Child Labor Laws: For or Against?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

I was always under the impression that the left universally supported child labor laws. I always thought leftists saw these laws as one of the scintillating achievements of the progressive movement, shielding young children from the more perverse aspects of unfettered capitalism. However, I was amiss in my assessment. Several leftists seem to think of child labor laws as reactionary because they invariably force children into the "capitalist indoctrination camps" known more commonly as public schools. Some on the left criticize these laws as "ageist" in that they discriminate based on age, disenfranchising the youth out of work.

On the other side of the political spectrum, we have the free marketeers, who oppose all forms of government intervention. They oppose child labor laws by virtue of the fact that they interfere with the infallible workings of the irreproachable free market place. In their view, these laws are either inefficient, ineffective, pernicious or all of the above.

So my question is pretty straightforward. Do you support or oppose child labor laws? Provide your rationale, if you would be so kind.

I also added a poll. Select "other" if you disagree with how I framed the question, support these laws in a capitalist society but oppose them in another, don't know, don't care, etc.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I voted "other" because, while I support child labor laws in a capitalist society, I would oppose them in a communist society. Furthermore, I am absolutely against compulsory education because schools are, indeed, capitalist indoctrination camps.

I support child labor laws because they protect a segment of society from exploitation while simultaneously driving up wages for workers by keeping the supply of labor artificially low. This argument would not apply in a communist society for obvious reasons; therefore, I oppose them in a communist society.

As for what children would do in the absence of compulsory education, they would have several options, including pursuing personal hobbies, developing personal skills, just enjoying childhood, etc. Of course, I also think they should have the option to attend school for free if they wish.

EDIT: Also, what is a "child" anyway? Surely there is a better way of determining this than by some arbitrary line drawn through time by the State!

[Robert]

An enterprising 12 year old should be free to mow lawns or babysit as an independent contractor. But I don't know why he can't also have a summer job working the concession stand of a little league ballpark with his parents' consent. If the job presents no inherent danger, I'd leave it up to the kid and his parents, but you'd have to watch out for parents forcing their kids into sweatshops.

If kids (under 14 or so) are working in Honduran sweatshops, the products should not be imported.

As always, I wonder how you enforce anything in a stateless society.

[Demogorgon]

Child labour must always be illegal.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I have mixed opinions. Technically, many children in poverty could benefit from acquiring work. Sweat shops do help people who otherwise would have no jobs.

In a capitalist society based on exploitation, people need to be exploited to succeed. Trying to prevent this exploitation should only be done if it has a conceivable benefit for the workers themselves.

In Western nations, individuals will simply not employ children and/or pay foreigners lower wages instead of hiring youth. If "everyone" had enforceable child labor laws, this question would be easy. Support them.

[Robert]

Child labour must always be illegal.

Must? That's a little doctrinaire, but doctrinaire is good.

What constitutes a "child"? 15? 16? 17? 18?

All labour?

Is independent contracting "labour"?

[Bud Struggle]

What are child labor law?

My 15yo makes $15 and hour photographing items for a guy who does business on e-bay. Then she plays electric cello in a Bond-ish, Escala-ish quartet and takes in a "Haul-O-Cash" there to. All sub tabula.

She has more money than I do.:blushing:

To add (though she hasn't done it quite yet) my 12 yo is putting together a business baking homemade bread for people in our zipcode. She plans to sell it for $5+ a loaf all homemade with homemede ingrediants. All batches the same but everyweek a different bread.

Enteprenaurism is in our blood.

You are going to have to shoot us if there ever is a Revolution. :(

Or you can just subcontract the Revolution to us. Revolutions-R-Us. There's a business in there somewhere. ;) :D

[Demogorgon]

Must? That's a little doctrinaire, but doctrinaire is good.

What constitutes a "child"? 15? 16? 17? 18?

All labour?

Is independent contracting "labour"?
Obviously there is going to have to be a scale. All labour under twelve for instance should be completely banned. Thereafter a paper round or whatever becomes alright and a bit older you may be able to do a few hours, by sixteen you should be able to work full time, though there is a case for requiring that at least some of that work be specifically focused on training or other forms of education until the age of eighteen.

[Lynx]

Child labour laws generally deal with how many hours children can work and in what occupations. Support.

