“America is losing jobs in the funeral industry. Many are good paying jobs, albeit morbid ones”
–The Cato Institute’s Regulatory Reform Newsletter
Cato Institute, a think tank, recently printed an article on the future of jobs in funeral business. It has surprised me how many times that the Cato Institute has had interest in the final care industry over the years.
Their observation is that the employment drop was “from 59,217 in 2000 to 50,815 in 2012.”
The Cato Institute self describes this way, “the Cato Institute is a public policy research organization—a think tank—dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.”
Cato comes from the Cato letters of the 1720s by two British writers that helped inspire the Revolutionary sentiment that lead to its war. The institute was founded by Charles Koch of Koch Industries and others in the 1970s. The Institute labels itself as libertarian.
Their mission: “The Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Our vision is to create free, open, and civil societies founded on libertarian principles.”
Their examination into possible declining employment in the funeral trade tells us it is due to “changes in technology and taste.” Their supposition is that the increase in cremation requests leads to fewer embalmers and less funeral home facilities and accouterments.
They tell the story of “changing demand.” Their studies show them that funeral directors salaries have dropped from $28.22 in 2000 per hour to $22.33 in 2012. They report that funeral directors worked four hours less per week.
The Cato Industry has observed the funeral business and related death care quite a few times over the years. Some of the topics they have made observations and studies on are:
Tri-State Crematory: The call for tougher regulations in the revelation that many decedents had not been properly cremated by the facility in Noble, Georgia was loud. Cato Institute printed frequent contributor David E. Harrington’s article in 2003. Harrington said, “the goal is laudable: to insure that people never again receive urns filled with powdered cement instead of the ashes of their loved one.” This led Harrington to this conclusion: “most proposed state laws and regulations would harm grieving consumers by reducing competition, leading to higher prices and lower quality funeral services.”
They note that Georgia requires funeral directors to be embalmers, though many do not embalm. Their contention is that is makes job security for embalmers and raise prices for consumers.
Harrington states that “opening up the funeral market to more competitors would make life-and death-easier to handle.”
Harrington never takes into consideration that these new competitors, beneficiaries of lesser regulation, may cut corners, ethically and legally, to secure their low priced placement in the marketplace.
A Cato printed 2006 discussion of donated bodies and tissue by Sigrid Fry-Revere asserts:
“In other words, authorities could harvest organs from your dead body without prior permission from you and you or your family…Some fear that legalizing payment for organs will lead to people being murdered and plundered for the riches of their innards. It is a fair concern, but paradoxically, more of a worry when payments are prohibited than when they are allowed. The current ban has created a black market that wouldn’t exist if there were a legal means of buying organs.”
This surprises me from an institute that promotes less federal regulation. The family of the donated decedent receives a free cremation while the tissue agency receives tens to hundreds of thousand dollars off the donated remains.
The 2011 case of the Monks versus the Louisiana State Board brought comment from the Cato Institute. The Brothers of St. Joseph’s Abbey had wonderful woodworkers who wanted to make caskets for the public. The law in Louisiana was that a licensed funeral director could only sell caskets. The Cato Institute was not shy in giving its opinion:
“Established funeral directors had used the power of the government to illegally control the market, eliminating competition and artificially drive up the price of caskets. Not only was the funeral-director cartel denying the monks their right to earn an honest living, they were taking advantage of the people they serve (ultimately, everyone in Louisiana) by extricating ill-gotten profit-often at the time of their customer’s greatest sorrow.”
In 2013, Cato made available donations funeral homes and associations had given to political groups. It intimated that we were some cabal to promote and elect those who would serve our interests. Their endorsed article from 2008 “From Coffins to Coffers” by Scott Jordan, details funeral service’s donations to politicians. In short, “The funeral industry in the United States is big business, generating more than $11 billion annually and employing over 100,000 people. Since 1999, the industry has given more than $6 million to political parties and state-level candidates in 46 states, positioning themselves to have a hand in shaping legislation and regulation.”
Cato Institute argues that regulations reduce competition and lead to lower quality care, while increased competition encourages competitors to blow the whistle on misbehaving firms.
They don’t take into account that those who must appear before their state regulatory boards are the low cost providers. Their lack of overhead, employment deficiencies, due to their low prices, has caused more than a few tragic, accidental or intentional, wrongful acts.
The combinations of funeral homes and cemeteries were a welcome concept to Cato. They reviewed the history of funeral service and realized, “Funeral homes that sold furniture or hauled freight could lower their costs by keeping their capital and labor busy-no twiddling of thumbs or idle workshops waiting for someone to die.”
They review two advantages to combos: 1. “They (combos) may realize economy of scope by keeping their labor and capital rather than standalone facilities.” 2. “Some may want to work with a single person (or entity) to choose both funeral services and cemetery goods because they find that easier.”
They noted that “one in eight funeral homes in Arizona and nearly half of the state’s active cemeteries are combos.”
Some states do not allow funeral homes on cemetery property.
Cato Institute questions funeral or final care faculties requiring embalming facilities to be able to handle a family’s need.
“With each funeral director having less to do, the country needs fewer of them than it once did; these protectionist policies save jobs, but at a high cost.”
These analytical experts should attend a state board meeting and see who are the most cited. In my opinion: The lower the regulation; the more invitation for abuse.
“It is tempting to save jobs that would be lost with protectionist policies such as those used to save funeral service jobs. But it is often costly and ultimately futile when the shocks are as powerful as the riding popularity of cremation on the funeral industry.”
–David E, Harrington