Was child labor ended by capitalism, or by government law?

[joe]

Capitalism ended child labor:

[QUOTE]Child labor laws are frequently cited by proponents of government intervention as proof that businesses cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, American President Barack Obama is no exception. He refers to child labor laws as an example of

[joe]

Here's a part of the "government ended child labor" I cut out because I didn't have space. It's a time line of child labor laws:


Child Labor Reform and the U.S. Labor Movement

1832 New England unions condemn child labor
The New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Workingmen resolve that

[JtotheIzzo]

Child labor is still alive and well in many capitalist countries (see Asia). It can only be halted by regulation.

[hammer2010]

Chil labor is alive and well in America.


Exhibit A:

Child Actors

http://www.thevine.com.au/resources/IMGDETAIL/300609081138_worst-child-actors.jpg

lol

[Nanners]

child labor was ended by capitalism, but dont take it from me, take it from nike, addidas, apple, and virtually every other corporation that makes stuff for america to consume.

all hail capitalism, liberator of child laborers.

http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/1/54/154db370a169ef6d1627e168391a9881-orig

[N0Skillz]

The US ended Child Labor in America, so now companies do it overseas. Companies Don't have moral values when money is involved.

[joe]

People on this board have a strong habit of nit-picking your wording instead of focusing on the general point you're making or question you're asking. Sigh. I'll try again.

Was child labor in America ended by capitalism, or by government law?

Or if you prefer.. if every country in the world outlawed child labor the same way the US has.. what would be the effects of such a law?

[hammer2010]

People on this board have a strong habit of nit-picking your wording instead of focusing on the general point you're making or question you're asking. Sigh. I'll try again.

Was child labor in America ended by capitalism, or by government law?

Or if you prefer.. if every country in the world outlawed child labor the same way the US has.. what would be the effects of such a law?

Do you not realize how that article is falsley equating industrialization with capitalism as if they are interchangeable? There's a huge gap in logic there that you may consider revisiting.

[N0Skillz]

People on this board have a strong habit of nit-picking your wording instead of focusing on the general point you're making or question you're asking. Sigh. I'll try again.

Was child labor in America ended by capitalism, or by government law?

Or if you prefer.. if every country in the world outlawed child labor the same way the US has.. what would be the effects of such a law?



American companies still use child labor. They don't do it in America because they can't.:facepalm :facepalm

[joe]

Do you not realize how that article is falsley equating industrialization with capitalism as if they are interchangeable? There's a huge gap in logic there that you may consider revisiting.

That's really a whole other argument. Do you think the industrial revolution and capitalism are not closely intertwined, if not wholly intertwined?

[joe]

American companies still use child labor. They don't do it in America because they can't.:facepalm :facepalm

So what if every country in the entire world had child labor laws exactly like America's? Would that solve the issue of child labor?

[N0Skillz]

So what if every country in the entire world had child labor laws exactly like America's? Would that solve the issue of child labor?



Do all these countries also have the power to enforce these laws? Where these laws are not enforced, child labor ensues.

[joe]

Do all these countries also have the power to enforce these laws? Where these laws are not enforced, child labor ensues.

Good point. Okay, instead assume the United States was given the power to do it. Every government in the world gave us the power to open up a child labor administration, and enforce our child labor laws in those countries. Same penalties, same laws, same everything.

To pay for it, we cut the size of the military budget.

What would be the effects of this?

[hammer2010]

That's really a whole other argument. Do you think the industrial revolution and capitalism are not closely intertwined, if not wholly intertwined?

They are somewhat interwined but the author of the article clearly has an agenda when he implies that the terms are interchangeable. I can't begin to explain to you how many things are wrong with this article.:facepalm

For instance a better quality of life brought on by the natural progression of technology and innovation is credited to the very loosely defined term 'capitalism'. :hammerhead:

[N0Skillz]

Good point. Okay, instead assume the United States was given the power to do it. Every government in the world gave us the power to open up a child labor administration, and enforce our child labor laws in those countries. Same penalties, same laws, same everything.

To pay for it, we cut the size of the military budget.

What would be the effects of this?


I don't quite understand your question,but I would assume Population stabilization,inflation of currency, slower growth for third world countries. For the US more jobs, deflation, and some growth.

I would also think that the any country who already had these laws in place would see a rise in the value of their currency.


Oh and China would have to import almost all their food.

[joe]

I don't quite understand your question,but I would assume Population stabilization,inflation of currency, slower growth for third world countries. For the US more jobs, deflation, and some growth.

I would also think that the any country who already had these laws in place would see a rise in the value of their currency.


Oh and China would have to import almost all their food.

What about for the children who used to work and for their families? If we added child labor laws to these countries what would happen to them?

[N0Skillz]

What about for the children who used to work and for their families? If we added child labor laws to these countries what would happen to them?


Well we threw them all in school. Families will have to rely on their parents again,but that burden will be lowered because of the inflation and the rise in their wages.

[DukeDelonte13]

It was regulation in some way shape or form, not capitalism. I capitalism really ended child labor, there would't be millions of child laborers still being used by american companies, and companies who sell their products in america.

[RidonKs]

this thread barely makes so little sense to me on so many levels.

and this here takes the cake

What about for the children who used to work and for their families? If we added child labor laws to these countries what would happen to them?




here are three points you're simultaneously trying to argue

a) capitalism contributed to the end of child labour in America
b) in spite of that, American companies still take part in child labour
c) children in countries where child labour is prevalent would be worse without it


those first two points are actually spot on, but when you combine it with the third, you're either a hypocrite or a xenophobe. i just don't understand how you could start a thread praising your favourite economic system for ridding the world of child labour, and within 15 posts, wonder how much worse the rest of the world might be without its child labour.

bear in mind the third point is based on other arguments i've heard you make regarding international child labour, so i'm assuming. you haven't progressed the argument here as far as you have in the past, but i'm predicting its direction and conclusion nevertheless.

