4 ms·

Just 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

Just 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 ago
The 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 ago
  You 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.
DanBC 10y ago
You have the freedom to do what you like to your own head, which is why the gloop is sold in shops. But when you set up in business the people paying you money need to know you're not incompetant and that you're not going to cause them chemical burns. Some of the chemicals - (EG sodium hydroxide) - can be pretty harsh. (I'm not sure the expensive US method of regulating hair dressers is correct, but it's not totally stupid to regulate people putting sodium hydroxide on your head)
- mseebach 10y ago
  I'm not basing my argument on what could in theory happen, but rather on what appears to not to actually be a problem. Teenagers have bought sodium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide and heaven know what other nasty chemicals and plastered it in their own and their friends hair at home for decades, and there's no epidemic of permanent disfigurement from chemical burns (if there was, we'd have people up in arms over these chemicals being sold freely). In other words, the putative argument for requiring hair dressers licenses is solving a theoretical problem. Before you start doing business with someone, spend a few seconds evaluating the place. Maybe get a recommendation. If it's busy, that's a lot of other people vouching for it, it's probably at least OK. If it's a repurposed lemonade stand in a back alley, it's probably not (even in a jurisdiction that requires licenses!). It's really just basic common sense.
- hermannj314 10y ago
  > the people paying you money need to know you're not incompetant Yeah, that is some requirement you made up. Just because you want your stylist to be regulated should have no bearing on me. Please keep your laws off my body.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

The 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 ago
You 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.

DanBC 10y ago

You have the freedom to do what you like to your own head, which is why the gloop is sold in shops. But when you set up in business the people paying you money need to know you're not incompetant and that you're not going to cause them chemical burns. Some of the chemicals - (EG sodium hydroxide) - can be pretty harsh. (I'm not sure the expensive US method of regulating hair dressers is correct, but it's not totally stupid to regulate people putting sodium hydroxide on your head)

mseebach 10y ago
I'm not basing my argument on what could in theory happen, but rather on what appears to not to actually be a problem. Teenagers have bought sodium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide and heaven know what other nasty chemicals and plastered it in their own and their friends hair at home for decades, and there's no epidemic of permanent disfigurement from chemical burns (if there was, we'd have people up in arms over these chemicals being sold freely). In other words, the putative argument for requiring hair dressers licenses is solving a theoretical problem. Before you start doing business with someone, spend a few seconds evaluating the place. Maybe get a recommendation. If it's busy, that's a lot of other people vouching for it, it's probably at least OK. If it's a repurposed lemonade stand in a back alley, it's probably not (even in a jurisdiction that requires licenses!). It's really just basic common sense.
hermannj314 10y ago
> the people paying you money need to know you're not incompetant Yeah, that is some requirement you made up. Just because you want your stylist to be regulated should have no bearing on me. Please keep your laws off my body.