3 ms·

Thank you for providing the only sane voice in this thread. Everyone who is from the first world country and who has never visited a third world country should

Thank you for providing the only sane voice in this thread. Everyone who is from the first world country and who has never visited a third world country should stop talking about child labor. Now. Just stop it. It's very easy to bash child labor but do you know why the child labor exists in first place? Do you think parents of those child have any other alternatives? For their parents, it's a choice between living another day or dieing of hunger. For them, the so called 'abusive' work condition is the only option to survive. To give a little personal perspective, let me tell you my story. I am from India. And when I was 10 years old (in 1990), my mom took up some side work to support us. She would do it 7 days a week and I would do it in evenings and full day on Sunday. We did it not for food but to make sure that me and my sisters could go to school and get the books we need. It was back breaking work but it was worth for me and my family. I was lucky enough that I worked so that I can go to school. Few of my other cousins were not that lucky. They had to work so that they can eat in evening. Because of my education, I have been successful and have been living in USA for last 5 years. Those poor cousins are now grown up and doing an average job but they are doing everything possible to send their kids to school. I am sure their next generation will be much much better off. Before you decry child labor next time, ask yourself, what's the alternative for the child? Are you going to provide that alternative? If not, you are taking away the only viable choice from that child. Please don't do that. For more thoughts, read this: http://cafehayek.com/2005/07/postrel_on_edmo.html http://cafehayek.com/2005/07/postrel_on_edmo.html

renegade 17y ago
I am from India too and I agree with you.Except I have another viewpoint. There is something known as supply and demand of educated labor. Jobs involving little or no use of education(like working in a cheap restaurant, serving tea in offices, construction workers etc etc), can be easily done by kids. If you have educated 100 kids, made them do nothing until they turn 18, and there are only 50 jobs requiring education, and 50 jobs requiring no education then you have just wasted many years of working and earning of those kids who will work in the latter category. Someone has to do jobs requiring no skill or education, By enforcing an anti-child labor law you are just removing the natural head start those people would have in life (by working and acquiring experience) against those who go to schools and colleges. People who grow up on farms are almost always out of the application of anti-child labor laws, and its important for them to do so, and because of this agriculture remains a profession passed on from generation to generation. The point is with gradual prosperity less and less kids work in dangerous menial jobs, its not the child labor laws which have prevented kids from working, but the parents have stopped sending their kids to work because its not needed anymore. About break the laws of those nations, well honestly speaking my own observation is that American companies follow the most amount of laws in these countries than any other individual or domestic corporation, this really does increase their costs more than how a domestic corporation would produce the same thing(by breaking the stupid laws and bribing govt officials), but American corporations don't care because they aren't really producing for domestic markets, they are producing for American markets where people can pay the slightly higher cost.

renegade 17y ago

I am from India too and I agree with you.Except I have another viewpoint. There is something known as supply and demand of educated labor. Jobs involving little or no use of education(like working in a cheap restaurant, serving tea in offices, construction workers etc etc), can be easily done by kids. If you have educated 100 kids, made them do nothing until they turn 18, and there are only 50 jobs requiring education, and 50 jobs requiring no education then you have just wasted many years of working and earning of those kids who will work in the latter category. Someone has to do jobs requiring no skill or education, By enforcing an anti-child labor law you are just removing the natural head start those people would have in life (by working and acquiring experience) against those who go to schools and colleges. People who grow up on farms are almost always out of the application of anti-child labor laws, and its important for them to do so, and because of this agriculture remains a profession passed on from generation to generation. The point is with gradual prosperity less and less kids work in dangerous menial jobs, its not the child labor laws which have prevented kids from working, but the parents have stopped sending their kids to work because its not needed anymore. About break the laws of those nations, well honestly speaking my own observation is that American companies follow the most amount of laws in these countries than any other individual or domestic corporation, this really does increase their costs more than how a domestic corporation would produce the same thing(by breaking the stupid laws and bribing govt officials), but American corporations don't care because they aren't really producing for domestic markets, they are producing for American markets where people can pay the slightly higher cost.