Doing minimal safety training seems reasonable, I think. If it cost $200 to enter a profession, that wouldn't be so bad.
But two years and $10,000? What planet do these legislators think they're on?
(Licensingindustrylobbyus, probably)
But two years and $10,000? What planet do these legislators think they're on?
(Licensingindustrylobbyus, probably)
I think the argument for some of these licenses is that if the licensee screws up you can report them to a proper government agency who will investigate them. If a cab driver refuses service for a discriminatory reason in my town he can be reported to the the taxi cab bureau, or if my barber has unsanitary practices to health and human services.
And the barber example makes my point. When they added licensing for cosmetology in my state existing cosmetologists were grandfathered in. They got licenses because they'd already been doing the work. But if you wanted to enter the field you had to go to cosmetology school.
While the population in large cities is growing, plenty of people don't live in one. "Take the next one" simply isn't an option for those people (I speak from experience, having lived in the countryside).
(Somewhat tongue in cheek, but it's good to remember that there's more to life - and perhaps even potential markets.)
It's a little more dangerous than you might immediately think. You're working with sharp blades and hot objects.
Edit: Oh, apparently, there's a serious risk of disease transmission. I hadn't considered that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2549477
Why does the government need to charge outrageous fees under serious threat if they dont'? (Honest question)
The concepts of trust in x organization is much clearer today thanks to the internet.
This is basically solved by franchising, but that also adds cost to the producer.
But whatever model you chose it puts the responsibility of informing yourself about the safety of your options on the consumer.
People like when their choices are "safe by default" so they like regulation, even if it doesn't accomplish what it states as long as it appears to be effective it's going to be supported. I can't really decide if that's bad or not, in most cases the safety will be there anyway and if it inspires the consumer confidence it allows the economy to function more efficiently.
Incidentally, this explains how many of these certification rules are established in the first place: the certifiers lobby for it, because it brings them profits. (I still believe that the majority of certification rules happen because somebody messed up, which led to calls for stricter regulation.)
They price gouge because it turns out that they have a monopoly. The private company would also price gouge because they would also be a monopoly - only you would not be able to lobby the private company and vote for a different one...
They needn't necessarily be a monopoly; there's nothing stopping multiple certification companies coexisting. Providing certification is not a natural monopoly.
Why would they also be a monopoly?
Because otherwise there would be a proliferation of licensing companies. This would lead to competition on price (good!) but also on standards/easier certification (bad?). Customer confusion also becomes an issue here - do you really want to have to research which licensing bodies have acceptable standards as well as which providers have good prices and results before everytime you cut your hair?
I think that the ideal option is that the licensing is run by a not for profit that has the government on its board but which is run at arms length.