[ls]

Obviously there is going to have to be a scale. All labour under twelve for instance should be completely banned. Thereafter a paper round or whatever becomes alright and a bit older you may be able to do a few hours, by sixteen you should be able to work full time, though there is a case for requiring that at least some of that work be specifically focused on training or other forms of education until the age of eighteen.

I sure hope you mean that within the context of capitalist society as it exists now.

[Demogorgon]

I sure hope you mean that within the context of capitalist society as it exists now.
I am talking about present society, though it is worth pointing out that child labour will not magically become acceptable with communism. Whatever the nature of society I support Universal education and a ban on child labour. Putting children to work is always exploitative.

[khad]

I am talking about present society, though it is worth pointing out that child labour will not magically become acceptable with communism. Whatever the nature of society I support Universal education and a ban on child labour. Putting children to work is always exploitative.
I agree. This thread is laden with right-wing sentiment. In a communist society you will be FREE to get a good education. A community will have input into the curriculum and content of the education, but that education will have to be compulsory by law.

[ls]

I am talking about present society, though it is worth pointing out that child labour will not magically become acceptable with communism.

Yeah, of course it shouldn't be.


Whatever the nature of society I support Universal education and a ban on child labour. Putting children to work is always exploitative.

Yeah putting children to work is. Children completely choosing of their own free will (I know it's basically not the case anywhere in capitalist society) in a communist society shouldn't be 'banned' though.

[Richard Nixon]

In general yes. However I wouldn't classify as jobs such things as say mowing lawns and schools must come first. If all students aren't forced to attend school most won't and the next generation of kids will be horribly undereducated.

[Robert]

Children completely choosing of their own free will (I know it's basically not the case anywhere in capitalist society) in a communist society shouldn't be 'banned' though.

Will someone explain to me who is going to enforce this ban in a stateless society?

[ls]

Will someone explain to me who is going to enforce this ban in a stateless society?

The communities?

[Conquer or Die]

When workers own their labor then the child will own all of its product. There is no parasite there to abuse the child into making cash.

Sixteen seems like a reasonable age to integrate children into the adult world. Though 25 seems to be the most logical answer.

Ed: In capitalist utopias like India sometimes children need to work for sake of the family. Liberal humanism that reinforces this system shouldn't speak out its asshole about child labor rights.

[StalinFanboy]

I have mixed opinions. Technically, many children in poverty could benefit from acquiring work. Sweat shops do help people who otherwise would have no jobs.

The only reason these people "need" jobs is because their land and people have been exploited by imperialist forces. And because their countries are forced into the capitalist market.

[Conquer or Die]

The only reason these people "need" jobs is because their land and people have been exploited by imperialist forces. And because their countries are forced into the capitalist market.

Class struggle is imperative, but there's little moral justification I can find to deny people getting themselves out of shit. Punishment will come to the slavers of the world; but when?

[Kukulofori]

When I was a kid, I was abused and needed to get away, but couldn't. There were two reasons: laws against harbouring a runaway, and child labour laws.

The presence of child labour laws to stop the exploitation of children does nothing to even stop the exploitation unless you have them everywhere in the world.

I didn't go to school either, so uh, mission failed. And I am so glad I didn't.

[Havet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E&feature=PlayList&p=8910B870F3D2D14B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

Found this vid a while ago

Thoughts on this video?

[Bud Struggle]

Welcome to the real world, Commies.

I'd like to build the world a home
and furnish it with love
grow apple trees and honey bees
and snow white turtle doves

I'd like to teach the world to sing
in perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms
and keep it company

I'd like to see the world for once
all standing hand in hand
and hear them echo through the hills
for peace throuout the land

thats the song I hear
Let the world sing today
a song of peace
that echoes on
and never goes away

I'd like to teach the world to sing
in perfect harmony

I'd like to teach the world to sing
in perfect harmony

I'd like to build the world a home
and funish it with love
grow apple trees and honey bees
and snow white turtle doves

I'd like to teach the world to sing
in perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms
and keep it company

[Stand Your Ground]

I support them to some extent, I believe people have the right to decide when they are old enough to work.

[mikelepore]

Several leftists seem to think of child labor laws as reactionary because they invariably force children into the "capitalist indoctrination camps" known more commonly as public schools.

If the schools are indoctrination camps, the progressive goal wouldn't be send children to sweatshops instead of schools. The progressive goal would be to modify the school curiculum to give the kids reading, writing and arithmetic, and remove the indoctrination.

