NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple enough question - yes or no?

Simple answer: no.

Well, I'm off to bed . . .

Child as in under 16? Of course. Anything else would be unthinkable for a western nation.

Simple answer: no.
Well, if you don't mind...an explanation would be good. :D

Child as in under 16? Of course. Anything else would be unthinkable for a western nation.

Unthinkable??

So, it was unthinkable of me to have a paper route when I was 12?

It's unthinkable that a small family farmer might pay his kids for their help around the farm? Wouldn't you prefer to see those kids paid rather than unpaid?

Last I checked, McDonalds was hiring as low as age 14, and I didn't see any shortage of 14 year olds working there...so obviously these kids want money.

Obviously we don't want kids working in coal mines and steel mills, but to set an age limit on when someone can work is just absurd.

If a child wants to work, and as long as conditions are regulated in some manner, then I don't see why their age should prevent them from earning money.

If a child wants to work, and as long as conditions are regulated in some manner, then I don't see why their age should prevent them from earning money.
What do you think such regulations would look like?

Do you see a difference between a 14 year old Coal Miner and an 18 year old?

<snip>

I, of course, meant full time work. Which is what I think of when someone says "child labour"

Aye, as is the wont of polls like this, the question was poorly stated. One could say that 'outlawing child labor' would involve no child unde 18 from working, ever- which is probably universally regarded as a really stupid idea. I prefer to think of it as 'no paycheck jobs under 12, limited hours under 16, and no full time until 18, high school graduation, or emancipation.' The days of 10 year olds being forced to work in textile factories for 14 hours by their parents should never be allowed to reoccur, of course.

Aye, as is the wont of polls like this, the question was poorly stated...
True, true...but I think most will get the message.

The point is whether we can find people who are generally against Government regulation in the economy, who nonetheless advocate that children be protected by the Government to some extent - and then see what their reasoning is.

-snip-

Goddamn you. I was going to use that quote in your sig, but you beat me to it. :p

True, true...but I think most will get the message.

The point is whether we can find people who are generally against Government regulation in the economy, who nonetheless advocate that children be protected by the Government to some extent - and then see what their reasoning is.

The whole thing is like some sort of cunning trap!:eek:

No, But only because I hate kids. The more kids mining coal, the less kids putting their sticky little hands all over my shit...

The whole thing is like some sort of cunning trap!:eek:
Everything I do and say is exactly that....but surely it's not that cunning in this case, is it?

What do you think such regulations would look like?

Do you see a difference between a 14 year old Coal Miner and an 18 year old?

Yes...a 14 year old Coal Miner is also required by law to be in school for the equivalent of 40 hours a week (at least in this state anyways).

An 18 year old is not.

I prefer that younger workers focus on school, and luckily most states that I am aware of have specific regulations on just how long a child worker can work for depending on the day of the week and time of the year, with an emphasis on extremely limited hours and times of the day that a child can work on a school day.

I, of course, meant full time work. Which is what I think of when someone says "child labour"

Well, as I've said, I prefer a child be in school, so I obviously don't prefer that every 15 year old go out and find a full time job.

But aside from a few extreme examples of unsafe occupations, I don't think any child should be limited in terms of what job he does to earn money.

As long as the child is qualified to do the job, and it isn't affecting his academic performance, I see no need to do anything to change child labor laws, at least in the U.S.

There is the issue of child labor among illegal immigrants...but that would probably devolve into another thread.

Goddamn you. I was going to use that quote in your sig, but you beat me to it. :p

Blame Civilization IV, for introducing me to it. Best response to charges of being a communist EVER.

Blame Civilization IV, for introducing me to it. Best response to charges of being a communist EVER.

That's where I got it from too :p

That's where I got it from too :p

Then it's settled: Civ IV is the best game evar.

Then it's settled: Civ IV is the best game evar.

Nah, it's a good game, but I've played better. However, Civ IV is a superb source of quotes.

Nah, it's a good game, but I've played better.

*bitch slaps*

Yeah, that's with the backhand, bitch. :D

The point is whether we can find people who are generally against Government regulation in the economy, who nonetheless advocate that children be protected by the Government to some extent - and then see what their reasoning is.
I'm one of these people. It's really rather simple. The issue at hand here isn't child labor, it's FORCE. If a boy or girl wants to earn a few bucks, good for them.
If that boy or girl HAS to earn a few bucks, shame on the parents, who shouldn't be allowed to force their children into working against their wishes.

