quote:"My aim is to put back some common sense,'' Cunningham (left) said in an interview Monday. "We're not doing students any favor by telling them, 'You cannot work.'"
I've got to issue a mea culpa, I guess. For the last two years, I thought this groundswell of conservative populism was just good for a laugh; at worst, their policies (what tiny few they have) would collapse under their own idiotic weight.
This, however, this is different. I suspect this has the ability to create a new status quo; the only people that will be hurt by it are children, hardly a group with any real voice. The potential here to introduce 12 year olds to the joy of an 8 hour work day and have them get used to it could actually change views of upcoming generations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am absolutely flabbergasted by this. It's stunning. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It strikes me as something only somebody who really doesn't understand history would present for the legislature's consideration.
I doubt it will catch much support, but I haven't seen any coverage of it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I hated child labor laws when I was young enough to be affected by them.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Yeah it's stupid. If it is a family business you are allowed to work at a younger age, but having a middle school kid with a job? I don't think so.
I started working when I was 14, but it was only 3 hours a day 3 nights a week. That was pretty nice since it gave me a little extra spending money. Eight hour work days though? No.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I hated child labor laws when I was young enough to be affected by them.
What state(s) was this in Porter? What were the relevant laws?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It strikes me as something only somebody who really doesn't understand history would present for the legislature's consideration.
I doubt it will catch much support, but I haven't seen any coverage of it.
Nevermind history, how about someone who doesn't understand the present? We've got the worst unemployment in decades and she wants to flood the market with cheap labor?
*Edited to correct gender.
[ March 11, 2011, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It strikes me as something only somebody who really doesn't understand history would present for the legislature's consideration.
I doubt it will catch much support, but I haven't seen any coverage of it.
Nevermind history. How about someone who doesn't understand the present. We've got the worst unemployment in decades and he wants to flood the market with cheap manual labor?
Heh, well there's that too. I wasn't really thinking about that.
edit: Oh and "she".
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Ditch? No. Change? Maybe.
Our education system places our students on a college bound track (except for some high schools that still have a tech track, but that seems to be fading). That is doing a disservice to our youth.
I might get slammed for saying this, but why should a student with an IQ of 50 be on the same college bound course schedule as everyone else? Teach the kid a skill he could actually use when he hits 18.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yeah, let the kids work. It's good for them; builds character and independence. Not everyone needs a college-track education, and a lot of people will be much happier and more productive if they aren't forced to get one. And anyway, who are you to say that someone ought not to be allowed to work?
As for flooding the market with cheap labour, let me ask this question: Would it be a good idea to solve the unemployment problem by extending child labour laws to cover, say, the age group 18 to 21? If not, why is it ok to solve them by prohibiting work at ages 14 to 18? (Or whatever it is.)
Teenage labour in the US is not going to look anything like sweatshops in China or child labour in Victorian Britain; the economy is totally different. Those kinds of jobs just plain don't exist, and wouldn't exist even if teenage labour was legal. The reality is paper routes (do these still exist?), fast food, and bagging groceries; not the best jobs in the world by any means, but hardly disasters from which our Poor Innocent Kids must be Protected At All Costs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I hated child labor laws when I was young enough to be affected by them.
What state(s) was this in Porter? What were the relevant laws?
TX and OK.
Because of the child labor laws, I was utterly unable to get a part-time job until I was 16 years old.
In TX, I had been able to earn some money mowing neighborhood lawns, but when we moved to OK, that market was fully saturated.
I was broke, had plenty of free time, and wanted to work. But I was not allowed. I think I should have been allowed.
(By broke, I mean that I had no cash. My parents took care of the necessities, but gave me almost no spending money. If I wanted to, for example, go to the movie with friends, I had to come up with the money myself.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The reality is paper routes (do these still exist?), fast food, and bagging groceries; not the best jobs in the world by any means, but hardly disasters from which our Poor Innocent Kids must be Protected At All Costs.
Paper routes, fast food jobs, and bagging groceries are not jobs that existing child labor laws would prevent a child from holding.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You are right. We need to train and teach our kids to be better, cheaper, less demanding but harder working laborers. If the corporate bosses are going to compete effectively in the world marketplace they can't have intelligent, educated, peons who want to make too much money. They need starving, brain-dead slaves who see the virtue of endless toil for the corporation as the goal.
We need to be more like the powerhouse of China, and if that means sacrificing all enjoyment from the short lives of our growing peon class, then that sacrifice must be made. If our country dreams of competing with China, we need to train and prepare our workers to work as hard and as cheaply and be as exploited as those in China.
And when China's wealth starts eating away at the poor standard of living of their poor, then we still have to fear the ghettos of Ethiopia, and even the starving Port Royale. If we can't compete with the poor of Haiti how can we expect to attract the jobs our country needs?
For too long have the overworked bosses been made to suffer with their limousines and mansions. Bankers and Billionaires have suffered long enough. What is the result? A MIDDLE Class. We don't need a MIDDLE class. We need a strong Upper Class and a vigorous working class. That's right, not a wishy, washy, middle of the road class, but a true hard Working Class. The only way to get them to work is through training, indoctrination, fear, and starvation. All of that needs to start with the children.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
On a more serious note--have you seen the people bagging groceries, delivering papers, and working at that fast food place? More and more of them are adults trying to earn a living instead of teens looking for some spending money.
Werenbergh Theaters was just fined big time for hiring underage employees. It was not because they had these "kids" working, but because they had these workers doing things like driving trucks, working with heavy machinery (those big projectors), and other dangerous jobs.
Several of you have said, "It won't be this or it won't be that." Removing all child labor laws will allow what ever this or that a company thinks will make it a profit.
You want to adjust the laws? You want to make some jobs fine for some kids? Great. Removing everything is like saying "We don't need that yield sign at that intersection, so lets get rid of all road signs."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The reality is paper routes (do these still exist?), fast food, and bagging groceries; not the best jobs in the world by any means, but hardly disasters from which our Poor Innocent Kids must be Protected At All Costs.
Paper routes, fast food jobs, and bagging groceries are not jobs that existing child labor laws would prevent a child from holding.
So they're only prevented from having good jobs, then? Or what sort of jobs are we talking about, exactly?
Darth, way to build a straw man. Look, if you want to make an argument that children should be prevented from working for their own good, make it. But imagining Corporate Dystopia Number 3a will arise because people with no interest in scholarly pursuits drop out of high school to become plumbers does not make you look very rational.
Allowing kids to work is not the same as forcing them to do so. Now can we please calm down and have a rational discussion of what is in the best interests of society and of the kids in question?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Paper routes, fast food jobs, and bagging groceries are not jobs that existing child labor laws would prevent a child from holding.
Not in my experience. I was prevented from holding fast food and bagging jobs because of child labor laws.
I tried. I applied, and was told that they were not allowed to hire anybody under 16 for anything.
(Paper routes were allowed, though. I tried getting one of those, and was on the waiting list for years. By he time I finally got one, I was over 16 and already had another job.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So they're only prevented from having good jobs, then? Or what sort of jobs are we talking about, exactly?
They're prevented from doing jobs with substantial health risks, long hours, and/or parental ignorance. They're protected from providing questionable services like "massages" and "maid service" in institutions which are uninspected by government workers aware that children are employed there. In some (but far from all) states, if their grades are poor enough, they will be denied permission to work until those grades improve.
The problem with child labor laws from the perspective of the child is that you aren't allowed to work late into the night or for too many hours on the weekend. In some states, these restrictions even apply when school isn't in session, which I agree doesn't make a lot of sense; it sounds from the article like Senator Green is interested in reforming this sort of thing, while Senator Cunningham seeks to do away with child protections altogether.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: "We don't need that yield sign at that intersection, so lets get rid of all road signs."
Coincidentally I am reading rivka's recommended book Traffic, which has a section on getting rid of all road signs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The problem with child labor laws from the perspective of the child is that you aren't allowed to work late into the night or for too many hours on the weekend.
I wasn't allowed to work at all.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Either your state had more restrictive laws, or the businesses just decided they didn't want to deal with the hassle of under 16. 14 and 15 year olds can work with permission from their school, according to the law in question. (Which is the one part I would change -- it should be the parents' decision, not the schools'.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Werenbergh Theaters was just fined big time for hiring underage employees. It was not because they had these "kids" working, but because they had these workers doing things like driving trucks, working with heavy machinery (those big projectors), and other dangerous jobs.
Ok, and? Why should they not be given responsibility, if they can handle it? How do you imagine they will grow into responsible adults capable of doing those dangerous jobs, if not by trying them on? Whatever laws you have, there will always be some point where a new worker steps into the big truck for the first time. Do you have an argument for why 20 is a better age for that to happen than 16?
quote:Several of you have said, "It won't be this or it won't be that." Removing all child labor laws will allow what ever this or that a company thinks will make it a profit.
