5 ms·

Okay, that's silly. A fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, so if a company wants to hire him, it's stupid that they have no way of doing so. Also,

by palish 17y ago

Okay, that's silly. A fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, so if a company wants to hire him, it's stupid that they have no way of doing so. Also, that issue isn't really related to the core child labor morality debate.

telemachos 17y ago
But the minute you say that, I will respond, "Okay, that's silly. A fourteen year old is basically a fifteen year old." So since you've argued that a fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, then by parity of reasoning... And the next thing you know, we have nine year old kids in factories and William Blake rolling over in his grave.
- palish 17y ago
  Cute, but it dodges the issue that it's hard to define what a "child" is. I think having a minimum accepted age, and a way to hire special children under that age (but with greater working restrictions) is a good compromise.
  - Frazzydee 17y ago
    So you think that there should be no minimum age at all? Would you be comfortable having 6-year-olds working in a factory, even if it's just for 1 hour/day? China sets an absolute minimum age of 16, and mandated special working conditions for workers between 16 and 18. This allows for a sort of "sliding scale" for that transition period between childhood and adulthood. And I think that saying, "we don't want any workers younger than X years old" is legitimate policy. It's also a lot easier to enforce an absolute minimum age as opposed to special working conditions.
    - palish 17y ago
      What? I didn't say that. I said, I think a minimum age is a good solution, as long as there are ways for businesses to hire underage gifted children. This would prevent bullshit like "Even though you're an amazing programmer and we want to hire you and this job could be the best thing to ever happen to you, we can't hire you because you're fifteen, not sixteen. Also once you reach sixteen, this opportunity won't be here anymore." I say all of this because I WAS in that position (I was 17) and I almost lost out on a very awesome graphics programming job in the game industry just because I couldn't legally sign an NDA. Thankfully it worked out, but it was a really unpleasant thing to see this awesome opportunity slipping away for reasons completely beyond my control. Don't you think that's a valid concern? Also, it sounds like an awesome thing to offer a gifted six year old a cool internship (one hour per day) at a factory with a safe working environment. This would give the six year old a sweet story to tell, and could easily net him a job later.
      - pyre 17y ago
        > I say all of this because I WAS in that position (I was 17) and I almost lost out on a very awesome graphics programming job in the game industry just because I couldn't legally sign an NDA. Huh? Your situation isn't about child labor at all. You weren't able to sign the NDA because you were still considered a minor, but you were legally able to work. Please do not misrepresent your situation as having anything to do with child labor laws.
        palish 17y ago
        How is it not related, when I almost could not work at that job just because I wasn't "adult enough" yet? Also, tone down the pompusness and chill out, eh? I've been very pleasant throughout this whole thing, I think, and I don't appreciate being told what to do.
        pyre 17y ago
        Not being able to sign a contract is not a child labor law. You were able to legally work for that company. The company itself imposed an additional restriction(s) (i.e. the NDA) as a requirement for employment. Is it a 'child labor law' because a 12 year old can't get a driver's license, and therefore can't be employed as a pizza delivery person? Your reasoning is broken. You might as well say that statutory rape laws are really 'child labor' laws because they prevent children from becoming sex workers.
        palish 17y ago
        Okay, I will concede that you are correct. However, that does not entirely invalidate my point. Because of my previous experience, I can empathize strongly with anyone in a similar situation. I don't think it's fair that if I were fourteen then I definitely wouldn't have been able to get an internship there, even though I had the skills to do so and it really made sense for me at the time, and everyone else agreed. In general, hard restrictions are dangerous unless there are ways to circumvent them for the rare situations where that restriction makes no sense. Of course, not having any restrictions at all is even more dangerous. The restrictions just need to be flexible.
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      > So you think that there should be no minimum age at all? Would you be comfortable having 6-year-olds working in a factory, even if it's just for 1 hour/day? Jumping into this - I intend to have my kids start working one hour/day of real work at age eight, which I think is natural and healthy, and aim for them to do basic rites of passage at 12, and be mentally equipped for emancipation from parents at 16 (though it'd be their choice if they want to leave or not). It's a bit tangential to the discussion, but I think one of the worst things of modernization is that people are forced into artificially young roles and not given responsibility until much later in life. Many people aren't particularly self-reliant until after age 26 these days! Sheesh, you used to have teenagers serving as officers in the army or helping their father with accounting, or sales, or apprenticing in a craft, or cooking, or keeping an inn 10 years earlier than some people are getting finished with school these days.
      - palish 17y ago
        I could not agree more. Thank you for articulating this.
- nitrogen 17y ago
  But the flaw with this reasoning is that we aren't comparing one age group the previously compared age group. We are comparing all age groups to 16-year-olds. A 14 year old is not basically a 16 year old. That said, any government facing this problem has to decide whether it's more important to draw an easy-to-see line that is entirely unambiguous, or consider what might happen to the families of 15-year-olds if they can't get work.

