children engaged in paid work

[felix]

In many countries children are engaged in some kind of paid work. Some people regard this as completely wrong, while others consider it as valuable work experience, important for learning and taking responsiblity.:(
I‘d like to know what do you think of this?

[drkitten]

In many countries children are engaged in some kind of paid work. Some people regard this as completely wrong, while others consider it as valuable work experience, important for learning and taking responsiblity.:(
I‘d like to know what do you think of this?

Absolutes are rarely helpful. Certainly for a child to engage in paid work that endangers their health or safety is bad, and it is -- or should be -- similarly unacceptable for children to engage in paid work to the extent that it interferes with their education. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with someone raking leaves, bussing tables, or mowing lawns for pocket money (or to help a poor family make ends meet).

[Bob Klase]

In many countries children are engaged in some kind of paid work. Some people regard this as completely wrong, while others consider it as valuable work experience, important for learning and taking responsiblity.:(
I‘d like to know what do you think of this?

I think it really depends on the age of the children, the type of work and other factors.

For example, a 14 year old working part time at a restaurant would probably be valuable experience. A 6 year old working 12 hours a day in a sweatshop would probably be completely wrong.

[madurobob]

I pay my children to mow the lawn, rake leaves in the fall, etc... So, obviously I think some work is OK. It helps build character and understanding of the value of time/money/effort.

However, if the work keeps the kids out of school or otherwise prevents proper education, is more intense than a child should have to cope with, pays what amounts to slave wages, is abusive, etc... then it is wrong.

Sure, there may be some learning experience; some life lesson involved. But that does not make it OK. Children working in a textile mill, for instance, is wrong. Its too dangerous and too stressful. Children occasionally delivering bread for their parents bakery - entirely different.

[fagin]

Often the choice is work or starve. Tough one.

[Fnord]

Kinda hard to adhere to lofty ethics when you're starving to death.

[fagin]

Kinda hard to adhere to lofty ethics when you're starving to death.
I find it hard to do anything when I'm a bit peckish. Lofty ethics wouldn't get a look in.

[fuelair]

I think it really depends on the age of the children, the type of work and other factors.

For example, a 14 year old working part time at a restaurant would probably be valuable experience. A 6 year old working 12 hours a day in a sweatshop would probably be completely wrong.
But, how can poor teenagers in our country afford to give huge profits to athletes and shoe companies if the companies have to worry about school and actually paying the kids who make the shoes enough to live on ?:D:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[madurobob]

Kinda hard to adhere to lofty ethics when you're starving to death.

No doubt.

But, that company based in the rich country that moved manufacturing to the poor country just for the cheaper labor is only exacerbating the problem by employing children at the lowest possible wage. Why not employ the parents at a livable wage instead so the parents can afford to feed the family? It would still be much cheaper than employing adults in the rich country and would still drive strong profits.

That is why I responded with "its bad". Because it often is an intentional exploitation of a workforce that nearly no-one agrees should be working.

[Fnord]

Why not employ the parents at a livable wage instead so the parents can afford to feed the family?

What parents? I've been to Africa as part of a relief effort. Many kids either don't have any living parents, or they don't know who/where their parents are. They either work whatever jobs they can or starve to death.

And for those who still have at least one parent still living: Why hire the parent(s) at 5$ per hour for a forty-hour week, when the parent(s) can pimp the kids out for the same amount, take all the wages, and sit at home chewing khat and making more babies?

[madurobob]

Wow - bit cynical today are we?

I'm sure it happens in Africa. Hell, I'm sure it happens in Texas. But, I also suspect this is the exception rather than the norm.

Got any data to support your tacit assertion that the problem of child labor in the world is really not a problem at all, but rather the consequence of abusive parenting or lack of parents?

[Fnord]

Wow - bit cynical today are we?

No. More a voice of experience.

I'm sure it happens in Africa. Hell, I'm sure it happens in Texas. But, I also suspect this is the exception rather than the norm.

One can only hope that it is so.

Got any data to support your tacit assertion that the problem of child labor in the world is really not a problem at all, but rather the consequence of abusive parenting or lack of parents?