And the kid thinks is a reasonable risk/reward tradeoff, and his parents are willing to let him work at, and other safety regulations allow. Can we please have some recognition that teenagers are not automatons who go wherever they are told, but have their own agency and dignity, just as people over 20 do?
I suggest that you are not doing anyone any favours by wrapping them in lambswool and preventing them from making their own judgements. And yes, some of those judgements will be bad; that's part of growing up and being an adult, too. We allow kids to find their own damnation when it comes to sex and relationships, which have the potential to be truly devastating; why not in jobs and education, which are much safer?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you have an argument for why 20 is a better age for that to happen than 16?
For one thing, children cannot legally enter into contracts of any sort until they are 18.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:It's good for them; builds character and independence.
So do any number of activities that don't involve a history of vicious injustice. Sports, reading, music.
quote:Not everyone needs a college-track education, and a lot of people will be much happier and more productive if they aren't forced to get one.
This is true. What are you suggesting? That we collectively shrug our shoulders when high school grades drop dramatically and we have a healthy workforce of plumbers that can't read anything more difficult than the local newspaper?
quote:And anyway, who are you to say that someone ought not to be allowed to work?
While I respect the spirit of this question, I think it misunderstands the spirit of labor laws. They protect an easily exploitable class. They are less about restricting opportunities for young people and more about regulating the demands of employers.
quote:Teenage labour in the US is not going to look anything like sweatshops in China or child labour in Victorian Britain; the economy is totally different.
True enough. So we're going to toss 14 year olds into a world in which their McDonald's manager can ask (in this context, read "force") them to stay until 1:00 on a school night? Yeah, screw their math homework, not everyone needs a college education.
Child labor laws - labor laws in general, really - were the result of long, hard battles against entrenched interests. The game of business hasn't changed, KoM - employers still seek maximum gain from minimum investment. I agree that if this law passes, all we'll see at first is kids working a few extra hours at McDonald's. But I would expect the drop out rate to increase. Yes, great for Dark Mauve's workforce, but not so great for society as a whole.
Employers broke their child labor toys a long time ago. It would be idiotic to give it back.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yeah, let the kids work. It's good for them; builds character and independence. Not everyone needs a college-track education, and a lot of people will be much happier and more productive if they aren't forced to get one.
That seems to be an argument for technical schools not child labor law revision.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Do you have an argument for why 20 is a better age for that to happen than 16?
For one thing, children cannot legally enter into contracts of any sort until they are 18.
And yet we allow them to work (some) when they're 16.
Posted by hef (Member # 12497) on :
I remember Bush the elder's "training wage" proposal for workers under 18. The training wage would have been half the minimum wage. All of this done to encourage businesses to hire young people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Ok, and? Why should they not be given responsibility, if they can handle it? How do you imagine they will grow into responsible adults capable of doing those dangerous jobs, if not by trying them on? Whatever laws you have, there will always be some point where a new worker steps into the big truck for the first time. Do you have an argument for why 20 is a better age for that to happen than 16?
Absolutely. The judgement centers of the brain are not fully developed in until ones early twenties. That means teenagers are considerably more likely to use poor judgement in the execution of a task, less likely to comprehend the consequences of their actions and therefore more likely to injure themselves and others. There are legitimate reasons why teenagers should be prohibited from operating heavy machinery and other potential dangerous jobs.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This is true. What are you suggesting? That we collectively shrug our shoulders when high school grades drop dramatically and we have a healthy workforce of plumbers that can't read anything more difficult than the local newspaper?
In a word, yes.
Well, first a word on those grades. At the moment we are grading everyone on college-track skills: Abstract reasoning, math, lit'rary analysis, jumping through hoops. I suggest that not everyone is suited to this track, that those who aren't should not be forced into it, and that we would be much healthier and happier as a society if we didn't use the same mold on every child. Thus, my argument is rather that there should be a college and a vocational track in high schools, which by complete coincidence happens to be the arrangement in Norway, and that I expect grades to increase (holding difficulty steady and assuming neither inflation nor deflation, obviously) under this arrangement. The kids who are getting bad grades in the college track would shift over to vocational, where they would get work that appealed to them and that they could do, and thus would get better grades. Thus the average in both groups would improve.
I suggest that the emphasis on giving everyone a college education is not actually about what is best for people, but about status. At Hatrack (and among the people who discuss this sort of thing generally) we are overwhelmingly college-educated and middle-class; naturally we think that's the best possible life. In fact, we think it's so good that we want everyone to have one. This ignores the plain fact that people are different. There are many, many people who would be happy and productive as apprentice (and later master) plumbers, who are miserable and rebellious as apprentice knowledge workers. But because we assign such importance and status to college education, we say "Too bad! You're going to learn to appreciate Foust, whether you like it or not." This is partly a ploy to increase our own status by making college look more important, and partly a real misunderstanding of other people; but it has almost no grounding in what would actually be socially optimal.
quote:That seems to be an argument for technical schools not child labor law revision.
Not necessarily a dichotomy. In Norway, the vocational track of high schools is partly apprenticeships. Involving, I note in passing, dangerous work with electrical installations and truck-driving.
quote:True enough. So we're going to toss 14 year olds into a world in which their McDonald's manager can ask (in this context, read "force") them to stay until 1:00 on a school night? Yeah, screw their math homework, not everyone needs a college education.
Well firstly, yes, screw their math homework. I set out my arguments above; I also note that American high schools give way too much homework anyway. Secondly, what force? Teenaged kids work for pocket money, not rent money. If they would be out on the streets if they lost their jobs, they have a problem that has nothing to do with labour laws. Their manager has no such leverage over them.
quote:But I would expect the drop out rate to increase. Yes, great for Dark Mauve's workforce, but not so great for society as a whole.
My argument is precisely that it is good for society as a whole, and for the kids involved.
quote:For one thing, children cannot legally enter into contracts of any sort until they are 18.
Circular. Why should they not be allowed to?
I suggest that you are all arguing (at least in part), not from consideration of what would be best for teenagers, but from status: You dislike corporations, so laws that restrain them get more favourable considerations than they would on their actual merits; you don't dislike, but do patronise, teenagers, so laws that restrain them from making their own choices look better than they ought to. Finally, you like college and education, so laws that produce more of that look better than they should. In other words, at least part of your argument is not based in what would actually work, what would actually produce happiness, but consists instead of cheerleading: "Yay Education! Boo Corporation! We are better judges of teenagers' welfare than they are!"
(I admit that my last slogan doesn't exactly fit on a banner; perhaps "Yay Our Judgement!" would be better.)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The problem with child labor laws from the perspective of the child is that you aren't allowed to work late into the night or for too many hours on the weekend.
I wasn't allowed to work at all.
I ran into this same problem when I was 14 and 15. I wanted spending money like my friends, I got very little from my parents, and I had no legitimate way to earn any. I was actually hired by two separate places that, after learning I was under 16, told me that child labor laws made it too difficult (or perhaps impossible - I can't recall) to employ me. This was in CA.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Werenbergh Theaters was just fined big time for hiring underage employees. It was not because they had these "kids" working, but because they had these workers doing things like driving trucks, working with heavy machinery (those big projectors), and other dangerous jobs.
Ok, and? Why should they not be given responsibility, if they can handle it? How do you imagine they will grow into responsible adults capable of doing those dangerous jobs, if not by trying them on? Whatever laws you have, there will always be some point where a new worker steps into the big truck for the first time. Do you have an argument for why 20 is a better age for that to happen than 16?
We are not talking about the difference between 20 and 16 - 16 year-olds can already work. We are talking about the difference between 16 and...14? 12? Is she proposing an age limit at all?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In quebec in the Montreal and surrounding areas we have CEGEPS which are basically a free college education primarily aimed at providing vocational skills and certificates; I graduated from a 3 year computer science program, also provided is art related trades like drafting, aircraft engineering, etc.
And by free I mean like 150$ per semester for what would cost 50,000 in the states.
They ALSO provide pre-univeristy preparation courses thats basically grade 12 in other provinces or the states highschools.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
KoM: what are the child labor/oversight laws in Norway like?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not a lawyer, so this is from a cursory Google search. There is a right-and-duty (a curious formulation found in much Norwegian law; our conscription law also makes reference to the right-and-duty of military service) to ten years of school starting at age six. There is additionally a right (that is, you can't be denied it but you also can't be prosecuted for not taking it) to three years' high school, during which the vocational tracks will get at least one year of apprenticeship - that is, they'll work in their chosen field, usually at half wage or so.