by palish 17y ago

telemachos 17y ago

But the minute you say that, I will respond, "Okay, that's silly. A fourteen year old is basically a fifteen year old." So since you've argued that a fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, then by parity of reasoning... And the next thing you know, we have nine year old kids in factories and William Blake rolling over in his grave.

palish 17y ago
Cute, but it dodges the issue that it's hard to define what a "child" is. I think having a minimum accepted age, and a way to hire special children under that age (but with greater working restrictions) is a good compromise.
- Frazzydee 17y ago
  So you think that there should be no minimum age at all? Would you be comfortable having 6-year-olds working in a factory, even if it's just for 1 hour/day? China sets an absolute minimum age of 16, and mandated special working conditions for workers between 16 and 18. This allows for a sort of "sliding scale" for that transition period between childhood and adulthood. And I think that saying, "we don't want any workers younger than X years old" is legitimate policy. It's also a lot easier to enforce an absolute minimum age as opposed to special working conditions.
  - palish 17y ago
    What? I didn't say that. I said, I think a minimum age is a good solution, as long as there are ways for businesses to hire underage gifted children. This would prevent bullshit like "Even though you're an amazing programmer and we want to hire you and this job could be the best thing to ever happen to you, we can't hire you because you're fifteen, not sixteen. Also once you reach sixteen, this opportunity won't be here anymore." I say all of this because I WAS in that position (I was 17) and I almost lost out on a very awesome graphics programming job in the game industry just because I couldn't legally sign an NDA. Thankfully it worked out, but it was a really unpleasant thing to see this awesome opportunity slipping away for reasons completely beyond my control. Don't you think that's a valid concern? Also, it sounds like an awesome thing to offer a gifted six year old a cool internship (one hour per day) at a factory with a safe working environment. This would give the six year old a sweet story to tell, and could easily net him a job later.
    - pyre 17y ago
      > I say all of this because I WAS in that position (I was 17) and I almost lost out on a very awesome graphics programming job in the game industry just because I couldn't legally sign an NDA. Huh? Your situation isn't about child labor at all. You weren't able to sign the NDA because you were still considered a minor, but you were legally able to work. Please do not misrepresent your situation as having anything to do with child labor laws.
      - palish 17y ago
        How is it not related, when I almost could not work at that job just because I wasn't "adult enough" yet? Also, tone down the pompusness and chill out, eh? I've been very pleasant throughout this whole thing, I think, and I don't appreciate being told what to do.
        pyre 17y ago
        Not being able to sign a contract is not a child labor law. You were able to legally work for that company. The company itself imposed an additional restriction(s) (i.e. the NDA) as a requirement for employment. Is it a 'child labor law' because a 12 year old can't get a driver's license, and therefore can't be employed as a pizza delivery person? Your reasoning is broken. You might as well say that statutory rape laws are really 'child labor' laws because they prevent children from becoming sex workers.
        palish 17y ago
        Okay, I will concede that you are correct. However, that does not entirely invalidate my point. Because of my previous experience, I can empathize strongly with anyone in a similar situation. I don't think it's fair that if I were fourteen then I definitely wouldn't have been able to get an internship there, even though I had the skills to do so and it really made sense for me at the time, and everyone else agreed. In general, hard restrictions are dangerous unless there are ways to circumvent them for the rare situations where that restriction makes no sense. Of course, not having any restrictions at all is even more dangerous. The restrictions just need to be flexible.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > So you think that there should be no minimum age at all? Would you be comfortable having 6-year-olds working in a factory, even if it's just for 1 hour/day? Jumping into this - I intend to have my kids start working one hour/day of real work at age eight, which I think is natural and healthy, and aim for them to do basic rites of passage at 12, and be mentally equipped for emancipation from parents at 16 (though it'd be their choice if they want to leave or not). It's a bit tangential to the discussion, but I think one of the worst things of modernization is that people are forced into artificially young roles and not given responsibility until much later in life. Many people aren't particularly self-reliant until after age 26 these days! Sheesh, you used to have teenagers serving as officers in the army or helping their father with accounting, or sales, or apprenticing in a craft, or cooking, or keeping an inn 10 years earlier than some people are getting finished with school these days.
    - palish 17y ago
      I could not agree more. Thank you for articulating this.
nitrogen 17y ago
But the flaw with this reasoning is that we aren't comparing one age group the previously compared age group. We are comparing all age groups to 16-year-olds. A 14 year old is not basically a 16 year old. That said, any government facing this problem has to decide whether it's more important to draw an easy-to-see line that is entirely unambiguous, or consider what might happen to the families of 15-year-olds if they can't get work.