What's so confusing about that?

Blame Civilization IV, for introducing me to it. Best response to charges of being a communist EVER.
Ummmmm, not exactly what you guys are going for. The term communist in that statement has a derrogatory inference. Nobody "accuses" you of being a saint.

In other words, it only has any positive reference if you AREN'T a commie. Oh, boy.

In other words, since I'm a libertarian, it would make perfect sense when I say it. If you lean red, it's complete nonsense.

Kinda like me saying "Every time I ask "Why are taxes so high", they accuse me of being a libertarian"

Well fucking DUH. I am a libertarian. :p

Ummmmm, not exactly what you guys are going for. The term communist in that statement has a derrogatory inference. Nobody "accuses" you of being a saint.

Of course. The effectiveness of the quote is the contrast between praising one for feeding the poor and criticizing one for trying to understand the root cause of their hunger. In so far as 'communist' has been thrown around as an insult for the last 50 years, the connotations are relavent.

In other words, it only has any positive reference if you AREN'T a commie. Oh, boy.

But I'm not a communist. I'm a liberal, aye, but not even a socialist, let alone a follower of communism. I'm a semi-socialist at best- hence, I ask why the poor have no food.

It already has.

Simple enough question - yes or no?

The US has already outlawed Child Labor so yes.

I don't think it should be outlawed as much as regulated. I had a job at 6, I worked on the farm when I was 9, and I had my first fast food job at 14, I don't see a problem with it, but when kids are being forced to work so that they miss school or something, there has to be a cutoff.

I knew too many kids growing up who worked on the farm and were "homeschooled" and didn't learn how to read until they were in thier teens

not that I have anything against homeschool, I mean I do it, but a kids #1 job is learning, if after that they have time to make some $ more power to them.

I'm one of these people. It's really rather simple. The issue at hand here isn't child labor, it's FORCE. If a boy or girl wants to earn a few bucks, good for them.
If that boy or girl HAS to earn a few bucks, shame on the parents, who shouldn't be allowed to force their children into working against their wishes.

What's so confusing about that?
Well, if force is the only thing you're worried about, nothing. It should be noted then though that no adult should "HAVE" to earn a few bucks either - shame on the system for depriving them of free choice, right?

The question is whether you think a child has the same ability to make the decision to work or not to work as an adult - they're not allowed to vote, or drink, so why should they be allowed to work?

If a child wants to work, and as long as conditions are regulated in some manner, then I don't see why their age should prevent them from earning money.

I find it hard to believe any child would want to work if they don't have to. If their family needs the extra income, the government should provide welfare, not let a child compromise his studies to work.

I find it hard to believe any child would want to work if they don't have to.
my kids like to work, but in all fairness I guess they have to because if they don't they don't get any money.:p

Well, if force is the only thing you're worried about, nothing. It should be noted then though that no adult should "HAVE" to earn a few bucks either - shame on the system for depriving them of free choice, right?
No, that doesn't follow IMO. Read below.
The question is whether you think a child has the same ability to make the decision to work or not to work as an adult - they're not allowed to vote, or drink, so why should they be allowed to work?
I do not believe that children completely understand the choices that they make. This is why children aren't allowed to make decisions on the things you've mentioned above (even with parental consent).
Work is being thrown around in a very generic manner here. Having an afterschool paper route and working a full-time job that leaves little or no time for education are two very different things. In light of our current laws in the US, this topic is pretty rediculous, and I've humored it. So--
Little work= Okay!
Lotta work= Not okay.

my kids like to work, but in all fairness I guess they have to because if they don't they don't get any money.:p

People mentioned kids helping in their parents' farms before. That's a stretch on the word "work", I'd say. More like a house chore. Giving your kids a few bucks to encourage them to do their chores isn't the same as making them work.

People mentioned kids helping in their parents' farms before. That's a stretch on the word "work", I'd say. More like a house chore. Giving your kids a few bucks to encourage them to do their chores isn't the same as making them work.
working on the farm is hard work, but I see what you are saying.

my kids have chores that they don't get paid for, and I pay thier basics, food, clothing, shelter, education, medical ect. If they want stuff on top of that they have to go above and beyond. (like my 4 year old reorganized the linen closet today, that was good for $5)

Yes! First no opinion! I don't count!

working on the farm is hard work, but I see what you are saying.

my kids have chores that they don't get paid for, and I pay thier basics, food, clothing, shelter, education, medical ect. If they want stuff on top of that they have to go above and beyond. (like my 4 year old reorganized the linen closet today, that was good for $5)

Helping around the house can be hard work too, particularly to the older kids that have to watch over the younger ones. It can be a lot of responsibility, but it's still just a house chore, not a job.