Then there's the law regulating work environment, which says of young people:
quote:Barn som er under 15 år eller skolepliktige skal ikke utføre arbeid som går inn under denne lov unntatt
a) kulturelt eller lignende arbeid,
b) lett arbeid og barnet har fylt 13 år,
c) arbeid som ledd i barnets skolegang eller i praktisk yrkesorientering som er godkjent av skolemyndighetene og barnet har fylt 14 år.
that is to say,
quote:Children less than 15 years of age, or liable to compulsory education, shall not do work covered by this law except
a) Cultural or similar work [ie acting, singing, entertainment] b) Light work and the child is at least 13 [presumably 'light' is defined elsewhere in the law] c) Work approved by the school and which is a part of the child's education or practical work-orientation, after the age of 14.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think that sounds reasonable, but it's contingent on the schools providing better vocational tracks.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I suggest that the emphasis on giving everyone a college education is not actually about what is best for people, but about status. At Hatrack (and among the people who discuss this sort of thing generally) we are overwhelmingly college-educated and middle-class; naturally we think that's the best possible life. In fact, we think it's so good that we want everyone to have one. This ignores the plain fact that people are different. There are many, many people who would be happy and productive as apprentice (and later master) plumbers, who are miserable and rebellious as apprentice knowledge workers. But because we assign such importance and status to college education, we say "Too bad! You're going to learn to appreciate Foust, whether you like it or not." This is partly a ploy to increase our own status by making college look more important, and partly a real misunderstanding of other people; but it has almost no grounding in what would actually be socially optimal.
You don't think there are moral and (for lack of a better word) spiritual benefits to a humanistic education?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
A big problem is our political system. The second a politician pushed to move away from the "every child should go to college" his/her career would be over.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We like to think that our children will have better lives than we do.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Yes, my first post was straw-man central.
My second was serious.
While there is a false assumption that allowing kids to work would create juvenile sweat shops, there is also a false assumption that allowing kids to work would instill or reward the work ethic in kids.
You say that kids won't be forced to work, so the only ones seeking the jobs are those already possessed of a strong work ethic. How will this instill the work ethic in others? Hence there will be no benefit to society as a whole other than the investment of labor for those children who are wanting to work.
In the Werenberg case you asked how could the underage workers prove they were responsible without doing jobs that were both illegal for them to do and considered by the lawmakers of this country to be to dangerous for kids their age to do. I say there are plenty of ways to prove ones responsible nature than by driving a truck before you are old enough to drive.
What it proves is that they were too immature to tell their bosses that it was illegal and that they could not and should not and would not do it.
You say that all school aims to create college-bound students. Instead we need to create employment bound students.
Great. What employment?
Look through the want ads and you'll find a big need for highly educated work force, not a work force that is highly motivated.
Jobs that don't require math, rational thinking, scientific methods, or other "college" type education are very rare.
And they don't earn much.
Because those who can do them are many already.
Nobody here is arguing that technical schools are a great idea and should be where kids can learn the skills needed for their future. However there is no way that such skills will be earned flipping burgers at McDonalds.
The dangerous work they have as part of the tech-training in Norway is never unsupervised until the students prove they can handle the situation with full adult supervision. Why should that be the case with a 12 year old and hot oil at McDonalds?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yes, my first post was straw-man central.
If you were aware that you were doing that, why did you do it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: You don't think there are moral and (for lack of a better word) spiritual benefits to a humanistic education?
In a word, no.
To be more accurate, there may be such benefits to those who are interested in these things in the first place; but you cannot create that spark of interest by force. What you can do, of course, is dumb things down so everybody can get a passing grade, at the cost of killing the spark of interest among those who had it.
There are certainly people who can benefit from a liberal education but do not seek it out on their own; but they are few relative to the number who don't benefit and are forced into it.
quote:The dangerous work they have as part of the tech-training in Norway is never unsupervised until the students prove they can handle the situation with full adult supervision. Why should that be the case with a 12 year old and hot oil at McDonalds?
So your actual objection, then, is to having new workers in dangerous trades unsupervised; not to having young workers in those jobs. Then why didn't you say so?
quote:Jobs that don't require math, rational thinking, scientific methods, or other "college" type education are very rare.
No they aren't, actually. What's rare are jobs that can be done without any skills whatsoever, which is what you actually get after a 'college' education in X Studies. There is plenty of room for plumbers and other skilled labour.
quote:You say that kids won't be forced to work, so the only ones seeking the jobs are those already possessed of a strong work ethic. How will this instill the work ethic in others?
Money; not only does it make the world go around, it causes people to take jobs. Money is status, power, the ability to buy a cheap car, the ability to ask a girl to a high-class restaurant or buy a surfboard. For money, people will stand in the smell of fry oil ten hours a day and ask "You want fries with that?"
Behaviour that is rewarded is repeated and emulated. Actual work is rewarded by wages on the first of the month. Schoolwork is rewarded, if at all, in the very distant future; and it is pointless besides. (Much real work is boring, but it is rarely pointless; people put up with boredom better if they understand the purpose of their task.). You will be amazed at the difference this makes to the average teenager's work ethic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
@Porter: Lulz?
[ March 11, 2011, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
While I'm not totally against the idea. I would say to be wary of going overboard with this.
In the wake of the financial crisis, I daresay that Americans should be learning more mathematics, not less, to better avoid predatory lending, to understand the debates on budgets, and so forth.
In light of climate change and evolution, science is another area that at first glance looks like "college track" but would have serious consequences if cut.
With wars in Afghanistan and Iraq dragging on, a better knowledge of history could have avoided all this.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Stephan - While I agree with you that the US needs far MORE "vocational" training and less a push for "college or bust", it is not true that a child with an IQ of 50 is pushed into a college bound track. A child with an IQ of 50 will most likely be identified as Mentally Retarded and educated on basic life tasks. Most children with IQ's in that range would not make good skilled laborers, and many will be depended on SSI for life.
However, we are doing a serious disservice to our kids that have IQ's between, say, 70 & 100. We're also doing a disservice to our educational system by insisting everyone spend money and time "going to college" only to have to dumb down our college curriculum so that the actual degrees are worth less and less.
On the other hand, this has nothing to do with letting 14-year-olds work 8-10 hour days instead of going to school at all. A vocational program with an apprenticeship is MUCH different than spending 9 hours flipping burgers.
As for poteiro - sorry you couldn't find a job. I grew up in Texas and started babysitting when I was 11. I was able to do that and other odd jobs for cash until I was 14, when I was allowed to start working at my grandparent's meat market (for less than minimum wage, I might point out.)
Admittedly, I wouldn't have been allowed to do this exact job if I had not been a relative, and probably we still were breaking some labor laws since I was allowed to operate a meat slicer, but I did work. I also didn't know a single teenager in my town who wanted a job and couldn't find work. There was always SOMEONE willing to employ a kid over the summer or on weekends to do SOMETHING. Heck, my other grandparents right now have a hard time finding teenagers of any age to employ for any decent length of time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, I'm going to sound elitist, but so be it. You cannot teach people of average intelligence enough math to avoid being fooled by unscrupulous smart people; you can only force the unscrupulous ones to hide the models and assumptions they're using in another layer of legalistic text. You can teach them what science says, but not how it's done; consequently they will always be vulnerable to those who claim that the other guy's science is bad. And you can teach them rote facts about history, but not how to apply it to today's politics. And the reason is the same in all three cases: These things all require abstract reasoning, which can't be taught. You can either do it or not; as with all things practice makes perfect, but you have to be able to do it in the first place. Below a certain level of intelligence, and most people are below that level, you can teach rote tasks but not symbol-manipulation, and that's what's needed for the problems you mention.
Edit to add: Anyway, what was needed to avoid the housing boom and crash wasn't really math, as such; it was the art of examining assumptions, in this case the assumption that housing prices were never going to fall.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ah imagine the debate had the populace been better educated:
Republicans: "We want to invade Afghanistan." Random Guy at Town Hall: "You mean the country that the British Empire at its height couldn't successfully invade for more than a short period of time with prohibitive casualties and of which the Soviet Union also was forced to pull out from after protracted attrition?" Republicans: "..." HEY LOOK A GAY LIBERAL HISPANIC ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT HAVING AN ABORTION! *smokebomb runs away*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Or perhaps rather:
Republicans: "Yep, that's the one, and that's why we're not going to try to impose any sort of rule on the place, we'll just destroy the current regime and pull out. A punitive expedition, in other words, like the hundreds of successful raids the British Empire did on its Northwestern Frontier for the hundred years of the Raj."
Yes, it actually would be quite nice if we had a population that knew some history and could appreciate both sides of an argument like that. But it can't be done, because - a fundamental fact of great importance - most people are of average intelligence. That is to say, thick as two short bricks.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ok, I'm going to sound elitist, but so be it. You cannot teach people of average intelligence enough math to avoid being fooled by unscrupulous smart people ...
