So Much Of Government Is Just A Money-Filching Racket
The Homeless Industrial Complex (not my term, but it's right on) is an example. LA built $700K single-person homeless housing (can I please have a $700K condo?). The only thing is, it's apparently pretty crappy housing. Much of the cost of that was skim -- fees to lobbyists, "consultants," and others. (Other people's suffering can be extremely profitable, and what's really profitable, it's tempting to maintain.)

Requiring professional licenses, in many cases, and requiring re-licensing in each state, is yet another racket. At CATO, research fellows Adam Thierer and Trace Mitchell write about "The Right to Earn a Living" which they describe as "at the very heart of" attempts to reform occupational licensing.

Other barriers they include are "protectionist industrial schemes, inefficient tax policies, and many other layers of regulatory red tape that have accumulated over time at the federal, state, and local levels."

All of these generally put money in the pocket of some, at the expense of others, and often serve to keep people from earning a living as they see fit.

Now, if you're a doctor, I'd like to know you didn't go to med school at an institution you invented, where the dean is your goldfish, and that you have passed some sort of certification before you do a heart transplant. But if you are a hair braider or a housepainter, it should be the decision of consumers whether to patronize somebody licensed or not.

As for some of the specific costs of licensing, from the CATO dudes:

A large and growing body of economic research documents how occupational licensing restrictions result in higher prices and create barriers to entry and innovation for entrepreneurs. A 2015 Obama administration report documents the growing costs of occupational licensing rules, which result in a hidden tax on consumers of between roughly 3 and 16 percent. That report also documents how licensing rules limit economic mobility by "creating barriers to workers moving across State lines and inefficiencies for businesses and the economy as a whole." In fact, research by economist Morris Kleiner and others shows that "restrictions from occupational licensing can result in up to 2.85 million fewer jobs nationwide, with an annual cost to consumers of $203 billion." In addition, these costs fall disproportionally on the most disadvantaged. A report conducted by the Institute for Justice finds that, on average, it takes workers in lower-income occupations nearly a year of education and experience, one exam, and $267 in fees before they can obtain a license.

And a standard they propose for licensing (see doctor thing above):

Creating a harm requirement is one of the best first steps to occupational licensing reform. States enact occupational licensing regimes through their police power under the guise of promoting "health, safety, and general welfare," and harm requirements are a way to make states articulate how these regimes are actually promoting those goals. Harm requirements force legislators and regulators to prove that there are present, significant, and substantial harms that are likely to result from the activity they are attempting to regulate. If policymakers are not able to prove that these harms are likely to occur, then the proposed or existing occupational licensing regime can be eliminated.

via Overlawyered