5 ms·

So, I don't want to rain on your parades, guys, but what if child labor is the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation for people in those countries?

So, I don't want to rain on your parades, guys, but what if child labor is the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation for people in those countries? As someone who immigrated from a country like that into 1st world I'm kind of torn about this. On one hand child labor is bad, on the other hand, starvation is worse. So now we block these kids from being able to make a living for themselves, or effectively force them to lie about their age.

object-a 3y ago
My question back would be: why _is_ child labor the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation? Why can't adults be paid a sufficient wage to avoid starvation, or why can't our society provide for these children without requiring them to work? The fact that things are that way currently, is not an argument that things should be that way. It's worth discussing what in the current system necessitates that children work or starve, and whether that's fixable.
- Teever 3y ago
  To add to your question, I would like to ask: Why is child labour the only alternative to extreme poverty and starvation in a world where we have excess calories?
- themagician 3y ago
  Because we live in a society that requires a solid base of slavery to function. It always has. Base level resource extraction and processing (cocoa, cobalt, rubber, sulfur, et al.) is done with slaves in order to have an abundance of consumer items at the other end. It is not work people want to do. It is work people will only do under threat of death. It is a horrifying thought. Or it should be. I think you are right in that it is worth discussing, but you must come at it from an honest standpoint. You can not pretend like this is some kind of aberration—it is the backbone of our capitalist society. You can not fix a systemic issue with small changes. A quarter of humans on this planet live in abject poverty. We accept this kind of inequality because "everyone is equal" is something we aspire to one day believe—currently we do not.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - themagician 3y ago
      > A quarter of humans on this planet live the way humans did before we invented capitalism. Yes. It seems to be necessary.
      - 8bitsrule 3y ago
        Especially necessary for those who, for many centuries, have not been well-paid by the capitalists who took advantage of their situation. Sometimes called exploitation. A practice often maintained by keeping native governments de-stabilized. (See e.g. history of the Caribbean. Or Hawaii.)
        rayiner 3y ago
        Ah, yes, blame the failures of socialism on “exploitation” by foreigners instead of your ideology. Losers. Losers who condemn their countries to poverty because they can’t admit they’re wrong.
        themagician 3y ago
        No one is talking about socialism here other than you.
        rayiner 3y ago
        As a general principle folks who say stuff like capitalism relies on slavery are advancing socialism.
- rayiner 3y ago
  >My question back would be: why _is_ child labor the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation? That's been true for virtually all of human history. It was true even in the 20th century in agricultural parts of America. > Why can't adults be paid a sufficient wage to avoid starvation, or why can't our society provide for these children without requiring them to work? Those people don't live in our society, they live in some other society that doesn't generate the kind of surplus required to enable children not to have to work.
  - themagician 3y ago
    > Those people don't live in our society, they live in some other society that doesn't generate the kind of surplus required to enable children not to have to work. The "other" less equal children from another society, clearly not connected to our own.
  - object-a 3y ago
    There is probably sufficient global surplus to ensure that children do not need to work to survive. As described in the article, companies that control supply chains can squeeze suppliers so that all the surplus accumulates in wealthier countries, instead of with the suppliers. That is not an inevitability, it is a choice made by “our society”. My point was against the sense of inevitability in the parent reply. We can imagine and enact a more equitable distribution. We don’t even need to mess around with socialism for decades to do it
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Even if there was such a surplus, distributing it at a global level would require global governance that would eliminate that surplus.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        not at all. all it would require is the will to actually do it. while you may have a point that in the current state, companies won't willingly reduce their profits to do that, and maybe the only way to get them to make this change right now would be force them and create a massive bureaucracy to make it happen, this is not the only way this can be addressed. for one, our governments could support african countries in charging more for the product. this could be done through trade agreements that are more supportive and less exploitative as they currently are. say for example the price of raw cocoa may have to triple to ensure that the producers at the end get double of what they are getting now. (i think that was what was needed to bring the income to minimum living standards) how much governance is needed to make that happen? once the trade agreements are fixed, it should mostly be spot checking the market prices to make sure the money ends up in the right places. that can't be that hard.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Rodeoclash 3y ago
Well, of course whoever is buying the chocolate doesn't want the workforce to die, so they're going to give them the absolute minimum to keep productivity at a particular level. Basically one step above slavery in the sense that you can either choose to to work and live at a subsistence level or die. But instead of doing this, couldn't Cargill make a bit less profit to bring the standard of living up for the people farming?
em-bee 3y ago
we are not blaming african families for making their children work. we are blaming western businesses for not paying africans enough so that they are forced to do this. the problem is not the lying about the age. discovering that is not about saying those are bad parents, but instead this is proof that the price paid for cocoa is still to low. there is really only one way to solve this: to stop exploiting labor and resources in those countries but actually pay them enough so that they can live a decent life. and the way to make that happen is to create awareness in the consumer to make them demand from the chocolate producers that they actually make an effort to fix this.
csb6 3y ago
> what if child labor is the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation for people in those countries? Many child laborers are in extreme poverty, as are their families. This has been going on for decades in Ivory Coast and Ghana, so child labor clearly hasn’t allowed the younger generations to escape poverty. It has definitely made it harder for many children to go to school, though.
derelicta 3y ago
Ofc there is an alternative. All it needs is enough people realising they outnumber their oppressors. If the US managed to get rid of most of its slaveowners, then those countries can too.

object-a 3y ago

My question back would be: why _is_ child labor the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation? Why can't adults be paid a sufficient wage to avoid starvation, or why can't our society provide for these children without requiring them to work? The fact that things are that way currently, is not an argument that things should be that way. It's worth discussing what in the current system necessitates that children work or starve, and whether that's fixable.

