California's Occupational Licensing Standards Are About Crony Capitalism, Not Safety
That becomes clear when you compare how many days of training you need to save lives -- versus how many you need to run a crew that cuts the grass.

Economist Stephen Slivinski writes in the LA Times:

In theory, states license occupations for public health and safety reasons. But the proliferation of such laws in recent decades doesn't appear to be motivated - or justified - by such causes. After examining empirical research, the White House study concluded, "licensed professions' degree of political influence is one of the most important factors in determining whether states regulate an occupation."

What's more, of the 12 major studies the White House analyzed, only two found that more stringent licensing laws were actually associated with improved service.

Even when safety may be a reasonable concern, the requirements often don't match the occupation: For instance, while a California landscaper must complete 1,460 days of training, an emergency medical technician is only required to train for 28 days. If safety was the priority, shouldn't it be the reverse?

California is regulating individuals out of good-paying jobs, and it hurts those just getting on their feet.

State lawmakers dedicated to criminal justice reform will make lasting changes if they break the cycle of recidivism. They could start by removing the government barriers to employment. That's a sure way to improve - rather than hold back - the lives of those seeking a second chance.

As I've argued before, the same goes for mothers providing day care in their homes. Females in the human species and other species have cared for relatives and "neighbors'" children for countless centuries. They don't suddenly develop an inability to do this if they lack a piece of paper from the government.