[joe]

this thread barely makes so little sense to me on so many levels.

and this here takes the cake




here are three points you're simultaneously trying to argue

a) capitalism contributed to the end of child labour in America
b) in spite of that, American companies still take part in child labour
c) children in countries where child labour is prevalent would be worse without it


those first two points are actually spot on, but when you combine it with the third, you're either a hypocrite or a xenophobe. i just don't understand how you could start a thread praising your favourite economic system for ridding the world of child labour, and within 15 posts, wonder how much worse the rest of the world might be without its child labour.

bear in mind the third point is based on other arguments i've heard you make regarding international child labour, so i'm assuming. you haven't progressed the argument here as far as you have in the past, but i'm predicting its direction and conclusion nevertheless.

What I'm saying is, parents don't send their kids to work for no reason. Especially not in sweat shops or dangerous mines. They do it because they don't make enough money to support the family on their own.

I don't think child labor is a good thing at all. I wish children didn't have to work anywhere in the world. But the history books and the general assumption is often that the United States government ended child labor in the US with child labor laws. And that foreign governments are just inhumane a-holes because they allow kids to work in sweat shops instead of passing child labor laws like us.

But laws don't stop child labor... productivity does. When a working parent becomes productive enough that what he earns is enough to support a family. Child labor ends when humans can afford to keep their kids home, or send them to school. That is how the modern childhood was created.

And that is a key term, "modern" childhood. The childhood we had in America and in Canada is nothing like the childhood that humans have had throughout history. Most childhoods have been either cut short by disease and death, or filled with working your ass off just to have enough food for you and your family.

But how did we achieve that modern childhood? Was it through government child labor laws? No. Let's send some politicians back to medieval Europe and tell the farming families that their kid isn't allowed to keep working, because it's inhumane. What kind of response do you think you'll get?

But give that father a tractor, so he can produce 20x more food, and maybe he'll send his kid down to school instead.

So to me that's all pretty obvious, logical stuff when you really look at it. But the real question is, where does that extra productivity come from? Where does the advanced industrial technology come fom? How did entire working families go from producing only just enough to get by.. to being productive enough to keep the kids and even the wife at home?

I'm pretty sure you know what my answer is. What do you think?

[kentatm]

so you are saying tractors would not have been invented without capitalism?

I'm sorry but child labor would still be in full effect had it not been banned in the US.

Ever heard of a coal mine?

You can't make the claim that technological advances are all due to capitalism and therefor capitalism ended child labor.

and pointing at medieval times to try and make your point? really?

[joe]

It was regulation in some way shape or form, not capitalism. I capitalism really ended child labor, there would't be millions of child laborers still being used by american companies, and companies who sell their products in america.

But why do those kids have to work? Why don't their parents just keep them home, let them play xbox, and watch tv?

It's because the parents themselves aren't productive enough to afford that. They need the kid to work for the family to survive.

How do you become more productive? You need tools and technology. A tractor is more productive than a human. A spinning jenny is more productive than a human. So a human with those tools is being more productive.

But where do those tools come from? And how do we know that what we're making is desired?

You could give anyone a tractor. But what if he just drives it around in circles? Or what if he plants 200 pounds of corn, but can only sell 50 pounds of it? That's a waste.

So you need capitalism. Capital investment in business ideas. An entrepreneur with an idea to make money. He takes his capital, buys the right tools, and hires people to use them. He is able to take the productivity they've created and turn it into profit. So he is able to pay them a wage.

Think about the industrial revolution. Kids worked then in America, but don't anymore. Why? It's because now, through capitalism, we've created enough new technology and enhanced our individual production so much, that we can afford to keep our kids home.

The reason child labor exists in other countries, is because they resist capitalism and free markets in exchange for socialism, dictatorships, and monarchies. The countries that are now embracing capitalism, like China, will become increasingly rich in the future. And the countries that reject it will become increasingly poor. Like us.

Hopefully we don't live long enough that we have to repeal child labor laws, because we can't afford to not send our children to work.

[joe]

so you are saying tractors would not have been invented without capitalism?

I'm sorry but child labor would still be in full effect had it not been banned in the US.

Ever heard of a coal mine?

You can't make the claim that technological advances are all due to capitalism and therefor capitalism ended child labor.

and pointing at medieval times to try and make your point? really?

No, not all technological advances are due to capitalism. Though, a free country with free markets (and small government too) will encourage the most invention.

But capitalism's role is that it allows us to use our new tools and technology in the most productive ways, increasing profit by the highest degree, and raising every ones overall productivity and therefore wages in the process.

What don't you like about my medieval example?

[KeylessEntry]

The argument that child labor ended because parents became more productive is dumb. Here in america, productivity is declining. Unemployment of these parents is higher than ever and as a result more than a quarter of american school kids live below the poverty level and literally half of kids in public school are on food stamps. Given our declining productivity and the fact that there are millions of poor and hungry children in the US, you would expect that child labor would be coming back into favor here in the states so that these families can survive.

[joe]

I think it should be pretty obvious that child labor in America was not ended by the law, but ended by increased productivity. If you want to argue what caused that increased productivity, cool. But how can you really argue that the laws stopped child labor? Again.. try to go back anytime in history before the industrial revolution and tell the people their children aren't allowed to work, because it's a law. They'll either laugh in your face, or listen to you and starve. Or at least be much worse off than they were before, which was pretty crappy to begin with.

[joe]

The argument that child labor ended because parents became more productive is dumb. Here in america, productivity is declining. Unemployment of these parents is higher than ever and as a result more than a quarter of american school kids live below the poverty level and literally half of kids in public school are on food stamps. Given our declining productivity and the fact that there are millions of poor and hungry children in the US, you would expect that child labor would be coming back into favor here in the states so that these families can survive.

