differentiation becomes ever tougher as things get less localized and competition heats up. expect more ridiculous credentialling and licensing in the future, not less as groups seek greater self identification and protection. Sadly this will lead to more homogeneity in backgrounds and ways of thinking in many professions at exactly the same that innovation and creativity due to diverse backgrounds are called for.

But more importantly, as a consumer of services, I *want* inequality amongst service providers. I *want* the best people to get better and to charge more, and I want the incompetent people to drop out- not get propped up by being a licensed X. Passing moronic (and often arbitrary) government testing standards is no guarantee of quality. I know what I like in a florist, hairdresser, or anything else (and it may be different from what you like), and I am happy to exchange my money for their skill at a rate we mutually work out. Why fill the market with incompetents with people who managed to pass a test but have no knack or skill for the craft? Those people *are* unequal in terms of skill and should be paid accordingly.

In law, for example, requirements to practice within an established firm ensure that partners are able to appropriate the value of their employees’ labour, as their employees are not free to set up in competition.

The same is true for any system that penalises sole practice, or relatively inexperienced practitioners. These sorts of systems tend to be captured by the “leaders” who are the older, longer serving members of the profession. Unions at least tend to be democratic in some degree, reducing the ability to the elder members to leech off the younger.