Sweatshops: A Way Out of Poverty

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

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.[/quote]

How would you deal/prevent the resultant increase in infant mortality from families who no longer see their children as worthwhile investments?

42

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

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.[/quote]

How would you deal/prevent the resultant increase in infant mortality from families who no longer see their children as worthwhile investments?[/quote]

I guessed that something like this awaited. The burden of proof here is on the claim-maker. So, first you must prove that such would happen to a statistically significant degree.

You can start with the United States in 1938. Did infanticide rise in the United States in 1939, or did it not?

43

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I agree a little of this would be good in America , [/quote]

Do you believe that Americans would have children making bricks by hand if it was legal? Do you believe that child is the most efficient means of producing bricks?[/quote]

Absolutely. Why would they not employ children for virtually nothing if the kids will do it for that wage and no one says that an owner can’t?

In fact, why even pay them at all when you can just give them some shiny tokens and tell them that they are worth what ever arbitrary value you assign them? Then set up a store where they can buy substandard food or living supplies (which you determine). Or take it a step further and don’t even waste money on tokens. Give them a receipt which represents those same arbitrary numbers on a ledger which they can use for exchange at the store.

That way the owner can keep cost to an absolute minimum.

After all, a bad choice is better than no choice at all, isn’t it?
[/quote]

But they are working their way out of poverty (eye roll)

44

This is the utopia that every one says surround the Socialist agenda . If this were allowed they would tell FAUX News that this is the way all the Super Wealthy started out . What you want to start out CEO

If we did not have Laws (REGULATIONS) prohibiting this , we would have the same thing in America

45

And if Pakistan wanted to change that , just think of how it would put all those brick producers out of business

46

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

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.[/quote]

How would you deal/prevent the resultant increase in infant mortality from families who no longer see their children as worthwhile investments?[/quote]

I guessed that something like this awaited. The burden of proof here is on the claim-maker. So, first you must prove that such would happen to a statistically significant degree.

You can start with the United States in 1938. Did infanticide rise in the United States in 1939, or did it not?[/quote]

First off, as I said earlier, the US in 1939 is completely different than 3rd world countries today.

Secondly, I have found nothing in scholarly journals regarding a relationship between the two–now I have a dissertation thesis (serious)–let me get back to you in a few years.

I was thinking of rural families vs urban and the increased birth rate of rural families (due to the children’s ability to work on the farm and contribute vs that in the cities). Also of interest is the increased mortality rate of infant girls (as well as abortions), due to their relative inability to contribute to the family’s well-being. From there I was extrapolating to this topic involving sweatshop labor…but no conclusive data on my part strictly for child labor vs infant mortality.

47

also smh

http://myweb.lmu.edu/ahealy/474_psets/articles/article3_childlabor.pdf

this backs up what i proposed and you agreed with concerning a ban on labor: that a new equilibrium would be established with higher wages and no child labor. I still am unsatisfied; however, with the issue of infant mortality/infantcide

48

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If we did not have Laws (REGULATIONS) prohibiting this , we would have the same thing in America [/quote]

False, if the laws were eliminated today, sweatshops and child labor factories would not return to any appreciable degree

49

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Absolutely. Why would they not employ children for virtually nothing if the kids will do it for that wage and no one says that an owner can’t?

In fact, why even pay them at all when you can just give them some shiny tokens and tell them that they are worth what ever arbitrary value you assign them? Then set up a store where they can buy substandard food or living supplies (which you determine). Or take it a step further and don’t even waste money on tokens. Give them a receipt which represents those same arbitrary numbers on a ledger which they can use for exchange at the store.

That way the owner can keep cost to an absolute minimum.

After all, a bad choice is better than no choice at all, isn’t it?
[/quote]

There would be no reason not to use children, IF the children’s parents allowed them to work there, AND the children were as cost effective as machines.

The Federal Reserve doesn’t have anything to do with this, so I’m not sure why you brought it up(I know that’s not what you were talking about). I do agree that fiat currency is not desirable. Of course, if another company decides to start paying workers in currency that’s more widely accepted(in order to attract the best employees, not out of the goodness of the owner’s heart), you’re going to start losing your best employees to it.

A bad choice is certainly better than no choice at all.

How large an army of Pakistani kids would a company need to compete with this place?

50

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

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.[/quote]

How would you deal/prevent the resultant increase in infant mortality from families who no longer see their children as worthwhile investments?[/quote]

I guessed that something like this awaited. The burden of proof here is on the claim-maker. So, first you must prove that such would happen to a statistically significant degree.

You can start with the United States in 1938. Did infanticide rise in the United States in 1939, or did it not?[/quote]

First off, as I said earlier, the US in 1939 is completely different than 3rd world countries today.