We're still pretty productive and it hasn't gotten THAT bad yet. The people with jobs are still pretty much able to get by. They're just being forced to cut back on luxuries, like fancy cell phones and 1,000 tv channels.

I'm talking about a time when even the people who worked had barely enough money to get by. You would work 18 hour days, and have a crappy house, just enough food, and hardly any luxuries. Give a person like that a kid, and tell him the kid doesn't have to work? I guess the kid doesn't have to eat, either.

Our poor are benefiting from not only welfare, but the productivity of those around them. We have fairly cheap housing with all amenities, you can eat fairly cheap, etc. We'll have to fall off the map a lot further for child labor to have to come back.

I wouldn't be surprised if more families weren't kicking their 18-20 year olds without jobs, though.

[KeylessEntry]

We're still pretty productive and it hasn't gotten THAT bad yet. The people with jobs are still pretty much able to get by. They're just being forced to cut back on luxuries, like fancy cell phones and 1,000 tv channels.

I'm talking about a time when even the people who worked had barely enough money to get by. You would work 18 hour days, and have a crappy house, just enough food, and hardly any luxuries. Give a person like that a kid, and tell him the kid doesn't have to work? I guess the kid doesn't have to eat, either.

Our poor are benefiting from not only welfare, but the productivity of those around them. We have fairly cheap housing with all amenities, you can eat fairly cheap, etc. We'll have to fall off the map a lot further for child labor to have to come back.

I wouldn't be surprised if more families weren't kicking their 18-20 year olds without jobs, though.


I will say it again. A quarter of children live below the poverty level and half of children are on food stamps. One in 5 kids will go hungry tonight. You really think things arent that bad? Now would be a perfect time to put these poor inner city kids to work in the coal mines, their families need the money after all.

You sound completely out of touch with reality talking about the state of the poor in this country, what they are benefitting from and what kind of sacrifices they have to make. A lot of people would disagree that it is inexpensive to live/eat, and a lot of people have never had a fancy cell phone or 1000 tv channels. You sound like shlver complaining that people in trailer parks have satellite dishes. How many seriously poor people do you actually know?

[joe]

I will say it again. A quarter of children live below the poverty level and half of children are on food stamps. One in 5 kids will go hungry tonight. You really think things arent that bad? Now would be a perfect time to put these poor inner city kids to work in the coal mines, their families need the money after all.

You sound completely out of touch with reality talking about the state of the poor in this country, what they are benefitting from and what kind of sacrifices they have to make. A lot of people would disagree that it is inexpensive to live/eat, and a lot of people have never had a fancy cell phone or 1000 tv channels. You sound like shlver complaining that people in trailer parks have satellite dishes. How many seriously poor people do you actually know?

Well, maybe now is the time to put those kids to work. Sadly, it's illegal. Go find a company willing to hire a 10 year old, even if him and his family could really use the money? Good luck.

If child labor in fact does need to come back, go and find me a politician willing to advocate it?

And trust me, I'm right in the storm of reality. I grew up lower middle class and most of my family is just poor, period. And my area is being hit real hard by the economy.

[kentatm]

No, not all technological advances are due to capitalism. Though, a free country with free markets (and small government too) will encourage the most invention.

But capitalism's role is that it allows us to use our new tools and technology in the most productive ways, increasing profit by the highest degree, and raising every ones overall productivity and therefore wages in the process.


that isn't necessarily true.

it is in a corporations best interest to stamp out any innovation that may challenge their market share. They will buy, bully, and steal their way into stopping anything that could stop profit.

Capitalism is NOT based on making things more efficient and productive. Its based off making the most money. If a more efficient process helps that end goal, a business will use it. If it not, they won't.


What don't you like about my medieval example?

I don't like your medieval example b/c its ridiculous. You are comparing subsistence farming to things like kids working in coal mines, factories, chemical plants, etc. Its a terrible analogy and you should be smart enough to understand why.

[joe]

that isn't necessarily true.

it is in a corporations best interest to stamp out any innovation that may challenge their market share. They will buy, bully, and steal their way into stopping anything that could stop profit.

Capitalism is NOT based on making things more efficient and productive. Its based off making the most money. If a more efficient process helps that end goal, a business will use it. If it not, they won't.

Efficiency and productivity are inseparably linked to making money. Businesses are always looking for ways to save time and money, to maximize productivity and therefore maximize profit.

The majority of businesses make their money through honest means. Obviously some do illegal shit, but that's "illegal" for a reason and that's what we have government for. Some cops do illegal shit, should we blame the entire police force?



I don't like your medieval example b/c its ridiculous. You are comparing subsistence farming to things like kids working in coal mines, factories, chemical plants, etc. Its a terrible analogy and you should be smart enough to understand why.

Subsistence farming is how a lot of families made their livings before the industrial revolution. But my example doesn't have to focus on farming. In most of human civilized history, the large majority of people were unskilled workers, or farmers. The people doing those jobs weren't productive enough to feed a whole family, and so it was necessary for their children to work. My point is.. try and tell these people that it's inhumane/against the law for their children to work. It just wouldn't register. They aren't making them work because they're just big meanies, they're making them work because it's necessary.


Government played a role in the industrial revolution as well, of course. The

[Sarcastic]

April Fool's Day is like 4 months away. Why post this now?

[joe]

April Fool's Day is like 4 months away. Why post this now?

If you think government law ended child labor in America.. what do you think would happen if we just applied the US child labor law to every country in the world, and were able to enforce it? Would more poor children/poor families starve? Yes or no.

[Sarcastic]

If you think government law ended child labor in America.. what do you think would happen if we just applied the US child labor law to every country in the world, and were able to enforce it? Would more poor children/poor families starve? Yes or no.

It's a moot question if companies paid workers a fair wage.

[IGOTGAME]

If you think government law ended child labor in America.. what do you think would happen if we just applied the US child labor law to every country in the world, and were able to enforce it? Would more poor children/poor families starve? Yes or no.

are you talking about what factually ended child labor?

