3 ms·

I saw it too. Are these kids children of the people who own the farms? I didn't remember seeing anything to refute that. If so, barring their kids to work on th

I saw it too. Are these kids children of the people who own the farms? I didn't remember seeing anything to refute that. If so, barring their kids to work on the farm would be detrimental to the family farmer and would benefit bigger farms that can afford to hire more external labor.

hoten 3y ago
There's a clip in the show of a young female teenager who wants to go to school but has instead been separated from her family and forced to work on her (I believe) uncles farm. You're probably asking about the general trend but this is an example of the show refuting that these kids are just the farmers children. The call with the nestle exec also mentions this objection.
watwut 3y ago
The real question ia whether it is detrimental to the children themselves. Everyone and his brother goes "you should not have children when you can't afford them" when people who fell into poverty need assistance or when someone can not provide own room to each kid or have trouble to pay for something. Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. It is different when they help an hour a day after school or during weekends etc. But, that us not what we are talking about here.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. People have been doing that for several millennia.
  - watwut 3y ago
    People also beaten wife's for millennia. They also could get by with next to no education. Yes, animal welfare groups existed sooner then children protection groups, making it ok to heavily beat your kids or underwear them severely.
theshrike79 3y ago
They literally interviewed a girl who was sent to a coco farm "to take care of the kids" when she was 12 or something. She has taken care of zero kids and instead has been chopping coco since then. Hasn't been home either.
pixl97 3y ago
Then why is it the bigger farms that keep pushing for more child labor?
gowld 3y ago
Yes, it would be determinal to inefficient child abusers and benefit efficient value-creators. That's good.

hoten 3y ago

There's a clip in the show of a young female teenager who wants to go to school but has instead been separated from her family and forced to work on her (I believe) uncles farm. You're probably asking about the general trend but this is an example of the show refuting that these kids are just the farmers children. The call with the nestle exec also mentions this objection.

watwut 3y ago

The real question ia whether it is detrimental to the children themselves. Everyone and his brother goes "you should not have children when you can't afford them" when people who fell into poverty need assistance or when someone can not provide own room to each kid or have trouble to pay for something. Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. It is different when they help an hour a day after school or during weekends etc. But, that us not what we are talking about here.

Clubber 3y ago
>Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. People have been doing that for several millennia.
- watwut 3y ago
  People also beaten wife's for millennia. They also could get by with next to no education. Yes, animal welfare groups existed sooner then children protection groups, making it ok to heavily beat your kids or underwear them severely.

theshrike79 3y ago

They literally interviewed a girl who was sent to a coco farm "to take care of the kids" when she was 12 or something. She has taken care of zero kids and instead has been chopping coco since then. Hasn't been home either.

pixl97 3y ago

Then why is it the bigger farms that keep pushing for more child labor?

gowld 3y ago

Yes, it would be determinal to inefficient child abusers and benefit efficient value-creators. That's good.