How I Learned to Stop Worrying

and Hate Barrier to Entry

This is the free version of today's post.
If you’ve ever suspected that professional licensing is less about safety and more about making sure people like you can’t compete—you're not wrong.

The rest of this piece gets into the medical cartel, legal gatekeeping, trade protectionism, and why everything costs too damn much.

Go paid. Read the rest. And maybe, just maybe, start sharpening your pitchfork.

I used to think professional certifications and licensing were about maintaining quality. Boy, was I wrong. These artificial barriers aren't protecting us from incompetent service providers - they're protecting incompetent service providers from competition.

It started when I needed a simple legal document reviewed. Not rocket science, just three pages of plain English that needed someone to check for obvious red flags. The first law firm I called quoted $800 for "two to three hours of work." When I did the math, they were charging over $300 an hour to read a contract. Why? Because they're lawyers, and lawyers aren't just people who understand legal principles, they're people who survived law school, passed the bar, and paid their dues to the legal cartel.

Here's the dirty secret nobody talks about: most professional work isn't that complicated. Whether it's law, accounting, medicine, or skilled trades, the majority of tasks follow standardized procedures that any reasonably intelligent person could learn in months, not years. But we've built elaborate credentialing systems that require enormous investments of time and money, creating artificial scarcity that drives up prices and reduces access.

Think about your last visit to a doctor for a routine checkup. You waited in the lobby for thirty minutes, spent five minutes with the actual doctor, and got charged $200 for the privilege. Everything meaningful, taking vitals, asking about symptoms, giving routine advice, was done by nurses or physician assistants. The doctor showed up to rubber-stamp diagnoses that anyone with basic medical training could have made. But only doctors can charge those premium rates, thanks to licensing requirements that take over a decade to complete.

The same pattern repeats across every professional field. Real estate agents charge thousands for facilitating transactions that are mostly paperwork and showing houses. In the UK, real estate agents aren't even required to be licensed, and somehow their housing market functions just fine. CPAs charge $200+ an hour for tax preparation that's basically filling out forms and running calculations that TurboTax does for $50. Immigration lawyers charge $5,000 to complete paperwork that's freely available on government websites.

My friend worked at at an accounting firm one tax season during college. Want to know what their "expert training" consisted of? How to use their software. That's it. No deep understanding of tax law, no complex financial analysis - just clicking through prompts and entering numbers. Yet they charged clients hundreds of dollars for what amounted to glorified data entry.

The medical field is especially egregious. We've created this hierarchy where only MDs can perform certain procedures, even when nurse practitioners and physician assistants demonstrate equivalent competency. Research consistently shows that for routine care, nurse practitioners achieve similar patient outcomes at substantially lower costs. But licensing restrictions force people to pay doctor prices for nurse-level care.

Here's what happens when these barriers get lowered: competition explodes, prices drop, and service actually improves. Look at what happened with ride-sharing. Taxi companies had these ridiculous medallion systems that artificially limited the number of drivers and kept prices high. Then Uber and Lyft showed up, bypassed the gatekeepers, and suddenly we had more drivers, lower prices, and better service. Did passenger safety suffer? Nope. Turns out you don't need a special certification to drive people around safely.

The legal field is ripe for disruption. LegalZoom has already shown that standardized legal documents don't require $300/hour attorneys. Online legal services handle routine matters at a fraction of traditional costs. But bar associations fight tooth and nail to maintain their monopoly on "unauthorized practice of law." They claim it's about protecting consumers, but it's really about protecting their members' inflated hourly rates.

Photography is another perfect example of barriers crumbling. Traditional wedding photographers charged thousands for skills that required expensive equipment and specialized knowledge. Then smartphones put professional-quality cameras in everyone's pocket, and photo editing became democratized through apps. Now Instagram photographers are booking weddings for half what traditional pros charge. Some of the work is mediocre, sure, but plenty of it's as good or better. The market sorted itself out without needing a photography licensing board.

Web design followed the same pattern. You used to need a computer science degree or expensive technical training to build websites. Now middle schoolers create professional-looking sites with Wix and Squarespace. The professional web developers who adapt thrive by focusing on complex projects and custom solutions. Those who relied purely on the technical barrier get left behind.

The "quality will suffer" argument is the last refuge of protected industries. But evidence consistently shows this isn't true. States with more restrictive occupational licensing don't have better consumer outcomes. Countries with less professional gatekeeping don't experience higher rates of malpractice or service failures. The barriers protect incumbents, not consumers.