Secondly, I have found nothing in scholarly journals regarding a relationship between the two–now I have a dissertation thesis (serious)–let me get back to you in a few years.

I was thinking of rural families vs urban and the increased birth rate of rural families (due to the children’s ability to work on the farm and contribute vs that in the cities). Also of interest is the increased mortality rate of infant girls (as well as abortions), due to their relative inability to contribute to the family’s well-being. From there I was extrapolating to this topic involving sweatshop labor…but no conclusive data on my part strictly for child labor vs infant mortality.[/quote]

If this has seriously given you an idea for a dissertation, then that is pretty awesome.

If you become a famous and successful Austrian-school scholar, I will expect royalties in recognition of the fact that you may not have chosen this topic–and, thus, may not have come into great success–if you had not been debating me here and today.

Jokes aside, my answer, if you do find a link between the two, will be that the murderers of children will suffer the same fate in the future as they do today. Punish infanticide with enough deterrent severity and see if it remains the rational choice.

51

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

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.[/quote]

How would you deal/prevent the resultant increase in infant mortality from families who no longer see their children as worthwhile investments?[/quote]

I guessed that something like this awaited. The burden of proof here is on the claim-maker. So, first you must prove that such would happen to a statistically significant degree.

You can start with the United States in 1938. Did infanticide rise in the United States in 1939, or did it not?[/quote]

First off, as I said earlier, the US in 1939 is completely different than 3rd world countries today.

Secondly, I have found nothing in scholarly journals regarding a relationship between the two–now I have a dissertation thesis (serious)–let me get back to you in a few years.

I was thinking of rural families vs urban and the increased birth rate of rural families (due to the children’s ability to work on the farm and contribute vs that in the cities). Also of interest is the increased mortality rate of infant girls (as well as abortions), due to their relative inability to contribute to the family’s well-being. From there I was extrapolating to this topic involving sweatshop labor…but no conclusive data on my part strictly for child labor vs infant mortality.[/quote]

If this has seriously given you an idea for a dissertation, then that is pretty awesome.

If you become a famous and successful Austrian-school scholar, I will expect royalties in recognition of the fact that you may not have chosen this topic–and, thus, may not have come into great success–if you had not been debating me here and today.

Jokes aside, my answer, if you do find a link between the two, will be that the murderers of children will suffer the same fate in the future as they do today. Punish infanticide with enough deterrent severity and see if it remains the rational choice.[/quote]

Yes, seriously considering it, it’s right along the lines of my concentration too (development economics), we shall see. Haha and of course, “the idea arose from the internet forum T-Nation…”

52

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If we did not have Laws (REGULATIONS) prohibiting this , we would have the same thing in America [/quote]

False, if the laws were eliminated today, sweatshops and child labor factories would not return to any appreciable degree[/quote]

I’m curious what the evidence in support of–or against–this “fact” is one way or the other.

53

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

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.[/quote]

How would you deal/prevent the resultant increase in infant mortality from families who no longer see their children as worthwhile investments?[/quote]

I guessed that something like this awaited. The burden of proof here is on the claim-maker. So, first you must prove that such would happen to a statistically significant degree.

You can start with the United States in 1938. Did infanticide rise in the United States in 1939, or did it not?[/quote]

First off, as I said earlier, the US in 1939 is completely different than 3rd world countries today.

Secondly, I have found nothing in scholarly journals regarding a relationship between the two–now I have a dissertation thesis (serious)–let me get back to you in a few years.

I was thinking of rural families vs urban and the increased birth rate of rural families (due to the children’s ability to work on the farm and contribute vs that in the cities). Also of interest is the increased mortality rate of infant girls (as well as abortions), due to their relative inability to contribute to the family’s well-being. From there I was extrapolating to this topic involving sweatshop labor…but no conclusive data on my part strictly for child labor vs infant mortality.[/quote]

If this has seriously given you an idea for a dissertation, then that is pretty awesome.

If you become a famous and successful Austrian-school scholar, I will expect royalties in recognition of the fact that you may not have chosen this topic–and, thus, may not have come into great success–if you had not been debating me here and today.

Jokes aside, my answer, if you do find a link between the two, will be that the murderers of children will suffer the same fate in the future as they do today. Punish infanticide with enough deterrent severity and see if it remains the rational choice.[/quote]

Yes, seriously considering it, it’s right along the lines of my concentration too (development economics), we shall see. Haha and of course, “the idea arose from the internet forum T-Nation…”

[/quote]

In all seriousness, I have stumbled upon many topics here that would have made for better theses than the ones that have earned me degrees in the past.

