Hacker News Reader

Comment by busterarm | Hacker News Reader

So who is willing to risk their barber's license offering this service...?

There's a reason we require licensing of that profession...

I was curious so I looked up the regulations for California[1]. A barber license requires a 2-year full-time apprenticeship, classroom instruction, a written test, and a practical test. In my opinion, those requirements are way too stringent for someone who is just going to be cutting my hair. I've had family members cut my hair and I still have all of my ears.

What are the legitimate reasons for the current license requirements? Are there any, or is this a law that is a relic of a past which did have reasons for it? It seems like the market could solve the issue of under performing barbers.

[1]: http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/applicants/index.shtml

EDIT: From reading this page, it looks like the service described in the article is illegal because in-home services are only available for "anyone whose illness or other physical or mental incapacitation prevents them from visiting a licensed salon or barbershop". And, of course, it still requires a licensed barber.

http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/consumers/inhome_srv_factsheet...

It is probably easier to get a Class A commercial drivers license and drive an 18-wheeler.

> In my opinion, those requirements are way too stringent for someone who is just going to be cutting my hair.

Commercial barbers do more than just cut hair, and the license applies to more than just hair cutting [0]. So, yes, its maybe slightly overkill for just cutting hair (OTOH, managing more different grades of barbering licenses would increase regulatory complexity.)

[0] http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/forms_pubs/publications/barber...

You're a dude. As a woman, I have MUCH higher requirements of my hairstylists.

Sure, but those are the requirements for barbers, not people who cut / style women's hair.

Wait is there really a difference?

It depends. For me, all I require is a trim, which needs no equipment other than a chair, scissors, and clippers. A barber could do the job portably, no problem. It's just that I have a high standard for the work that is done, so I'm extremely loyal to the barber that I currently see. I'm not going to risk some amateur screwing it up, which has happened in the past. Still, as we speak I'm about 3 weeks overdue for a haircut because I haven't had time to make the 10-minute trip across town to her premises during business hours. I would LOVE it if there was an app that could summon her presence at the moment. Especially if I could get her early in the day, because I've noticed a substantial drop in her work quality when I slide in after 5:00.

Stylists that do coloring, perms, and more complicated styles may need additional equipment that makes it tougher to do the job portably, so their clients would probably not be the target market of this app.

I think we just found it.

> Sure, but those are the requirements for barbers, not people who cut / style women's hair.

No, in California licensing terms, people who "arrange, dress, curl, wave, permanent wave, cleanse, cut, shampoo, relax, singe, bleach, tint, color, straighten, dye, brush, apply hair tonics, beautify, or otherwise treat by any means the hair of any person" and who can also "perform facials, scalp massages, or treatments with oils, creams, lotions, or other preparations either by hand or with a mechanical appliance" and "apply cosmetic preparations, antiseptics, powders, oils, clays, or lotions to the scalp, face, or neck" are barbers. [0]

Now, there is another broader license from the same agency for cosmetologists, but the additional things a cosmetologist can do that a barber cannot are outside of cutting / styling hair. [1]

[0] http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/forms_pubs/publications/barber...

[1] http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/forms_pubs/publications/cosmet...

The requirements reassure the public that the person cutting hair isn't an idiot who's just bought some cheap clippers. They've cut hair - hundreds of hours worth of hair cutting - and they know how to sterilize the equipment. And if you're going to have chemical hair treatments you're not going to be maimed by someone who doesn't know how to use the chemicals.

I agree that 1,500 hours does sound a bit long though.

You could probably get an idea of how inflated that requirement is by looking at what percentage of the 1,500 hours is spent on issues relating to safety and hair cutting. Browsing the syllabi of barber schools, I see subjects like career networking, public speaking and small business management.

You could also compare states. In New York, the requirement is set by the school and I found one school that requires 288 hours.

Have fun with the infection that is brought upon when your unlicensed hairstyler cuts off your ear.

That's nothing. You should see what Louisiana used to do for florists. http://www.ij.org/chauvin-v-strain

and what Texas used to do for hair braiders (no cutting/dying involved): http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0109/Can-Texas-for...

-- raw incumbent-protection measures where the veneer of "consumer safety!" usually as an excuse to justify them had worn a little bit too thin...

Wow - I completely forgot that you need a license to cut hair in most of the US. I find it amusing that you could write the software for controlling a self-driving car without so much as a high school diploma, but we're still requiring licenses for hair stylists.

that's an odd comparison.

Its the mom exemption where you don't need a license to cut a relatives hair non-commercially, and that existing legal framework collides with the current bubble of internet-coordinated-mom-replacement startups.

"Mom can you drive me to the mall?" and next thing you know governments are out to destroy a startup.

You'd still need a license to actually put the car on the road

You don't need a license to write code for a hair-cutting robot either, but I'll bet you want one before you put it on somebody's head.

So what _is_ the reason? I have always assumed that this is an example of regulatory capture: existing barbers gain from raising the barrier of entry for competitors, while non-barbers don't care enough about it to lobby.

2000hrs of barber training

The reason is that barbers have sharp things and deal with many people. Also lice. There's a very real public health risk if done incorrectly.

Proving that there are reasons for some certification is not really an answer though. I think the question is "Does it really take 2 years to get a solid grasp on those things?" (I've noticed several answers with a similar answer not just yours)

There are of rules for proper sanitation and safety, as well as continuing education requirements that are enforced through licensing.

And some of it is regulatory capture... restrict how easy it is for others to enter the market.

Um, pardon my ignorance or lack of perception, but exactly what risk are you talking about?

Does it have something to do with where the haircut is being performed? Are you referring to sanitation issues or something?

I'm obviously not following you.

For some strange reason, the idea of this being the Uber for haircuts, even down to the flagrant disobedience of licensure, is hilarious to me.

there's more of these...And I agree!

www.getshortcut.co

Would there be a risk? Wouldn't this app just be a scheduling assistant type thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com