I just don't understand you avocation of such a free market(fda). The market takes time to correct itself, do you really think that is good idea. don't understand how someone can think this way?

[Sarcastic]

are you talking about what factually ended child labor?

I just don't understand you avocation of such a free market(fda). The market takes time to correct itself, do you really think that is good idea. don't understand how someone can think this way?

He thinks the free hand will eventually cure all. In the long run it eventually can, but not before death and destruction wipes out most of the population.

[hammer2010]

He thinks the free hand will eventually cure all. In the long run it eventually can, but not before death and destruction wipes out most of the population.

You can't have a free market without some regulation in the form of the rule of law. Most people confuse free markets with a Darwinian approach of the survival of the fittest. Which would really amount to people killing each other for their shit.

Free market in reality is only about having the freedom to supply a demand in society and having the suppliers competing with one another freely and fairly. Once you start exploiting members of that society you are no longer practicing free enterprise, and the free people of that society should be able to come down on you with all it's force in the form of the rule of law. And they should be able to freely make laws against exploitation as they see fit.

The free market isn't a free card to do as you please in society.

And what's wrong with a society to say that our children will not be used for 'cheap labor' by the market in order to drive competition?

[joe]

And what's wrong with a society to say that our children will not be used for 'cheap labor' by the market in order to drive competition?

Well.. I do think there are problems with that. Mainly, what if it's in a family's best interest to have their kid work? I think our image of "child labor" is screwed up, because the only child labor we have in our memory is in early-industrial or non-industrialized countries. If we had child labor today in America, you're talking about kids taking out garbage and sweeping floors, or re-stocking shelves.

But to me, the child labor laws aren't the worst thing in the world. It's when people give government credit for ending child labor, when it's really advancements in productivity by worker, best spurred by capitalism. I read a good quote, I don't remember who it was. But it said, "government waits for capitalism to create a new standard, then passes that standard into law." Basically, capitalism makes child labor less prevalent.. government makes a law making child labor illegal. Capitalism raises wages.. government creates a minimum wage. It isn't clock work, but I see it quite often. Very irritating.

[joe]

He thinks the free hand will eventually cure all. In the long run it eventually can, but not before death and destruction wipes out most of the population.

So why wasn't most of the American population wiped out while we were becoming the most prosperous nation in history, circa 1900?

[Sarcastic]

Well.. I do think there are problems with that. Mainly, what if it's in a family's best interest to have their kid work? I think our image of "child labor" is screwed up, because the only child labor we have in our memory is in early-industrial or non-industrialized countries. If we had child labor today in America, you're talking about kids taking out garbage and sweeping floors, or re-stocking shelves.

But to me, the child labor laws aren't the worst thing in the world. It's when people give government credit for ending child labor, when it's really advancements in productivity by worker, best spurred by capitalism. I read a good quote, I don't remember who it was. But it said, "government waits for capitalism to create a new standard, then passes that standard into law." Basically, capitalism makes child labor less prevalent.. government makes a law making child labor illegal. Capitalism raises wages.. government creates a minimum wage. It isn't clock work, but I see it quite often. Very irritating.

It should never be in a family's best interest to have their children work, and if companies paid the adults enough in wages then they wouldn't have to send their children to the factories.

[Sarcastic]

So why wasn't most of the American population wiped out while we were becoming the most prosperous nation in history, circa 1900?

Take a guess.

[IGOTGAME]

So why wasn't most of the American population wiped out while we were becoming the most prosperous nation in history, circa 1900?

because there was regulation.

are you asking these question rhetorically or because you seriously don't know the answers.

[hammer2010]

This Joe guy sounds like a kid who heard his parents discussing these things after watching the republican debates on fox news and then running over to ISH to post some of what he heard in an attempt to sound sophisticated. :oldlol:

Read a book or two kid!

[joe]

This Joe guy sounds like a kid who heard his parents discussing these things after watching the republican debates on fox news and then running over to ISH to post some of what he heard in an attempt to sound sophisticated. :oldlol:

Read a book or two kid!

Personal insults, it's okay. I don't claim to be a genius but I have read more than a book or two and know what I'm talking about. I'm definitely wrong at times like everyone else, and when someone schools me in a debate I've admitted it in the past.

I think you're ignoring the natural rules of logic by saying society should exempt kids from the market. You act like that's societies choice to make, in all cases. In America and other western countries, we've just experienced a brief moment in history, where it was possible to do that. That is not the norm, it is a tiny exception in the grand scheme of civilized human history.

Now I'm not saying I want child labor back at all. I'm saying.. what made us such a special case? What made child labor unnecessary? It wasn't just that we're Americans and we're awesome. It wasn't just that we're special and the poor people in third world countries aren't. And it wasn't because our government passed a stupid law.

It was because we had the most free country, with the least obstructive government, with sound currency. And not least of all, the government we had was built on great principles that facilitated our economic growth.

I want to end child labor for good, and bring back the conditions that eliminated it. People like Sarcastic sound a lot more compassionate and caring on the surface, but thinking that workers are "owed" a fair wage to stop children from working.. is just fantasy.

[brantonli]

If child labour was ended by capitalism, then why did the law forbidding child labour have to be enacted?

[joe]

It should never be in a family's best interest to have their children work, and if companies paid the adults enough in wages then they wouldn't have to send their children to the factories.

It should never be, but that isn't reality. Just looking at some poor countries across the ocean should prove that to you.

The problem with your proposed solution, is that companies don't owe anybody a higher wage. Companies hire people to make more money. The companies that pay workers more, out of compassion, aren't going to be a successful organization. It just doesn't work like that.

