“There were considerable efforts by govt. and big business in places like New York, Philadelphia and Washington, DC to make it much harder for small independent steet vendors to operate.”
In NYC a restaurant with its overhead can’t compete with some Third Worlder on the sidewalk outside selling cheap hot dogs; I’ve seen the same with sidewalk book vendors. I’m all for capitalism, but many of the food vendors don’t appear to be all that sanitary.
Its not always obvious, but every regulation has a set of counterbalancing costs, direct or indirect, sometimes very indirect. Even what seem like clearly justified public health measures. In some cases these regulations arguably are justified taking everything into account. But such a thing as an onerous set of health measures that drives poor would be entrepreneurs out of business can be extremely costly. One would prevent a few cases of illness, but also help keep thousands of people in a culture of dependency that is likely to cause much more death and illness.
In DC Food Vendors are required to take food handling training before licensure. That was never an argument. There were also rules not allowing people to set up within a certain distance of competing stores. There was not much disagreement with that either. The big argument was requiring the poorest vendors to pay the same Fee in Lieu of Taxes as the most profitable vendors. The vendor position was to require all vendors to take a half day course on record keeping and paying of their business taxes and the IRS Schedule C that formed part of tax calculations. Another argument was requiring vendors to pick un location for vending. Some had established clientele that were paid on the same day in large buildings and another day in other large buildings. Freedom to move was important. A third disincentive was requiring All businesses to get a Basic Business License. Even small ones like Avon distributors. One recommendation was to excuse businesses grossing under $100,000, and only require the tax paying course.