What really gets me is how arbitrary these requirements often are. To get a real estate license in California, you need 135 hours of pre-licensing education. Why 135? Not 134 or 136? Because someone decided that's what it takes to sell houses safely, apparently. But somehow in the UK, you can sell houses without any licensing at all. Are British homes more dangerous? Do more transactions fall through? Nope.

The experience requirements are often the most ridiculous part. Want to be a licensed plumber? You need thousands of hours working under a licensed plumber. But what if you've been fixing pipes your whole life? What if you understand plumbing systems inside and out but never worked in the formal industry? Too bad. You still need to spend years as someone's underpaid helper before you can charge full rates for work you already know how to do.

This creates these weird situation where the person actually doing the work isn't the one getting paid for it. Go to any construction site, and you'll see licensed contractors sitting in their trucks while unlicensed helpers do the actual plumbing, electrical, or HVAC work. The helper might be more skilled and experienced, but they can't charge directly for their expertise because they lack the magic certificate.

Immigration law is particularly absurd. I know paralegals who've been preparing immigration documents for decades. They know the system inside and out, speak multiple languages, and genuinely care about helping people navigate the bureaucracy. But they can't practice independently because they don't have law degrees. Instead, they work under attorneys who often know less about immigration than they do, while the client pays lawyer rates for paralegal work.

The technology disruption is already happening whether these industries like it or not. AI is doing legal research faster than junior associates. Diagnostic apps are providing medical insights without doctor visits. Financial software is handling accounting tasks that used to require CPAs. The question isn't whether these barriers will fall, but how long existing systems can hold onto their artificial advantages.

What's particularly frustrating is how this system perpetuates itself through mythology. Medical schools act like eight years of education are necessary to diagnose strep throat. Law schools pretend three years of classes and $200k in debt are required to understand contract basics. Trade organizations claim years of apprenticeship are needed to install a light fixture safely.

But here's the truth most professionals won't admit: the majority of what they do follows standardized procedures and decision trees. Legal research involves searching databases and applying precedents. Medical diagnosis for routine conditions involves recognizing patterns. Financial analysis uses established frameworks. None of this requires years of specialized training for competent people to master.

The dental industry is a fantastic example of unnecessary barriers. Dental hygienists do most of the actual cleaning work, but only dentists can own practices in many states. Why? Dentists convinced legislators that business ownership somehow requires dental knowledge, even though hygienists often have more direct patient care experience. It's protectionism disguised as public safety.

Online education is slowly chipping away at some of these barriers. Coding bootcamps produce job-ready programmers in months instead of years. Online medical education creates competent practitioners at a fraction of traditional costs. Digital marketing courses teach skills that used to require expensive degrees. The people who complete these programs often outperform their traditionally-educated counterparts because they focus on practical skills rather than theoretical knowledge.

The resistance always comes from the same place - existing professionals who've invested heavily in jumping through the hoops don't want those hoops to disappear. It's natural human psychology. If you spent eight years becoming a doctor, paying hundreds of thousands in education costs, and enduring brutal residencies, you don't want to hear that much of what you do could be taught in a year.

But this thinking hurts everyone except the gatekeepers themselves. Small businesses can't afford proper legal counsel for routine matters. Families skip necessary medical care because costs are prohibitive. People make financial mistakes because professional advice is too expensive. Homeowners defer repairs because licensed contractors charge astronomical rates for simple fixes.

The solution isn't eliminating standards, it's focusing on competency rather than credentials. Test what people can do, not where they learned it. Measure outcomes, not pedigree. Let markets determine quality through reputation and competition rather than artificial licensing boards.

Some jurisdictions are already experimenting with this approach. Utah relaxed many occupational licensing requirements and saw increased competition without decreased quality. Arizona allows paralegals to practice independently in certain areas of law. These aren't radical experiments - they're common-sense approaches that prioritize actual ability over bureaucratic requirements.

The economic impact of barrier removal is enormous. Every artificially inflated professional fee gets passed on through the economy. Housing costs more because of expensive electrical and plumbing work. Healthcare is unaffordable partly because we restrict who can provide routine services. Legal services are out of reach for most people because we've made law practice artificially exclusive.

Consider what would happen if we removed barriers tomorrow. Every experienced paralegal could start their own practice. Nurse practitioners could open clinics without physician oversight. Unlicensed electricians who've been doing the work for years could charge directly for their expertise. Accounting technicians could offer financial services without CPA supervision.

