Do Straight Razors Justify Barber Licensing
A number of people, including many commenters here and even alleged conservative James Joyner think you should need a professional license to become a barber because you might hurt someone with a straight razor. Uh huh. At best this would be an argument for regulating people who do shaves with a straight razor, which would be considerably narrower than current comprehensive regulation of hair stylists.
Meanwhile, though “torts and the free market will take care of it” isn’t the answer to everything, it’s surely the answer to some things. Getting some kind of training before you shave a dude with a straight razor is obviously desirable in terms of strict self-interest. If you screw it up in a serious way, you’ll face serious personal consequences and the only way to make money doing it—and we’re talking about a very modest sum of money—is to do it properly. People also ought to try to think twice about whether their views are being driven by pure status quo bias. Barbers are totally unregulated in the United Kingdom, is there some social crisis resulting from this? Barber regulations differ from state to state, are the stricter states experiencing some kind of important public health gains?
Last you really do need to look at how these things play out in practice. If you just assume optimal implementation of regulation, then regulation always looks good. But as I noted in the initial post the way this works in practice is the boards are dominated by incumbent practitioners looking to limit supply. One result is that in Michigan (and perhaps elsewhere) it’s hard for ex-convicts to get barber licenses which harms the public interest not only by raising the cost of haircuts, but by preventing people from making a legitimate living. States generally don’t grant reciprocity to other states’ licensing boards, which limits supply even though no rational person worries about state-to-state variance in barber licensing when they move to a New Place. In New Jersey, you need to take the straight razor shaving test to cut women’s hair because they’re thinking up arbitrary ways to incrementally raise the barrier to entry.
In principle, you could deal with all these problems piecemeal. But realistically this sort of problem is inevitably going to arise when you pit the concentrated interest of incumbent haircutters against the diffuse interest of consumers. It’s hard enough to make sure that really important regulatory functions related to environmental protection, public safety, and financial stability are done properly.
72 Responses to “Do Straight Razors Justify Barber Licensing”
Leave a Reply
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 18th, 2010 at 8:33 am
In Idaho, I couldn’t find a barber who would perform a shave with a straight razor, in part because (I was told) their insurance wouldn’t cover it any longer. So that might be a moot point anyway.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:43 am
If there’s a barrier to entry, it’s not very high.
My Yellow Pages lists 43 barbers and 201 beauty salons serving an area of about 200,000. A haircut in my town is $20, including a generous tip.
So, either Matt is pitching the Cato Institute, or it’s August.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:46 am
really agree with Matt here. btw RZ, $20 is a lot for a male haircut, but really cheap for a female one.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:53 am
This post is the worst post Matt gas ever made on the topic. He addresses his many critics on this issue (see last post on the matter) by tackling one of the weakest objections, and ignoring all others. This is O’Reilly level dishonesty.
Third try
August 18th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Pretty disingenuous argument on your part Matt.
It’s a lot more than just straight razors and of course you know this because the arguments have been made to you several times now. And yet all you distill all of that down to some snotty debate about straight razors.
This is pathetic. You don’t know the first thing about this topic, you spout off an uninformed opinion multiple times, you are corrected by your commenters each time, and then you respond by misrepresenting your commenters and with maximum petulance too.
If I wanted to read Megan McArdle I would.
Maybe this is because you embarrassed yourself with Blago yesterday and had to backtrack? Perhaps your ego can only handle one public correction and walk back a day?
August 18th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Barbers are totally unregulated in the United Kingdom, is there some social crisis resulting from this?
As LaFollette Progressive noted in the comments to Massie’s post, the national health and safety regime in the UK is much stricter, the NHS exists to clean up any messes, and there’s much less chance of being sued if you fuck up. (Licensing in the US is heavily tied to liability coverage.)
So yeah, this is a McArdlesque disrespect for the substantive arguments in that thread. Very poor.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Given the margins in the industry, esp. for those starting out, I think it’s absurd to suggest that new entrants would spend the dough and the time to get properly trained if they weren’t forced to do so by law. So under Matt’s system you do have the whole load being done post facto by the tort system, which is a woefully inadequate way of redressing wrong. Esp. since you’d expect people who slice up their customers will just declare bankruptcy to avoid any serious judgment.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:09 am
really agree with Matt here. btw RZ, $20 is a lot for a male haircut, but really cheap for a female one.
