>Defenders of occupational licensing typically argue that the rules help protect consumers and workers, and that’s undoubtedly true in some cases. I want the people filling my cavities to know what they’re doing. But it’s hard not to suspect that in many cases, these rules serve another purpose: to make it harder for new competitors to enter the marketplace. In Nevada, according to Politico, barbers need more than two years of training to qualify for a license; that’s a high bar to anyone looking to break into the business.
So, it's the all powerful Nevada barber cartel that influences legislation in order to keep new people from entering the trade?
Well, I, for one, seriously doubt that.
And I wouldn't call the requirement to have "two years of training" before taking razors to people's necks and scissors to people's hair "a high bar" either.
While there is indeed TONS of rent-seeking going on, I'd look for it in serious industries, with big companies and multinationals involved -- from telcos and ISPs to construction and the health industry for example.
A cartel doesn't have to be very powerful at all to influence public policy. For something like this to happen, we need very few factors:
1)A small set of people that have much to gain from a policy change, while it'd be a small visible cost for everyone else. The moment another easily identifiable groups can lose, this weakens considerably
2)Enough political will to lobby. This can be due to single issue voting, or a setup where only the people that contribute economically to a cause will really benefit from it. This is the reason unions are very weak in "right to work" states, as the legislation makes paying dues a suboptimal outcome.
As long as you have that, it's pretty easy to get laws passed that will help you and hurt the public in hard to measure ways. It's easy to sell occupational licensing to people that aren't paying much attention, because the costs of it to the public are not easy to see, but very real to people who know get protected from other people joining their profession.
In Spain, for instance, you'll see a bunch of computer science professional organization that try to recruit people by saying that they will "protect your degree", mainly by lobbying for legislation that would separate someone with a computer science degree from "intruders" (people with decrees in engineering physics and such that can code).
And two years of training before becoming a barber is plenty of barrier: There are other professions that have similar difficulty and pay, but lack the two years of training requirement. So less people become barbers, as losing two years of pay for training is worse than getting a job right away! This leads to decreased competition, and eventually high prices. Two years is A LOT of time to end up getting paid that little.
So, it's the all powerful Nevada barber cartel that influences legislation in order to keep new people from entering the trade?
Well, I, for one, seriously doubt that.
And I wouldn't call the requirement to have "two years of training" before taking razors to people's necks and scissors to people's hair "a high bar" either.
While there is indeed TONS of rent-seeking going on, I'd look for it in serious industries, with big companies and multinationals involved -- from telcos and ISPs to construction and the health industry for example.