[Richard Nixon]

If the schools are indoctrination camps, the progressive goal wouldn't be send children to sweatshops instead of schools. The progressive goal would be to modify the school curiculum to give the kids reading, writing and arithmetic, and remove the indoctrination.

Or homeschooling.

[Lynx]

Truancy Laws are another topic.

[fiddlesticks]

I think children should have a right to work or not work..child labor laws are useful to prevent children from being taken advantage of though.

[Conquer or Die]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E&feature=PlayList&p=8910B870F3D2D14B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

Found this vid a while ago

Thoughts on this video?

Which country currently has a violent class revolution?

Is it, A. The United States of America

Or, B. The Capitalist Utopia of India

*girly voice* Give me a break.

[narcomprom]

I am surprised how little rebuff this reactionary idea has gotten here. There are a plenty of regions where Children deprived of a possibility to get proper education because of the exploitation of their labour is possible and profitable to their parents.

There are multiple international conventions against child labour and yet the ILO has it's hands full to actually put them in power. Sadly most societies to which it is relevant use pretty lax laws to conform only formally to international law.

For the conventions against child labour to make any sense, parents who exploit their children in a way that interferes with their education must be dealt with with the hareshest measures avaible. This is, sadly, hardly ever the case.

The anarchists say all schooling is indocrination. This is nonsense. Indoctrination might or might not be part of curriculum but literacy, logic and the algebra always is and this is essential to anyone to function as conscious human being and for a region to develop economically skilled labour is essential.

Living in the western world many liberal leftists have forgotten what the struggle against child labour was originally about when it appeared in their countries as progressive idea 150 years ago. As much as I value personal liberty I can't agree that the right to work to the extent of an adult can be extended to children; the priorities must be set straight and education is clearly the priorty here.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I am surprised how little rebuff this reactionary idea has gotten here. There are a plenty of regions where Children deprived of a possibility to get proper education because of the exploitation of their labour is possible and profitable to their parents.

I completely agree with you on child labor laws. However, I don't see why we can't have child labor laws without compulsory education. Do you have any reason to believe the two are mutually inclusive?


The anarchists say all schooling is indocrination. This is nonsense. Indoctrination might or might not be part of curriculum but literacy, logic and the algebra always is and this is essential to anyone to function as conscious human being and for a region to develop economically skilled labour is essential.

Well, this kind of misses the point. Yes, the curriculum pretty much always includes some form of indoctrination. However, this is really a side issue next to the atmosphere of the bourgeois state's schools, an atmosphere that instills in children the ideas that a) obedience is a cardinal virtue and b) people are naturally divided into different classes based on intelligence. It seems to me that compulsory education, which went hand-in-hand with child labor laws when first introduced, was the bourgeois state's reaction to child labor laws, which comprised a significant gain for the working class.

[narcomprom]

I completely agree with you on child labor laws. However, I don't see why we can't have child labor laws without compulsory education. Do you have any reason to believe the two are mutually inclusive?
Non-compulsory education is not innovative, it is a regress. I have read of Russian narodniks opening free schools nobody would visit because every hour the child spent studying it didn't do work and chores. An abolition of compulsatory education would equal an abolition of education as such.
I could understand if you anarchists demanded a decentralised system of education with the parent having an influence over the curriculum. That is how it works in Norway. Schools are non-profit organisations there. The education is both free and decentralised.
You can have your child learn Foucault as your can have him learn the Bibel and the Capital but you cannot deprive him of an education.


Well, this kind of misses the point. Yes, the curriculum pretty much always includes some form of indoctrination. However, this is really a side issue next to the atmosphere of the bourgeois state's schools, an atmosphere that instills in children the ideas that a) obedience is a cardinal virtue and b) people are naturally divided into different classes based on intelligence. It seems to me that compulsory education, which went hand-in-hand with child labor laws when first introduced, was the bourgeois state's reaction to child labor laws, which comprised a significant gain for the working class.
I don't agree with any of your generalisations but, even given there was substance to it, I do not how a fallback into the middle ages is a solution. Taking that gain, you speak off, away from the working class is something I expect from Friedman reading Social Darwinists, not from Leftist Anarchists.

[Demogorgon]

I completely agree with you on child labor laws. However, I don't see why we can't have child labor laws without compulsory education. Do you have any reason to believe the two are mutually inclusive?

Unless education is compulsory, a good many kids will not get it for a number of reasons. What is to be gained for that?

