I am always suspicious of anything from the Mackinac Center [[or the WSJ opinion pages, for that matter), and frankly the specific examples they listed didn't seem unreasonable candidates for licensing. But I am also suspicious of occupational licensing. In some cases, licensing seems like a reasonable way to maintain standards and public safety, as in the much-discussed case of elevator operators, although I would like to understand why it serves the public interest to have separate city and state licensing. But frequently they are simply a way to restrict entry to various professions.

For example, at the moment it appears that interior decorators are trying to get Michigan to require their profession to be licensed, as they already are required to be in about half of the states in the US. I have not seen a good justification for this, and I doubt that there is one other than that interior decorators would like to restrict competition. But while I'd be happy to see the city review all of its regulations, including occupational licensing, it is hard to believe that you could remove enough occupational licensing requirements to make a noticeable difference in the city job market.