In some hypothetical unlicensed-hairdresser regime, a women has options for cheaper haircuts—-with a larger chance that an incompetent or untrained practitioner will leave her hair looking truly fucked up.
And (medical and sanitation issues aside) that, it seems to me, is the underlying reason for requiring licenses for hairdressers–to make some attempt to ensure basic competence for practitioners.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Every US citizen is allowed to represent himself or herself in court. We can all be our own lawyers, though as with haircuts, it’s something best left to others. Yet there exist state-licensed boards to certify lawyers.
Every US citizen is allowed to treat his or her own illnesses in whatever way they please. It’s not wise, but it’s legal. Yet there exist state-licensed boards to certify doctors.
Of course “in practice … the boards are dominated by incumbent practitioners looking to limit supply.” Oh, wait, that’s the argument against barbers. I meant “torts and the free market will take care of it”. Oops, barbers again.
The argument could be made that some trades (medicine, law) are vital enough to the public to justify federal or state legislation, while others (haircutting, chiropractics) should be left to the individual guilds except for cases of fraud and malpractice. That’s the case I’d make. Arguing from a purely libertarian, free-market perspective, though, I don’t see how you justify that.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:23 am
The argument could be made that some trades (medicine, law) are vital enough to the public to justify federal or state legislation, while others (haircutting, chiropractics) should be left to the individual guilds except for cases of fraud and malpractice.
How does this relate to the present discussion? Is there a Haircutters’ Guild?
August 18th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Yeah, Mr. Cato Institute, way to finally address your critics in the most disingenuous way possible.
Barriers to entry are still pretty low. Did you ever watch Grease? Being a beauty-school dropout is a bit lower on the totem pole than a law-school dropout or med-school dropout. A cosmetician license isn’t a rare prize like a taxi medallion; it’s just a way of ensuring basic competence and basic knowledge of and adherence to sanitary standards.
There is no vast pool of barbers eager to cut your hair if not for the insurmountable hurdle of the state licensing board. Your arguments that it’s all “artificial barriers to entry” just reek of John McCainism and knee-jerk glibertarianism.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:42 am
“Is there a haircutter’s guild?”
I’m using guild as shorthand for a group of professionals who regulate who might become a member. Such as lawyers, doctors, barbers, and so on. If you’d like a list of the various state cosmetology “guilds”:
http://www.beautyschoolsdirectory.com/faq/state_req.php
August 18th, 2010 at 9:47 am
What does Matt imagine would happen without licensing, or with a licensing regime that exempts “clippers and scissors only” barbers? (Safety scissors, though; get away from my eyes with those pointy things you Rand Paulesque self-accreditor.) Does he think a thousand “Buzz cuts $2″ businesses would bloom? Because even the simplest haircuts often require razors; and those few people who would be willing to pay for a scissors-and-clippers-only cut are already getting their hair cut by friends or family free of charge.
I wonder if this is a class issue. I thoroughly doubt Matt has ever socialized with a barber/hairdresser, or even spoken with one outside of a business transaction.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:49 am
“Every US citizen is allowed to represent himself or herself in court.”
Why would this be limited to citizens? Can’t anyone represent himself in court in the US, regardless of citizenship?
August 18th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Esp. since you’d expect people who slice up their customers will just declare bankruptcy to avoid any serious judgment.
In theory, you could avoid that with an insurance or bonding requirement. Then the insurance company would want some proof of your competency as a barber before issuing you a policy (since it’s their $$$ on the line if you screw up) and their standards would, in theory, be about the same as the government standards would have been without the entrenched interests trying to create entry barriers — i.e. actually keeping out incompetents but without imposing unreasonable cost or inconvenience on qualified applicants.
In practice it would probably just lead to anyone who wants a haircut having to sign a form agreeing that you can’t sue the barber if he cuts your throat, unless you go before an arbitrator chosen by the insurance company and prove that he did it on purpose. Insurance companies will do anything to avoid actually bearing any of the risk they are supposedly collecting premiums for bearing, and weaseling out of liability for an accident is *much* easier than preventing the accident. So in practice the interests of insurance companies and the public are almost never aligned, although it seems like they would be.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Why does Matt keep invoking the UK as an argument for not regulating barbers? Isn’t that the country that gave us Sweeney Todd? And the answer to how to make money doing a very poor job indeed with a straight razor (meat pies)?