I made no such assertion, tacit or otherwise. Child labor is a problem. I've witnessed it first hand. To some small extent, I was even a victim of it (abusive dad insited that I sign over all my pre-18 paychecks to him, and he'd give me an allowance from it. I never saw any such "allowance," but I did see a lot more drinking with his alcoholic buddies.)

For the record, I will assert that child labor abuse is one of the consequences of abusive, neglectful, or absent parents. Yes, even in America. That it happens at all is statistic enough.

[tkingdoll]

The idea of not using children for labour is fairly new, stemming from the Romantic period (18th Century) I believe. Other countries have different cultural values, and given that such great advances in human rights are made alongside economical and other cultural advances, I think overseas child labour isn't going anywhere just yet.

However, as the fruits of their labour are purchased by us rich Westerners, we can't pretend we're not part of the problem, which I see as being poor wages and harsh working conditions rather than the employment of children. Sweat shop conditions are not acceptable whatever age the worker is.

[madurobob]

I made no such assertion, tacit or otherwise.
Well, I argued that child labor was wrong and multi-nationals that take advantage of child labor in 3rd world countries make the problem worse by not hiring the parents instead. Your response was that there were no parents or that the parents were pimping out their kids. I think its safe to infer from that point that the use of child labor by the multi-nationals is OK (since there are no parents or the parents are useless).

I'm glad to see I was mistaken and that we agree for the most part: child labor is bad.

[Beady]

The idea of not using children for labour is fairly new, stemming from the Romantic period (18th Century) I believe.

Teek, it's much more recent than that. Here in the States we had Breaker Boys in the coal mines after the Civil War, and children of both sexes working in the mills and factories until sometime between the wars. Today, children often put in a full day on the family farm, breaking only for school. And then there's commercial fishery, fruit picking, etc.

These photos were taken between 1908 and 1912:

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/empty.jpghttp://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/dust.jpg

BTW, I just saw someone giving some tax advice on CNN this morning, to the effect that a home business will pay less tax if you increase your workforce by putting your children on the payroll. So, when we say "child labor" is bad, just exactly what is "child labor"?

[madurobob]

However, as the fruits of their labour are purchased by us rich Westerners, we can't pretend we're not part of the problem, which I see as being poor wages and harsh working conditions rather than the employment of children. Sweat shop conditions are not acceptable whatever age the worker is.

I agree. But we're so focused on "lower prices everyday" (thanks, Wal-Mart) that we are happy to ignore the source of the product. I think we're all hypocrites on this to some extent. If I see a shirt I like and see a surprisingly low price - I buy it. Seldom do I put it back because the tag says "made in Malaysia" and I suspect poor labor practices. I really should be better about this, but its not always that easy. There is often no way to know where the product was made and how well the workers are treated there.

Would it really be that difficult to have a law that in order to sell your product in (rich western country) you have to prove that fair labor practices of (that country) are followed wherever the thing is actually made?

[vexed]

In many countries children are engaged in some kind of paid work. Some people regard this as completely wrong, while others consider it as valuable work experience, important for learning and taking responsiblity.:(
I‘d like to know what do you think of this?

What do you consider children first of all (as in age). At the age of 14 I was working in the USA. I found it valuable for learning the value of a dollar, and responsibility.

[Fnord]

Child labor is bad. No question about it.

What to do when there are no parents to hire, or if the parents still insist that their children work to support tha family? Especially if the work by children in a foreign country exceeds American Child Labor Laws or is simply abusive or exploitative in and of itself.

I also assert that in such situations, while there exists a plethora of simple solutions, the implementation is both complex and difficult.

[madurobob]

I also assert that in such situations, while there exists a plethora of simple solutions, the implementation is both complex and difficult.

Yep - I realized immediately after my last post that such a law wouldn't work. Requiring US companies to certify that their products - wherever made - were made under US labor laws with fair wages would ensure I was buying an abuse-free shirt. It might also increase the barriers to offshoring US manufacturing. But would clearly be seen as a protectionist measure to countries wanting to sell their goods in the US. Countries who may have a fairly good track record on labor.

