The free markets at work...
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
Here's a pretty good column on global child labor today from a Libertarian perspective and why we had it in the U.S. (families often needed it for survival) and how the changing economy along with regulations changed it.
And for those who are TL/DR; "free market" = survival, i.e. if the child didn't work they didn't eat
Misconceptions of Child Labor Laws
Similar to a discussion on price gouging, the topic of child labor is an emotional one, and for good reason. We’re much more likely to jump into action and fight for change when children are suffering. Our emotions take control, and at times this can do more harm than good, especially when we start to discuss the problem in certain parts of the world like Bangladesh. When everyone agrees on the problem and the solution seems obvious, we rarely take the time to check our premises to make sure they match up to reality.
Nobody is disputing that child labor is bad. So why not just call for a global ban? Or create disincentives for foreign industries that employ children? Before taking action, we must first determine if legislative bans are actually in the best interest of the children, and what would the future look like if no action was taken. We can assume that most parents want what is best for their children. If this is the case, then why did child labor ever exist? Why does it still exist in some parts of the world today?
Child labor exists to cover the cost of raising children in poor societies. Before the rapid increase in wealth (and thus standard of living) over the last century within the United States, most families worked long hours, typically on farms, just to afford the basic necessities of living. Because children were expensive to raise (especially when families are barely managing as is), kids were put to work as soon as possible, usually working alongside their parents. Without this extra income, children risked malnourishment.
Towards the end of the 19th century, social pressure pushed for government regulation of child labor in the United States. The federal government responded in 1916 by introducing the Keating-Owen Act, which attempted to restrict child labor through the regulation of interstate commerce. This lasted nine months before being struck down by the Supreme Court in Hammer v. Dagenhart.
The U.S. federal government tried once again in 1918 by attempting to place a tax on child labor with the Revenue Act. This was also struck down by the Supreme Court in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.
The third attempt at regulation was successful. The government passed the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which prohibited most non-agricultural child labor. If federal regulation played an important role in eliminating child labor, this should be evident from data from the U.S. census, which started measuring data on child labor in 1880. Based on census data and other research, the labor force participation rate of male children was 32.5% in 1880, 26.1% in 1900, and 6.4% in 1930. The rates for female children were lower, but followed a similar trend. According to the data, child labor was already in the process of declining long before the federal government took action.
But what about child labor laws within the states? In the early 1800s, a few states had some form of restriction on child labor, but these were rarely enforced. Social pressure in the late 1800s encouraged more states to begin passing laws. By 1899, 44 states had at least one law restricting child labor. Of those, 24 states abolished child labor under 14 for non-agricultural labor. By 1910, a total of 41 states eliminated non-agricultural child labor under 14.
Based on this information, state law could be the reason for the decline in child labor. But other factors likely played a larger role in eliminating child labor, and state governments passed regulation to take credit for trends that were already happening on their own.
During this time, the United States was going through a second industrial revolution. Innovation and new technology led to a rapid increase in wealth and standard of living. Children of wealthy parents went to school rather than work for the same reason as children in the present day: because their families could afford it. As the standard of living continued to rise prior to the depression, a greater number of families could afford to raise children without putting them to work. This is likely the reason why social pressure for a child labor ban appeared. Families that rely on income from their child’s job will not campaign for a child labor ban.
Immigration peaked during this time, which means immigrants were competing with children for unskilled labor. When the Great Depression hit in 1929, employment became increasingly rare. The remaining employment went to adults rather than children.
The difference between parents then and parents now is not love for their children, but rather their standard of living. As societies advance, the use of children for labor begins as an unfortunate symptom of poverty, and as poverty vanishes, so does said labor.
The danger of enforcing a ban on child labor on a poor society is clear from a report by UNICEF on the impact of the Child Labor Deterrence Act on Bangladesh, a nation known for its prevalence of child labor. In 1993, this bill was introduced in Congress with the intent of banning imports produced by child labor. The bill did not pass, but in preparation of the possibility of the bill passing, the textile industry in Bangladesh fired all 50,000 of its child workers. In 1997, UNICEF sent investigators to determine what happened to the children. The report states that these children searched for another source of income, and the researchers “found them in work such as stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution — all of them more hazardous and exploitative than garment production.”
Unfortunately, this exists as a symptom of poverty, not as a problem that can simply be banned. To eliminate it across the globe, activists must avoid calls for a ban and instead call for that which encourages prosperity and wealth creation: economic freedom, limited government, and private property rights.
https://beinglibertarian.com/misconceptions-of-child-labor-laws/
And for those who are TL/DR; "free market" = survival, i.e. if the child didn't work they didn't eat
Misconceptions of Child Labor Laws
Similar to a discussion on price gouging, the topic of child labor is an emotional one, and for good reason. We’re much more likely to jump into action and fight for change when children are suffering. Our emotions take control, and at times this can do more harm than good, especially when we start to discuss the problem in certain parts of the world like Bangladesh. When everyone agrees on the problem and the solution seems obvious, we rarely take the time to check our premises to make sure they match up to reality.