August 18th, 2010 at 9:58 am
“Barbers are totally unregulated in the United Kingdom, is there some social crisis resulting from this? Barber regulations differ from state to state, are the stricter states experiencing some kind of important public health gains?”
I don’t know. Are they? Do you know? Is there a social crisis resulting from the regulations? Some sort of dire barber shortage or haircut inflation? It seems to me that the people proposing deregulation ought to do their homework and make the case, and not base the whole argument on Monty Python jokes and facile assumptions.
The argument that businesses should be permitted to shave men’s heads with clippers without attending a two-year cosmetology school is obviously compelling. The argument that we should eliminate all oversight of hair salons because Matt Yglesias can cut his own hair is obviously not compelling. So why not stick to the first argument?
August 18th, 2010 at 10:00 am
In North Carolina, we even regulate hair braiders!
August 18th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Regulating demon barbers on Fleet Street is as ridiculous as regulating what goes into Mrs. Lovett’s meat pies, at least from a libertarian point of view.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:04 am
I wonder if this is a class issue.
It’s entirely a class issue — Matt’s from a family of writers, a career for which there is no licensing and dubious standards enforcement.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Mr. Yglesias is a flimflam man.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:17 am
what we need is blog comment software licensing. (blog comment licensing might be ok too). here goes….
August 18th, 2010 at 10:19 am
so why did my earlier comment not turn up? will it turn up later? How can I be sure, in a world that’s constantly changing…..
what I meant to say was that I was shocked that a blog post on barber licensing by a former philosophy major did not include some use of the barber paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox
August 18th, 2010 at 10:19 am
In addition to razors, there’s also lye, ammonia, and highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide. All of which when misapplied can generate poisonous gases and/or caustic chemical burns.
Granted, these are more typically features of a women’s hair salon than a men’s barber shop.
But I’m sorry, this post reeks of “out-of-touch white boy” disease. You seem almost willfully ignorant of what goes on in hair salons for women, especially women of color. It can be a very dangerous place. You ask any black woman who’s had her hair relaxed if this is a job for amateurs, and she’ll be very clear that it is not. You ask any woman who’s had highlights or professional color if expertise is important, and she’ll give you an emphatic “hell, yes!” Many women are warned to not get their hair colored or processed during their first trimester because it’s unclear if the fetus can be exposed to these chemicals. This isn’t the same as a cut and a shave, okay?
Licensing might not be the perfect regime to guarantee safety, but it is typically what we do when we’re faced with “This is a complicated process; do this wrong and somebody could get hurt” situations. For many women, professional hair care is exactly such a situation.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:20 am
BTW, in Germany you need a license to play golf.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:23 am
let’s see if 3 in a row is possible. When I first moved into the near Philadelphia suburb I now call home, I thought I would give some business to the local barber shop, with real barber chairs and elderly barbers. So I sat down, explained myself to the fellow, and then noticed that he had a pretty significant palsy in his hands, and that if I got through unscathed, I would have a pretty interesting haircut. Luckily at the end my ears were intact, and I had a haircut so crappy it even looked bad on my indifferent head. I never went back, license or no license.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:27 am
“Why should I pay for healthcare coverage? I’m fit and healthy!”
“Why should I pay property taxes for schools? I don’t have kids!”
“Why should I pay for Social Security? I have a hefty retirement fund!”
“Why should I pay (through licensing-enforced scarcity) for hairdresser licensing? I can cut my own hair with clippers!”
August 18th, 2010 at 10:46 am
We’re seeing this in the allied health fields now. The requirements are so ridiculous that most clinics will have to hire someone full-time or outsource at exorbitant rates to keep up with submissions to these new regulatory bodies. I work in cardiac ultrasound, and the agency is called ICAEL. Everyone’s guess is that the hospitals are behind this. They’re the only people who can afford to keep up with the paperwork, case studies, etc. required to stay regulated. And this seems like a good technique to close down smaller clinics with less personnel and resources.
And now the major insurance companies are requiring ICAEL accreditation if they’ll pay for testing.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Plus, all sorts of diseases/infections you can catch if your barber/hair dresser is not careful, most notably head lice.