So, being a miserable politician, I am content to say "child labor is bad" and have no solution.

[madurobob]

What do you consider children first of all (as in age). At the age of 14 I was working in the USA. I found it valuable for learning the value of a dollar, and responsibility.

Were you working FT and not going to school? Interference with education seams to be a common theme here in determining what child labor is "bad".

[Tokenconservative]

In many countries children are engaged in some kind of paid work. Some people regard this as completely wrong, while others consider it as valuable work experience, important for learning and taking responsiblity.:(
I‘d like to know what do you think of this?

For once I agree wit' the "Dr."

The way you present this is an "either-or" situation. The answer is: it depends.

I started working at age 12. I was not, however, chained to a weaving mill 16 hours a day and paid pennies. I was free to quit the job if I wished, and did eventually. Yes, it taught me much about working. What a Pakistani kid sold into slavery by her parents will learn is...negligible.

Try to be a bit more clear in your thinking and that will help you be more clear in our posts.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Child labor is bad. No question about it.

What to do when there are no parents to hire, or if the parents still insist that their children work to support tha family? Especially if the work by children in a foreign country exceeds American Child Labor Laws or is simply abusive or exploitative in and of itself.

I also assert that in such situations, while there exists a plethora of simple solutions, the implementation is both complex and difficult.


Hmmm...so ALL child labor is bad?

My kids have been working since about age 8 and 9. They each have about $3000 saved up. I've not given them an allowance since then.

Their work involves caring for some livestock and fowl at a nearby private school that has a small farm. They've even sub-contracted some of the care and training of two mini horses there out to a friend who is into horses.

The work is usually pretty tame. In harsh weather it is what farm work has always been.

Tell me how this is bad.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

What parents? I've been to Africa as part of a relief effort. Many kids either don't have any living parents, or they don't know who/where their parents are. They either work whatever jobs they can or starve to death.

And for those who still have at least one parent still living: Why hire the parent(s) at 5$ per hour for a forty-hour week, when the parent(s) can pimp the kids out for the same amount, take all the wages, and sit at home chewing khat and making more babies?

I don't believe the OP said "labor in Africa" It was presented as an absolute so that yes, it is "bad" that some 6 yr-old works 20 hour days on a farm in Africa...it is EQUALLY bad that some 16 yr old is hired as Professional Shopper in tony shopping malls in the US around Christmastime.

Tokie

[tkingdoll]

My first job was aged 13 - just on Saturdays but it was on a market vegetable stall and boy was it backbreaking. I got £6 for the day. My second job was the same age, delivering hundreds of free newspapers for a penny per delivery. I'd spend a whole Sunday doing it and get about four quid. My third job was also a Saturday job, aged 15, and I got 25p an hour for it. :boggled:

Not anything like sweat shop conditions and hardly comparable, but I mean it as an example of how children want to work and are paid unfairly even in first world countries. But that money wasn't too feed my family, it was just pocket money, of course.

It's easy to have a kneejerk reaction and say "children shouldn't work" but it's really not that simple.

[Safe-Keeper]

The Norwegian school system has something called PRYO Week (PRYO being short for something like 'practical profession orientation'). It basically consists of students aged 13 choosing a workplace and working there for five days, to get some experience with what it's like to have a job. I worked at an animal clinic, and it was a great experience. Only thing some complained about was that we were forbidden from receiving payment.

Actually, recently in the papers there was an essay complaining that Norwegian children work too little. The author argued that kids in Norway (and the West) should have some work experience, as working, as opposed to studying, provides valuable lessons and experience. I actually agree with this to an extent. Let them get some limited experience so they know what to expect. Don't turn it into anything serious, though.

[Fnord]

Hmmm...so ALL child labor is bad?

My kids have been working since about age 8 and 9. They each have about $3000 saved up. I've not given them an allowance since then.

Their work involves caring for some livestock and fowl at a nearby private school that has a small farm. They've even sub-contracted some of the care and training of two mini horses there out to a friend who is into horses.

The work is usually pretty tame. In harsh weather it is what farm work has always been.

