3 ms·
The argument to rid licensing for music therapy or florists (as per article) seems stronger than for a hair salon. Do you know the difference between cutting st
by tropdrop 8y ago
The argument to rid licensing for music therapy or florists (as per article) seems stronger than for a hair salon. Do you know the difference between cutting straight, thin hair and thick, curly hair? What about kinky (usually African American) hair?
If you would like your market to be more than just those clients that request an Army buzz cut, you need to know those differences. My hair, for instance, looks terrible if given a straight chop with scissors. Because it's wavy and thick, it needs "thinning" all throughout its length to make it lie flat. Enforcing practicing on mannequins how to do just that without ruining someone's actual hair seems reasonable to me.
- moate 8y agoThe purpose of licensing here isn't to ensure quality of work (how good or bad your haircut/highlights are). It's there to make sure disease isn't transmitted, and physical harm isn't inflicted. The hours requirement could be scaled down, and the process more streamlined certainly, but the point of going to cosmetology school isn't really to learn how to style hair, although that happens, it's to pass state boards. Then you can assistant in a salon and learn how to do something economically useful.
- InGodsName 8y agoCutting hair in a way that doesn't trasmit is actually a quality of work. So, licensing does ensures the minimum quality.
- kalleboo 8y agoYou're arguing for some kind of private quality assurance scheme or yelp reviews, not a mandatory government license.