OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE

Hair braiding is complicated. I can't figure out how to do it. Although it's unlikely, I might pay someone to braid my hair if I ever need it done.

How qualified would I need this individual to be? Braiding has been done for generations by many different people in many different cultures. A large portion of the population is capable of performing this. But if I need it done extremely well for whatever reason, I would want a qualified individual. But I certainly can't dictate who is qualified and who isn't qualified to braid hair.

Luckily for me, several states have taken it upon themselves to set up systems and procedures to evaluate and determine whether or not hair braiders are qualified to practice.

Wait a minute, this is actually true?

Yes. Even I thought I was joking, but apparently I wasn't.

Let's get a few things straight:
-I am a white male. Unless I'm trying to pull some strange joke, I will never get my hair braided, let alone braided professionally.
-States and municipal governments are interested in regulating hair braiding.

Why is the latter the case? ECONOMICS!

Existing hair braiders, politicians, and even racists stand to benefit from these regulations. Yes, racists.

Existing hair braiders: Through a process known as "regulatory capture," which you are free to look up on the interweb, hair braiders essentially get to decide who gets licenses and who does not. As largely independent business owners, this is a way for the hair braiding "industry" to form a loose cartel and mitigate their competition.

Racists: The largest population that typically solicit the services of hair braiders in the US are constituted by black people. By restricting the entry of hair braiders into a neighborhood or town, said town/neighborhood will appear less attractive to black people looking to move in.

Politicians: They get donations from small business owners and racists alike (not that small business owners and racists are alike. It's quite the contrary, in most cases.). They also get votes from said populations. Plus they get the bonus of "protecting the consumer" by "ensuring strict quality standards." Yup.

There's a larger issue here, but I thought I would shed light on it with an absurd, though very real, example.

A long-standing tradition in economic history is the granting of commercial privilege to favored merchants on the part of governments. Only merchant X could sell good Y in region Z. All other competitors were typically banned, or had to seek some means to sway the king (usually political donation/bribery). For kings this ensured a loyal tax base and a means to grow commerce and trade, which is beneficial to growth and power. Economists view this as a grant of monopoly and generally view such grants as retarding economic growth (as would any sane person). Competition bids down the price of the goods being sold/produced. The savings to the consumer is then spent in other areas or reserved as savings to be invested in larger, more long-term projects whenever the business environment is deemed good (ie. when interest rates are low).

Anyway, in democracies, these types of relationships still exist, but are controlled more by the industry cartel than by the government in question. Licensing is one way governments create barriers to entry into industries, which is a key component of an oligopolistic/monopolistic industry. We frown on monopolies for generally good reasons. So why not here?

Doctors. We all want good doctors, right? They MUST be qualified. It's life and death for heaven's sake! From an economic perspective, the fundamental principles have not changed. The doctors are rent-seeking. And we still get hacks every now and then, even with all of the high restrictions and requirements to practice medicine. In fact, one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive is because of all of the requirements we put on our medical professionals in the US (by "we" I refer, of course, to the US government). Restricting supply while keeping the demand schedule constant raises prices. In the past, low-cost medical care was widespread and of high quality. The payment model was typically dependent on mutual aid society membership which was, again, widespread among the working poor. The quality between lodge doctors (those who worked for the poor) and non-lodge doctors is seen as nearly identical and competitive by modern academics.

What does the dog have to do with it?

Come'on. This one is easy. We're talking about hair. So obviously, the dog's look of discomfort is a symbol for hair braiding. It's handkerchief is the noose of industry regulation and occupational licensure, and the man getting his hair washed by a dog is the ignorant consumer who thinks he's being protected by regulation. He's getting his hair washed by a dog, obviously the regulation isn't working.