I'm going to sound even more elitist
I don't think the problem in America is that people of average intelligence got fooled by unscrupulous smart people, whether we're talking about war, finances, or evolution. It's not like there's some intelligence gap between Americans and other countries, with more Americans able to get fooled.
People of average intelligence just got fooled by unscrupulous people that also had average intelligence. We just have to educate them to deal with that.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Historically speaking, children began to work around the age of 11 to 13, whether this was with the family business or an apprenticeship, or just menial labor. The current requirement that all children should attend secondary education is actually pretty arbitrary, and while it feels like the norm to us, because it has existed for our lifetimes, it actually isn't normal in the context of history.
In today's schools, 11 to 13 is the age where children decide for themselves if they are not on an academic track. As a society, we refuse to acknowledge this decision, and instead try to cajole them into staying in school. It works in some cases, but in many cases, schools are just wasting these kids' time, because they have already made the decision to drop out.
The reason the current laws give the school the authority to grant working papers is that it is felt that this gives the school the ability to see if working is interfering with the student's studies. This is similar to the requirement that athletes must be passing all their courses in order to play sports.
Im somewhat conflicted with the bill in the OP, because in general, I agree that child labor laws interfere with a childs natural course of education once they decide not to follow an academic track. As George Bernard Shaw said: The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school. For these kids, a job may be the only education they will ever get. But I would not have gone about it in this way. I think that the minimum working age should be lowered to 11, rather than being eliminated. And for those children, a job should be couched as a form of education. Businesses could form partnerships with schools, and children would be allowed (if they chose to) to enter an approved apprenticeship which would be conducted at the place of business, but overseen by a mentor from the school. This mentor would work with the business to see that the work included activities that would expose the child to academic standards.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Historically speaking, children began to work around the age of 11 to 13, whether this was with the family business or an apprenticeship, or just menial labor. The current requirement that all children should attend secondary education is actually pretty arbitrary, and while it feels like the norm to us, because it has existed for our lifetimes, it actually isn't normal in the context of history.
Neither is widespread literacy or a postindustrial economic prosperity, so.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: The reason the current laws give the school the authority to grant working papers is that it is felt that this gives the school the ability to see if working is interfering with the student's studies. This is similar to the requirement that athletes must be passing all their courses in order to play sports.
Not really -- the school can decide that a student can't play school sports unless they're passing all their classes, they have no say on whether the student can play non-school affiliated sports. It would be parallel if the school required student workers hired by the school to maintain academic standards -- giving the school the decision-making power outside of school-affiliated activities is quite an expanded range.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There are certainly people who can benefit from a liberal education but do not seek it out on their own; but they are few relative to the number who don't benefit and are forced into it.
I can agree with you here, and yet maintain that overall it's worth it to have liberal education be the status quo, for the benefit of the relatively few who will profit (since the gains are so great).
However, I don't agree. I think we get a distorted picture because students take all sorts of classes, many of which they don't like. But in my experience almost every college student has some subject they become passionate about. They may not all like my class, but invariably they find someone whose class speaks to them.
As to whether mass enrollment dumbs down the process for the better students, I don't think that effect is very pronounced if it really exists at all. In the absence of any actual scientific data, all we have here is your anecdotal word against mine.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Yes, my first post was straw-man central.
If you were aware that you were doing that, why did you do it?
Humor? At least that's what is seemed to be to me....
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The image that comes to mind for many people when the subject of child labor is broached is the chimney sweeps and workhouses of Victorian England. And while that may be an excessively sentimental analogy, it's not entirely without merit, either.
The jobs kids and young teenagers would be qualified for are mostly in the fields where we see the most abuses in the adult work force- "off the clock" overtime, pressure not to report workplace injuries, unqualified or unable people being made to work complex machinery or lift heavy loads- not to mention more straight-forward matters like questionable terminations and sexual harrassment. To add children or teenagers to those workforces is to assume that they will know how to react to potential pressures that adults often can't handle, to their substantial harm.
(This is speaking as someone who worked as a teenager at a paint store where stripping chemicals were eating through some of the boxes in the back room- OSHA would have had a field day.)
It's quite possibly true that the public school system should have better vocational tracks for those who are not college-bound. Simply releasing those students into the workplace wholesale and pretending that it's doing them a favor is a load of Spartan nonsense.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: The image that comes to mind for many people when the subject of child labor is broached is the chimney sweeps and workhouses of Victorian England.
Point of order, no child can or should have a paper route. You have to have a car, the route covers several miles, you have to be in line at 2 am, and the route complete by 6 am. The days of the kid on a bike throwing after day break is long gone.
I could see the state lowering some of their child labor laws, but I agree that this woman's bill is not the way to do it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: The image that comes to mind for many people when the subject of child labor is broached is the chimney sweeps and workhouses of Victorian England. And while that may be an excessively sentimental analogy, it's not entirely without merit, either.
The jobs kids and young teenagers would be qualified for are mostly in the fields where we see the most abuses in the adult work force- "off the clock" overtime, pressure not to report workplace injuries, unqualified or unable people being made to work complex machinery or lift heavy loads- not to mention more straight-forward matters like questionable terminations and sexual harrassment. To add children or teenagers to those workforces is to assume that they will know how to react to potential pressures that adults often can't handle, to their substantial harm.
(This is speaking as someone who worked as a teenager at a paint store where stripping chemicals were eating through some of the boxes in the back room- OSHA would have had a field day.)
It's quite possibly true that the public school system should have better vocational tracks for those who are not college-bound. Simply releasing those students into the workplace wholesale and pretending that it's doing them a favor is a load of Spartan nonsense.
That's definitely an angle I haven't considered.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Neither is widespread literacy or a postindustrial economic prosperity, so.
And this affects my point how? You're picking nits, and not bothering to understand my post.
quote:Not really -- the school can decide that a student can't play school sports unless they're passing all their classes
I didn't say it was the same, I said it was similar. Obviously the school's sphere of influence is limited, but in the case of working papers, it is extended outside the school. This doesn't alter my point at all. Schools will often refuse working papers to a 14 year old (or older) child if their grades are not high enough.
There is an unnatural emphasis placed on academic education, and on-the-job education isn't recognized. Kids decide that school isn't for them, as I said, between the ages of 11 and 13. We should be looking at that from the perspective of what is normal in the context of human history. At this point, they want to go out into the world and be independent. That's part of human nature at that age. Getting a job can serve both purposes, provided it's done right.
Say a kid apprentices for a flooring installer. The boss isn't paying him (or not paying him much) and so, can bring him over and have him calculate area of a floorspace, help estimate materials for a job, and write up a quote including materials, labor and tax. In today's world, that won't happen until the kid is at least 16, and more likely 18, but we're teaching that kind of math in 6th and 7th grade. And the common question is "when am I ever going to use this stuff?" But as adults, we often wish we'd understood this when we were kids.
Even if a kid is working at 14 years old, (the minimum) an employer wants to maximize their value at $8 an hour, so they have them do something that they can already do, rather than taking the time to teach them something new, or especially something that meets an academic standard.
We either pay for education, or we expect to be paid for work. There's no middle ground.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Japanese schools [seem to] usually forbid their students from having partime jobs.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Point of order, no child can or should have a paper route. You have to have a car, the route covers several miles, you have to be in line at 2 am, and the route complete by 6 am. The days of the kid on a bike throwing after day break is long gone.
I had a paper route from 14-16.
The papers had to be delivered by 7am on weekdays, later on weekends. The papers were delivered to me by a truck and dropped off right in front of my house. And since I lived in an area with a lot of apartment and condominium complexes, my route actually only covered a small geographic area (as did most routes around me). Granted, this is 15 years ago now, but the point is your comments are only true on an area specific basis.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
A carrier owns the paper route. He can certainly subcontract out if he wants. If that guy decides to split his route up into little pieces and finds a fleet of reliable kids, I could see it working. But the child does not have a paper route or a formal job. He's probably getting paid under the table by some guy; I'd be shocked if the carrier provided the kids with a W2 or worried about taxes. Labor laws would only apply if anybody got caught.
As for the time thing, my husband get complaints from customers if they don't have their paper by 4 or 5. 6 am is definitely company standard, and I'd be shocked if it's not industry standard these days. That's awful early to have a 14 year old up and running around in the dark alone on foot or on bike.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Reminds me of the anime Kanamemo where they have a bunch of girls of wildly different ages from 11 to 17 working for the same paper route company. They had to get up around 4-5 am, be done around 7 and then (most of them) had some sort of school or job right after that.