This is really an eggregiously bad post. We collectively pointed out about two dozen reasons why it was reasonable to regulate hair cutting, and Matt responds to one of them by basically saying, “Hey, you don’t need a razor to cut women’s hair!” Lame sauce.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:00 am
repost: fix your comments fat ass
Uhm, perhaps it is more like this:
1. Anyone who wants to can be a Barber.
2. They must be registered online at a government web site.
3. Statistics (encouraging before and after pictures) showing number of complaints, if any, about the shave.
You people are so dumb:
1. You can go to a Barber School and sign away your rights for a cheap hair cut / shave right now.
2. Barbers have been giving unlicensed shaves for centuries without the added benefits I listed above.
3. I’d rather see the barber has no communicable diseases, than whether they went to barber school… you would too.
You people struggle so mightily with the idea that mistakes happen, risks can be knowable, and all people take chances as they see them.
Fat ass says, “cheaper haircuts” – and bounces off your ears… poor people need EVERYTHING to be cheaper, because they are not going to be making more money anytime soon.
Stop making poor people suffer.
GOMPT!
August 18th, 2010 at 11:09 am
RE: Nathan Y.
Right, that’s a pretty straightforward case of regulatory capture that actually harms the public (through reduced choices and rising medical costs) in addition to harming the less privileged stakeholders in the current system. That’s the sort of problem we need to be addressing.
But I doubt that you or anyone else would respond to this problem by suggesting that it would benefit society if Matt Yglesias were free to set up a cardiac clinic in his kitchen and dispense ultrasounds at $10 a pop.
This is why lazy libertarianism is so destructive. There is often a good case to be made for regulatory reform, and people committed to good governance should be interested in ongoing review and refinement of economic regulations. But that isn’t how these issues play out in the public sphere in this country. It becomes a turf war between disingenuous credentialism on behalf of self-interested stakeholders and disingenuous Joe-the-Plumber agitation on behalf of other self-interested stakeholders.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Hey Morgan, shouldn’t you be out trying to make money off drug-addled mentally ill people or something?
(Morgan makes an interesting cameo in the jaw-dropping Vanity Fair piece on Pat Dollard)
August 18th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I make interesting cameos where I show up.
Right now I’m showing up here. And overtime, you’ll see Matty getting right in line with my progressive train.
There is a true split between those who want to use government effectively to solve problems, and those who want to use government to get paid more than they are worth… there’s no difference between public employees and corporatists – rent seekers all.
That is the real split, that is the new alliance, Matt is slowly coming to understand this, I’m just here to help!
August 18th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I’m with Matt. The presumption should be on the side of less regulation, rather than more, and in this case regulation is unnecessary. I spent three years living in a (developed) country where anyone can open a hair shop. Getting your hair cut there is cheap. What’s more, because there’s so much competition, there’s no waiting; if one place is busy, you just walk up the street to the next shop. Quality-wise, too, it beats my native Canada.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
The last two straight-razor shaves i’ve had ended up with someone drawing blood. Once it was me, once the barber (and kind of a lot of blood, honestly.)
The only non-injurious shave I ever had was in Communist Vietnam.
But I don’t know what to make of that.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Right now I’m showing myself up here.
FYT, ginger whinger.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
I spent three years living in a (developed) country where anyone can open a hair shop. Getting your hair cut there is cheap. What’s more, because there’s so much competition, there’s no waiting…Quality-wise, too, it beats my native Canada.
Anecdotal Commenter is anecdotal.
2
August 18th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
James Gary, everyone there–locals and foreigners alike–laments the quality and price of getting your hair cut in Canada. My comment is anecdotal, yes, but it’s my experience, and you’re not going to change anyone’s mind by pointing that out.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Total fail by Yglesias.
August 18th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
“disingenuous Joe-the-Plumber agitation on behalf of other self-interested stakeholders.”
How are they disingenuous and in what way are they self-interested stakeholders? Because they support consumers over special interest rent-seekers? Is it opposite day?
I would not go to a cardiac clinic in Matt’s basement and neither would you. I would go to a (non-government-) accredited provider. But I guess your position is that some people are just so stupid and worthless as human beings that you have to make all their decisions for them. Fortunately for them, you are an awesome decision-maker and will always choose the tradeoff of price vs. quality that is optimal for them in their squalor. Kudos.
