6 ms·
The attitude of "license all the things" comes from two places. Existing groups use licensing to shut out newcomers. They are largely anti-competitive, and an
by adekok 10y ago
The attitude of "license all the things" comes from two places.
Existing groups use licensing to shut out newcomers. They are largely anti-competitive, and anti-capitalistic.
The other is where unlicensed activities results in people dying. The outrage from such events often ends up with "license the people", so that Bad Things can't happen.
That's arguably a better approach, for mechanics, nuclear power technicians, etc. Perhaps even hairdressers, who work with toxic chemicals and need to know basic safety.
For me, the "health and safety" requirements make sense. Anything outside of that is typically anti-competitive, and likely rent-seeking.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 10y agoIf hairdressers are included, then what won't be? At that point, we're right back where we started.
- jdmichal 10y agoHair stylists work with extremely sharp implements extremely close to major blood vessels. I'm pretty OK with them needing at least some training. And that's not even counting, as GP mentioned, the dangerous chemicals that come into things like hair dyes.
- joezydeco 10y agoPlanet Money documented the plight of a woman in Utah that wanted to start a hair-braiding business. She needed a full cosmetology license. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo... A recent ruling negated the requirement: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/09/158498244/its-now-legal-to-braid-hair-in-utah-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/09/158498244/its-n...
- jdmichal 10y ago> Utah's cosmetology/barbering licensing scheme is so disconnected from the practice of African hairbraiding, much less from whatever minimal threats to public health and safety are connected to braiding, that to premise Jestina's right to earn a living by braiding hair on that scheme is wholly irrational and a violation of her constitutionally protected rights. So part of the ruling negating the requirement took into consideration that braiding had none of the associated threats to public health and safety. This sounds like things working as they should with regards to overreaching. It's a shame she had to shut down and sue, but the right call was made by the judge.
- dexterdog 10y agoBut it is absolute insanity that it had to get to that point. How many other people don't even bother to open shop because of this? How many shut down because it's not worth the fight?
- jdmichal 10y agoThe law was written too broadly. It happens, and it's certainly not insanity. One of the problems with enshrining things into law is that it locks it into its current state. I'm sure when the law was written, African hair braiding was the last thing on anyone's minds. But society changes, and unfortunately case precedent like the one demonstrated is typically how law evolves with it. (A more proactive approach by legislators would be the preferred method.)
- danielweber 10y ago> This sounds like things working as they should This person happened to be able to get the Institute for Justice behind her. Most lower class people do not. They simply get squeezed out, and a la Bastiat we never see them.
- tanker 10y agoI think haircuts are a buyer beware situation. I trust the average person to give safe haircuts 100/100 times. If the hairdresser is noticeably disturbed or drugged, I'll be moving on. I can leave at any point in the process if I feel I am in danger. Out of curiosity, I searched for haircut related deaths and they were all customers killing the hairdresser because they were upset about how they looked. Based on the actual danger, I would suggest licensing someone to receive a haircut may be the more effective method of increasing haircut safety.
- jdmichal 10y agoYou're basically arguing that incidents don't occur when pretty much everyone practicing professionally is licensed. Sounds like the desired end state to me.
- saint_fiasco 10y agoI've never heard about any hairdresser related incidents in my third-world homeland either. The professional licensing leads to the same end state as a bear-repelling rock.
- jdmichal 10y agoI've never heard of an actual bear attack either. But I still know that interacting with wild bears is a potentially dangerous situation. And I will certainly want that bear-repelling rock if there's a bear looking at me with murderous intent.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pavel_lishin 10y agoI'm not worried about sharp implements near my head, but I may be worried about a lot of chemicals in that area. I also want the person touch my hair to at least be aware of hygiene issues - no fun going in for a haircut and coming away with chemical burns and lice.
- talmand 10y agoI would like to see the stats of accidental deaths due to the mishandling of hair stylist equipment.
- jdmichal 10y agoDeaths? Not necessarily likely. Infections? Very much so.
- pavel_lishin 10y agoInfections, chemical burns, lice transferrals. But if you're very lucky, the chemicals will kill the lice, and you'll be too worried about your new disease to be concerned about your hair!
- talmand 10y agoI was going by this statement: "Hair stylists work with extremely sharp implements extremely close to major blood vessels." Which implies something more than a knick on the skin that the injured customer then refuses to treat resulting in an infection.
- jdmichal 10y agoYes. It's certainly possible, but not necessarily likely. I wouldn't necessarily expect to find instances of it, short of Sweeney Todd. But I would expect you to be able to find instances of infections, lice, etc.
- mseebach 10y agoJust a minimum level of being aware of your surroundings would let you know if the person cutting your hair has so low control of their motorical faculties that they might accidentally stab you in the neck. As for hair dyes, as long as you can buy these things in regular stores, and people generally not getting hurt by them, why would the specific act of putting it in your hair be so dangerous that special government licencing would be required?
- pavel_lishin 10y agoThe dyes and bleaches used by hairdressers can be much stronger than what you use at home. And at home, you're only bleaching your own eyeballs; a hairdresser can affect many other people who may not be able to judge his or her ability to handle those chemicals.
