Yeah, this is really about stifling competition. You notice whenever they add licensing requirements that kind of stuff is always grandfathered in. If it were really about health and safety existing practitioners would be required to take the same classes.
Some licensing does require continuing education or regular testing.
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.
If a cab driver refuses you service take the next one. Why is that a problem?
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.
Yea, they did roughly the same think with Realestate Brokers in California. When the Lobbiests tried to win over Gov. Scheartzenegger, he saw right through the ploy, and vetoed the bill. Gov. Brown caved in. That day I retired my strict D card! I still astonished we pay Realtors so much money for essentially a smile, and omissions and errors insurance? Eight classes and a cheezy exam, dubious experience and 3% commission? Actually, in this day and age, I thought Realtors would be extinct?
If a cab driver refuses you service take the next one.
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).
It depends, to cut hair its no biggie, if you are dying/treating hair with chemicals than can burn the crap out of your skin I can easily see why this is required. We are litigious in the US, this is the cost of doing business.
>Couldn't a private trusted 3rd-party company provide certification to verify my barber went to school for x or knows what he is doing?
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.
Actually, it is often not the government that charges outrageous fees. Very often, a system is in place where you need to get a license from a private provider, and the private providers of licenses charge outrageous fees.
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...
>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.
Consumers don't know which certification is worth what. If you run a business you're always getting calls from bullshit consumer certification companies trying to extract money from you by playing on your anxiety about which recommendations consumers trust.
Competing with the government who can put the non-accredited businesses in question out of business or fine them a large amount of money is not fair competition for any private company... so that naturally leads to a monopoly as the OP points out.
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.
But two years and $10,000? What planet do these legislators think they're on?
(Licensingindustrylobbyus, probably)