[#FF0000]

0VaHmgoB10E

Found this vid a while ago

Thoughts on this video?

Points out bourgeois liberalism's impotence in dealing with injustice and inhumane conditions under capitalism pretty well, I think. Of course what Stossel is arguing is dumb too.

I still think they did a poor job and were obviously skewed. Particularly the exchange that went like this:

Kenyan Secretary of Labor (right?): "If they raise wages in Kenyan sweatshops the jobs will disappear"
Harvard Kid: "We want them to raise wages in 'sweatshops' everywhere"
Kenyan SoL: "Oh well jobs will go away anyway".

Also the fact that they only spoke to economists from these countries, and not actual sweatshop workers, immediately set bells off for me. On one hand I'm sure the workers will agree that Nike sweatshops are better than the even more poorly paying jobs available, I'm sure they'd express a desire for things like medical benefits, holiday bonuses, and not being sexually assaulted and dying because of an unsafe work environment with poor ventilation and dangerous equipment.

[Luís Henrique]

I was always under the impression that the left universally supported child labor laws. I always thought leftists saw these laws as one of the scintillating achievements of the progressive movement, shielding young children from the more perverse aspects of unfettered capitalism.

You were right. Leftists think exactly like that. People who don't aren't leftists in any meaningful way, even if they wave red flags or repeat "leftist" mantras.

Keeping children away from wage slavery is a basic condition for the existence of an organised working class. Those who "seem to think of child labor laws as reactionary because they invariably force children into the "capitalist indoctrination camps" known more commonly as public schools" or "criticize these laws as "ageist" in that they discriminate based on age, disenfranchising the youth out of work" are either reactionaries in disguise, awfully misguided people who cannot separate substance from appearance, or plain and simple morons.

Luís Henrique

[Conquer or Die]

I also lol'ed at "well fed college students" when the fascists in question are most definitely well fed. Stupid fucking John Stossel.

[narcomprom]

Manchester capitalism is a much better lot than subsistance farming or peonry. It is a higher stage. Thus spake Carlo Marx.

[RGacky3]

Found this vid a while ago

Thoughts on this video?

That video is the biggest crock of crap I've ever seen, all the 3rd world people they interviewed were from the upper class, they were econonists and buisiness people.

You can watch tons and tons of documentaries where REAL SWEAT SHOP WORKERS AND POOR PEOPLE are interviewed and get the real opinions.

Most of those people understand the real situation.

That video is a joke.

That argument is the same as saying the soviet union could have just left the places they occupied and took everything with them (because they owned it) and everyone would starve, so really the soviet union was helping everyone out by dominating them. What a crock.

[Havet]

I also lol'ed at "well fed college students" when the fascists in question are most definitely well fed. Stupid fucking John Stossel.

Didn't know john stossel had an authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism) nationalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism) political ideology[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-3) and a corporatist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) economic ideology.

Better be careful how you use the word fascism

[ThorsMitersaw]

Would you oppose the right of children to work and aid their families in "third world" nations? I would not. Often times these situations arise from necessity, not because of coercion. Many children still work on the family farm, mow lawns, sell lemonade, deliver papers, etc. I can not think of any reason a child in this situation would or should be forced to end his employment.

To me the only question of when someone should be barred from a right to contract as they see fit is a question of whether the contract was agreed to under threats OR if the person was not of sound mind. So the question immediately arises as to whether children are mentally capable of entering into contractual agreements. But any such law will inevitably put forward some arbitrary age restriction. Mental capacity is surely not strictly a matter of age. So I would say such a law is unnecessary if the question is whether one is mentally capable of entering into contracts.

And even so I question these sort of things as well as they seem to place children (and the insane and the retarded and the like) as property of others with which others may decide what to do with... or whether they will allow them to do X Y or Z. (More reason I I do not like the traditional parent-child relationship) Why is it anyone else's business what I am 'mentally capable' of doing? By which they mean 'should be permitted to do' as though they own me or mine. Who is making the claim that they own me or the employing party? Where do they get the right to interfere with the affairs of others?

On sweatshops:
I used to be on board with the idea that they are perfectly acceptable. And in a completely free market sense they are. If one chooses to work in a dank hot factory for relatively higher wages than their neighbors then so be it. (they do typically get paid more at these industries than others in their markets and the locals are often angered by the closing of such facilities* I will make a note on this later) My father chose to work in such an environment but for some reason even though he literally sweats in this factory, in this machine shop, it is not considered a sweat-shop. Strange me thinks. I will not stand in the way of anyone contracting as they see fit...