- danielweber 10y agoYou can let someone cut hair without requiring them to learn all about those chemicals. They just need a few hours to make sure they know how to disinfect things. Let them be small until they want to dye hair. It's easy for a bunch of high-achieving people to imagine that these requirements are all great and easy to follow, but there are people in this world who are never going to finish college but still know how to cut hair or cook food or arrange flowers for other people. These people seldom have any significant lobbying voice and when they are choked out you don't see them. You just have some honest person trying to provide honest labor and being told "no" by the nobility. The people passing these licensure requirements should stop and think really hard about what it's like for a person of little means but with genuine interest to comply with them, and only make the requirements the minimum necessary to satisfy public safety.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago> only make the requirements the minimum necessary to satisfy public safety. I'm okay with that. A hair stylist shouldn't need to complete a cosmetology degree, as in that NPR story. But I would very much* like for them to have taken a test that, at some point, at least asks them if they're aware that you can spread certain diseases if you're not careful about what you do.
- danielweber 10y agoUnless they are in kindergarten, it takes about 5 minutes to teach someone not to cut skin with scissors. It's easy to imagine that my kid wants to be a barber and so I could front the money for him to do whatever licensure requirements there are. But it's really hard for some poor person to hop through those same hoops, when all they are trying to do is earn an honest living by offering services for which people will give them money. A lot of "well what's the harm in requiring hairdressers to take 100 hours of classes" are things which strictly benefit the middle- and upper-class (they aren't really going to notice paying 50 cents more for a haircut), but could really put the screws to the lower-class.
- askldfhjkasfhd 10y agoI see your point, but I'm not sure beautician licensure requirements are a good place to point out how difficult it is for poorer people to get into. In my experience, it's a very lower-middle or lower socioeconomic status profession. The licensure requirements certainly haven't meant (in my experience) that we're limiting the field to wealthy people. It probably could be better/easier, but again, given all the chemicals that get combined, the pace at which they work, and the sharp instruments, I don't think 2.5 weeks of fulltime training is unreasonable.
- jdietrich 10y agoHairdressers in the UK are unlicensed. Somehow, we have managed to avoid an epidemic of severed ears and burned scalps.
- 1_2__3 10y agoSeems so odd to me that cosmetologists are always brought up in these conversations, when IMHO licensing for them makes absolutely perfect sense. Just two off the top of my head: 1) Dyes/bleaches/etc. are often extremely dangerous industrial (as in, cannot be purchased easily at home) chemicals that used wrong could easily cause severe burns or at best an inhalation hazard. 2) Without properly cleaning cutting tools (scissors, clippers, razors, etc.) you run a high risk of spreading disease. With hair and nails the concern is often fungal, but if the last guy who got a buzz cut had lice you're in for a bad time if nobody cleans the clippers.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 10y agoThis might make sense if "cosmetology" wasn't an extremely broad category of services, many of which "dyes, bleaches, and chemicals" have nothing to do with. These are the crazy assholes, after all, that shut down businesses that do nothing but cornrow braiding for lack of licenses. As for "the spread of disease", they aren't back-alley abdominal surgeons. The only disease that runs any real risk of being spread are lice... and there's no need to license that. Licenses don't help prevent that. Nor does anyone need 1400 hours of training to know how to identify them, or how to clean combs and brushes. Sloppy people with licenses will still spread them, careful/clean people without licenses will never spread them. Enforce health codes instead of insisting on licenses that just put large barriers of entry in front of people trying to make a living.
- lucaspiller 10y agoAs UK citizen it really surprises me how much things are licensed and regulated in the US. I've been following /r/diy recently, and in some states you need to be licensed to even change a light switch. I assume this is to prevent someone from doing it wrong and burning down a 10 storey apartment building, but come on? Can't you trust people to use their own judgement as to whether they can do it sensibly or not? Today I read a story about a car getting tickets for $100k [0], one of the tickets was for being in a "hazardous and dilapidated condition", broken headlights and cracked windows. I'm currently living in Rome, Italy - the traffic wardens would have a field day here, basically every car has some sort of damage from an incident. Don't even get me started about HOA rules... [0] http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3958.asp http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3958.asp
- sbov 10y agoIf you're willing to limit your search, at least in the US, HOAs in some cities are optional. E.g. when looking for houses in LA, no HOA was a soft requirement of mine. Every house built in the 80s or later seemed to have one, so we ended up with a house built in the 70s. Some of the HOA rules were kinda ridiculous (could not have garage open unless a car was exiting or entering, wtf). In a condo building though, I don't know how you can get around an HOA.
- jdmichal 10y ago> In a condo building though, I don't know how you can get around an HOA. Condos pretty much have to have an association to manage them. You typically own the interior of the unit. The association owns the exterior and the land.
- drhayes9 10y agoI don't know how I feel about this issue. Haven't decided. But if my neighbor miswires a light switch and it starts a fire that burns my house down because they're close together, that would suck. In that situation, I would have wanted a say in whether my neighbor chose to do that themselves or hire someone who knows what they're doing. I'm living in a house that is filled with small jobs that seemed like they were done by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Lots of scrap lumber, mis-matching parts, electrical re-wires that just didn't work, etc. I'm glad I don't need a permit to fix some of that myself, but I would've loved to stop this guy before he did these things. Or if someone's half-assery endangered otherwise innocent lives. Note: not necessarily crying "save the children!" "Innocent" as in "couldn't influence decision to get someone who knows what they're doing".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- id122015 10y agoIn other words, older companies put barriers to entry for new comers through government intervention such as licenses, patents, copyrights. But even though government intervention tried to cut risks, or to ban offensive activities, they still exist. Look at how many "hairdressers" from "Pakistan" are in the west, or how much "slavery" still exist although its illegal. Banning alcohol made it go into the underground route and made Capones rich. The decline of western civilization is happening right now.