[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
I realize now what you were replying to in your first paragraph:
My response: That still does not change the fact that if children in these places weren’t allowed to work, they would die.[/quote]
So no children died or were de-limbed in the US when they were “allowed” to work?
It’s not a matter of whether or not they were allowed to work. The regulation applies to the employer.
[/quote]
Let me slightly rework my statement: eliminating child labor in many of the countries that use child labor today would lead to a greater amount of deaths and serious injuries for children than they presently incur through work.
The US’ situation when they eliminated child labor was different than if it were eliminated for 3rd world countries today. I see the US’ decision as part of a natural progression whereas for countries today it would be an artificial imposition–one leveled on it to accommodate the mores of the wealthy (the first world countries)
As families escape poverty, they remove their children from the labor force. Child labor laws go unenforced or force children to work in informal sectors when they are passed prior to achieving a level of development that would have removed children from the labor force anyway.
If you view child labor in rich countries as one of “opportunity cost”, it is obvious that unless absolutely necessary (life-or-death poverty) it makes no sense for parents to have their kids work–they would be far better off using their time through education and skill-acquisition rather than work. In a first world country, adults who spent their childhood learning to read and do math have a much higher ceiling than ones who spent that time bricklaying.
As families escape poverty, they remove their children from the labor force. Child labor laws go unenforced or force children to work in informal sectors when they are passed prior to achieving a level of development that would have removed children from the labor force anyway.
If you view child labor in rich countries as one of “opportunity cost”, it is obvious that unless absolutely necessary (life-or-death poverty) it makes no sense for parents to have their kids work–they would be far better off using their time through education and skill-acquisition rather than work. In a first world country, adults who spent their childhood learning to read and do math have a much higher ceiling than ones who spent that time bricklaying.[/quote]
I explained where I found fault in my first post. Specifically: the attempt to connect the notion you’re describing with the enactment of child labor restriction in the United States in 1938. For the reasons I outlined.
The latter had nothing to do with the former. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. It was a shortage of work and pay that created pressure to ensure that any and every job went to an adult, where it could do the most good.
Let me slightly rework my statement: eliminating child labor in many of the countries that use child labor today would lead to a greater amount of deaths and serious injuries for children than they presently incur through work.
The US’ situation when they eliminated child labor was different than if it were eliminated for 3rd world countries today. I see the US’ decision as part of a natural progression whereas for countries today it would be an artificial imposition–one leveled on it to accommodate the mores of the wealthy (the first world countries)[/quote]
So our inalienable human rights as a first world country only apply because we are wealthy?
Aren’t poor people good enough to have human rights too? They’re good enough to do our dirty work though, huh?
"Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? "
Who is going to give these people rights? How? Are you?
If you allow child labor, these children work long hours full of suffering, some die.
If you prohibit it, they die as well; and those that live, starve.
As families escape poverty, they remove their children from the labor force. Child labor laws go unenforced or force children to work in informal sectors when they are passed prior to achieving a level of development that would have removed children from the labor force anyway.
If you view child labor in rich countries as one of “opportunity cost”, it is obvious that unless absolutely necessary (life-or-death poverty) it makes no sense for parents to have their kids work–they would be far better off using their time through education and skill-acquisition rather than work. In a first world country, adults who spent their childhood learning to read and do math have a much higher ceiling than ones who spent that time bricklaying.[/quote]
I explained where I found fault in my first post. Specifically: the attempt to connect the notion you’re describing with the enactment of child labor restriction in the United States in 1938. For the reasons I outlined.
The latter had nothing to do with the former. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. It was a shortage of work and pay that created pressure to ensure that any and every job went to an adult, where it could do the most good.[/quote]
I do not know enough about the history of the laws to dispute that, I should have stated that in my response. Do you disagree with the first statement on its own?
As families escape poverty, they remove their children from the labor force. Child labor laws go unenforced or force children to work in informal sectors when they are passed prior to achieving a level of development that would have removed children from the labor force anyway.
If you view child labor in rich countries as one of “opportunity cost”, it is obvious that unless absolutely necessary (life-or-death poverty) it makes no sense for parents to have their kids work–they would be far better off using their time through education and skill-acquisition rather than work. In a first world country, adults who spent their childhood learning to read and do math have a much higher ceiling than ones who spent that time bricklaying.[/quote]
I explained where I found fault in my first post. Specifically: the attempt to connect the notion you’re describing with the enactment of child labor restriction in the United States in 1938. For the reasons I outlined.
The latter had nothing to do with the former. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. It was a shortage of work and pay that created pressure to ensure that any and every job went to an adult, where it could do the most good.[/quote]
I do not know enough about the history of the laws to dispute that, I should have stated that in my response. Do you disagree with the first statement on its own?[/quote]
No, not particularly.
Of course, a near-inverse is also true: As children are barred from the labor force and, instead, educated, families escape poverty.
Keep in mind what a diminution of the labor pool does to wages.
"Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? "
[/quote]
Elitist garbage used to justify greed and gain at the expense of others. Applies about as much to the world of business today as gluing a dick to a cow makes it a bull.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The big hole in the article is that it says the sweatshop owners are not in the wrong for their greed. Sure, sweatshop workers are going to make more money than their peers in 3rd world countries, it does not justify the maltreatment of the people outside of the pay. Not having simple things like drinkable water, or being punished for not meeting quota’s by denying people access to the restroom is both un-necessary and treating people as subhuman. [/quote]
Unless I missed it, the article/interview does not mention the morality of the owners. It basically says that no matter how “unnecessary” you think it is to treat “people as subhuman,” those people are better off with the jobs than without(as long as they haven’t been forced-really forced, not “forced” by a need to eat or something). [/quote]
There is a bit on the bottom that has the same reasoning you do. Sweatshop conditions are immoral because money isn’t an excuse to wantonly maltreat someone.
If it’s a war and guys need to work 12+ hour shifts because lives are at risk I believe that’s one issue. It’s another issue when Kathee Lee cracking her whip because she want’s another couple bucks so she can go on vacation.
I see a lack of seeing the people in those situations as human. We have to ask, is it necessary to treat people in this way to make the extra margins? If you can justify it, I feel sorry for your lack of empathy. Having been around the block I’ve seen some ugly shit come about as a result of looking at people as others, lower class, or strictly laborers. Would you be surprised if I’m averse to this because their very lives are worth less?
"Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? "
[/quote]
Elitist garbage used to justify greed and gain at the expense of others. Applies about as much to the world of business today as gluing a dick to a cow makes it a bull.
On the contrary, I believe failing to understand the realities of life for those not in the first world, is what is elitist.
I am not arguing against the merits of assigning these people the same privileges as ourselves, I am saying it is not realistic, and that it is an impossibility in current circumstances
Of course, a near-inverse is also true: As children are barred from the labor force and, instead, educated, families escape poverty.
Keep in mind what a diminution of the labor pool does to wages.[/quote]
Ah but would wages go up…let’s say pakistan eliminates child labor, would the jobs not move to bangladesh or somewhere without these restrictions?
In the 30s and 40s, that wasn’t a viable solution for firms, now it is.[/quote]
Nothing happens in totality. Some jobs would disappear, some would not. The latter would pay better than they previously had.
Either way, that remark was a “But wait, there’s more” kind of point. The real argument I’m making is that education is the true ladder out of poverty, crime, etc. And, being as it is mutually exclusive with child labor, it resolves this debate automatically.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The real argument I’m making is that education is the true ladder out of poverty, crime, etc. And, being as it is mutually exclusive with child labor, it resolves this debate automatically.
[/quote]
I agree completely: I touched on this above, referencing opportunity cost.
Nothing happens in totality. Some jobs would disappear, some would not. The latter would pay better than they previously had.
[/quote]
I disagree, I believe whole industries would leave certain countries if the one thing keeping them there (cheap labor) left. There would be a tipping point of sorts–where the cost of moving would be greater than paying the increased wages, which would keep companies there for the short term. In the long term, however, the factories and manufacturing companies would abandon the country.
"Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? "
[/quote]
Elitist garbage used to justify greed and gain at the expense of others. Applies about as much to the world of business today as gluing a dick to a cow makes it a bull.
On the contrary, I believe failing to understand the realities of life for those not in the first world, is what is elitist.
I am not arguing against the merits of assigning these people the same privileges as ourselves, I am saying it is not realistic, and that it is an impossibility in current circumstances
[/quote]
Not impossible. Just greed. There really is nothing stopping any multi-national from elevating people from their plight in this day and age other than greed. Dirty, ugly, low hanging business philosophy disguised with high minded quotes like the one you chose.
Nothing happens in totality. Some jobs would disappear, some would not. The latter would pay better than they previously had.
[/quote]
I disagree, I believe whole industries would leave certain countries if the one thing keeping them there (cheap labor) left. There would be a tipping point of sorts–where the cost of moving would be greater than paying the increased wages, which would keep companies there for the short term. In the long term, however, the factories and manufacturing companies would abandon the country.
[/quote]
[Emphasis mine.]
Exactly.
Because, over the course of that long term, the kids who would otherwise have been languishing in sweat shops have been in school.
Which means that, once the sweat shop jobs actually disappear, they will be disappearing from a society that has already discarded of much of its dependence on them.
School a generation of kids and see how bent out of shape they are when they grow up to find that the horrendous, penny-paying labor they and their families would otherwise have been seeking (had they not been schooled) has dried up and died.
Not impossible. Just greed. There really is nothing stopping any multi-national from elevating people from their plight in this day and age other than greed. Dirty, ugly, low hanging business philosophy disguised with high minded quotes like the one you chose.
[/quote]
Because, over the course of that long term, the kids who would otherwise have been languishing in sweat shops have been in school.
[/quote]
The rest of your statement hinges on this assumption. Why would they be in school instead?
Based on this premise of yours, I do agree with your resultant conclusion.[/quote]
The law in question would mandate childhood education (if it is not already mandated) and, more importantly, provide for the thorough enforcement of both the labor restriction and the education provision. If even just a substantial chunk of child labor disappears, and an attendant uptick in school enrollment manifests, then the effect will take hold.