That hardly regulated, robber baroon, capitalist tycoon era of the 19th century, that is often so shat upon by liberals.. was when the American middle class was born.
[QUOTE]
It was during the growth of the Industrial Age that the Middle Class was born. The New industrial age had separated the home from the workplace. Roles became more discernable for men and women. Men were to be the ones who brought home the families income. Wives were to stay at home tending to children. These men were more strict with their children, and most particularly with sons, whom would follow after their fathers footsteps. But because he was a little more distant from his children and left more of the responsibility of raising the children up to his wife this became somewhat confining at times for the father.


Because of the middle class more emphasis was placed on the child. The Middle Class began to venture out to make education and higher prospects for their sons. They paid more attention on meeting these needs than ever before as new opportunities opened up for their sons to step up and take the initiative for success in life. It wasn

[joe]

If child labour was ended by capitalism, then why did the law forbidding child labour have to be enacted?

In many ways, it's a classic case of government hopping on a bandwagon that was already on its way. Child labor was decreasing long before any federal law against it, and had been decreasing before much serious state law came about. Not to mention, child labor was an accepted part of life until the industrial revolution and the urbanization of America. Before that, nobody had the privilege of outlawing it. It was a natural part of life that was only eliminated by our great economic prosperity in the 19th century.

First, federal government didn't outlaw child labor until 1938.



Finally, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 prohibited the full-time employment of those 16 and under (with a few exemptions) and enacted a national minimum wage which made employing most children uneconomical. It received the Supreme Court’s blessing.

Most economic historians conclude that this legislation was not the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor

The state laws began much earlier, in 1838, but they weren't very strong. From the same article:


Legislation enacted before 1880 generally contained only weak restrictions and little provisions for enforcement. In the late 1800s, however, social pressure against child labor became more organized under leaders such as Florence Kelley, Edgar Gardner Murphy and Felix Adler. By 1899, 44 states and territories had a child labor law of some type.

So harsh restrictions didn't come about until the 1880's, but evidence shows that child labor peaked in the 30s/40's.

(Go here, and read page 6 and 7 out of 34. Or just read the whole thing, because it's really informative. I can't copy and paste because it's not regular text.):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57899624/Goldin-Sokoloff

Some theories on why the laws ever came about? It's hard to say. My first instinct, is that it's the same thing you see today. People see something become normal, and then they want a law to make official what has already been done. Similar to the Civil Rights Act. Blacks were becoming more and more accepted into society, were more and more "moving on up," and then the law comes after. If weed is made federally legal soon, I bet in 100 years the federal government will be given the credit. But it is the grassroots movement that really is changing the opinion on marijuana.

Just like with child labor. It was industrialization and higher real wages that made child labor unnecessary. That's what brought about the "modern childhood." Then, the federal government makes it illegal.

[joe]

For anyone interested, here's a really good article arguing that child labor laws are antiquated and need to be done away with.

http://mises.org/daily/2858

A lot of people knock mises.org, because it's so entirely austrian economics/free market driven. It's seen as biased and one sided.

Well.. it is biased and one sided. But I think it does a good job of explaining that perspective. Nobody has to agree with them 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean you'd disagree with all of it. I think that article in particular makes a lot of sense.

Oh and merry christmas all, even those who think I'm an idiot and what not :D. Enjoy some nba games and forget about the real world for a while.. :-)

[IGOTGAME]

\
Some theories on why the laws ever came about? It's hard to say. My first instinct, is that it's the same thing you see today. People see something become normal, and then they want a law to make official what has already been done. Similar to the Civil Rights Act. Blacks were becoming more and more accepted into society, were more and more "moving on up," and then the law comes after. If weed is made federally legal soon, I bet in 100 years the federal government will be given the credit. But it is the grassroots movement that really is changing the opinion on marijuana.
.

are you really trying to say that Civil Rights Act wasn't needed? please explain.

Merry Christmas.

[joe]

are you really trying to say that Civil Rights Act wasn't needed? please explain.

Merry Christmas.

I think it did some good things socially. It made a lot of people recognize the black equality movement. But I think that trend was on its way before the CRA was passed. But the CRA definitely sped it up, IMO. But I also think a lot of the laws that have grown from the CRA have been negative.

From the book "Civil Rights, Rhetoric or Reality?" By Thomas Sowell, linked from here

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/
[QUOTE]
Writes Sowell:

[KevinNYC]

Child labor is still alive and well in many capitalist countries (see Asia). It can only be halted by regulation.

This.

/thread

[N0Skillz]

I think it did some good things socially. It made a lot of people recognize the black equality movement. But I think that trend was on its way before the CRA was passed. But the CRA definitely sped it up, IMO. But I also think a lot of the laws that have grown from the CRA have been negative.

From the book "Civil Rights, Rhetoric or Reality?" By Thomas Sowell, linked from here

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/


You do know that we still have 12 states that need to get clearance from the Government before they can redraw their political state map because before the Voting Rights Act Of 1965 they were trying to disenfranchise black voters? Do you also know that in 3 short years after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed Mississippi's black registration went from 5% to 59%?


Also you do know that there was also a Civil Rights Act Of 1957, and 1960?

[sunsfan1357]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULAfBllREZs

[brantonli]

To me, child labour is simply the alternative to what kids really need at the age, which is education. I would be interested to see what kind of child labour rates are in countries where GDP per capita hasn't gone up significantly but child labour laws have been enacted.

The book I'm reading now 'Poor Economics', has interesting excerpts about educating the poor, especially their children, and how parents decide whether or not to send their kids off to schools or to work on their farms. Because almost always if you send the children to school rather than working young, you get a much higher rate of return from the kid. We are talking about very basic things btw, like literacy, or basic sums.

And to be very honest, I don't see why it can't be a bit of both capitalism and government regulation.

[Kblaze8855]

I have no real issue with child labor. I had a job at 11. Forced or dangerous child labor? Should be out of course. But I know a lot of kids who would be better off with a job instead of doing the BS all their free time allows. Hell of a lot of perfectly safe work can be done by kids. If the kid and their parents are cool with it....and it wont hurt school? Id be fine with people working from like 12 on up.