And they all lived together in their office building, which doubled as some kind of 2story loft/office building thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I had a paper route, but it was an evening paper. It was supposed to be delivered by 6:00 PM. It was a perfect after-school job.
It also helped that I had four younger siblings that could fill in for me (and for money) if needed.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Granted, this is 15 years ago now, but the point is your comments are only true on an area specific basis.
Maybe, but not really. In rare circumstances only. Doing paper routes to houses is an ugly, unrewarding, dangerous job for mostly desperate people, and is almost always inappropriate for kids. There might be a handful of jobs for weeklies and evening deliveries that are not handled by carrier truck, but it's not much.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* Even I had a weekly paper route. Granted, it was quite a while ago. But it wasn't that bad.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The conditions of working a paper route vary wildly from place to place. The two places that I grew up had fantastic routes for kids. Where I live now doesn't.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The conditions of working a paper route vary wildly from place to place. The two places that I grew up had fantastic routes for kids. Where I live now doesn't.
They've also changes a lot over TIME too. The same route that I did as a teenager on my bike after school where the papers had to be on the doorstep by 5:00PM is now a route done by car where the paper has to be in the driveway by 6:00AM.
Paper routes in my home town used to be a great job for kids... but not anymore.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: The image that comes to mind for many people when the subject of child labor is broached is the chimney sweeps and workhouses of Victorian England.
But, Scott, those kids would never have benefited by an education anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I jog early in the morning while the carriers are doing their typical routes. It's usually done between the hours of 3-5 AM (with most places needing to be done before 4, I think). It is not a good job.
The kind of paper routes that were suitable in any way for young people are, for the most part, gone. Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people remember them from something like a decade ago. We're now in the rapidly waning years of the newspaper as an institution, and kid-friendly routes during daylight hours have been replaced by bleary-eyed economic desperates, often tolerating non-covered wear and tear to their aging vehicles, to deliver bulk quantities for a pittance.
People really do often mention paper routes as a reason why it should be okay for underage kids to work. It's kind of interesting, because they're legitimately unaware of the ways in which newspaper delivery has changed, or how employment in general has changed. Paper routes for kids are no longer widely available. Even things like bagging jobs at supermarkets are usually filled completely by adults, at the supermarkets' preference.
There's still babysitting and dog-walking and a few other limited options (along with the less-savory, exploitative ones), but for the most part the world we live in now is one in which general education takes supreme priority and it is phenomenally unwise for a parent to let a kid exchange their focus in general education for what early jobs are available. Law should not be changing right now to encourage otherwise.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But Samprimary, we need more gammas, deltas, and epsilons!
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...kid-friendly routes during daylight hours have been replaced by bleary-eyed economic desperates, often tolerating non-covered wear and tear to their aging vehicles, to deliver bulk quantities for a pittance.
The pay's not great, but the tax write offs are supposed to be pretty good. Mileage, supplies purchased, it's all a business expense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Most people who have today's paper route jobs say that the tax situation is not good for them, especially considering most are signing you up as an independent contractor. You still eat wear and tear and maintenance costs. At least, that's the norm on all big paper routes for newspapers that are effectively in the process of being harvested. Could be different than I think, though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But Samprimary, we need more gammas, deltas, and epsilons!
Given that we have in fact got gammas, deltas, and epsilons, what do you want done with them? Please observe that the answer cannot be "put them in beta jobs"; by construction they can't do them. I assume you're not willing to put them in extermination camps, either. Nor is education the answer. Education can make a gamma into a better-informed gamma; it can't turn him into a beta. Besides which, for any given quantity of education, the beta benefits more than the gamma does, because he is smarter; consequently education increases the gap, it does not decrease it. (This is a common feature of many technologies. Technology is akin to leverage: It multiplies your strength by some factor, say ten. So if the strengths used to be 10 and 11, now they are 100 and 110, and the gap has increased tenfold.)
What does that leave, if not some sort of productive jobs that they can do? The gamma who repairs plumbing isn't, perhaps, as acquainted with Shakespeare as you would like everyone to be; but he won't get to that point anyway, no matter how miserable you make him with bad grades and repeated explanations. But he has dignity and financial independence, unlike the miserable failed-beta high-school dropout you want to make of him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Nor is education the answer. Education can make a gamma into a better-informed gamma; it can't turn him into a beta.
That's misinformed to a serious degree. Education has severely shifted (and continues to shift) where we place the boundaries between these conceptualizations of the educated grades of people. Those things which education has manifestly been the solution for such as ensuring near-universal literacy in a postmodern economy show the weakness of the idea.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Law should not be changing right now to encourage otherwise.
The reasons listed here as to why a paper route is no longer appropriate for a child have much to do with the fact that as a result of labor laws, it's not advantageous for the newspaper company to hire children. So when they hired adults, the situation changed, and the afternoon paper became the morning paper. Changing the laws back now may not result in the return to afternoon papers, but if labor laws are changed to allow more flexibility for teens to work undoubtedly changes will occur.
I disagree that we should not be changing the labor laws right now, because as a former remedial math teacher, it's my opinion that a lot of those kids would benefit from having a job. There are lots of jobs unskilled workers can do that aren't dangerous. My grandmother had a job folding cardboard boxes. Most basic assembly jobs aren't particularly dangerous, but they've been shipped overseas because of the U.S. minimum wage.
I made an argument in my previous post, which you obviously didn't read, and I don't see a point to copying and pasting it here. But what it comes down to is that your statement is a bald faced assertion that ignores the value that can be had if labor laws were changed. Not scrapped, but changed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You don't need to change labor laws for a 15-year-old kid to fold boxes for eight hours a week.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
You obviously didn't read my previous post either.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Imagine, just for a moment, I read both and don't see how reveals any real weaknesses in my opinion.
Part of your last post:
quote:We should be looking at that from the perspective of what is normal in the context of human history.
And a part of a post before that:
quote:Historically speaking, children began to work around the age of 11 to 13, whether this was with the family business or an apprenticeship, or just menial labor. The current requirement that all children should attend secondary education is actually pretty arbitrary, and while it feels like the norm to us, because it has existed for our lifetimes, it actually isn't normal in the context of history.
My response to either:
quote:Neither is widespread literacy or a postindustrial economic prosperity [normal in the context of human history], so.
The "perspective of what is normal in the context of human history" remains a poor judge of what activities should be encouraged for children in today's world, since the life and future potential opportunities of a kid in a modernized economy are so phenomenally different from what it used to be. Even things as basic as a literate population generally expected to live past their mid-40s is completely, almost unfathomably alien to this normal context of human history, where few people were literate or existed in an economic system which put much requirement on basic literacy or math.
It remains a stupid idea for a parent to let a kid exchange their focus in general education for what early jobs are available. Whether or not the law permits it. If we are talking about bald assertions of potential value for systems, what can't be missing is what you lose when you stack the legal permissibility of 'easy outs' for a school system which is already failing too many children.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
OK, so you read the same part you read last time, and still haven't bothered to finish the post.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
You remind me of some of my students. Read as little as possible, and then give a contrived answer based on partial information, while avoiding the part you don't like.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Nor is education the answer. Education can make a gamma into a better-informed gamma; it can't turn him into a beta.
That's misinformed to a serious degree. Education has severely shifted (and continues to shift) where we place the boundaries between these conceptualizations of the educated grades of people. Those things which education has manifestly been the solution for such as ensuring near-universal literacy in a postmodern economy show the weakness of the idea.
The ability to puzzle out c-a-t CAT while moving your finger across the page does not equal actual literacy. Most people cannot read, as you and I think of the term. Education has given the appearance of universal literacy without the substance.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: ... There are lots of jobs unskilled workers can do that aren't dangerous. My grandmother had a job folding cardboard boxes. Most basic assembly jobs aren't particularly dangerous, but they've been shipped overseas because of the U.S. minimum wage.
This is an entirely different issue, no? If the issue is the minimum wage, then lower the minimum wage. Changing the labour laws in order to hire kids that can be paid less than minimum wage seems an awfully roundabout way of doing things.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You don't need to change labor laws for a 15-year-old kid to fold boxes for eight hours a week.
Again, this runs contrary to my experience.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: You remind me of some of my students. Read as little as possible, and then give a contrived answer based on partial information, while avoiding the part you don't like.
Boy, you're in a mood today I guess.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Porter: I went to college at 15, and supported myself at the time by working. (My family was poor, so I actually started "working" at 13 under the table, and then 14 legally.) At no point did I find child labor laws to be excessively inconvenient once I hit 14 years old.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So your experience is very different than mine. That does not change my experience at all. Every place I tried to apply to told me the same thing -- they weren't allowed to hire anybody under 16.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
In my limited experience, a lot of people don't want to hire anyone without a driver's licence, which means 16.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: So your experience is very different than mine. That does not change my experience at all. Every place I tried to apply to told me the same thing -- they weren't allowed to hire anybody under 16.
by law? Or by company policy?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Most people cannot read, as you and I think of the term. Education has given the appearance of universal literacy without the substance.
