4 ms·

I understand the general sentiment against child labour, but somehow a 15-year old doesn't seem incapable of working at a factory. Child and teenager are difere

I understand the general sentiment against child labour, but somehow a 15-year old doesn't seem incapable of working at a factory. Child and teenager are diferent words, except when they're not. People have been working the fields from small ages throughout history. As long as the child didn't drop school or something else to go there, maybe getting a job was the best idea. Having a hard age limit just seems arbitrary, outsourcing the worries about worker mistreatment (a real problem) to a magical number. Perhaps, counterintuitively, not being able to get the amount of workers necessary for the cost allowed by apple's contract, leads manufacturers to press workers to work longer.

ErrantX 17y ago
agreed. "Child labour" should mean either young children or sweatshop style working. How many US/EU teens work paper rounds for less than minimum wage? :D
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  Regardless of what the term should mean, if the law says it's illegal to employ a fifteen year old, and fifteen year olds are employed, then the law was broken. Routinely broken age labour laws, where records are purposely falsified, creates an environment where other labour laws, and laws in general, can be seen as obstacles to be subverted rather than protections and responsibilities. It's not a trivial thing. P.S I had two paper routes simultaneously when I was fourteen. P.P.S Can kids even get paper routes in the US these days? My limited observation is that it's now large routes driven by adults who throw papers from car windows.
  - joeyo 17y ago
    P.P.S Can kids even get paper routes in the US these days? My limited observation is that it's now large routes driven by adults who throw papers from car windows. I think it's a combination of fewer newspaper subscribers (meaning larger distances between each subscriber, so less practical for bikes/walking) and a culture where parents are afraid that their children will be harmed if allowed to bike around delivering papers (because cars or pedophiles or something else).
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Yes agreed. However I still believe we need to be careful calling this "child labour". Something went wrong here - but it wasn't necessarily malicious. Children are definitely forced to work in other places; and throwing this in with that is a) unfair and b) gives the real exploitation less impact.
yequalsx 17y ago
Similar things were said in the U.S. when we outlawed most forms of factory work for children. Our society became better when we did outlaw this. How about this form of outsourcing? Rather than Apple owning and managing the factory in question they contract it out so they can assuage their guilt when children end up working there.
- derefr 17y ago
  > Our society became better when we did outlaw this. Cite for this, please. As far as I know, we outlawed child factory labor purely because children, with their small bodies that could fit into more-easily-constructed mineshafts, dexterous hands that could assemble small parts, and lesser demand for pay, were being preferred for most jobs, and so adult workers basically had a union action against them to make sure their own jobs were safe. This decreased efficiency, took a source of discretionary income away from children who wanted it (these weren't forced workers; they just took jobs to better their life), and artificially lowered the unemployment of adults who couldn't compete with kids.
  - yequalsx 17y ago
    Is this a serious request? You want me to cite the basis for me stating that our society became better by outlawing the employment of children in factories and mines? This isn't obvious to you? I am grateful that people with your point of view didn't prevail when the United States confronted this issue.
    - Enra2 17y ago
      The US and the rest of the west experienced unprecedented per capita BNP growth since around the time western countries banned child labour. This is the reason for increased living standards. It would not have mattered much in the long run who prevailed because rich (by the standards of 1850 we pretty much all are) parents don't let their children work full time in factories.
      - 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

agreed. "Child labour" should mean either young children or sweatshop style working. How many US/EU teens work paper rounds for less than minimum wage? :D

nfnaaron 17y ago
Regardless of what the term should mean, if the law says it's illegal to employ a fifteen year old, and fifteen year olds are employed, then the law was broken. Routinely broken age labour laws, where records are purposely falsified, creates an environment where other labour laws, and laws in general, can be seen as obstacles to be subverted rather than protections and responsibilities. It's not a trivial thing. P.S I had two paper routes simultaneously when I was fourteen. P.P.S Can kids even get paper routes in the US these days? My limited observation is that it's now large routes driven by adults who throw papers from car windows.
- joeyo 17y ago
  P.P.S Can kids even get paper routes in the US these days? My limited observation is that it's now large routes driven by adults who throw papers from car windows. I think it's a combination of fewer newspaper subscribers (meaning larger distances between each subscriber, so less practical for bikes/walking) and a culture where parents are afraid that their children will be harmed if allowed to bike around delivering papers (because cars or pedophiles or something else).
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Yes agreed. However I still believe we need to be careful calling this "child labour". Something went wrong here - but it wasn't necessarily malicious. Children are definitely forced to work in other places; and throwing this in with that is a) unfair and b) gives the real exploitation less impact.

yequalsx 17y ago

Similar things were said in the U.S. when we outlawed most forms of factory work for children. Our society became better when we did outlaw this. How about this form of outsourcing? Rather than Apple owning and managing the factory in question they contract it out so they can assuage their guilt when children end up working there.

derefr 17y ago
> Our society became better when we did outlaw this. Cite for this, please. As far as I know, we outlawed child factory labor purely because children, with their small bodies that could fit into more-easily-constructed mineshafts, dexterous hands that could assemble small parts, and lesser demand for pay, were being preferred for most jobs, and so adult workers basically had a union action against them to make sure their own jobs were safe. This decreased efficiency, took a source of discretionary income away from children who wanted it (these weren't forced workers; they just took jobs to better their life), and artificially lowered the unemployment of adults who couldn't compete with kids.
- yequalsx 17y ago
  Is this a serious request? You want me to cite the basis for me stating that our society became better by outlawing the employment of children in factories and mines? This isn't obvious to you? I am grateful that people with your point of view didn't prevail when the United States confronted this issue.
  - Enra2 17y ago
    The US and the rest of the west experienced unprecedented per capita BNP growth since around the time western countries banned child labour. This is the reason for increased living standards. It would not have mattered much in the long run who prevailed because rich (by the standards of 1850 we pretty much all are) parents don't let their children work full time in factories.
    - 17y ago