6 ms·

This is a terrible analogy and adds nothing to the conversation. We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers

This is a terrible analogy and adds nothing to the conversation. We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers and children are not the same thing. There is a huge chasm between "adult workers making more than a lot of their other opportunities is slightly more cannot unionize as easily using Amazon services" and "put children back in coal mines".

_dain_ 5y ago
>We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers and children are not the same thing. once upon a time, this was not obvious. this modern moral axiom is a result of of hard-won labor organizing over the 19th century. all kinds of exploitative practices were justified with the exact same "the workers are being given an opportunity so they shouldn't complain" argument. it's not an analogy. taking advantage of people because they don't have any other options is the definition of exploitation.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  In fact, most of the arguments by GP were also used by those defending now illegal labor practices, including child labor.
uncomputation 5y ago
I disagree. I think it’s a good reminder that if we do not regulate labor, businesses like Amazon will grow more and more nefarious. They already confiscate phones, have a built-in PIP revolving door, use their own employees to vouch for them on Twitter, recruit aggressively to have a never-ending stream of labor, and explicitly violate existing labor laws by setting up a system so competitive their own employees cannot take bathroom breaks and meet quotas, in essence giving them no breaks. You seem to be under the impression that companies have an inherent disdain for child labor, which historically is not true. I think actually society has proven that, as long as we don’t see it, we’re fine with the cost. Also, do you know what stopped children in coal mines? Labor unions.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
This is FinNerd's argumentation taken to it's logical conclusion - he is happy to sacrafice employee protections because X is the best employment avaliable. They or you have not outlined where does this slippery slope stop, or ankowledged nessesity of employee protections. I think you are still not seeing it, because the only protest from your 'but they are children!' - so if we exploit adults with a down's syndome, that's okay? Oh, so disabilities are protected, what if we spesifically target people who need money to pay for cancer treatment, and make them sign a waiver on safety equipment? I mean, they aren't gonna live long either way, it's a win-win!
kevingadd 5y ago
> We aren't going to make children work in mines https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/02/child-labor-laws-weakened-us-industries-teens https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/02/child-labor-laws... Are you sure about that? Absolutely certain?
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  How does an article about lifting allowed working hours for teenagers in a fast food joint equate to children working in coal mines?
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Think about the law they are gonna pass next, its only 1 step away. Also, as long as it's not a literal coalmine you see no risks to children? If it's a factory instead, then we are in the clear?
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      No, I don't think the next step is passing laws to enslave children in coal mines. I am not advocating for child labor at all - just discussing the topic at hand, which in GP's comment was saying this link provided an example of children being made to work in coal mines. It was explicitly not. I do not advocate for children's labor, but I also do not advocate for taking things to extremes in order to make a point. If you feel it's problematic for children to be allowed (not forced - allowed) to work in fast food, we can have that discussion. But talking about it as the missing link for returning to 19th century slave labor conditions, or the conditions currently in China is misleading and not worthy of a conversation.
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    Fast food joints are not safe. You can get seriously injured working a fryer or grill, and a 16 year old is less likely to be able to operate those things safely. Keep in mind also that a 16 year old is almost certainly going to school, so they will be working while already tired. I say this as someone who started working at age 14: Children should not be allowed to work most jobs until they are much older than that.
ineedasername 5y ago
I worked up to 60 hours a week (I'd say avg 50) from the time I was 13 years old making $6 an hour. It was backbreaking, grueling labor. But not a coal mine so no risk of black lung, so I guess everything is okay? Or maybe my parents should have taken advantage of economic opportunities that didn't exist (they looked, constantly, for options). This was in the US. Most of the time I did my homework in school, cramming in assignments for second period during first period, then 3rd period hw during second period, etc. Child labor isn't dead, and if you truly think that everyone has the economic opportunities to avoid these circumstance then you don't have the scope of experience needed to accurately assess the state of society. (And no, it wasn't a case of "well if you can't support children you shouldn't have them" The circumstances of the above situation came about long after I was born, though before I was 13)
- notch656a 5y ago
  Would your family have been better off if the income from your $6/hr job was lost? I presume this work was beneficial to your family somehow, otherwise you wouldn't have engaged in it.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Is "better off [economically]" you're guide on ethical labor practices? I don't want to read too much into your comment, but that is the implication, in which case any labor practice can be justified so long as someone is willing to do it. That's a rather extreme view.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      Answer my question and I'll be happy to answer yours in kind. Please note 'economically' was added by you. I genuinely wondered if you and your family would be better off in general, not just economically. Usually economic effects have greater effects on the family outside of the economic outlook. It would be strange indeed if you toiled for years doing something to create a net hurt to your family. I will say if you engaged in some unethical labor practices to help your family while earning those $6, I personally could look past them to some extent. I assume you did this to help your family survive so anything unethical you did was out of necessity. Personally I withhold judgement.