I even find that otherwise intelligent people who are literate still have awful reading comprehension.
Me: Specifically not this. I know you're going to assume this, but that. Them: Well, your position on this is stupid. Me: *beats head against wall*
Though I think that comes down to actually caring about someone else's position instead of your own. If you assume I believe one thing, why bother listen to me say that I believe something else entirely? And no education I've ever seen will fix that one.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Has anyone considered the logistics of child labor?
Where would they work? I don't mean in what type of jobs. I mean location.
They can not drive. It is no coincidence that the driving age and the usual employment age are the same.
So that gives them 4 ways to get to work.
1) They can walk--or ride a bike. This is simple and neat, except for two things. Your job used to be within walking distance for "much of human history." You worked on the farm where you lived, or you moved into the home of the person you were training from. Later, factory towns built houses within walking distance from their factories. Cities were created as houses built around jobs. Then we invented the Commute. How many places of business are in walking distance from your house.
I live in a small town, not a suburb, so I am lucky. I have a hospital, a doctor's office, a used car lot, a music store, and a tattoo parlor to send my son too.
Of course during bad weather such walkers and bike riders are more likely to be absent. This makes them unreliable workers.
2) Parents can drive them. Except in today's society both parents are usually working. Who can afford to take time off to shuttle their kids to and from work? Again, even the best intentioned child has to consider this mode of transport as--unreliable. Their bosses will.
3) The company will pick them up and drop them off. I can imagine the local amusement park sending a bus to the school to pick up a group of workers, except that amusement park will be wasting most of the money they are saving by hiring cheaper child labor on transportation costs and insurance for that transportation.
That leaves only a few businesses, usually small businesses, that would have the desire to play shuttle service to its employees. It will cost them.
This gets into the whole abuse problem. We've worked hard over the last 50 years placing requirements on the people who spend time with our children. Finger printing, background checks, and educational courses are required for all teachers, youth ministers, coaches, and others who take care of our children. I don't imagine we are going to require employers to do the same. That is just more red tape. In fact, I imagine the mere threat of a lawsuit due to child abuse may convince companies to take some precautions, but more likely they'll have the kids family sign waivers promising not to sue as part of the hiring process.
Or they won't hire kids to begin with.
But those few who don't--think about this. Its every parent of a teen girls favorite fear...having her boyfriend "run out of gas" miles from home--and having her have to "put out or walk home."
Except now the threat is "put out or be fired and walk home."
When I was in my 20s I applied for a job. Part of the interview had me traveling with another worker. We took his car and drove 30 miles away from my car to do some sales. When I realized where I was and that I was totally dependent on this stranger for my safety, it scared me. I couldn't imagine a 14 year old in the same situation.
4) Work at home. Yep, there are 10,000 opportunities to be found on the internet for stuffing envelopes, forwarding emails, and doing piece work of one kind or another.
Admittedly most of them are cons where you pay for supplies only to discover that the supplies cost more than the finished product. Or that it will take about three years of hard work to get to the point of profitability, except the company closes and changes names first.
But there are some jobs you can do from home. Nice small home factories where you are paid pennies to do simple production. Some how, I don't see sitting at the family dining room table for hours at a time as a big draw for the usual 14 year old.
"Let see, I want a new car at 16. Say, $25,000. At 2 cents per envelope stuffed, I need to stuff 500,000 envelopes. That's 250,000 envelopes a year. Considering about 250 days a year when I will work, cause I'm not a math person so I make it easy on the math, that's 1000 envelopes a day. One, two, three...maybe I'll finish up after a quick game of Mario Karts."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't know whether it is amusing or sad that public transit is evidentally so crummy in your area that it can be totally overlooked when we're discussing low wage jobs Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I knew there was a 5th option I wanted to discuss. Public Transportation. The cost of getting to work would have to be deducted from the take home pay of the worker. That leaves taxis out, as being to expensive.
So you have Bus and Train. Both of these are getting cut backs from cash strapped governments, so employment could be curtailed at any moment. That is assuming the bus stop is within walking distance of a bus stop or train station, and that your home is likewise in walking distance of either.
The only place this is likely to happen is in cities. Suburbs and rural locals will not be covered.
Even then, if you are three blocks from a bus stop, and the job opening is within 4 blocks of a bus stop, you can take a bus to work. Millions do on a daily basis.
But kids alone on the bus are possible victims, and bad weather makes walking to and from the bus less likely.
What you have is a situation where some companies might consider hiring a juvenile worker at a cut rate, if they are near public transportation, and enough prospective kids are near public transportation, and that public transportation is reliable and timely. (If the bus arrives 2 hours before the work opens, or 2 hours after the shift starts, it doesn't help much).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: So your experience is very different than mine. That does not change my experience at all. Every place I tried to apply to told me the same thing -- they weren't allowed to hire anybody under 16.
by law? Or by company policy?
My understand was by law. Of course, this was over 20 years ago, and I do not remember exactly what was said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know whether it is amusing or sad that public transit is evidentally so crummy in your area that it can be totally overlooked...
I've lived in six cities and four towns in my life; three of those cities would qualify as "large." And I would say that public transportation would be adequate for commuters in precisely two of them.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I don't know whether it is amusing or sad that public transit is evidentally so crummy in your area that it can be totally overlooked when we're discussing low wage jobs
Where I live, we don't have even a single bus. So, public transit is completely non-existent here. If you can get 10 miles to the big city, you can find a bus. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Seriously? "Kids" of 14 or 15 are possible victims if they take a public bus and can't walk a few blocks or bike a mile or two in bad weather? Coddling youth in America has gotten that bad?
Dude, I'm so glad I was never your child. By the time I hit middle school I was responsible for getting myself wherever I needed to go, including school, after-school activities, and friends' houses. My mom could sometimes drive me to school in the morning if she didn't have to be at work early. Otherwise I would ride my bike the 3.5 miles to school, or catch the local bus, which meant walking about half a mile on either end. And I'd do the same thing on the way home. It sucked a bit when it was raining (which it does a LOT of in the northern most part of CA), but, you know, it was fine and I was fine. The idea of not letting teenagers be free-range like that is pretty appalling, to be honest.
In high school I switched to mostly biking everywhere, including the part-time job I was finally able to get when I turned 16. The suburbs are *full* of retail places for teens to work at - are there seriously many places that don't have a shopping center within a couple of miles?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I've lived in six cities and four towns in my life; three of those cities would qualify as "large." And I would say that public transportation would be adequate for commuters in precisely two of them.
Several votes for sad then.
Anecdotally, things are marginally better up here. Out of places I've lived, two small cities and one medium sized one, the public transit is adequate, excellent, and poor respectively. But even in the "adequate" small city, we still have white collar IT and finance (insurance) people on the bus, let alone low wage.
Still a far cry from a proper transit system, globally speaking, but the idea that people "have" to drive to work, at all, is just sad.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Most of my time growing up was in Hong Kong, were you couldn't get a job or a driver's license until you were 18. The public transportation was absolutely fantastic. My father currently lives in Hong Kong and he rides the bus to work every single day rather than drive.
When I went to school I had the option of riding the bus or walking home if I missed the afterschool bus. Even if I had lived far away, procuring transportation home would not have been difficult. Heck, there were times when I got done hanging out with my friends at 1:00am, buses were no longer running, and taxis mostly kept to the more populous parts of the island. I roller bladed home quite a few times in those instances.
Here in Utah, public transportation isn't nearly as good as it could be, but then again, pretty much everybody lives very close to the freeway. With a bike and a bus, I'm betting you could get anywhere between Provo and Salt Lake City within an hour.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:With a bike and a bus, I'm betting you could get anywhere between Provo and Salt Lake City within an hour.
It's more like triple that.
eta: On second thought, triple is way too generous.
eta2: Which isn't too surprising -- It can take 45 minutes easy to drive from place to place (depending on the place) within Utah Valley itself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Most people cannot read, as you and I think of the term. Education has given the appearance of universal literacy without the substance.
I even find that otherwise intelligent people who are literate still have awful reading comprehension.
Me: Specifically not this. I know you're going to assume this, but that. Them: Well, your position on this is stupid. Me: *beats head against wall*
Though I think that comes down to actually caring about someone else's position instead of your own. If you assume I believe one thing, why bother listen to me say that I believe something else entirely? And no education I've ever seen will fix that one.
Ok, so I'm a little confused; are you also Samprimary? What exactly are you arguing here?