Tell me how this is bad.

Tokie

Okay, you got me there. I shoulda said "Exploitative child labor is bad" as it is a more accurate statement.


I don't believe the OP said "labor in Africa" It was presented as an absolute so that yes, it is "bad" that some 6 yr-old works 20 hour days on a farm in Africa...it is EQUALLY bad that some 16 yr old is hired as Professional Shopper in tony shopping malls in the US around Christmastime.

Tokie

True, but aside from my own personal experiences, my time in Africa (Somalia and Kenya) is my only direct exposure the exploitative child labor.

[fagin]

Well, I argued that child labor was wrong and multi-nationals that take advantage of child labor in 3rd world countries make the problem worse by not hiring the parents instead. Your response was that there were no parents or that the parents were pimping out their kids. I think its safe to infer from that point that the use of child labor by the multi-nationals is OK (since there are no parents or the parents are useless).

I'm glad to see I was mistaken and that we agree for the most part: child labor is bad.

In many cases the parents are employed but the family income is too low, many children in Africa have no parents. HIV infected more than 30% of pregnant women in South Africa in 2005, and the situation hasn't improved since than.
Cases of the very poor selling children is quite commonplace, and then there are examples such as Fnord's, in 'civilised' countries.
These could all be considered exploitive and 'bad', but solving the problem is a lot more involved than increasing wages in poor countries. Basic economics will tell you that if people are willing to work for low wages, but the prices increase, the producing company will have a larger income.
In a jolly nice world this would go to the employee.
In the real world it will be raked off along the way by those able to control the flow of jobs, or alternatively, manufacturers will contract out to labour brokers or similar, and someone will get richer. I doubt it will impact much on the employee..
This may sound cynical, but it is realistic.

Good and bad are not absolute.

[Tokenconservative]

My first job was aged 13 - just on Saturdays but it was on a market vegetable stall and boy was it backbreaking. I got £6 for the day. My second job was the same age, delivering hundreds of free newspapers for a penny per delivery. I'd spend a whole Sunday doing it and get about four quid. My third job was also a Saturday job, aged 15, and I got 25p an hour for it. :boggled:

Not anything like sweat shop conditions and hardly comparable, but I mean it as an example of how children want to work and are paid unfairly even in first world countries. But that money wasn't too feed my family, it was just pocket money, of course.

It's easy to have a kneejerk reaction and say "children shouldn't work" but it's really not that simple.

I'd need to know when this took place (years) and a conversion to USD to know whether this is "unfair."

However, since you were freely engaging in these jobs for the wage offered (I am assuming your parents did not sell you into this or that you were shangheid into it...right?) I have a hard time seeing how a kid in the developed world with all the child-labor protection laws, this was "unfair." Maybe you grew up wealthy and getting that money every week was more onerous to you than helpful?

I started working at about the same age, earned $150/hr, the going "minimum wage" at the time. Worked part and sometimes full time until I was an adult (18) and left school. I remember that when I was a kid--even into my late teen years-- and my friends and I went somewhere, they would pay with pennies and dimes scrounged from the sofa, or would have to beg mommy and daddy for money. I had thousands of dollars (real money back then) in my saving account. When I wanted to see a movie or even (my hobby at the time) buy a firearm or a new pair of hunting boots...I just went to the bank, got some money, and did so. I remember looking over the manual for a new rifle I'd gotten for, as I recall, $150USD and a kid in class looking over my shoulder asking me about it and "how much did it cost?" I told him and he was amazed that "your parents" bought that for you ...and his nearly fainting when I told him my parents bought me nothing but food and roof over my head from about age 15 on.

My kids (15 and 16) have had paying jobs outside the home since they were 8-9. They each have $3000 in savings and another couple of thousand in some investment funds. When their friends are scrounging for a few bucks for a movie or Starbucks....

No, it's not that simple. But simple people think in simple terms and so they present simple arguments.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Okay, you got me there. I shoulda said "Exploitative child labor is bad" as it is a more accurate statement.

True, but aside from my own personal experiences, my time in Africa (Somalia and Kenya) is my only direct exposure the exploitative child labor.


