a lot (at least relative to a plumber). For plumbers, the investment is not worth it.
Posted by: Allan at Oct 16, 2008 11:06:48 PM
could it be? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/john-mccain-and-the-joe-t_b_135319.html - "Joe the Plumber": Dad is son-in-law of Charles Keating!
Posted by: glory at Oct 16, 2008 11:08:18 PM
A libertarian who votes Democrat because the Republicans are not libertarian enough is like a communist who votes Republican because the Democrats are not communist enough.
Posted by: Libertarian at Oct 16, 2008 11:08:34 PM
Few to none would be my guess. Unions aren't what they used to be, but no Democrat is going to antagonize them like that for what must seem like reasons of pure principle. The licensing thing really gets me. For plumbers, there is some kind of argument that you want someone qualified. But what about things like licenses for taxi drivers, beauticians, and interior designers? The barriers for getting into those areas are completely ridiculous. No one needs to protect me from bad interior design.
For that matter, I also think it's extremely silly that you need to go to law school to be a lawyer.
Posted by: Greg at Oct 16, 2008 11:10:59 PM
Allan, isn't the solution to allow licensed plumbers to put their credentials in their ads, etc. and to forbid unlicensed plumbers from doing so? We could add on other incentives. Presumably plumbers are bonded or insured in some way; perhaps insurance rates for licensed plumbers will be lower. Building codes might require also reasonably require a licensed plumber's supervision for the installation of new plumbing. But I don't think most people need a fully licensed plumber to repair a toilet that won't stop running or to rotorooter out a clogged drain.
Posted by: billb at Oct 16, 2008 11:15:43 PM
Billb,
You are right. And, indeed, I have had general handymen repair toilets in my house and to rotoroot out a clogged drain. Nothing wrong with that. And I think what they did was legal.
A plumber, however, installed the pipes for my new bathroom. And when I had a gas leak (very small), I would only have a plumber repair it.
Posted by: Allan at Oct 16, 2008 11:21:25 PM
Tyler - If you keep asking questions YOU could get the Joe-the-plumber treatment, too, you know. Tread carefully ...
Posted by: Just another Tyler, but not the one you're here for at Oct 16, 2008 11:21:27 PM
Unfortunately I think RW has it right. We're going to move from a president who doesn't like to hear criticism to a president who doesn't like people to criticize him, and whose friends won't allow it. Not an improvement.
Posted by: Thomas at Oct 16, 2008 11:22:23 PM
If i want a plumber in my house, I can choose if I want a licensed and trained one, for which I will pay more, of course.
Or i can choose to have one that is not licensed and maybe not even trained, but I'm willing to pay less for it.
The thing is, I wish to be able to choose according to MY needs. If i want a licensed one Ill ask to see his license and maybe a curriculum to know his training and skills.
licensing is necessarily a bad thing. Certificating on the other hand is very good because it increases the amount of information I have to decided on who to hire.
To increase information for decision making processes is the best solution
Posted by: Bruno at Oct 16, 2008 11:34:13 PM
Well, it says a plumber's license is required in Toledo and surrounding counties. This makes me think licensing is done locality-by-locality, and there are not federal standards. I would think this would be an issued addressed at the level of state or local politics, rather than national.
I am definitely all for requiring licenses for plumbers. This reminds me of that interior design discussion a few months back. A plumber who doesn't know what he's doing can do some serious damage!
I love that the UA endorsed Obama.
Posted by: pants at Oct 16, 2008 11:35:18 PM
Not only that, he calls himself Joe but his real name is Samuel.
His middle name is Joe, yes. So he goes by his middle name. That's not uncommon. Are we to seriously call someone a liar because they go by their middle name? (I don't think Tyler is, but some people are pretty unhinged about this.)
Posted by: John Thacker at Oct 16, 2008 11:54:13 PM
So applicants for openings in your department won't need a Ph.D.?
Posted by: Joe the Economist at Oct 16, 2008 11:58:38 PM
Bryan Caplan has never been more right about you.
Posted by: Drunken Priest at Oct 17, 2008 12:02:33 AM
But Bruno, what do you say to the person who just wants his burst pipes fixed and doesn't want to have to look at certifications and tell whether they're from reputable plumbing organizations or not and check 5 references?
I agree that there's a loss of utility from some people not being able to make the utility-maximizing choice for themselves, but there are also gains from decreased transaction costs: if every plumber has to be certified, then you don't have to spend time looking over credentials.
(Naturally, this presupposes that whatever government licensing program is instituted is effective. I'm not claiming that licensing is always optimal; I'm just saying cases exist where it may be.)
Posted by: mravery at Oct 17, 2008 12:03:18 AM
Tyler,
I've made the point before here, but I don't understand the logic of not voting Republican to teach them a lesson.
It's akin to not going to a restaurant because the previous chef sucked.
Yeah, in some sense McCain "worked" under the old chef who screwed things up, but as far as anyone can tell he was a consistent voice of opposition to the more egregious excesses of the Republicans in power. He pretty consistently pushed as far as one might (while still being in the same party) in the direction of being responsible and sensible.
So how does our choice in this election affect the Republican party in the long run? Well, on the off chance McCain wins, he controls the intra-party agenda, and can solidify it around his brand of Republicanism. Which, all things considered, would be a hell of an improvement over the Republicanism of the past eight years.