And you are mistaken about the effects of education on assumptions. The best college students can in fact learn how to figure out what an opponent is really saying, and argue against it. It's just that modern colleges don't often teach the skill, because they're swamped with gammas and deltas who need to be taught what a female orgasm looks like.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The best college students can in fact learn how to figure out what an opponent is really saying, and argue against it. It's just that modern colleges don't often teach the skill, because they're swamped with gammas and deltas who need to be taught what a female orgasm looks like.
Again, any evidence for this? At all?
Here's a reason to think you're wrong: the best students are reliably segregated from the worst students by our admissions system, which allows stronger students into better colleges.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, you do understand, don't you? Getting rid of child labour laws isn't going to deny education to stupid children; it is going to deny education to poor children. Stupid rich kids will still get educated; smart poor kids will lose their best chance at being anything but struggling to get by.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I disagree; I believe smart kids will stay in school whether they are poor or not. If we were talking about removing publicly funded education you might have a point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What makes you think they will have a choice?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That they live in a Western country where the chief health problem for poor people is obesity. You think the average social worker is going to put up with a parent forcing their kid to drop school?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The obesity thing is, at least in part, because the kinds of food poor people can AFFORD is awful for you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That they live in a Western country where the chief health problem for poor people is obesity. You think the average social worker is going to put up with a parent forcing their kid to drop school?
They wouldn't have to drop school. They could just end up sleeping through it. And how could a social worker stop that? It wouldn't be illegal. Nothing says a 10 year-old has to have time to do homework.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... isn't going to deny education to stupid children ...
It's not even clear that you'd want to do this even if you could. Stupid children grow up into stupid adults, adults who vote and can hold political power. It may sound like a good idea to save a few dollars here and there on education, but it all goes down the drain when they start trying to kill funding for scientific grants because they "sound" useless. Fruit fly breeding in Paris? Or they torpedo work on preventing climate change because the Earth was created just for them. Or they vote in a Bush because he seems like a nice guy to have a beer with.
At the end of the day, the stupid *and* uneducated are a direct threat to the intellectual. When the revolution comes, it's the intellectual who is first against the wall or sent into the countryside because common sense shows that these people don't actually "do" anything understandable, not like those "real" people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Since the current child-labour and education system has been in place for nigh on forty years, and we get the stupid voters anyway, I suggest that the problem would not get any worse for giving these people leeway to do productive things they could actually enjoy, rather than insisting on forcing them into our own image. Contempt for intellectual activity is not caused by stupidity, it is caused by disrespect on the part of the smart people. In particular, the assumption that abstract reasoning is so valuable that everybody has got to be able to do it, and therefore everyone must have years upon years of education in it. If you would back the heck off the poor gammas and let them do their own thing, we could reestablish a culture of two-way respect. Try to realise that you are not actually such a perfect example of humanity that everyone has got to be forced into your mold.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I feel that "allowing" young children to work will lead to some being forced to work, making it harder for underprivilaged kids to do well in school while upper class family wouldnt even allow thier children to work. I personnally started working as soon as possible just to have a single dollar in my own pocket, I had friends who worked and payed for half of the privilages they enjoyed (cellphones, cars) while thier parents paid the other half and a select few who drove the hummer to school everyday. Point is, if I had the option to work at the age of twelve I would have and no one could have stopped me because I already needed money and would have done that much worse in school for it.
This is my main concern though, who would hire a twelve year old? and what kind of parent would allow a child to work for someone who would?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exploitative ones and desperate ones.
Edit to add: Seriously, who did hire 12 year olds for jobs that are now illegal for children and what kind of parents did allow (or make) their children work? Go look at Scott's link.
[ March 15, 2011, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This is my main concern though, who would hire a twelve year old?
Someone who thought the child could do something useful and be paid for it?
quote: [A]nd what kind of parent would allow a child to work for someone who would?
Parents who thought the child would benefit from a bit of independence and real-life experience?
quote:Exploitative ones and desperate ones.
Sure. The only reason for allowing a child to work for pocket money must be desperation. There can't possibly be any component of teaching responsibility, work ethic, and budgeting. (As an aside, the first time I had part-time job, I was shocked at how fast the money went; and it's not as though my parents made me pay for room and board.) As for exploitation, what is it with you people and assuming that teenagers cannot participate in a fair exchange of value for value? Work for wages is not exploitation.
quote:Seriously, who did hire 12 year olds for jobs that are now illegal for children and what kind of parents did allow (or make) their children work?
Ok firstly, what was the alternative for those kids? I assure you it wasn't sitting about in a classroom all day. This is the same argument that is made against sweatshops now. Fine, sweatshops are not great, but you can't just close them down, because then you just force people into something worse. Now today in rich western societies that's just not true, and drawing analogies to Victoriana is very badly misleading. Same for desperation: Where in the US do you find anyone as poor as urban slum-dwellers in the 1800s? Only in the heated fantasies of would-be do-gooders.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why are you assuming that we are talking about working for pocket money or that we are talking about teenagers?
Edit to add: Well not so long ago, I taught kids that had one set of clothes for school that they wore all week and maybe got washed over the weekend. Whose only "good" meal was what the school provided - and that was often so moldy that we gave them peanut butter sandwiches instead. Kids who were already exhausted from having to take care of younger siblings much less having a job, too. It's not hard to imagine them working to buy groceries - if not to support mom or dad's habit.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because those are the forms that non-adult labour actually takes in the US, and I see no reason to expect that to change whatever the legal regime.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Then why would we need to change the laws to accommodate these changes?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Teenagers already work legally, all of this is about minors between the ages of 12 and 15 to also being allowed to work legally. What job can a twelve year old be expected to do competetently, and show up on time while maintaining good grades? seventh graders for pete's sake! these laws were put in place to protect children from the same dangers that children would face today. And am I the only one worried about pedophiles hiring twelve year olds?
I cant find that link Kmbboots.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: all of this is about minors between the ages of 12 and 15 to also being allowed to work legally. What job can a twelve year old be expected to do competetently, and show up on time while maintaining good grades? seventh graders for pete's sake! these laws were put in place to protect children from the same dangers that children would face today. And am I the only one worried about pedophiles hiring twelve year olds?
It seems like these same arguments could also be made regarding extracurricular activities in general.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This one:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: The image that comes to mind for many people when the subject of child labor is broached is the chimney sweeps and workhouses of Victorian England.
The sexual harassment I got babysitting was bad enough and that was a neighbor. Imagine a kid working in a hotel or restaurant? Shadowland, these days we try to screen people who are supervising activities for children.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: all of this is about minors between the ages of 12 and 15 to also being allowed to work legally. What job can a twelve year old be expected to do competetently, and show up on time while maintaining good grades? seventh graders for pete's sake! these laws were put in place to protect children from the same dangers that children would face today. And am I the only one worried about pedophiles hiring twelve year olds?
It seems like these same arguments could also be made regarding extracurricular activities in general.
School involved activities in America already remove the student if they do not maintain a minimun grade average, not many childrens and teenagers sports league's operate outside of school systems public or otherwise and those that do cater to upper class families who would not let twelve year olds work. Extracurricular activites are privilages not responsibilities and are therefore very differant than a child who feels responsible to work for the betterment of thier family. Also someone working through a school to coach and supervise children should be better qualified to do so than any stranger who would hire a kid, when you hire a sixteen year old you put them in a position of responsibility to that job but when you hire a twelve year old you make thier safety and well being your responsibility and should be legally held so.
Im just gonna leave it at that seeing as I know that I have nothing new to add to the discussion, I already feel as if Im just gnawing on perfectly obvious talking points.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I disagree; I believe smart kids will stay in school whether they are poor or not.
You need to read Up the Down Staircase.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I disagree; I believe smart kids will stay in school whether they are poor or not.
You need to read Up the Down Staircase.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
Yes, and the poor and unhealthy are that way because they deserve it. It is my fault that I was born in a Phoenix slum with a deformed foot, all my fault and I should simply try harder if I ever want to be rich and healthy.
I am really going to remove myself from even checking this thread as your remark KoM urges me to violate the rules that keep this forum civil.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: And am I the only one worried about pedophiles hiring twelve year olds?
I have got to say that I really hope you are. Just how many pedophiles do you think there are in the US, anyway? Do you think we can please have a calm and rational debate about the pros and cons of compulsory education versus work, without bringing in this sort of made-up scenario?
quote:The sexual harassment I got babysitting was bad enough and that was a neighbor.
Who was probably not worried about lawsuits. An actual business would be. Also, I dare say that you didn't go back after your first bad experience, which kind of puts the "being forced to do X" in perspective.
quote:Seventh graders for pete's sake! these laws were put in place to protect children from the same dangers that children would face today.
