3 ms·

a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow th

a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow them to raise their children? c. "Drive the engine of progress". Well, or serve as corduroy on the road that party insiders take to the bank.

kiba 17y ago
a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? You might have a point if people are enslaved into working. b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow them to raise their children? Perhaps, but you could look at it in another way. The person who own that factory will have more money into investing in human capitals or factory capital that will provide more jobs or increase specialization. Specialization will naturally lead to higher real wages as workers of certain type become scarce. Also, they may also get training on the job. It's the seen that we know, but the unseen that we may not know precisely. It could be either way. It would be presumptuous to think that we know the best path to economic development. c. "Drive the engine of progress". Well, or serve as corduroy on the road that party insiders take to the bank. Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too.
- pyre 17y ago
  > You might have a point if people are enslaved into working. Who's to say that the parents aren't forcing the child? The voluntary-vs-involuntary argument doesn't have to mean that the employer is forcing the child to work. > Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too. So you believe that the difference between a poor person and a 'rich' person is the ability to save money. So no rich person squanders money, and no poor person saves money?
  - kiba 17y ago
    Who's to say that the parents aren't forcing the child? The voluntary-vs-involuntary argument doesn't have to mean that the employer is forcing the child to work. I am assuming that all child labor are voluntary. If it is child slavery, that's a different matter. So you believe that the difference between a poor person and a 'rich' person is the ability to save money. So no rich person squanders money, and no poor person saves money? I never say the difference of actual behaviors, but only the similarity of choices.
- renegade 17y ago
  a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? Going to school is rarely voluntary, given an option they will opt out too, so what's your point?

kiba 17y ago

a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? You might have a point if people are enslaved into working. b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow them to raise their children? Perhaps, but you could look at it in another way. The person who own that factory will have more money into investing in human capitals or factory capital that will provide more jobs or increase specialization. Specialization will naturally lead to higher real wages as workers of certain type become scarce. Also, they may also get training on the job. It's the seen that we know, but the unseen that we may not know precisely. It could be either way. It would be presumptuous to think that we know the best path to economic development. c. "Drive the engine of progress". Well, or serve as corduroy on the road that party insiders take to the bank. Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too.

pyre 17y ago
> You might have a point if people are enslaved into working. Who's to say that the parents aren't forcing the child? The voluntary-vs-involuntary argument doesn't have to mean that the employer is forcing the child to work. > Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too. So you believe that the difference between a poor person and a 'rich' person is the ability to save money. So no rich person squanders money, and no poor person saves money?
- kiba 17y ago
  Who's to say that the parents aren't forcing the child? The voluntary-vs-involuntary argument doesn't have to mean that the employer is forcing the child to work. I am assuming that all child labor are voluntary. If it is child slavery, that's a different matter. So you believe that the difference between a poor person and a 'rich' person is the ability to save money. So no rich person squanders money, and no poor person saves money? I never say the difference of actual behaviors, but only the similarity of choices.
renegade 17y ago
a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? Going to school is rarely voluntary, given an option they will opt out too, so what's your point?