[N0Skillz]

I have no real issue with child labor. I had a job at 11. Forced or dangerous child labor? Should be out of course. But I know a lot of kids who would be better off with a job instead of doing the BS all their free time allows. Hell of a lot of perfectly safe work can be done by kids. If the kid and their parents are cool with it....and it wont hurt school? Id be fine with people working from like 12 on up.


What kind of job?

[joe]

To me, child labour is simply the alternative to what kids really need at the age, which is education. I would be interested to see what kind of child labour rates are in countries where GDP per capita hasn't gone up significantly but child labour laws have been enacted.

The book I'm reading now 'Poor Economics', has interesting excerpts about educating the poor, especially their children, and how parents decide whether or not to send their kids off to schools or to work on their farms. Because almost always if you send the children to school rather than working young, you get a much higher rate of return from the kid. We are talking about very basic things btw, like literacy, or basic sums.

And to be very honest, I don't see why it can't be a bit of both capitalism and government regulation.

But keep in mind, sending your kids to school is a luxury. You can't send your kids to school if you cant' afford to not have them work.

[Sarcastic]

But keep in mind, sending your kids to school is a luxury. You can't send your kids to school if you cant' afford to not have them work.

WTF kind of world do you want bro? Do you think society shouldn't educate the youth? Should education be only available to those that can afford it?

[N0Skillz]

But keep in mind, sending your kids to school is a luxury. You can't send your kids to school if you cant' afford to not have them work.


and no one should be forced to work when they could learn and actually make something of themselves. It's a law needed to protect children with stupid parents

[joe]

WTF kind of world do you want bro? Do you think society shouldn't educate the youth? Should education be only available to those that can afford it?

I think the kind of world I want, doesn't sound very nice in small quotes. Not as much as yours. So I understand when people knock libertarians types. I'm not sure why small government/free markets makes sense to me. From the moment I heard it and read about it and learned about it, the ideas just popped. They made so much logical sense, and so many distorted puzzle pieces snapped into place. The more I learn, the more it reaffirms itself.

It's tough to explain my thoughts sometimes, because I think other people are immediately dismissive, and I also (like most people) don't do the best job of explaining myself. I'm sometimes rude, sometimes not informed enough to argue what I argue, sometimes I myself can be dismissive when I should listen. And then there's always that doubt in the back of your head. "Maybe... you are wrong."

I feel what I said is just a plain fact. "Sending your kids to school instead of work is a luxury." But to know where I'm coming from, you have to think historically. For most of human history, we were extremely poor. A large majority of children HAD to work, no ifs ands or buts. The idea of sending your kids to school was laughable.

Sending your kids to school is a luxury, created by society. But not society as in government. Society as in, freedom. Free markets. Free markets create enough wealth, that it can become financially feasible to send your kids to school. Not totally free markets, but markets with the least amount of government possible. Just enough to protect, not enough to infringe.

We're living in a very strange time, from a libertarian perspective. Capitalism has created so much wealth, yet the biggest benefactors of it (Americans) largely are rejecting it. We got rich by not redistributing wealth, not having government welfare, not obstructing business.. and now that we're rich, we want to do all of those things. It's like the "play not to lose" strategy. Instead of continuing to run the plays that got us the lead, we're going into the "prevent" and our lead is evaporating.

When you say society should educate our kids, you are probably talking about taxes and public school. While I won't say I'm 100% against public school (at the state level perhaps), you're missing the grander point I'm making. Sending your kids to school is a luxury, because it isn't a guarantee. It only exists as long as we're wealthy enough to afford it.

Sorry for the rant. I am a bit buzzed, and I had quite a bit of fun writing it. Seems like message board posts are the only time I find to practice my writing anymore :D

[joe]

To me, child labour is simply the alternative to what kids really need at the age, which is education. I would be interested to see what kind of child labour rates are in countries where GDP per capita hasn't gone up significantly but child labour laws have been enacted.

The book I'm reading now 'Poor Economics', has interesting excerpts about educating the poor, especially their children, and how parents decide whether or not to send their kids off to schools or to work on their farms. Because almost always if you send the children to school rather than working young, you get a much higher rate of return from the kid. We are talking about very basic things btw, like literacy, or basic sums.

And to be very honest, I don't see why it can't be a bit of both capitalism and government regulation.

What time period does that book focus on? Or if different time periods, what does it say for them individually?

[joe]

I have no real issue with child labor. I had a job at 11. Forced or dangerous child labor? Should be out of course. But I know a lot of kids who would be better off with a job instead of doing the BS all their free time allows. Hell of a lot of perfectly safe work can be done by kids. If the kid and their parents are cool with it....and it wont hurt school? Id be fine with people working from like 12 on up.

Right on dude. That's what the article I posted was basically saying. Pretty much, "say what you will about child labor being dangerous in the 19th century.. what's wrong with it now? Kids could be helping old people with computers, delivering mail, etc." And the work experience could really help. Although, being mises.org, I'm sure they wouldn't want government laws forbidding dangerous work.. :D

[N0Skillz]

Right on dude. That's what the article I posted was basically saying. Pretty much, "say what you will about child labor being dangerous in the 19th century.. what's wrong with it now? Kids could be helping old people with computers, delivering mail, etc." And the work experience could really help. Although, being mises.org, I'm sure they wouldn't want government laws forbidding dangerous work.. :D



:facepalm That's not Labor, kids still earn money that way.

Working 30-70 Hours a week is Labor...................

12 year olds shouldn't be working 8 hours a day

[JtotheIzzo]

its all relative. In countries like Cambodia where lots of 'sweatshops' are the idea of age is vastly different.

A lot of women are mothers by age 15, life expectancy is shorter, people are dirt poor and a lot of older people (30 plus is considered old) are too sick or lazy to work.