Nobody is disputing that child labor is bad. So why not just call for a global ban? Or create disincentives for foreign industries that employ children? Before taking action, we must first determine if legislative bans are actually in the best interest of the children, and what would the future look like if no action was taken. We can assume that most parents want what is best for their children. If this is the case, then why did child labor ever exist? Why does it still exist in some parts of the world today?
Child labor exists to cover the cost of raising children in poor societies. Before the rapid increase in wealth (and thus standard of living) over the last century within the United States, most families worked long hours, typically on farms, just to afford the basic necessities of living. Because children were expensive to raise (especially when families are barely managing as is), kids were put to work as soon as possible, usually working alongside their parents. Without this extra income, children risked malnourishment.
Towards the end of the 19th century, social pressure pushed for government regulation of child labor in the United States. The federal government responded in 1916 by introducing the Keating-Owen Act, which attempted to restrict child labor through the regulation of interstate commerce. This lasted nine months before being struck down by the Supreme Court in Hammer v. Dagenhart.
The U.S. federal government tried once again in 1918 by attempting to place a tax on child labor with the Revenue Act. This was also struck down by the Supreme Court in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.
The third attempt at regulation was successful. The government passed the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which prohibited most non-agricultural child labor. If federal regulation played an important role in eliminating child labor, this should be evident from data from the U.S. census, which started measuring data on child labor in 1880. Based on census data and other research, the labor force participation rate of male children was 32.5% in 1880, 26.1% in 1900, and 6.4% in 1930. The rates for female children were lower, but followed a similar trend. According to the data, child labor was already in the process of declining long before the federal government took action.
But what about child labor laws within the states? In the early 1800s, a few states had some form of restriction on child labor, but these were rarely enforced. Social pressure in the late 1800s encouraged more states to begin passing laws. By 1899, 44 states had at least one law restricting child labor. Of those, 24 states abolished child labor under 14 for non-agricultural labor. By 1910, a total of 41 states eliminated non-agricultural child labor under 14.
Based on this information, state law could be the reason for the decline in child labor. But other factors likely played a larger role in eliminating child labor, and state governments passed regulation to take credit for trends that were already happening on their own.
During this time, the United States was going through a second industrial revolution. Innovation and new technology led to a rapid increase in wealth and standard of living. Children of wealthy parents went to school rather than work for the same reason as children in the present day: because their families could afford it. As the standard of living continued to rise prior to the depression, a greater number of families could afford to raise children without putting them to work. This is likely the reason why social pressure for a child labor ban appeared. Families that rely on income from their child’s job will not campaign for a child labor ban.
Immigration peaked during this time, which means immigrants were competing with children for unskilled labor. When the Great Depression hit in 1929, employment became increasingly rare. The remaining employment went to adults rather than children.
The difference between parents then and parents now is not love for their children, but rather their standard of living. As societies advance, the use of children for labor begins as an unfortunate symptom of poverty, and as poverty vanishes, so does said labor.
The danger of enforcing a ban on child labor on a poor society is clear from a report by UNICEF on the impact of the Child Labor Deterrence Act on Bangladesh, a nation known for its prevalence of child labor. In 1993, this bill was introduced in Congress with the intent of banning imports produced by child labor. The bill did not pass, but in preparation of the possibility of the bill passing, the textile industry in Bangladesh fired all 50,000 of its child workers. In 1997, UNICEF sent investigators to determine what happened to the children. The report states that these children searched for another source of income, and the researchers “found them in work such as stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution — all of them more hazardous and exploitative than garment production.”
Unfortunately, this exists as a symptom of poverty, not as a problem that can simply be banned. To eliminate it across the globe, activists must avoid calls for a ban and instead call for that which encourages prosperity and wealth creation: economic freedom, limited government, and private property rights.
https://beinglibertarian.com/misconceptions-of-child-labor-laws/
In my message boarding career, I have seen a lot of conservatives demand the we get rid of the Great Society, that we get rid of the New Deal, and we restrict the federal government to a conservative view of the "enumerated clauses" of the constitution.
The question left unaddressed is the type of capitalism that these conservatives would have us revert to by eliminating the reforms of the last 80 years --- The type of capitalism that existed before the New Deal, was generally inhumane, cruel, and benefited only a small proportion of the population.
The Nordic Model, the western European social welfare state, and the American New Deal/Great Society model of a socio-economic system - aka, a hybrid economy - is unequivocally the most egalitarian and successful economic system in human history.