On the other hand, what happens in the likely event McCain loses? His candidacy is, itself, an attempt to reform the GOP. If he loses, what sort of Republican party emerges from the wreck? If I had to guess, it'd be something like Mike Huckabee's nonsense, since he's about the only thing left without much stigma of loss around it.
And that would truly suck. It leaves pretty much anyone who believes in liberty out in the cold with Joe the Plumber, cause we damn sure aren't gonna get a warm welcome from the Democrats either.
So really, this is a no brainer vote. It has to be McCain.
Posted by: MikeDC at Oct 17, 2008 12:03:48 AM
The New York Times spends more time discussing Joe the Plumber or Trig the Child than it does elucidating Louis the Antisemit or Bill the Terrorist. Or BAIPA.
Posted by: Tom at Oct 17, 2008 12:06:04 AM
Uh, I can think of almost no democrats that will speak out about coercive trade restraints. But then, it's not something I hear Republicans talk much about either (outside of their opposition to unions, which I think comes from a completely different place, ideologically speaking, than the traditional libertarian opposition to unions).
And I understand not voting for the Republicans. They need to be punished until they can start acting like Republicans again. They keep saying they've learned their lesson. But they haven't learned it until they've endured a few years hard labor.
Posted by: mrshl at Oct 17, 2008 12:06:29 AM
Wow, this is really petty Tyler. I would have thought you were above this kind of nonsense.
Posted by: apostate at Oct 17, 2008 12:06:50 AM
Quick question: why does the license matter to the relevance of his question (on taxes)? Isn't this an irrelevant invasion of his privacy?
Posted by: GabbyD at Oct 17, 2008 12:07:48 AM
The bottom line is that if this guy Joe the plumber isn't a licensed plumber, it follows logically that Obama's tax proposals are excellent. That's why it is so important for the press to expend effort to pin down the biographical details of Joe the plumber: because it is germane in a substantive way to the debate over taxes. If Joe were a licensed plumber, McCain's tax proposals might be preferable; but since he's not, they're not.
I mean, I can't think of any other reason why the press would investigate and write stories about Joe the plumber to this extent. I really can't. Can you?
Posted by: Sonic Charmer at Oct 17, 2008 12:10:26 AM
Greg - isn't it the case that plumbers, lawyers, beauticians and taxi drivers have to be licensed in order to limit the supply of persons in the particular trade thereby protecting their wages. If anyone who understood law could practice law without passing the bar (and the prerequisite three years of law school in the US) then the $250 plus hourly rate is threatened.
I think at one point licensing allowed consumers to gain comfort in the qualification of that person, but with increasing ease to communicate the reputation of a person in their trade to others, this benefit of licensing seems harder to defend.
Posted by: JC at Oct 17, 2008 12:24:57 AM
@MikeDC: I broadly agree with your sentiment. It seems Tyler engages in a highly sophisticated version of "Chicken", in a multi-round Bayesian signaling game, I suppose. In my view this is not a wise strategy: The way signals in politics are processed is very deficient; there is simply too much noise. If the less libertarian of the two candidates wins (Obama), that will be interpreted by politicians (especially the GOP after a defeat) as a stance against libertarianism. That's why I, like yourself and most other libertarians, will vote GOP.
McCain's positions towards "climate change", campaign finance, or the bailout are highly questionable, but he is way superior in free trade, restraint on spending, leveling the playing field between health insurance and personal health savings account by eliminating the anachronistic tax exemption for employer-provided coverage, allowing patients to purchase health insurance across state lines, strict constructionist judges, school choice, and so forth. It's a no-brainer indeed.
Posted by: Charlie at Oct 17, 2008 12:28:02 AM
@MikeDC: One more thing: Though I don't want to see the GOP defeated (the Democrats would control all branches of government and could implement their protectionist, tax-and-spend, union-monopolist agenda without any checks, plus we would forego a once-in-a-generation opportunity to appoint one or two more libertarian/conservative/strict constructionist judges which would give us a lock on the Supreme Court for a generation to come), I'm a bit more optimistic about the time in opposition: I would expect Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to run in 2012 - he is young, articulate, eloquent, charismatic, charming, Indian, would have a good chance. And in Congress, there are young talents like Paul Ryan from Wisconsin and Eric Cantor from Virginia. Jindal, Ryan, and Cantor are all quite libertarian, so I don't really see the GOP drifting leftwards. However, I wouldn't take the gamble for all the reasons mentioned.
As for Tyler, I guess he rather follows Don Boudreaux (and possibly Russ Roberts) in not voting, while Alex Tabarrok has already (strangely) endorsed Obama, and Arnold Kling seems more GOP-leaning. Bryan Caplan understands best that voting is irrational, so the question is: What dosis of irrationality is he willing to consume?
Posted by: Charlie at Oct 17, 2008 12:43:56 AM
Allan, if you can't handle your own plumbing in your own house, you're a liability to your family and an embarrassment to your community. Even if you drive a desk, you can learn to sweat a new sink valve onto a copper pipe without burning the house down. No license required.
As for his "real name" being Samuel. Maybe the "J" which is his middle initial stands for "Joe"?!? Some of us go by our middle names. Like me. I don't go by my first name ("Richard") because that's also my Dad's name and my Mom didn't want two Dicks in the family. (cymbal crash!) Or, when people ask me why I don't go by Dick, I tell them I prefer to drive my truck. (double cymbal crash) I'l be here all week, be sure to get my CD at the tables outside.
Posted by: BoscoH at Oct 17, 2008 12:49:46 AM
