But, as the Wall Street Journal has doggedly pointed out,
America’s Licence Raj has extended its tentacles into
occupations that pose no plausible threat to health or
safety—occupations, moreover, that are governed by
considerations of taste rather than anything that can be
objectively measured by licensing authorities. The list
of jobs that require licences in some states already
sounds like something from Monty Python—florists, handymen,
wrestlers, tour guides, frozen-dessert sellers, firework
operatives, second-hand booksellers and, of course, interior
designers—but it will become sillier still if ambitious
cat-groomers and dog-walkers get their way
Handymen, frozen-dessert sellers, and firework operatives all plausibly involve health or safety concerns.
Where in the US do second-hand booksellers need a license?
I suspect that they may be counting for some of these requirements to have a business license, rather than any license tied specifically to the occupation. They may also be mixing up requirements to be licensed with requirements to be bonded.
"Even in this age of Amazon.com and impersonal warehouse bookstores, many people still appreciate the intimacy and service of a local and independent used bookshop. Unfortunately, they are a dying breed, and Los Angeles is doing everything in its power to make them extinct. Used bookshops—or “secondhand book dealers,” as they are referred to in the municipal code—are among the 53 categories of business that require a police permit. [109]"
"In addition to complying with the general police permit regulations—e.g., submitting to fingerprinting, paying the applicable permit fee ($263), etc.—they must comply with occupation-specific regulations that create administrative nightmares for purveyors of used paperbacks. [110] For example, every time a used bookshop purchases or receives books in exchange, it is required to “ascertain that the person selling or exchang[ing]” the books “has a... legal right to do so,” then execute a consecutively numbered bill of sale for the purchase or exchange. [...] The Police Commission, in turn, has its own set of rules governing used bookshops. Amazingly, they require that bookshops thumbprint every person from whom they receive a book and file a daily report with the Police Department describing all books taken in that day. They also require used bookshops to hold books for at least 30 days before selling them. [112] Apparently on an ad hoc basis, these requirements are waived for some shops. [113]"
IIRC, In the early 90's, a Columbus, Ohio (OSU Campus) textbook seller named SBX (Student Book Exchange) was referred to by students as the "Stolen Book Exchange". Snatching a student's backpack and selling his books to a used textbook store was a simple, profitable form of crime.
Perhaps LA subjects used bookstores to regulations similar to those imposed upon pawn shops?
[Note that I'm not arguing either in favor or against these regulations. I'm merely suggesting that they are more rational than they might at first appear.]
I can learn programming on my own (through books or Internet) and get a employment as a programmer working on business critical systems and I do not need to get any license from anyone. But hey, if I want to cut someone's hair, I need to pay my dues to the state?
I think for non medical businesses, the licensing requirements should be removed. We save tax payer's money and there could be more competition in the market place which will benefit the consumer. [And don't worry about protecting the consumer, once you get a bad hair cut from a salon, you will announce it to the world (thanks to the Internet) that the hair salon is bad and you will never visit that place again. Market forces will take care of the crappy businesses.]
Barbers are actually one of the traditional license-requiring occupations going back centuries, because one of their main jobs used to be shaving men with straight razors, which carried a risk of injury or disease if the barber was poorly trained, or if the equipment was poorly disinfected. It might admittedly be a bit obsolete now.
While modern clippers are less likely to draw blood, that only means they're less likely to transmit bloodborne illnesses. But there are plenty of other diseases that they can transmit.
Wait, what diseases? And are the risks worse than those involved with food preparation or janitorial work (both unlicensed)?
EDIT: Lice, obviously, but that's both treatable and not particularly dangerous.
Here in Washington state you do need a food handlers license just to wash dishes in a restaurant. It's not especially onerous, something like $15 to take a fairly simple test. (And even for the lowest-wage employees I imagine most Restaurants will eat the cost of licensing without complaint.)
And I think it's the general assumption that you don't need to worry about disease in a salon that merits the higher barrier of entry to getting a license than a Janitor, where everyone knows that if there's a bunch of human-sourced fluid on the ground, you need to be careful.
Barbers still use straight razors these days (at least mine does! If yours doesn't, find one that does, it's a treat!), and other implements that can cut you.
I was under the impression barbers/hair salons needed licensing for the disease transmission aspects of that job, which can actually be fairly serious.
Whereas a florists license in Louisiana was defended with:
"The state now maintains that regulation is necessary because consumers often phone in orders for third parties and never get to see what they've paid for." [1]
I'm not sure how anyone could defend something like that with a straight face.
Where in the US do second-hand booksellers need a license?
I suspect that they may be counting for some of these requirements to have a business license, rather than any license tied specifically to the occupation. They may also be mixing up requirements to be licensed with requirements to be bonded.