3 ms·
> But arguing that the choice of whether or not to regulate comes down entirely to cost is kind of absurd. But this isn't what was argued. From the post you re
by mirashii 8y ago
> But arguing that the choice of whether or not to regulate comes down entirely to cost is kind of absurd.
But this isn't what was argued. From the post you replied to
> For example, if hairdressers are licensed due to questions of sanitation, perhaps the same benefit -- or more benefit -- could be achieved through periodic health inspections rather then licensing individual hairdressers.
Regulation has many forms. Licensing is only one of them.
- mcguire 8y agoMost hairdressers are independent subcontractors. The license is the only handle the regulatory system has on them short of criminal proceedings.
- CryptoPunk 8y agoPerhaps the 1400 hour instruction requirement could be cut down to 20 hours, and the licensing could remain to give health inspectors a registry of who to inspect? Something like that would be the approach if the goal were to use regulations to maintain good hygiene without imposing undue costs on young people hoping to get into the industry. If the intention of the license is to keep others out of the field of work though, 1400 hours of instruction would be the approach taken.