4 ms·

An alternative that still requires 10000 hours of classroom time, plus 840 hours of apprenticeship time. at 40 hrs/week that's 46 weeks - basically an entire y

An alternative that still requires 10000 hours of classroom time, plus 840 hours of apprenticeship time. at 40 hrs/week that's 46 weeks - basically an entire year. To cut hair.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Yeah, I agree it is dumb
dahfizz 4y ago
The article says you can work as an apprentice for 2 full years, OR do 1,000 hours in a classroom + 840 hours as an apprentice. It doesn't sound like that bad of a gig. You can start earning a living wage right out of high school, with a guaranteed promotion into a middle class lifestyle within two years. By that time, your college going peers will be deep in debt and still two years away from a real paycheck.
Barrin92 4y ago
> To cut hair Not sure the dismissive tone is warranted. It's a craft that requires skill and training. Here in Germany it's a full vocational program that generally takes three years. You can only learn so much in a year and just like in any other profession after a year you're still going to be a beginner.
- sam345 4y ago
  So why prevent people from legally cutting hair or? If it's a bad haircut customer won't come back. Licensing is simply a way to put a moat around industry and drives up labor costs and unemployment.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    It makes establishments viable by raising the barrier to people cutting hair in their basements. It’s ultimately better for the profession and for the state, as things like sales tax collections have higher compliance rates in established businesses.
    - sam345 4y ago
      There are other regulations that cover cleanliness. Licensing does not do that. Licensing is a state sanctioned monopoly. https://www.hoover.org/research/occupational-licensing-bad-idea https://www.hoover.org/research/occupational-licensing-bad-i...
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    because licensure is also a way to guarantee quality standards, safety and provide training and representation for members of an industry. They're reputational tools. They tend to incentivize the creation of industry bodies that see that employers are collectively represented, fairly compensated and that hucksters are kept out. When people start cutting hair in their home they're not going to run fabulous businesses, they're going to look for alternatives to accredit themselves because that signal is valuable, it's how people end up at lambda school or online rating platforms. The 'ed-tech' sector that is emerging around unregulated professions is an example of what happens if you don't have licenses. You have a vulture-like companies that offer people pseudo-qualifications without representation or any real chance to judge the standards of their education.
  - rojcyk 4y ago

An alternative that still requires 10000 hours of classroom time, plus 840 hours of apprenticeship time. at 40 hrs/week that's 46 weeks - basically an entire year. To cut hair.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Yeah, I agree it is dumb

dahfizz 4y ago

The article says you can work as an apprentice for 2 full years, OR do 1,000 hours in a classroom + 840 hours as an apprentice. It doesn't sound like that bad of a gig. You can start earning a living wage right out of high school, with a guaranteed promotion into a middle class lifestyle within two years. By that time, your college going peers will be deep in debt and still two years away from a real paycheck.

Barrin92 4y ago

> To cut hair Not sure the dismissive tone is warranted. It's a craft that requires skill and training. Here in Germany it's a full vocational program that generally takes three years. You can only learn so much in a year and just like in any other profession after a year you're still going to be a beginner.

sam345 4y ago
So why prevent people from legally cutting hair or? If it's a bad haircut customer won't come back. Licensing is simply a way to put a moat around industry and drives up labor costs and unemployment.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  It makes establishments viable by raising the barrier to people cutting hair in their basements. It’s ultimately better for the profession and for the state, as things like sales tax collections have higher compliance rates in established businesses.
  - sam345 4y ago
    There are other regulations that cover cleanliness. Licensing does not do that. Licensing is a state sanctioned monopoly. https://www.hoover.org/research/occupational-licensing-bad-idea https://www.hoover.org/research/occupational-licensing-bad-i...
- Barrin92 4y ago
  because licensure is also a way to guarantee quality standards, safety and provide training and representation for members of an industry. They're reputational tools. They tend to incentivize the creation of industry bodies that see that employers are collectively represented, fairly compensated and that hucksters are kept out. When people start cutting hair in their home they're not going to run fabulous businesses, they're going to look for alternatives to accredit themselves because that signal is valuable, it's how people end up at lambda school or online rating platforms. The 'ed-tech' sector that is emerging around unregulated professions is an example of what happens if you don't have licenses. You have a vulture-like companies that offer people pseudo-qualifications without representation or any real chance to judge the standards of their education.
- rojcyk 4y ago