BUT

These 'sweatshops' over seas are often the direct result of the United States kicking in the door for domestic businesses. They essentially collude with or threaten the foreign nation (foreign mob) to have them restrict their local labor market and establish conditions favorable to US business interests through oppressive legislation, tax, licensing, etc. And what is more these land upon which many of these foreign sweatshop factories are built upon are often taken from locals. If my home with its farm or garage or whatever I use to make a living is stolen from me by the peoples republic of timbucktoo and given to Nike inc.... Of COURSE I am going to want to work there, I do not really have anywhere else to fuckin go now that all of my capital has been stolen from me. Chomsky points outs this stuff in his work (yet still comes to the conclusion that the state can and does protect us from business interests instead of enabling them to do these things... *sigh*). This ties in to the other reason often not mentioned about the locals being angered when these joints are closed. Not only are they losing their superior wage, they are losing any source of income they have. They are legally not able or permitted to compete and had all of their previous existing capital robbed from them by the state.

[Demogorgon]

Would you oppose the right of children to work and aid their families in "third world" nations?
Absolutely, beyond a doubt, yes. Quite apart from the fact that exploitation of children is as wrong in the third world as it is in the west, child labour their keeps the people poor. For one it keeps the children from getting educated and moreover children are paid less than adults and so it is that much harder for adults to find employment, forcing them to have their children work more. An identical situation was in place here in the nineteenth century and only the abolition of child labour and the introduction of compulsory education (two of the greatest-not to mention hardest fought for-progressive achievements) began to reverse the problem.

[Demogorgon]

Incidentally, the "right" of children to work is a lot like the "right" to work for lower than the minimum wage or the "right" to work for a firm that bans Union membership amongst its employees. Libertarian crap that it disgusts me to see Communists entertaining.

[ThorsMitersaw]

Incidentally, the "right" of children to work is a lot like the "right" to work for lower than the minimum wage or the "right" to work for a firm that bans Union membership amongst its employees. Libertarian crap that it disgusts me to see Communists entertaining.

Are you proposing that I have no such right to work for less then you find acceptable? (ignoring consequentialist arguments about the inevitable mariginalized worker employment this necessarily entails)

Are you proposing I have no right to work at a shop that does not hire employees who associate with certain other associations?

If this is your position, if you think you or anyone else has a right to intervene in the agreements of consenting persons of sound mind (the last qualifier even being questionable in my view) then I find your position appallingly statist.

[ThorsMitersaw]

Absolutely, beyond a doubt, yes. Quite apart from the fact that exploitation of children is as wrong in the third world as it is in the west, child labour their keeps the people poor. For one it keeps the children from getting educated and moreover children are paid less than adults and so it is that much harder for adults to find employment, forcing them to have their children work more. An identical situation was in place here in the nineteenth century and only the abolition of child labour and the introduction of compulsory education (two of the greatest-not to mention hardest fought for-progressive achievements) began to reverse the problem.

I think the real problem is that unlike in the states where the markets were at least SOMEWHAT open, they are not at all in many foreign nations. (often due to united states influence, wanting to keep these nations from developing capital investment) so child labor never dwindles.

On one hand if you oppose child labor, the child may starve. On the other if you support it it appears you are perpetuating this cycle. If these were my only options (which I contend are not) then I would choose life as opposed to death. But seeing as my options are not thusly restricted, i choose to end corporatist imperialist influence upon these nations and to oppose the restrictions upon entrepreneurship in these places.

I would be interested to see what you think of the rest of the post I wrote. The one from which you originally quoted from.

[Demogorgon]

Are you proposing that I have no such right to work for less then you find acceptable? (ignoring consequentialist arguments about the inevitable mariginalized worker employment this necessarily entails)

Are you proposing I have no right to work at a shop that does not hire employees who associate with certain other associations?

If this is your position, if you think you or anyone else has a right to intervene in the agreements of consenting persons of sound mind (the last qualifier even being questionable in my view) then I find your position appallingly statist.
I am saying that employers have no right to exploit you like that and any talk of the "right" to subject yourself to such exploitation is a smokescreen for a system that places you in the situation where you have to accept it.