_dain_ 5y ago

>We aren't going to make children work in mines, because (as I'm sure you know), adult workers and children are not the same thing. once upon a time, this was not obvious. this modern moral axiom is a result of of hard-won labor organizing over the 19th century. all kinds of exploitative practices were justified with the exact same "the workers are being given an opportunity so they shouldn't complain" argument. it's not an analogy. taking advantage of people because they don't have any other options is the definition of exploitation.

ashtonkem 5y ago
In fact, most of the arguments by GP were also used by those defending now illegal labor practices, including child labor.

uncomputation 5y ago

I disagree. I think it’s a good reminder that if we do not regulate labor, businesses like Amazon will grow more and more nefarious. They already confiscate phones, have a built-in PIP revolving door, use their own employees to vouch for them on Twitter, recruit aggressively to have a never-ending stream of labor, and explicitly violate existing labor laws by setting up a system so competitive their own employees cannot take bathroom breaks and meet quotas, in essence giving them no breaks. You seem to be under the impression that companies have an inherent disdain for child labor, which historically is not true. I think actually society has proven that, as long as we don’t see it, we’re fine with the cost. Also, do you know what stopped children in coal mines? Labor unions.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

This is FinNerd's argumentation taken to it's logical conclusion - he is happy to sacrafice employee protections because X is the best employment avaliable. They or you have not outlined where does this slippery slope stop, or ankowledged nessesity of employee protections. I think you are still not seeing it, because the only protest from your 'but they are children!' - so if we exploit adults with a down's syndome, that's okay? Oh, so disabilities are protected, what if we spesifically target people who need money to pay for cancer treatment, and make them sign a waiver on safety equipment? I mean, they aren't gonna live long either way, it's a win-win!

kevingadd 5y ago

> We aren't going to make children work in mines https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/02/child-labor-laws-weakened-us-industries-teens https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/nov/02/child-labor-laws... Are you sure about that? Absolutely certain?

edmundsauto 5y ago
How does an article about lifting allowed working hours for teenagers in a fast food joint equate to children working in coal mines?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Think about the law they are gonna pass next, its only 1 step away. Also, as long as it's not a literal coalmine you see no risks to children? If it's a factory instead, then we are in the clear?
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    No, I don't think the next step is passing laws to enslave children in coal mines. I am not advocating for child labor at all - just discussing the topic at hand, which in GP's comment was saying this link provided an example of children being made to work in coal mines. It was explicitly not. I do not advocate for children's labor, but I also do not advocate for taking things to extremes in order to make a point. If you feel it's problematic for children to be allowed (not forced - allowed) to work in fast food, we can have that discussion. But talking about it as the missing link for returning to 19th century slave labor conditions, or the conditions currently in China is misleading and not worthy of a conversation.
- kevingadd 5y ago
  Fast food joints are not safe. You can get seriously injured working a fryer or grill, and a 16 year old is less likely to be able to operate those things safely. Keep in mind also that a 16 year old is almost certainly going to school, so they will be working while already tired. I say this as someone who started working at age 14: Children should not be allowed to work most jobs until they are much older than that.

ineedasername 5y ago

I worked up to 60 hours a week (I'd say avg 50) from the time I was 13 years old making $6 an hour. It was backbreaking, grueling labor. But not a coal mine so no risk of black lung, so I guess everything is okay? Or maybe my parents should have taken advantage of economic opportunities that didn't exist (they looked, constantly, for options). This was in the US. Most of the time I did my homework in school, cramming in assignments for second period during first period, then 3rd period hw during second period, etc. Child labor isn't dead, and if you truly think that everyone has the economic opportunities to avoid these circumstance then you don't have the scope of experience needed to accurately assess the state of society. (And no, it wasn't a case of "well if you can't support children you shouldn't have them" The circumstances of the above situation came about long after I was born, though before I was 13)

notch656a 5y ago
Would your family have been better off if the income from your $6/hr job was lost? I presume this work was beneficial to your family somehow, otherwise you wouldn't have engaged in it.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Is "better off [economically]" you're guide on ethical labor practices? I don't want to read too much into your comment, but that is the implication, in which case any labor practice can be justified so long as someone is willing to do it. That's a rather extreme view.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Answer my question and I'll be happy to answer yours in kind. Please note 'economically' was added by you. I genuinely wondered if you and your family would be better off in general, not just economically. Usually economic effects have greater effects on the family outside of the economic outlook. It would be strange indeed if you toiled for years doing something to create a net hurt to your family. I will say if you engaged in some unethical labor practices to help your family while earning those $6, I personally could look past them to some extent. I assume you did this to help your family survive so anything unethical you did was out of necessity. Personally I withhold judgement.