Would there be some substandard work? Absolutely. But markets handle this through reputation and reviews. Bad practitioners go out of business. Good ones thrive. This natural selection works better than artificial credentialing because it's based on actual performance rather than bureaucratic checkboxes.

The sharing economy has already proven this model works. Airbnb hosts aren't licensed hoteliers, but they provide accommodations that often exceed hotel quality at lower prices. DoorDash drivers aren't professional food delivery specialists, but they get meals to customers efficiently. These platforms use ratings and reviews to maintain quality without requiring extensive certifications.

The healthcare industry could learn from this approach. Direct primary care doctors operate outside traditional insurance systems, offering unlimited access to basic care for flat monthly fees. Medical tourism providers offer high-quality procedures at a fraction of US costs. These models prove that expensive administrative overhead and credentialing bureaucracy aren't necessary for quality care.

Professional services are ultimately about solving problems and meeting needs. Whether that's fixing a leaky pipe, preparing tax returns, or reviewing contracts, the value comes from competent execution, not from certificates on the wall. When we focus on barriers rather than outcomes, we create systems that serve professionals rather than the public.

The future belongs to accessible, competency-based services. Technology will continue to unbundle traditional professional roles, separating routine tasks from truly specialized work. Regulatory frameworks will evolve, forced by market pressures and court challenges. The question for existing professionals is whether they'll adapt by focusing on genuine value addition or dig in their heels defending obsolete gatekeeping systems.

Innovation happens at the margins, where barriers are lowest. That's why we're seeing disruption in areas like online therapy, remote legal services, and telemedicine. These fields have found ways around traditional restrictions, proving that quality service doesn't require expensive credentialing.

The beneficiaries of barrier removal are everyone except current gatekeepers. Consumers get affordable access to essential services. Talented people can compete based on ability rather than credentials. Innovation accelerates when intelligent people can enter fields based on competency rather than expensive and time-consuming certification processes.

The arguments for maintaining barriers become increasingly desperate as alternatives prove viable. Professional associations talk about complexity and specialized knowledge while technology automates much of what they do. They warn about quality degradation while evidence shows outcomes improve with competition. They invoke public safety while their own members delegate actual work to uncertified assistants.

Ultimately, the question isn't whether these barriers will fall, market forces and technological advancement make that inevitable. The question is how long we'll tolerate systems that enrich a few at the expense of many. Every day we maintain artificial scarcity in professional services, we're choosing higher costs, reduced access, and stifled innovation.

The path forward is clear: focus on competency, embrace technology, and let markets reward quality rather than credentials. This shift benefits everyone except those whose value proposition depends entirely on keeping others out of their industry. And frankly, if your only competitive advantage is regulatory protection, maybe it's time to find a better value proposition.

The revolution isn't coming - it's already here. From AI legal assistants to nurse-led clinics to unlicensed contractors advertising on social media, the barriers are crumbling one innovation at a time. The choice for traditional professionals is simple: adapt by offering genuine value beyond credentialing, or become relics of an artificially constrained past.

I've seen too many examples of unnecessary gatekeeping crushing opportunity and innovation. From aspiring electricians who already know the work but can't afford years of low-paid apprenticeships, to brilliant legal minds who can't practice because they chose not to take on $200k in student loans, to healthcare practitioners who could provide excellent care but are restricted by arbitrary licensing requirements.

These barriers don't protect us - they protect established industries from competition. They don't ensure quality - they ensure scarcity. And they don't serve the public interest - they serve the private interests of those who've already cleared the artificial hurdles.

It's time to tear down these walls and build systems based on ability, results, and genuine value creation. The technology exists. The evidence supports it. The only thing missing is the political will to prioritize public benefit over professional protectionism.

The future of work is competency-based, technology-enabled, and barrier-free. Every day we delay this transition is another day we choose artificial scarcity over abundance, gatekeeping over opportunity, and protection over progress. The revolution is inevitable. The only question is whether we'll lead it or be dragged along behind it.

That’s just the beginning.

The full post breaks down how artificial barriers inflate costs, limit access, and block qualified people from doing work they're already good at. We talk law, medicine, trades, tech, and how the myth of “credential = competence” is quietly crumbling.

If you’re tired of paying $300 an hour for someone to click through a form, or sick of hearing “you can’t do that without a license,” go paid.

Not because it’s credentialed. But because it’s actually useful.