[Conquer or Die]

Didn't know john stossel had an authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism) nationalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism) political ideology[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-3) and a corporatist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) economic ideology.

Better be careful how you use the word fascism

I was referring to the righteous indignation of the "progressive" economists that he was interviewing.

I said stupid fucking John Stossel because he is a pop culture trash documentary manipulator like Michael Moore, Ben Stein, and Penn and Teller.

[Demogorgon]

I think the real problem is that unlike in the states where the markets were at least SOMEWHAT open, they are not at all in many foreign nations. (often due to united states influence, wanting to keep these nations from developing capital investment) so child labor never dwindles.The behaviour of the United States is not the issue here, we are discussing child labour and that is not solely down to American interference abroad. I referred to what used to be the case here (I mean, of course, Victorian Britain) and that was an example of child labour thriving in a very open market.


On one hand if you oppose child labor, the child may starve. On the other if you support it it appears you are perpetuating this cycle. If these were my only options (which I contend are not) then I would choose life as opposed to death. But seeing as my options are not thusly restricted, i choose to end corporatist imperialist influence upon these nations and to oppose the restrictions upon entrepreneurship in these places.

I would be interested to see what you think of the rest of the post I wrote. The one from which you originally quoted from.
This is another smokescreen. You blame Western Government, particularly that of the United States for what happens in these countries. But that is only part of the problem. It is true that these countries do not have anything that can meaningfully be called competitive markets but they often fit Libertarian conceptions of free markets well enough. The countries are cracked open with "free trade" agreements or forced "market liberalisation" in return for IMF loans or other foreign aid and predatory Western firms then drive out local business and build their own little empires. It is the complete absence of competition, but a good example of why the free market often fails to achieve that.

That is a bit of a tangent though, the real issue is child labour. All these "market solutions" and so forth presume roughly equal rational actors able to make choices and in those cases a market would more often than not achieve good results. The problem is that in the real world things are rarely like that and what happens is workers have to leap into a race to the bottom to try and get jobs and children can go that bit lower. Banning child labour will force companies to start hiring adults. That is what happened here.

[ThorsMitersaw]

I am saying that employers have no right to exploit you like that and any talk of the "right" to subject yourself to such exploitation is a smokescreen for a system that places you in the situation where you have to accept it.

I have a right to make any exchange I choose. If I want to sell my car for a dollar or a thousand dollars it is no business of yours. I agree with the smokescreen though. This is not a free market and people are often forced to accept things that they otherwise would not if one party was not legally privileged.

There is also this assumption though that all persons want to work at a shop where everyone is in a union. Considering my experience and my fathers with unions I could at best describe my opinion of corporate world unions as neutral on a very very good day. I still think that minimum wage, as well as all other wage controls, have horrible results that affect the working class the hardest. And I still think there is reason to oppose intervention in contracts.

[Jack]

I'll entertain you, what am I forced to accept in "corporatism" that I wouldn't be forced to accept in a "free market"?

[ThorsMitersaw]

The behaviour of the United States is not the issue here, we are discussing child labour and that is not solely down to American interference abroad. I referred to what used to be the case here (I mean, of course, Victorian Britain) and that was an example of child labour thriving in a very open market.

Victorian Britain, like the united states, was not a thriving free market. Capitalism was the shifting of feudal powers to capital owners. It was a change of face for the most part. Yes some economic freedoms followed but largely for the goose and not the gander... to borrow from Ben Tucker a bit :P


This is another smokescreen. You blame Western Government, particularly that of the United States for what happens in these countries. But that is only part of the problem.

Well yes. It is in no small part due to the United States influence over these weaker foreign mobs that these foreign states keep their nations under such strict economic controls.


It is true that these countries do not have anything that can meaningfully be called competitive markets but they often fit Libertarian conceptions of free markets well enough.

superficially to libertarians of the big L variety maybe


The countries are cracked open with "free trade" agreements or forced "market liberalisation" in return for IMF loans or other foreign aid and predatory Western firms then drive out local business and build their own little empires. It is the complete absence of competition, but a good example of why the free market often fails to achieve that.

Well no offense but I find it strange that you accuse this of being a failure of free trade when you yourself site state influence as the foot kicking in the door.


The problem is that in the real world things are rarely like that and what happens is workers have to leap into a race to the bottom to try and get jobs and children can go that bit lower. Banning child labour will force companies to start hiring adults. That is what happened here.