Helping around the house can be hard work too, particularly to the older kids that have to watch over the younger ones. It can be a lot of responsibility, but it's still just a house chore, not a job.
have you ever actually worked on a farm?

In light of our current laws in the US, this topic is pretty rediculous, and I've humored it. So--
Little work= Okay!
Lotta work= Not okay.
Fair enough...although where you put the distinction is still an iffy matter.

But seriously, since when do current laws matter in a debate about libertarian versus socialist policies?
Both sides are usually pretty good at disregarding them...

have you ever actually worked on a farm?

Nope. Never had to take care of younger siblings either, being an only child. And I never really had to help with the chores, since my parents always had a maid. Spoiled much?

But I was assuming that the helping around the farm was going to be proportional to the child's skills and strength, and not so intense that it would interfere with the schooling. Otherwise, this child is just being used as cheap labor by his own parents, the poor thing.

If the family needs their kids to be doing grown-up work, it would be preferable that they get help from the government so the kids can study and the parents can hire adults to work on the farm.

Fair enough...although where you put the distinction is still an iffy matter.

But seriously, since when do current laws matter in a debate about libertarian versus socialist policies?
Both sides are usually pretty good at disregarding them...
Well, concerning libertarian policies, you'll find that I'm a rare breed called a moderate libertarian (or neolibertarian). :D
Compared to most libertarians here, you'll find I'm less likely to promote things like zero-tax daydreams and the overnight collapse of the welfare state as we know it. I'm more of a gradualist who thinks the solution to be a weaning from the state's teat, not complete and sudden withdrawal. That's just bad policy.
I'm practical and try not to get caught up in ideologies to the point where I sound like a cultist.
The socialists and communists here are just as guilty of this as any of the firebrand libertarians, though. Alas, practicality just isn't as glamorous as a revolution.

have you ever actually worked on a farm?

Yes actually. As a poor oprressed child laborer I had to rick cordwood and bale hay. I was also hored as in a cruel child labor crew owned by a patriarchial opressor (me) tearing down fencing. Bought myself a '68 cherry red 'stang hardtop for my 16th Birthday too.

Well, concerning libertarian policies, you'll find that I'm a rare breed called a moderate libertarian (or neolibertarian). :D
Compared to most libertarians here, you'll find I'm less likely to promote things like zero-tax daydreams and the overnight collapse of the welfare state as we know it. I'm more of a gradualist who thinks the solution to be a weaning from the state's teat, not complete and sudden withdrawal. That's just bad policy.
I'm practical and try not to get caught up in ideologies to the point where I sound like a cultist.
The socialists and communists here are just as guilty of this as any of the firebrand libertarians, though. Alas, practicality just isn't as glamorous as a revolution.


Finally, I've found someone on this forum that actually exercises social and political common sense.

I'm not alone in this world afterall:-)

The government should subsidize it, and when I say subsidize I mean gulag.

Nope. Never had to take care of younger siblings either, being an only child. And I never really had to help with the chores, since my parents always had a maid. Spoiled much?

But I was assuming that the helping around the farm was going to be proportional to the child's skills and strength, and not so intense that it would interfere with the schooling. Otherwise, this child is just being used as cheap labor by his own parents, the poor thing.

If the family needs their kids to be doing grown-up work, it would be preferable that they get help from the government so the kids can study and the parents can hire adults to work on the farm.
believe me, all the work on a farm is grown up work. Farmers rarely have money to hire help outside the family and most of them don't think it is the government's job to pay for thier labor. (that is most of the farmers I know)

I only had to work on the farm during the summers though, so I got off pretty easy, they were still 18 hour days in 100 degree weather (thats about 37 celsius) it is much harder work than what I do now as a grownup around my house.

Finally, I've found someone on this forum that actually exercises social and political common sense.

I'm not alone in this world afterall:-)
There's a few of us left. But only a few. ;)

It's already outlawed. It's been since around 1900.