No, they were put in place to increase the wages of adults, who disliked competition from cheap labour. That aside, if seventh graders are really so incompetent, who would hire them? Anyway, what is with this utter contempt for their skills? I'm not saying I want a seventh grader doing my taxes (well, actually my taxes are sufficiently simple that a bright seventh-grader probably could do them) but running a cash register is not rocket science. Why shouldn't a 12-year-old do it?
I don't understand how you people can be simultaneously so contemptuous of the skills of 12-year-olds, and so eager to prevent them acquiring any.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I dare say that I did keep working for that family because I was 11 and didn't know any better.
Achilles, are you responding to Rivka? Because, if so, I think you misunderstand her.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: School involved activities in America already remove the student if they do not maintain a minimun grade average
I think that was one of the things being addressed by having the schools sign work permission forms.
quote:Extracurricular activites are privilages not responsibilities and are therefore very differant than a child who feels responsible to work for the betterment of thier family.
Sure, it would be nice if all students were able to view extracurricular activities as privileges. Unfortunately that's not always the case.
quote: Also someone working through a school to coach and supervise children should be better qualified to do so than any stranger who would hire a kid, when you hire a sixteen year old you put them in a position of responsibility to that job but when you hire a twelve year old you make thier safety and well being your responsibility and should be legally held so.
Perhaps, though there are many school activities that include an inherent risk that is much greater than what some jobs may involve. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a company had more legal liability at times than a coach would have.
Look, I'm not suggesting that all child labor laws should be removed. But I also don't think that all current laws are necessary either. I realize that no one here is asserting that no adjustments to current laws should be made, but it seems like many of the arguments supporting the existing laws don't have a lot of merit in and of themselves. That is to say, many of the existing laws seem somewhat arbitrary. Some states say you can work when you're 14, others say you can't. Some occupations are acceptable, some are not. Where I grew up, you could bag groceries at the age of 14. I really don't see the harm in that, at least, any more harm than is exposed to the kid playing football for hyper-competitive parents who are pushing for a college scholarship years down the road.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
shadowland, there are protections for the kids playing football. If their grades suffer, for example, they don't get to play. If they don't have a physical, they don't get to play. If they aren't old enough, they don't get to play. The activity is designed for the kid* not to make a profit for someone else.
*Not very well designed given the rate of injury which is something we are finally looking at.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
I really don't see how any of those things are that different (or cannot be controlled for) in regards to working children. Although I do admit that 'profit' is more clear of a concept in the business world than it is in school activities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Controlled for how? Getting rid of the child labour laws is all about getting rid of those controls.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Well, like the proposal that the school signs permission forms for the student to work. They could even go a step further and require signatures from both the school and the parents.
Rules for specific industries, type of work, hours, working conditions, etc., like they already have.
Various states are full of different types of rules like these that allow children under the age of 16 to work in specific situations. I really don't see the problem with this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. That is what they are proposing to get rid of.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Yes, which is why I said that I'm not suggesting we should get rid of all child labor laws. I do think that not all child labor laws are specifically necessary either. And I don't find some of the arguments defending some of the more strict states very compelling either, outside of the fact that abuse of the situation is possible and should be avoided, but the specific line as to the specific age and industry is somewhat arbitrary.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I disagree; I believe smart kids will stay in school whether they are poor or not.
It is weird to read the ways in which you think you understand people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: And am I the only one worried about pedophiles hiring twelve year olds?
I have got to say that I really hope you are. Just how many pedophiles do you think there are in the US, anyway? Do you think we can please have a calm and rational debate about the pros and cons of compulsory education versus work, without bringing in this sort of made-up scenario?
KOM, You really are astonishingly naive if you think this is some sort of made-up scenario. Strictly speaking we aren't really talking about pedophilia with 12 - 14 year olds and its actually shockingly common for adults to be sexually interested in young teens.
Pubescent girls are extremely vulnerable to work place sexual harassment.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fine, yes, sexual interest in a 13-year-old is not pedophilia, agreed; and is not legit coming from an adult in a position of power, true. How is a work situation any worse than a school situation? I hope you're not going to sit there and tell me that teachers are really carefully screened for hebephilia. How many incidents of teachers sexually harassing their charges do you see very year, and why do you expect employers to be worse?
quote:Pubescent girls are extremely vulnerable to work place sexual harassment.
How do you know, given that they aren't allowed to work?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Contempt for intellectual activity is not caused by stupidity, it is caused by disrespect on the part of the smart people.
Somehow I doubt that the rise in American anti-intellectualism stems from 14 year-old kids being forced to do their math homework. And its not as though American kids are forced to do more of it than their Chinese or Canadian counterparts.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
KOM.
I do afterschool activities as a major part of my job.
Every person we hire to do that activity has to go through a background check, fingerprinting, and for many schools (including Catholic Schools) mandatory 4 hour class.
I don't see the $ motivation for any business to send their managers through such red tape in order to hire part time help at a minor savings.
Of course, they are also at risk of being sued if anything did happen to the child during their employ, so again, I don't see the $ motivation for any company to want to hire those under 16.
Oh, and child labor laws were not about unions limiting the labor market to create an increase in money. It was about the terrible conditions found in coal mines and sweat shops where kids were expected to work instead of going to school. These kids had no future because they could and would be replaced once they reached the age where they could be replaced with younger cheaper labor.
You, yourself, said that an influx of child labor would not effect the unemployment rate.
Shadowland. You want to replace the existing set of rules and regulations. What motivation is there for any company to hire a bunch of kids, and go to the expense of fighting all the red tape? A few $/hr savings on the few hours the kids can work would be lost in the time adults spent meeting those requirements.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Every person we hire to do that activity has to go through a background check, fingerprinting, and for many schools (including Catholic Schools) mandatory 4 hour class.
And is it your opinion that all that is really necessary? There is such a thing as a reasonable assessment of risk factors. American civil society is notably bad at it.
quote:Of course, they are also at risk of being sued if anything did happen to the child during their employ, so again, I don't see the $ motivation for any company to want to hire those under 16.
So it won't happen, so what are you worried about? There is no need to criminalise that which is not economically viable.
quote:It was about the terrible conditions found in coal mines and sweat shops where kids were expected to work instead of going to school.
Yes, and WWII was about stopping the Holocaust. You who are so eager to attribute all kinds of Evil Monetary Motivations to businesses, why not apply the same ones to unions? The rhetoric used in support of a particular law has no necessary connection to the actual reasons for it.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
D_M, what I want is an open discussion regarding the specific rules and regulations for employing minors under the age of 18, as well as those for the under 16 age group. I don't think it is at all useful to frame the issue as being 'no employment of minors with no exceptions' with the only alternative being 'no child labor laws whatsoever.' I'm pretty sure that no one here in this thread is proposing either of those extreme scenarios, so let's not act like an argument in favor of allowing certain minors to have certain employment options is an argument for the elimination of all child labor laws.
I'm sure most people here are (to some extent) fine with children working as actors, models, in family businesses, etc., so let's look at some other specific situations instead of pretending that sweat shops and abuse are the eventual outcome of any adjustment to any existing child labor regulations.
Regarding your example of requirements, many of those exist in some companies for all of their employees already, therefore it wouldn't be additional lost money for the company. An additional question would be whether all of those are necessary for all situations that involve the employment of or interaction with minors.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm sure most people here are (to some extent) fine with children working as actors, models, in family businesses, etc.,
I actually have a lot of problems with kids working as actors and models.
Of course, that doesn't mean that I think it should be outlawed.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:I actually have a lot of problems with kids working as actors and models.
Of course, that doesn't mean that I think it should be outlawed.
Sure, and I expect most people would have at least some issues with it while still being, to some extent, fine with it. This is in fact an area that I do feel could use some more detailed regulations, but it's also an example of the employment of minors that most people seem to be able to accept.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And there are regulations governing the conditions and hours for child actors. Shadowland, why not start with the changes proposed by the bill?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Does anyone here actually support this proposed bill? I thought we moved past that after the first response and were talking about child labor laws in general.
<Edit> Looking at the specific elements in the proposed bill...
It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen.
- I would be ok with either adding specific exemptions or replacing the prohibition with a specific list of prohibited situations.
Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed.
- I disagree with the outright removal, but I have no problem with possibly adjusting the hours.
It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed.
- Opposed.
Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished.
- Possibly. I'm unfamiliar with what types of work are involved here. I might be ok with having a list of specific acceptable duties.
It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ.
- Opposed.
It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.
- Seems reasonable.
[ March 16, 2011, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: shadowland ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:This is in fact an area that I do feel could use some more detailed regulations, but it's also an example of the employment of minors that most people seem to be able to accept.
The issues I have with it are not ones that could be addressed by any regulations.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)