Actually child labor was on its way out largely before any such laws were passed here. Though children did still work to a large extent on the family farm and so corporate farming became that much more profitable here. Since a larger swath of family farms had been hit by this restriction.

[ThorsMitersaw]

Would you oppose the right of children to work and aid their families in "third world" nations? I would not. Often times these situations arise from necessity, not because of coercion. Many children still work on the family farm, mow lawns, sell lemonade, deliver papers, etc. I can not think of any reason a child in this situation would or should be forced to end his employment.

To me the only question of when someone should be barred from a right to contract as they see fit is a question of whether the contract was agreed to under threats OR if the person was not of sound mind. So the question immediately arises as to whether children are mentally capable of entering into contractual agreements. But any such law will inevitably put forward some arbitrary age restriction. Mental capacity is surely not strictly a matter of age. So I would say such a law is unnecessary if the question is whether one is mentally capable of entering into contracts.

And even so I question these sort of things as well as they seem to place children (and the insane and the retarded and the like) as property of others with which others may decide what to do with... or whether they will allow them to do X Y or Z. (More reason I I do not like the traditional parent-child relationship) Why is it anyone else's business what I am 'mentally capable' of doing? By which they mean 'should be permitted to do' as though they own me or mine. Who is making the claim that they own me or the employing party? Where do they get the right to interfere with the affairs of others?

On sweatshops:
I used to be on board with the idea that they are perfectly acceptable. And in a completely free market sense they are. If one chooses to work in a dank hot factory for relatively higher wages than their neighbors then so be it. (they do typically get paid more at these industries than others in their markets and the locals are often angered by the closing of such facilities* I will make a note on this later) My father chose to work in such an environment but for some reason even though he literally sweats in this factory, in this machine shop, it is not considered a sweat-shop. Strange me thinks. I will not stand in the way of anyone contracting as they see fit...

BUT

These 'sweatshops' over seas are often the direct result of the United States kicking in the door for domestic businesses. They essentially collude with or threaten the foreign nation (foreign mob) to have them restrict their local labor market and establish conditions favorable to US business interests through oppressive legislation, tax, licensing, etc. And what is more these land upon which many of these foreign sweatshop factories are built upon are often taken from locals. If my home with its farm or garage or whatever I use to make a living is stolen from me by the peoples republic of timbucktoo and given to Nike inc.... Of COURSE I am going to want to work there, I do not really have anywhere else to fuckin go now that all of my capital has been stolen from me. Chomsky points outs this stuff in his work (yet still comes to the conclusion that the state can and does protect us from business interests instead of enabling them to do these things... *sigh*). This ties in to the other reason often not mentioned about the locals being angered when these joints are closed. Not only are they losing their superior wage, they are losing any source of income they have. They are legally not able or permitted to compete and had all of their previous existing capital robbed from them by the state.

gonna bump my own post. :P

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

I think the real problem is that unlike in the states where the markets were at least SOMEWHAT open, they are not at all in many foreign nations. (often due to united states influence, wanting to keep these nations from developing capital investment) so child labor never dwindles.


If I understand you correctly, the U.S. tries to keep foriegn nations from opening their markets because it wants foreign capital investment in said nations to be stifled. However, the fact that the U.S. supports and/or participates in economic organizations such as the IMF and the WTO, whose primary objectives are to liberalize trade, seems to belie your claims. Additionally, the trade policy of the U.S. ever since the end of WWII has been to support open markets across the globe. Its participation in NAFTA, Doha Development Round, and the like attests to this.

Could you please provide evidence that the U.S. essentially supports closed markets abroad?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Providing increased wages for undeveloped countries doesn't actually benefit the workers, exactly. Those countries generally have poor economic redistribution policies. Instead of 20 workers being paid enough to survive, 5 workers are paid moderate yet still poor wages. The government won't redistribute any excess profit made from individual workers. If anything, it will siphon it off for personal agendas.

Really, why impose economic standards on countries that don't even have a stable government? Standards that will put children out of work because they're inefficient per hour compared to adults, in conditions where jobs are lacking?

If you employ a small amount of people for low wages, at least the nation develops at a faster pace and money goes directly to a greater amount of workers. Unless the West is prepared to substantially fund the nations it is imposing its agenda of "worker rights" on, they're just interfering in affairs they have no business in, honestly.