The dupes who want to abolish the "hated" New Deal actually have a lot of explaining to do.
evince
Truthmatters
they have to play the deregulation for deregulations sake game
the want to starve all programs to death and leave the people with no regulations to protect them from the excesses of a market unpoliced
ECONOMICS PROVES IT LEAVES THE MASSES IMPOVERISHED
its why libertarians choose the Austrian school of economics (the short bus school of economics)
they do economics without using math
they deny the decent economics schools math
because that math proves they are blithering idiots and or lying conmen
the want to starve all programs to death and leave the people with no regulations to protect them from the excesses of a market unpoliced
ECONOMICS PROVES IT LEAVES THE MASSES IMPOVERISHED
its why libertarians choose the Austrian school of economics (the short bus school of economics)
they do economics without using math
they deny the decent economics schools math
because that math proves they are blithering idiots and or lying conmen
On another sidebar,
I have always felt there needed to be a memorial to the victims of communism, and Bill Clinton was forward-thinking in approving money for its construction.
But I also think to be fair to history there needs to be a memorial to the victims of capitalism too. We really don't know how many children, women, and men were killed, maimed, or made terminally ill by the appalling working conditions allowed to exist in under-regulated capitalism. It really could have been in the millions.
Unions, work laws and regulations protect the people. Rightys have been told by the ownership society that those crippling regulations are killing jobs. It is wrong. Other workers and unions understand your problems. The super wealthy know how to fool the people into voting against their own interests. Trump and the Repubs are chopping away at workers rights from overtime to worker safety. Thank you Mr. Trump, I will have another.
Think Murray was skipping safety rules in coal mines because he loved his workers? He killed many and would do again. Work that coal vein, I want more profits. I can get more miners....But i love my miners.
Think Murray was skipping safety rules in coal mines because he loved his workers? He killed many and would do again. Work that coal vein, I want more profits. I can get more miners....But i love my miners.
cawacko
Well-known member
Even capitalism's most ardent supporters wouldn't argue it's a perfect system because it's not. But of all the economic systems created none have accomplished what capitalism has and none has done more for human advancement and brought more people out of poverty than capitalism. Yet we need a plaque to honor all people killed by capitalism? That's asinine.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Equality is the biggest scam going. There is no such thing except under the law
Demalquedacrats preach it so they can sow resentments
Demalquedacrats preach it so they can sow resentments
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
I agree with you that capitalism is the best economic system we know of thus far in human history. That being said, well-regulated capitalism is even finer. It's a compromise between the corporations and the government, mostly to the corporations' benefit despite how much they whine about "job-killing regulations." Do we really want American cities' air to look like Beijing's? Do we really want rivers and lakes that catch on fire? Do we really want workers maimed or killed on the job because of unsafe work environments?
countryboy
Verified User
When government "gets out of the way".
When there are no labor unions, labor rights, and labor organizers.
What capitalism looks like, left to its own devices.
LOL! You guys should run on that stupid shit. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOL! You guys should run on that stupid shit. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I do not know what world you have been living in, but liberal politicians have been running on regulated capitalism, minimum wage, labor rights, labor laws, strong unions for nearly a century.
Conservatives, almost to a man, have advocated for abolishing the reforms of the Great Society and the New Deal. Hatred for the New Deal is basically a prerequisite for entrance into the conservative club. But the weird thing is, I have never seen conservatives offer a plausible explanation for why we should go back to the type of capitalism that existed before the New Deal.
countryboy
Verified User
No, I mean you should really try and convince people that child labor could actually come back. That's fucking HILARIOUS.
Althea
Althea told me...........
Libertarians are always ready to take the reins, now that the entire infrastructure has been paid for by the taxpayers. I can't think of any meaningful infrastructure project that was completed by the private sector. No profit...no interest.
Althea
Althea told me...........
Last Friday, during an event at Harvard, Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich offered up a modest plan for alleviating poverty in the United States. It was time, he said, to relax our "truly stupid" child labor laws. In particular, schools should fire their unionized janitors, and hire children as young as nine to do the work instead. Per The New York Times:No, I mean you should really try and convince people that child labor could actually come back. That's fucking HILARIOUS.
No, I mean you should really try and convince people that child labor could actually come back. That's fucking HILARIOUS.
It sounds like you are basically thanking liberals and unions for fighting against and abolishing child labor.
A GOP lawmaker wants to repeal child labor laws in his state. He employs hundreds of minors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-minors/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.197f3318580c
The War On Child Labor Laws: Maine Republicans Want Longer Hours, Lower Pay For Kids
https://thinkprogress.org/the-war-o...longer-hours-lower-pay-for-kids-9b270556f387/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-minors/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.197f3318580c
The War On Child Labor Laws: Maine Republicans Want Longer Hours, Lower Pay For Kids
https://thinkprogress.org/the-war-o...longer-hours-lower-pay-for-kids-9b270556f387/
Capitalism has never existed. Neither has free trade. There are no socialistic countries either. Every single one is a mix of capitalism and socialism. The US had its first tariff before 1800 and has over 12,000 now. Labeling is a device used to fool the voters.