In these places the idea of a 14 year old putting in a good days work doesn't even raise an eyebrow, school is only for the rich and people need to make themselves useful and more importantly eat.

the world is a f*cked up place, there will always be child labor and in most places children will be clamoring to get these jobs. If some corrupt third world government official has received enough kickbacks and decides your area is suitable for a foreign company to set up a factory that district is happy as shit, and they are going to send everyone they can there to work.

[LJJ]

its all relative. In countries like Cambodia where lots of 'sweatshops' are the idea of age is vastly different.

A lot of women are mothers by age 15, life expectancy is shorter, people are dirt poor and a lot of older people (30 plus is considered old) are too sick or lazy to work.

In these places the idea of a 14 year old putting in a good days work doesn't even raise an eyebrow, school is only for the rich and people need to make themselves useful and more importantly eat.

the world is a f*cked up place, there will always be child labor and in most places children will be clamoring to get these jobs. If some corrupt third world government official has received enough kickbacks and decides your area is suitable for a foreign company to set up a factory that district is happy as shit, and they are going to send everyone they can there to work.

Which becomes a vicious circle of poverty. Kids working in factories from an early age leads to them becoming sick, weak and uneducated adults who need to send their kids into slavery to stay alive.

I understand that this is reality, but I don't understand how you can possibly see this as a good thing unless your only opinion amounts to "Well, as long as this means that they stay poor and we rich for the next 100 years I'm cool with it.".

[N0Skillz]

Which becomes a vicious circle of poverty. Kids working in factories from an early age leads to them becoming sick, weak and uneducated adults who need to send their kids into slavery to stay alive.

I understand that this is reality, but I don't understand how you can possibly see this as a good thing unless your only opinion amounts to "Well, as long as this means that they stay poor and we rich for the next 100 years I'm cool with it.".


Thank You LJJ, just thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth

[joe]

:facepalm That's not Labor, kids still earn money that way.

Working 30-70 Hours a week is Labor...................

12 year olds shouldn't be working 8 hours a day

What I meant was, they could have jobs doing those things.

According to New York State Law (though this may be federal):


Minors not yet 14 may not be employed at any time:

Not after school
Not during vacation


With a few exceptions for certain jobs. There are different weird exceptions here and there, but that's the meat and potatoes of it.

Well, what if a 13 year old has a skill and wants to make some money? Why should that be outlawed? I really don't get it. What if his business owner Uncle wants to hire him to sweep up and vacuum for 4 hours a day after school? Why is that a bad thing?

When kids graduate high school, you hear people say "college isn't for everyone. you might be better going to trade school or just getting a job." Well, why is middle school right for everybody? Or at the very least, why is work experience in addition to school wrong for anyone who isn't 14?

We've all been brainwashed into thinking public school is this magic pill. I agree that education is a great thing, I encourage all to do it.. but I'm not arrogant enough to think I know what's best for everyone.

I don't think you're arrogant like that either. Perhaps you just think those kids will be exploited by companies if they don't go to public school until they're 18. I beg the differ. But I suppose I can see where you're coming from. But I only see where you're coming from from a moral sense. I don't think these laws are the right path for us to take.

[joe]

Which becomes a vicious circle of poverty. Kids working in factories from an early age leads to them becoming sick, weak and uneducated adults who need to send their kids into slavery to stay alive.

I understand that this is reality, but I don't understand how you can possibly see this as a good thing unless your only opinion amounts to "Well, as long as this means that they stay poor and we rich for the next 100 years I'm cool with it.".

Well, let's apply my initial question to JtotheIzzo's post.

The question was.. what ended child labor in America. Capitalism/free markets/small, lawful government... or government child labor laws?

The new question is, what can end child labor overseas? I think, if these countries toppled their government, adopted the values of early America, went through their own industrial revolution, had sound currency, free markets, etc. They would see prosperity. As I've said a million times and I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

What do you think would end child labor and poverty in some of these foreign, sweat shop countries?

[joe]

its all relative. In countries like Cambodia where lots of 'sweatshops' are the idea of age is vastly different.

A lot of women are mothers by age 15, life expectancy is shorter, people are dirt poor and a lot of older people (30 plus is considered old) are too sick or lazy to work.

In these places the idea of a 14 year old putting in a good days work doesn't even raise an eyebrow, school is only for the rich and people need to make themselves useful and more importantly eat.

the world is a f*cked up place, there will always be child labor and in most places children will be clamoring to get these jobs. If some corrupt third world government official has received enough kickbacks and decides your area is suitable for a foreign company to set up a factory that district is happy as shit, and they are going to send everyone they can there to work.

I agree with all of this. But you would also say that these foreign countries are by and large capitalist, no? That I'd disagree with to some extent, but it depends on the definition of capitalism we use, and to what degree.

Actually, capitalism is a pretty broad term. I think it was wrong of me to put only "capitalism" in the thread title, because it was really a mix of things that (IMO) ended child labor in America. It was capitalism, free markets, small, lawful government that mostly stayed out of the way of business, sound currency, low taxes, respect of property rights, etc.

Do you think implementing those things in countries like Cambodia would end their child labor? Or, what would be your solution?

[LJJ]

Well, let's apply my initial question to JtotheIzzo's post.

The question was.. what ended child labor in America. Capitalism/free markets/small, lawful government... or government child labor laws?

The new question is, what can end child labor overseas? I think, if these countries toppled their government, adopted the values of early America, went through their own industrial revolution, had sound currency, free markets, etc. They would see prosperity. As I've said a million times and I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

What do you think would end child labor and poverty in some of these foreign, sweat shop countries?

That would work if it happened 1500 years ago, but it does not work in the reality of today.

Maybe 1500 years ago Cambodia could have invaded the US. Basically commit genocide on all the indigenous people.. Then use industrial scale slavery to holocaust themselves into moderate prosperity and then have their industrial revolution, but today that possibility is not there.