We can't just use undeveloped nations as pawns for the long-term goal of a revolutionary society, as I see it. Starving people don't revolt with political purpose. They revolt with one purpose. They want basic human needs. Ideals quickly fall out the window when people are starving and watching family members die from lack of cheap and accessible medicine in the West.

Really, sometimes we tend to be too idealistic. We can't just attack every "wrong" thing then try to patch up all the consequences of our policies after we enact them. We have to take things into consideration with respect to context. The context says capitalism needs to go in the trash bin. The capitalist context says you need to let underdeveloped nations develop within the standard cycle of exploitation or be prepared to compensate them. You can't jump a nations economic progression ahead when it doesn't have the material fallback to make that sustainable.

[narcomprom]

from chapter 15 section 2 of Das Kapital:
"Before the labour of women and of children under 10 years of age was forbidden in mines, capitalists considered the employment of naked women and girls, often in company with men, so far sanctioned by their moral code, and especially by their ledgers, that it was only after the passing of the Act that they had recourse to machinery. The Yankees have invented a stone-breaking machine. The English do not make use of it, because the “wretch” who does this work gets paid for such a small portion of his labour, that machinery would increase the cost of production to the capitalist. In England women are still occasionally used instead of horses for hauling canal boats, because the labour required to produce horses and machines is an accurately known quantity, while that required to maintain the women of the surplus-population is below all calculation."

[Killfacer]

from chapter 15 section 2 of Das Kapital:
"Before the labour of women and of children under 10 years of age was forbidden in mines, capitalists considered the employment of naked women and girls, often in company with men, so far sanctioned by their moral code, and especially by their ledgers, that it was only after the passing of the Act that they had recourse to machinery. The Yankees have invented a stone-breaking machine. The English do not make use of it, because the “wretch” who does this work gets paid for such a small portion of his labour, that machinery would increase the cost of production to the capitalist. In England women are still occasionally used instead of horses for hauling canal boats, because the labour required to produce horses and machines is an accurately known quantity, while that required to maintain the women of the surplus-population is below all calculation."

That's most certainly applicable to todays society.

[Demogorgon]

Victorian Britain, like the united states, was not a thriving free market. Capitalism was the shifting of feudal powers to capital owners. It was a change of face for the most part. Yes some economic freedoms followed but largely for the goose and not the gander... to borrow from Ben Tucker a bit :P

This is going to turn into a game of semantics as to exactly what a free market is, I fear. Plainly you do not think a system that allows a few capitalists to dominate is a free system, but given that has been the natural trend of things it is hard to see an alternative. The choice is between a fairly strong state or dominance by a capital owning elite*. Victorian Britain had the latter which qualifies it as free market by the definition of most free market evangelists.

Apparently not your definition though, which complicates things.

*Naturally of course you can, and usually do, have both. Having neither is only an option in very small economies unfortunately (presuming capitalism is the economic system).


Well yes. It is in no small part due to the United States influence over these weaker foreign mobs that these foreign states keep their nations under such strict economic controls.

You will need an example in order for me to see exactly what you mean here. The interference of the United States abroad has usually been to remove domestic Governments as significant economic actors in order to let US corporations have a free reign. It seems to me you are suggesting that they are having the Governments keep a tight control on the economy in order to protect American interests. That kind of thing certainly has historical precedent but it isn't the main tactic these days.


Well no offense but I find it strange that you accuse this of being a failure of free trade when you yourself site state influence as the foot kicking in the door.
State interests don't always align with each other. On state may oppose free trade and another desire it. Western Governments who desire it are the ones "kicking the door in" as you put it. The thing is, while, I assume, we both know the economic proofs that free trade is mutually beneficial, it only applies in certain circumstances. Amongst rough equals generally. Amongst emerging economies with the possibility of developing competitive industry but needing to shelter it while it grows it is a fools game that means they will never have their own robust domestic industries. Western Governments of course don't mind keeping these countries economically backwards and so force free trade on them, preaching its benefits while ignoring the fact that such benefits do not apply to these situations.


Actually child labor was on its way out largely before any such laws were passed here. Though children did still work to a large extent on the family farm and so corporate farming became that much more profitable here. Since a larger swath of family farms had been hit by this restriction.Define "here". To me "here" means the United Kingdom where child labour was very much thriving when the Government first of all restricted it and then banned it (thanks to enormous pressure put on it by progressive groups). The result was children being able to get education, not starvation.