August 18th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
How are they disingenuous and in what way are they self-interested stakeholders? Because they support consumers over special interest rent-seekers? Is it opposite day?
Um… Because there is nothing actually stopping Joe the Plumber from opening a plumbing business except that he is unwilling to put in the time and commitment to become a plumber? And because we live on planet earth instead of libertopia, so deregulation typically serves the interests of existing stakeholders in other fields to expand their operations, not the brave little hypothetical entrepreneurs who play the heroes in conservative mythology.
And because maybe, just maybe, consumers have a legitimate interest in safety and quality, not merely in low, low prices.
But I guess your position is that some people are just so stupid and worthless as human beings that you have to make all their decisions for them.
Yes, because I am actually a walking, talking straw man, and when I say things like “There is often a good case to be made for regulatory reform, and people committed to good governance should be interested in ongoing review and refinement of economic regulations” it’s actually double-secret socialist code for “stupid people need nannies to make all their decisions for them.”
Better trolls, please.
August 18th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
But I guess your position is that some people are just so stupid and worthless as human beings that you have to make all their decisions for them.
If you can drop the assholery for a second, there’s a serious point here. It’s not that people are stupid to figure these things out in the absence of licensing. It’s that forcing people to investigate these things themselves imposes all sorts of informational costs on basic transactions.
August 18th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
It’s that forcing people to investigate these things themselves imposes all sorts of informational costs on basic transactions.
Right. I could do a background check and solicit references for everyone I ever do business with, but in most cases I’d rather take the licensing board’s word for it.
This is also one of the ways where this Joe-the-Plumber mythology serves the interest of national chains, not small business. In the absence of any other quality control, people tend to put their trust in name brands they recognize.
August 18th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Licensing board doesn’t really tell yo much about the barber’s skill or scruples or sanitary practices.
Since doctors and lawyers are licensed, so should be barbers.
Licensing isn’t all that expensive anyway, so we should just let status quo be.
Licensing prevents disease and injury.
Licensing prevents fraud.
Pretty weak, if not fallacious justifications presented by folks around here.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Licensing board doesn’t really tell yo much about the barber’s skill or scruples or sanitary practices.
It tells you that they’ve had to publicly demonstrate their skill, and that the licensing board has not seen fit to strip them of their license for being unscrupulous or unsanitary.
No, of course it doesn’t “prevent” disease, injury, or fraud, any more than laws against theft prevent theft. The goal is to set up a system to make disease, injury, and fraud *less prevalent*. And in general, I think anyone who compares 1890s America to today is going to notice some stark differences in terms of the prevalence of disease, injury, and fraud related to most regulated industries.
So why on earth shouldn’t the default assumption be in favor of maintaining the overall regulatory system and targeting specific areas for reform? Why on earth would the default assumption be that an unregulated market is best for consumers?
The triumph of neoliberal ideology over history, common sense, and accountability for all of its recent failures is truly baffling.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
So one of Matt’s arguments is that we lack a sufficient number of ex-cons cutting people’s hair?
Look – cutting hair is one of the few professions for women of low education where they can make a decent living out of it. if you flood the market with unlicensed hair stylists, you will:
A) Actually likely force out the good ones (since the money is so low, chances are, good hair dressers were also the ones smart enough, dedicated enough and committed enough to follow-through on the license. This means they will also likely seek other careers.
What you find when a profession becomes so unprofitable, is that only those who stay are the ones who are not able to do anything else. Matt makes this very argument about financial professionals. So many of our talented people in the US head to Wall Street because it is more profitable than other careers. This is similar to that situation, only the reverse.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Anon #24
This is off-topic WRT the thread, but if the chemicals involved in hair relaxing, straightening, coloring, etc. are so caustic & toxic that they threaten the health of a fetus, then I daresay we shouldn’t be using those chemicals at all. Period. Even if the stylist is “trained” in how to use these chemicals without killing you. Only God knows what hidden toxic effects they might be wreaking on our bodies. Aren’t there any natural substitutes?
August 18th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Matt,
I will gladly pay you to cut my hair as an act of civil disobedience. How much do you charge?