54

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If we did not have Laws (REGULATIONS) prohibiting this , we would have the same thing in America [/quote]

False, if the laws were eliminated today, sweatshops and child labor factories would not return to any appreciable degree[/quote]

I’m curious what the evidence in support of–or against–this “fact” is one way or the other.
[/quote]

I am glad you do not demand a link , To get your answer I would suggest you spin your question and say " where is that there is no law and justice prevails ?"

You may find some small scale examples that say good will win but as soon as you add any size . The lack of law will be filled by something and most times it is not good

55

Pittbulll, jjackrash,

It would not return in the US because as has been said multiple times in this thread, the opportunity cost is too high. No parent would think their child would be better off in a factory than at school. The economic circumstances are such in the US that the additional income from a child worker is never the better proposition for a family.

It is obvious.

Furthermore, ^all this is not evening taking into account societal mores: even if child labor were legal (which won’t happen because the majority of people are against it), nobody would do it because of how it would be viewed.

56

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
Pittbulll, jjackrash,

It would not return in the US because as has been said multiple times in this thread, the opportunity cost is too high. No parent would think their child would be better off in a factory than at school. The economic circumstances are such in the US that the additional income from a child worker is never the better proposition for a family.

It is obvious.

Furthermore, ^all this is not evening taking into account societal mores, even if it were legal (which won’t happen because the majority of people are against it), nobody would do it because of how it would be viewed.

[/quote]

I’m not saying you are wrong, but saying “its obvious” isn’t a substitute for evidence. Also, you are making some pretty broad assumptions/assertions about what “no parent” would think or do. Claiming that “nobody would do it because of how it would be viewed” is a pretty bold statement as well.

57

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
Pittbulll, jjackrash,

It would not return in the US because as has been said multiple times in this thread, the opportunity cost is too high. No parent would think their child would be better off in a factory than at school. The economic circumstances are such in the US that the additional income from a child worker is never the better proposition for a family.

It is obvious.

Furthermore, ^all this is not evening taking into account societal mores: even if child labor were legal (which won’t happen because the majority of people are against it), nobody would do it because of how it would be viewed.

[/quote]
You are stating your opinion just as I am .

You think that with out a Gov that in 1 or 2 generations we would even have schools ?

There is nothing that make Americans superior to any other nationality

58

Not an opinion Pitbulll…

From “The Economics of Poverty”

"In brief, once a ban is imposed, the
ban may become unnecessary. Essentially
what we are claiming is that the labor market
may be characterized by multiple equilibria-
one in which wages are low and children work
and another in which wages are high and chil-
dren do not work. In the scenario described here, the purpose
of government intervention is very different
from that in conventional models. In our
model, intervention does not create a new
equilibrium but simply jolts the economy out
of one equilibrium to another preexisting equi-
librium. In this model, partial bans can have
unexpected adverse effects.
"

From later on in the paper

“parents withdraw their children from the
labor force as soon as they can afford to do so.
In other words, children’s leisure or, more pre-
cisely, nonwork6 is a luxury good in the
household’s consumption in the sense that a
poor household cannot afford to consume this
good but it does so as soon as the household
income rises sufficiently. In our second model,
we use the Stone-Geary utility function”

59

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
Pittbulll, jjackrash,

It would not return in the US because as has been said multiple times in this thread, the opportunity cost is too high. No parent would think their child would be better off in a factory than at school. The economic circumstances are such in the US that the additional income from a child worker is never the better proposition for a family.

It is obvious.

Furthermore, ^all this is not evening taking into account societal mores: even if child labor were legal (which won’t happen because the majority of people are against it), nobody would do it because of how it would be viewed.

[/quote]
You are stating your opinion just as I am .

You think that with out a Gov that in 1 or 2 generations we would even have schools ?

There is nothing that make Americans superior to any other nationality
[/quote]

What do you mean without a government? Anarchy?

60

[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
Not an opinion Pitbulll…

From “The Economics of Poverty”

"In brief, once a ban is imposed, the
ban may become unnecessary. Essentially
what we are claiming is that the labor market
may be characterized by multiple equilibria-
one in which wages are low and children work
and another in which wages are high and chil-
dren do not work. In the scenario described here, the purpose
of government intervention is very different
from that in conventional models. In our
model, intervention does not create a new
equilibrium but simply jolts the economy out
of one equilibrium to another preexisting equi-
librium. In this model, partial bans can have
unexpected adverse effects.
"

From later on in the paper

“parents withdraw their children from the
labor force as soon as they can afford to do so.
In other words, children’s leisure or, more pre-
cisely, nonwork6 is a luxury good in the
household’s consumption in the sense that a
poor household cannot afford to consume this
good but it does so as soon as the household
income rises sufficiently. In our second model,
we use the Stone-Geary utility function”[/quote]

So the excerpts from the economics of poverty are void of opinion ?