[brantonli]

But keep in mind, sending your kids to school is a luxury. You can't send your kids to school if you cant' afford to not have them work.

Firstly, if education seems to be a luxury rather than a necessity in today's world, then I have a few economists who would like to have a word with you (no seriously, some of my professors would probably have a word).

Let me put out an example. Hong Kong is ranked as one of the most freest economies in the world, one of the best places to start a business and (most recently) ranked even higher than New York and London as a financial centre. Milton Friedman once said HK is the best example of capitalism in the world. But we also have 9 years of free and compulsory education since at least 1971. Now, neither do I pretend to know exactly what's best for everybody else, but to use that as an argument NOT to do anything is just....lazy. To say 'Because we cannot tailor for each person's educational need, we shouldn't make education compulsory', just doesn't make sense. In that case, we shouldn't make it compulsory to pay taxes, have a law system. Yes you'll get inefficiencies, but the benefits of the system for the whole society will be far greater than the little wrinkles within.

As for the book itself, Poor Economics, it is completely focused on current poverty (sorry, not the industrial revolution or America's rise), and these authors have actually spent years interviewing and doing randomised control testing to see the effects of different methods of getting rid of poverty, one of which is education. It's won the FT and Goldman S Business Book of the Year, and in my opinion an eyeopener about the third world, because frankly, we are pretty damn clueless about them. Doesn't really mention capitalism (or what this thread is really about, economic growth), although you'll have to read it yourself, because my memory is a bit fuzzy :P

And I still don't see why it cannot be a combination of both.

[kNIOKAS]

Well, let's apply my initial question to JtotheIzzo's post.

The question was.. what ended child labor in America. Capitalism/free markets/small, lawful government... or government child labor laws?

The new question is, what can end child labor overseas? I think, if these countries toppled their government, adopted the values of early America, went through their own industrial revolution, had sound currency, free markets, etc. They would see prosperity. As I've said a million times and I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

What do you think would end child labor and poverty in some of these foreign, sweat shop countries?
just note early america had whole continent of resources, plus all the oil. most of the countries have none. it's mind boggling when you actually realise how different the situation between early america and some poor countries nowdays is. it's the resources, man.

[joe]

Firstly, if education seems to be a luxury rather than a necessity in today's world, then I have a few economists who would like to have a word with you (no seriously, some of my professors would probably have a word).

Let me put out an example. Hong Kong is ranked as one of the most freest economies in the world, one of the best places to start a business and (most recently) ranked even higher than New York and London as a financial centre. Milton Friedman once said HK is the best example of capitalism in the world. But we also have 9 years of free and compulsory education since at least 1971. Now, neither do I pretend to know exactly what's best for everybody else, but to use that as an argument NOT to do anything is just....lazy. To say 'Because we cannot tailor for each person's educational need, we shouldn't make education compulsory', just doesn't make sense. In that case, we shouldn't make it compulsory to pay taxes, have a law system. Yes you'll get inefficiencies, but the benefits of the system for the whole society will be far greater than the little wrinkles within.

As for the book itself, Poor Economics, it is completely focused on current poverty (sorry, not the industrial revolution or America's rise), and these authors have actually spent years interviewing and doing randomised control testing to see the effects of different methods of getting rid of poverty, one of which is education. It's won the FT and Goldman S Business Book of the Year, and in my opinion an eyeopener about the third world, because frankly, we are pretty damn clueless about them. Doesn't really mention capitalism (or what this thread is really about, economic growth), although you'll have to read it yourself, because my memory is a bit fuzzy :P

And I still don't see why it cannot be a combination of both.

I think you've got my point a bit wrong. I might not be reading you right, though.

I'm not saying childhood education is bad. I think it's great for kids to get educated, and I'm happy I was able to go to school as a kid instead of being sent to a factory. But what I'm saying is, it's a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. For the majority of our time line, children worked just so the family could afford to feed them. So we should examine what made this massive shift possible, so we can keep it that way. So we never have to go back to children working 16 hour days on a farm, or in a factory.

I think childhood education can and does have a great effect on society, but I don't agree with it being compulsory. The thing is, if your society is rich enough.. people will send their kids to school. They will want their kids educated. But I don't think it's the governments place to make a blanket decision for that many people. We should respect peoples freedom to choose what's best for their own kids. The fear mongers tell us that without child labor laws and compulsory education, kids will be right back to working 18 hours in dangerous mines, for little pay. But the facts show that it was economic prosperity that put an end to that practice. If we maintain the pillars that made us rich, we will never need child labor laws.

I'm definitely not trying to hate on education. I'm so grateful to grow up in a time, where I could go to school instead of working in a mine. But that's part of the reason why I want people to recognize the reasons that we had the luxury of going to school. And it's the same reason why kids overseas are working in sweatshops. They have oppressive governments with too much power, too much control over their personal lives, and over the economy. IMO of course.

To address your other point about compulsory taxes, laws, etc. I think as the people, we need to recognize that we created government. And its power should be restricted to only the most necessary things. After that, it becomes a destructive force. We need things like an army, navy, and air force to protect us. Protecting private property and enforcing contracts, to promote economic growth. And having a legal system to punish murder, rape, theft, and other major crimes.

Ugh, I've been so lazy about reading books lately. Just reading online and stuff. I've been thinking of buying a kindle, just to force myself to read to justify the $150's I'd spend on it. I'll at least read some reviews of that book to see what it has to say. Sorry I wrote so much. I always end up writing too much. lol

[joe]

just note early america had whole continent of resources, plus all the oil. most of the countries have none. it's mind boggling when you actually realise how different the situation between early america and some poor countries nowdays is. it's the resources, man.

True, twas indeed a crazy situation. So much empty space. I always think about this when I argue states rights over federal government rights. Like... "states rights" is only an argument an American can have. Our states are like entire European countries in many cases. I guess over there it'd be federal vs local, I suppose.