August 18th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
The only argument I am sympathetic to is the informational one, that the cost of regulation is lower than the cost of information gathering for consumers. But since the regulators are demonstrably captured by the industry they regulate, I imagine that is very rarely the case. The default should be autonomy and the burden should be on regulators to show an economic justification, since regulatory capture and forced scarcity are such obvious and consistent problems.
“I could do a background check and solicit references for everyone I ever do business with, but in most cases I’d rather take the licensing board’s word for it.”
Really??? When you want to hire a lawyer, you figure “any licensed lawyer is fine!” and shop based on the lowest price? If so, you are making a serious mistake.
Before I go to a barber I check their Google Maps reviews- it takes about 10 seconds. Oh no! Enormous costs imposed on me!!
August 18th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Before I go to a barber I check their Google Maps reviews- it takes about 10 seconds.
True, the availability of information on the internet is a small but non-negligible point in favor of the idea that licensing is less important than it used to be.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Oh no! Enormous costs imposed on me!!\
We all agree it’s a trivial issue either way. Yeah, you can say it’s not a big hassle for every person who gets a haircut to lookup barbers on the internet, but it’s not a big fucking hassle to get a barber’s license either. You’re imposing a minor burden on one person, rather than a really minor burden on a whole lot of people.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Ultimately, this is an empirical issue. I’d have to decide whether occupational licensing requirements are justified on an individual basis depending on the evidence. What I object to is the notion that Matt Yglesias can figure these issue out a priori because he thumbed through a micro 101 textbook while sitting on the toilet one morning.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
True, the availability of information on the internet is a small but non-negligible point in favor of the idea that licensing is less important than it used to be.
My own experience is that—-for a variety of reasons, foremost among which is the practical impossibility of establishing the reviewers’ honesty—-online reviews of service providers are of limited usefulness in determining the actual quality of those providers.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
[...] is a push to strongly regulate barbers throughout the U.S., because you might use a straight razor to give someone a [...]
August 18th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I can only add that the directly inverse relationship between the importance of this topic and the considerable attention that Matt and the many commentators bestow upon this topic is truly impressive.
# 1
sex fuck
August 18th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
You guys arguing against Matt ought to read this.
Why should someone who performs African hair braiding have to get a cosmetology license, when the training for a cosmetologist has nothing to do with hair braiding? These licenses are nothing more than a means to keep the little guy out of business, and the fact that so many on the left can’t see this is appalling.
Other examples abound, such as florists in Louisiana. Why the hell should someone get licensed to make a floral arrangement?
Such practical aspects aside, arguments in favor of licensing also suffer from theoretical deficiencies. Many of you seem to think that licensing prevents customers being given poor service. No, that’s not true at all. You can be a licensed professional and still perform a crappy service. The only real check on bad service providers is competition and the free market — why would anyone go back to someone who does a poor job? In fact, licensing promotes worse service by preventing competition, which is the best antidote to poor service providers.
This notion that licensing is needed is implicitly based on a belief in people’s general helplessness without government assistance and that human nature is base. What a pessimistic philosophy.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
repost2 – fix your comments you fat bastard
Paulie, dude, READ!
The point is that government regulation could simply focus on providing that transactional information with a god damn web site that all barbers must register on – as my winning plan laid out.
The sick thing is you really only care about maintain the regulatory body – the pile of shitty fat public employees who’s whole existence is premised on this built in in-efficiency.
You don’t care about price of services for poor people, you don’t care about costs (loans) that people take to go to friggin school. You don’t even REALLY BELIEVE it adds up to some kind of health benefit.
You’re the reason Cleveland is dying dude. It’s all on you.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Right, RZ. Because anyone suggesting businesses collude with the state to increase their profits *must* be right-wingers. Oddly enough, the right-wingers think I’m a commie for suggesting such a thing. Ever hear the expression “Baptists and Bootleggers”? Believe it or not, despite what the goo-goos in High School Civics told you, all government regulation is not “progressive” and in the “public interest,” and government and business are not inherently at odds. Read some Gabriel Kolko.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
[...] Progress blogger Matthew Yglesias has gone on a minor free-marketish tear this week, arguing against barber licensing, refudiating his past opposition to Dubai Ports World buying American port companies, pointing out [...]
August 18th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
You’re the reason Cleveland is dying dude. It’s all on you.
