I read another article today on the evils of occupational licensing, this one coming from Tennessee, which requires 300 hours of approved training to (get this) shampoo hair.  And the so-called shampoo degree coats upwards of $5,000 to $12,000! (see The Daily Signal of ma2, at http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/02/it-takes-300-hours-to-become-a-shampooer-in-tennessee).  After reading the entire article I was just a bit enraged and I can say this was “righteous anger” on behalf of the relatively poor African American ladies who sought to better their lives and attain dignity in creative work.  The state of Tennessee comes along and effectively puts the ax to their dreams unless the fork over money they don’t have.

So who devised this scheme?  Well, the Tennessee legislature first of all passed laws establishing various boards designed to discover violators of the rules issued by the boards. The boards in turn are made up of people that have a stake in keeping out any competition for their services.  Moreover it was the board in the shampoo case that issued the regulations, the same body made up of about 90% hairdressers.

Is there a lesson here?  First, we do have some need for a degree of oversight of professions involving activities that involve potential danger if the practitioners fail.  A minimal level of competence and skill are required.  These may include medical practice, engineering, and other activities.  These regulations and standards should only be commensurate with what is necessary to protect consumers from injury.  They should never be, or be allowed to be, designed to keep out potential competitors.  Some professions, for example, medicine and law, restrict the number of practitioners by requiring a number of years of education, some of it unrelated to actual practice, and by limiting the number of institutions that may offer that training.  Law schools restrict enrollment, as do medical schools.  That may be fine, except that state governments then often unduly restrict the number law or medical schools that can be built and operated.  And accrediting agencies participate in this scheme by establishing standards unrelated to the actual purpose of a law or medical school.  Law schools, for example, require a free standing building and a certain number of holdings in the library (which must be separate from the regular library).  These examples represent unnecessary requirements without any benefit to the consumer of the services, but raising the cost of paying for such services.

The regulations in relation to shampooers are not just inconvenient and costly, but ludicrous attempts to create cartel-like markets, much like OPEC (which no one seems to like very much).  It is time for state legislatures to rescind or restrict the scope of legislation that establishes these licensing boards and to disband many if not most of the agencies that enforce such regulations.

The consumer will be better off, individual entrepreneurs will be given the freedom to flourish in their God-given creativity and innovation, and they will also attain the opportunity to have dignity in their calling.  Finally, we will stop wasting taxpayer money to enforce needless regulations using obsolete agencies.