Hmmm...still not doing it for me.

Most libs consider ANY employment to be "exploitive" because someone is "getting rich!" off the labor of others.

I think you need a more expansive definition. You also need to view this through a les...Western/developed lense. When liberals force companies to shut down their "sweat shops" in developing nations, those who were once employed there, earning far in excess of the avg. person in their land earns, are cast out of some of the best jobs in their country. The liberal view is that's okay, because now that they are not being "exploited!!" they will return to their bucolic existenc on their picturesque, environmentally pure, organic farm in the countryside.

Um...not so much usually. Usually, the women and girls become (or are forced to become) prostitutes and the men are either forced to emmigrate, become criminals or beggars or indeed, go back to the backbreaking, truly dangerous work on somebody ELSE's farm.

Did you TALK to any of these kids being "exploited" in Africa? What would they be doing were they not working? What conditions would they and their families be in if the children were, instead, lying about all day playing X-Box, driving around the neighborhood in their new BMW with their friends, or watching MTV?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

In many cases the parents are employed but the family income is too low, many children in Africa have no parents. HIV infected more than 30% of pregnant women in South Africa in 2005, and the situation hasn't improved since than.
Cases of the very poor selling children is quite commonplace, and then there are examples such as Fnord's, in 'civilised' countries.
These could all be considered exploitive and 'bad', but solving the problem is a lot more involved than increasing wages in poor countries. Basic economics will tell you that if people are willing to work for low wages, but the prices increase, the producing company will have a larger income.
In a jolly nice world this would go to the employee.
In the real world it will be raked off along the way by those able to control the flow of jobs, or alternatively, manufacturers will contract out to labour brokers or similar, and someone will get richer. I doubt it will impact much on the employee..
This may sound cynical, but it is realistic.

Good and bad are not absolute.

Actually, we had that "jolly nice world" in the Soviet Union. Things....went poorly there.

We have it today in China...A year or so ago, pet food made in China and sold in the US killed some dogs and cats. The man in charge of quality control at the pet food factory in China was exectued.

His family was sent a bill for the bullet.

We've also seen this in private companies "taken over" by their employees in the US. United Airlines is a good example (I had lots of stock in them). They went bankrupt (my used toilet paper is now worth more than the thousands of dollars of stock I held).

And we've seen it in more "enlightened" European countries such as England (who got over it with the Iron Lady, thankfully) and places like Sweden, whose economy had to get near to collapse before they started (recently) instituting changes.

The baker does not bake bread because he LIKES you...he does it because he wants to make a living. In France, of course, the government tells bakers how much they may charge for bread, and must subsidize the grains and other things needed to produce bread, heavily taxing the end-users of bread (consumers) so that they can be sure of a "fair" price for a loaf of bread....

Generally speaking, it's better to let a lightly regulated free market do what it does best. Yes, that may mean that in economically and indutrially developing nations (say...wun't the US one of those circa 1850s-1930s?) work is rough and dirty and hard. But if those nations ever want to leave behind hand-to-mouth agrarian existence, they have to pay their dues.

Tokie

[fagin]

Actually, we had that "jolly nice world" in the Soviet Union. Things....went poorly there.

We have it today in China...A year or so ago, pet food made in China and sold in the US killed some dogs and cats. The man in charge of quality control at the pet food factory in China was exectued.

His family was sent a bill for the bullet.

We've also seen this in private companies "taken over" by their employees in the US. United Airlines is a good example (I had lots of stock in them). They went bankrupt (my used toilet paper is now worth more than the thousands of dollars of stock I held).

And we've seen it in more "enlightened" European countries such as England (who got over it with the Iron Lady, thankfully) and places like Sweden, whose economy had to get near to collapse before they started (recently) instituting changes.

The baker does not bake bread because he LIKES you...he does it because he wants to make a living. In France, of course, the government tells bakers how much they may charge for bread, and must subsidize the grains and other things needed to produce bread, heavily taxing the end-users of bread (consumers) so that they can be sure of a "fair" price for a loaf of bread....