Teever 3y ago
To add to your question, I would like to ask: Why is child labour the only alternative to extreme poverty and starvation in a world where we have excess calories?
themagician 3y ago
Because we live in a society that requires a solid base of slavery to function. It always has. Base level resource extraction and processing (cocoa, cobalt, rubber, sulfur, et al.) is done with slaves in order to have an abundance of consumer items at the other end. It is not work people want to do. It is work people will only do under threat of death. It is a horrifying thought. Or it should be. I think you are right in that it is worth discussing, but you must come at it from an honest standpoint. You can not pretend like this is some kind of aberration—it is the backbone of our capitalist society. You can not fix a systemic issue with small changes. A quarter of humans on this planet live in abject poverty. We accept this kind of inequality because "everyone is equal" is something we aspire to one day believe—currently we do not.
- rayiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - themagician 3y ago
    > A quarter of humans on this planet live the way humans did before we invented capitalism. Yes. It seems to be necessary.
    - 8bitsrule 3y ago
      Especially necessary for those who, for many centuries, have not been well-paid by the capitalists who took advantage of their situation. Sometimes called exploitation. A practice often maintained by keeping native governments de-stabilized. (See e.g. history of the Caribbean. Or Hawaii.)
      - rayiner 3y ago
        Ah, yes, blame the failures of socialism on “exploitation” by foreigners instead of your ideology. Losers. Losers who condemn their countries to poverty because they can’t admit they’re wrong.
        themagician 3y ago
        No one is talking about socialism here other than you.
        rayiner 3y ago
        As a general principle folks who say stuff like capitalism relies on slavery are advancing socialism.
rayiner 3y ago
>My question back would be: why _is_ child labor the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation? That's been true for virtually all of human history. It was true even in the 20th century in agricultural parts of America. > Why can't adults be paid a sufficient wage to avoid starvation, or why can't our society provide for these children without requiring them to work? Those people don't live in our society, they live in some other society that doesn't generate the kind of surplus required to enable children not to have to work.
- themagician 3y ago
  > Those people don't live in our society, they live in some other society that doesn't generate the kind of surplus required to enable children not to have to work. The "other" less equal children from another society, clearly not connected to our own.
- object-a 3y ago
  There is probably sufficient global surplus to ensure that children do not need to work to survive. As described in the article, companies that control supply chains can squeeze suppliers so that all the surplus accumulates in wealthier countries, instead of with the suppliers. That is not an inevitability, it is a choice made by “our society”. My point was against the sense of inevitability in the parent reply. We can imagine and enact a more equitable distribution. We don’t even need to mess around with socialism for decades to do it
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Even if there was such a surplus, distributing it at a global level would require global governance that would eliminate that surplus.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      not at all. all it would require is the will to actually do it. while you may have a point that in the current state, companies won't willingly reduce their profits to do that, and maybe the only way to get them to make this change right now would be force them and create a massive bureaucracy to make it happen, this is not the only way this can be addressed. for one, our governments could support african countries in charging more for the product. this could be done through trade agreements that are more supportive and less exploitative as they currently are. say for example the price of raw cocoa may have to triple to ensure that the producers at the end get double of what they are getting now. (i think that was what was needed to bring the income to minimum living standards) how much governance is needed to make that happen? once the trade agreements are fixed, it should mostly be spot checking the market prices to make sure the money ends up in the right places. that can't be that hard.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Rodeoclash 3y ago

Well, of course whoever is buying the chocolate doesn't want the workforce to die, so they're going to give them the absolute minimum to keep productivity at a particular level. Basically one step above slavery in the sense that you can either choose to to work and live at a subsistence level or die. But instead of doing this, couldn't Cargill make a bit less profit to bring the standard of living up for the people farming?

em-bee 3y ago

we are not blaming african families for making their children work. we are blaming western businesses for not paying africans enough so that they are forced to do this. the problem is not the lying about the age. discovering that is not about saying those are bad parents, but instead this is proof that the price paid for cocoa is still to low. there is really only one way to solve this: to stop exploiting labor and resources in those countries but actually pay them enough so that they can live a decent life. and the way to make that happen is to create awareness in the consumer to make them demand from the chocolate producers that they actually make an effort to fix this.

csb6 3y ago

> what if child labor is the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation for people in those countries? Many child laborers are in extreme poverty, as are their families. This has been going on for decades in Ivory Coast and Ghana, so child labor clearly hasn’t allowed the younger generations to escape poverty. It has definitely made it harder for many children to go to school, though.

derelicta 3y ago

Ofc there is an alternative. All it needs is enough people realising they outnumber their oppressors. If the US managed to get rid of most of its slaveowners, then those countries can too.