Just wait till my legalize drugs and hookers plan kicks in. Also, since I’m now apparently dictator of Cleveland, I’ll have AFSCME members impaled on stakes along the cuyahoga just to make you happy.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
repost4 – fix comments you fat manboy
Here ya go Paulie. Pure Genius:
http://biggovernment.com/mwarstler/2010/08/18/unemployed-blame-public-employees/
August 18th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
”online reviews of service providers are of limited usefulness in determining the actual quality of those providers.”
Hear! Hear!
Every quack remedy and every scam comes with glowing testimonials
” You can be a licensed professional and still perform a crappy service”
OK, but is the reverse true? Can you be such a crappy florist that you flunk a flower arraigning test and still perform good service?
” The only real check on bad service providers is competition and the free market — why would anyone go back to someone who does a poor job?”
There was a time when Uncle Sam he had a war with Spain,
And many boys in bonnie blue were in the struggle slain.
Not all were killed by bullets, no not by any means,
The greater part by far will killed by Armour’s Pork n’ Beans”
We tried letting invisible hand take care of it, it didn’t work
August 18th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
I agree with Matt.
…..
Now my head is exploding.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
The knee jerk reaction by the left is hilarious: Why does it not occur to these leftists that this time the evil capitalist exploiters really are up to no good?
The left once again reveals itself as not pro working class, or pro woman, or pro black, or pro muslim, or pro oppressed group of the day, but merely the voice of the state.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Hairdressers and barbers, long known for their political acumen and powerful connections, have kept the poor, untrained and ex-cons down for too long. If Matt could get a $5 haircut on a train, he’d be in heaven.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
“The left once again reveals itself as not pro working class, or pro woman, or pro black, or pro muslim, or pro oppressed group of the day”
Whereas the right don’t even pretend to care.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Just because one can make a decent case that in certain circumstances, the current regulatory and licensing regime is not the optimal one does not imply that there should be no regulatory and licensing regime. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
What a pessimistic philosophy.
It doesn’t matter whether reality refuses to conform to your aesthetic preferences. It is what it is.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Au to the contraire!! Unlicensed barbers can be quite dangerous. It’s been long since forgotten by most people but the accidental death of Albert Anastasia in 1957 in a New York City barber shop lead to the nation’s first barber licensing law. Public outrage led the New York City council to pass an ordinance establishing a licensing commission for barbers. The law was known unofficially as “Albert’s Law”.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
The commenter who mentioned McArdle above pegged it dead to rights; it’s like it’s like if your job depended on not understanding the valid counterarguments. Aside from issues like potential infection and infestation, chemical burnings, and general injury that could occur in a barbershop or hairdressers place there’s the fact that there’s no shortage of barbershops in DC. Throw a stone from your place to H street NE in the Atlas district, there’s like 10 hair places in a 5 block strip (not including the wig shops…) And there’s similar strips on U Street, Georgia Avenue, and in Southeast. What problem are you proposing to solve again? Put convicts to work giving unlicensed discount clipper-only cuts?
August 18th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
The knee jerk reaction by the left is hilarious: Why does it not occur to these leftists that this time the evil capitalist exploiters really are up to no good?
Barbers = evil capitalist exploiters?
Fail.
What problem are you proposing to solve again? Put convicts to work giving unlicensed discount clipper-only cuts?
Win.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
This is a wonderful example of both good faith participation in the long term discourse between people of differing sensibilities, and the reason why the incentives (in terms of public approbation) almost always align against just such good faith. The vitriol here from the ideologically betrayed is dispiriting.
You remain well worth reading, Matt.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:46 am
Mike Makowsky says: “The vitriol here from the ideologically betrayed is dispiriting.”
It’s the intellectual “betrayal” of his failing to address the long list of substantial counterarguments from his initial post on the subject, the simplistic straw-man attack, and the failure to understand anything about the profession(s) he’s pontificating about that has generated so much vitriol.
The vitriol also stems from the fact that he’s discrediting the putative goals of the organization he’s working for.
Many would assume that CAP would support earning a fair wage but we’ve got their lead blogger writing several posts in a single day on how workers should be paid less.
:{Double face-palm}:
Nonetheless, it’s a useful data-point to know that CAP is promoting the shoddy thinking of McArdlesque-Cato-like right-wing libertarianism.
–
(”comment filter” has eaten four of five comments.)