Generally speaking, it's better to let a lightly regulated free market do what it does best. Yes, that may mean that in economically and indutrially developing nations (say...wun't the US one of those circa 1850s-1930s?) work is rough and dirty and hard. But if those nations ever want to leave behind hand-to-mouth agrarian existence, they have to pay their dues.

Tokie

Hi Tokie

I quite agree with you (probably one of the few on here who regularly does) , which is why I said jolly nice - it was meant to suggest a degree of fantasy.
I did not mean workers of the world unite, I simply meant that if consumers in the West are forced to pay more than the economic cost of production, the majority of the surplus will more likely end up with the business owner than the employee. I did not say this was right or wrong, just making a point.

Maggie rules. Gordon is a wimp.

[Eck]

I'll be echoing some of the above posts here, but I just came to the thread, and had been discussing this subject earlier, so it caught my eye.

I have mixed thoughts on this issue, not least because of the differences between work options in the western world and the choices and issues faced in developing countries.

I was introduced to work through shovelling sidewalks on my own as a preteen, graduating to regular part time work as a teenager, where I had the benefit of minimum wage which kept me at the same base level as all the others doing the same low end work. I think it was all to the good, experience wise, and have no problems with work for youths so long as it doesn't interfere with school.

I was at one time quite strident in my oposition to child labour in the long hours and sweatshop conditions sense of the question, but now that I find myself living in a developing nation, I have to admit the issue is far more difficult for me to grapple with. Orphans and abusive families as mentioned by Fnord are certainly around me here, as are families facing poverty so absolute that even where education might be available, children often have to be sent to work anyways simply to keep the household in rice and dal, and, well, a house. A choice I'm thankful I don't need to make and can't really judge. I find I can't really say with the same conviction that international corporations should pull production from markets where children form part of the labour base. If they leave, those jobs likely won't be replaced.

Sweatshop conditions are barbaric and pretty much out and out evil though, and simply can't be excused. The increase in cost to a western wholesaler for products produced in an ethical manner with wages at a livable standard in the manufacturing country is neglible when compared to the final selling price. Prices would still be far lower than goods produced to a similar code at home.

I can't imagine a workable international regulatory scheme that would do away with sweatshop conditions, so this is where we have to come in as consumers. If we claim to care at all, we have to support companies that undertake ethical purchasing commitments, and pressure those that don't to do so. This also means listening to and supporting the work of the NGOs that police these voluntary codes of conduct.

[Tokenconservative]

Hi Tokie

I quite agree with you (probably one of the few on here who regularly does) , which is why I said jolly nice - it was meant to suggest a degree of fantasy.
I did not mean workers of the world unite, I simply meant that if consumers in the West are forced to pay more than the economic cost of production, the majority of the surplus will more likely end up with the business owner than the employee. I did not say this was right or wrong, just making a point.

Maggie rules. Gordon is a wimp.

Hi, Fagin:

Yeah, I got that. I understood it and was (I hope) simply building on it in my own curmudgeonly way.

Many in here pine for the "good old days" when their heroes on THAT side of the Iron Curtain were still there being victims of the eeevvvviiiilllll United States and Britain, too--after all, that's where 007 comes from and you know he was always killing commies.

Well, actually, most of it(profit) ends up being shoveled back into the corporation in order to grow and remain competitive--just a fact of corporate economics, also something few in here understand, especially those who teach it--and that includes wages.

The reality is, outside the leftist fantasy, that the people working in "sweat shops" in the developing world will, literally, kill (several cases of this in Pakistan, Malasia and India) to have these jobs.

Is that to say that "in a perfect world" (as opposed to this one) it wouldn't be better if every child was fat, happy, educated and oh, what the hell, has a new bicycle, too? Of course not. Everyone wishes this for children, even a monster like me, and even if those kids are not rosy-cheeked blondes in leiderhosen.

Moreover, when you TALK to people in these places and tell them "I want to shut down the factory so that you can go back to that bucolic, hand-to-mouth existence you had before the factory came," you'd better have on a very expensive pair of Nike running shoes.

Tokie