5 ms·

I'll agree with all of 1–5, and elaborate on #2: > Second, the companies paying these children are extracting value from their labor greater than what they are

I'll agree with all of 1–5, and elaborate on #2: > Second, the companies paying these children are extracting value from their labor greater than what they are paying the child laborers. This is always the case with employment, assuming that the employer isn't getting ripped off: when two parties make a voluntary trade, they're both getting something they value more than what they're trading away. -- > In other words, this article, in my analysis, is an opportunity to study and question the system that creates the conditions such that there is a labor market comprising children who are available for exploitation for cheap labor by very rich Western companies. I don't see anything that needs explaining here. Poverty is the default. For almost all of human history we were dirt poor. For almost all of agricultural history we were in a hungry, unpleasant Malthusian equilibrium. The real miracle is that things are getting better. And a big part of why things are getting better is because it's possible for richer countries to 'exploit' cheap labor in poorer countries – and help them escape poverty by doing it. It's amusing how companies keep looking for cheap labor in different countries every few years, because the places that used to have the cheapest labor got wealthier because of those opportunities. I realize that not everybody shares my aesthetics, but personally I see this as beautiful, even if the ground-level details are a bit grungy.

foota 3y ago
I think the point that it's voluntary means it's a good trade for both sides isn't entirely accurate, at least in the long run. I'd argue it could be that someone is forced into working due to their conditions (e.g., if I don't work I won't have enough food) but in a way they're trading something that had both more long term value and you could argue it comes with negative externalities. In this case, if a child is working they're not learning or playing with others, and they're potentially being traumatized if the articles claims are to be believed. This has a long term effect on their well being, and produces a sort of negative externality. Is it the case that we shouldn't allow this? I'm not sure, since in the long run maybe I'd rather be nourished than innocent, but its probably reasonable to argue that there could be more oversight in terms of what content they're reviewing or how much they're paid to make it a better deal for them.
- surge 3y ago
  "Child" is used loosely by commenters on this article, its fairly obvious they mean teenager when they say "underage". It was stated the hours were flexible and they're going to college so its assumed this is after school. Given its perfectly fine for teenagers (not children) to take part time work here and many of us here had to earn extra money before becoming adults or to help save up for education. I don't see the problem. My part time job bought me my own computer, that I used to start the career I'm in now. If you want me to believe they're more exploited than I was at my part time job at McDonald's of which was also of great benefit to me, you're nuts. This article tries to make this is somehow exploitative. This would be a great part time job here, it just pays the rate there, and its normal to pay kids less than adults anyway since its assumed their living costs are mostly covered by parents (a living wage is unnecessary) and their inexperience and unreliability makes its so if you're going to pay full rate you're better off with an adult. If the kids were doing to to make money for the latest Playstation, this would be fine here. I'm not seeing an issue going off what's in the article, if anything it seems like a huge boon considering what other jobs are likely available to teenage workers. >“It’s digital slavery,” says Hassan. It's only slavery if you're not allowed to leave, if its a bad deal, the wages aren't worth your time and effort, then don't do it. Go work in a blacksmith shop or something else they do in Pakistan that's somehow accepted but far more hazardous. The whole article is framed in a completely champagne social justice lense and not what's practical or what works or is to a mutual benefit for both parties. If demand for those jobs has gone up and this depresses wages, that's how it works here.
mattdeboard 3y ago
The reason I constructed my initial response to you in the way I did was to try to make it clear I was acknowledging how complicated this topic is. It’s not as easy as “pay them a Western wage” or “unionize the global south” or whatever. It’s too complicated for easy answers. It’s not all bad. It’s not all good, either, though. I spent the time to make my comment because your original comment that it’s too easy for well-fed westerners to poo-poo the situation was well-made, and correct in certain context.
beepbooptheory 3y ago
How do employees/workers get more than what they are trading away?
- pjscott 3y ago
  They trade away time and effort in exchange for money. Presumably they value the money more than the time and effort, because if they didn't, they wouldn't make that trade.
  - beepbooptheory 3y ago
    Why do you think they value the money more than the time and effort?
rexpop 3y ago
> Poverty is the default. For almost all of human history we were dirt poor. I don't know where you get this absurd idea. For many millennia we were commoning, herding, living in symbiosis with game- and fruit-bearing wildernesses, etc. It's not since the enclosure of the commons that subsistence outside employment has been made, largely, illegal. For almost all of human history we have been wealthy and free. What we now recognize as "poverty" is induced by the holders of Capital in order to maintain a pool of vulnerable workers obliged to cater. We use military might and policing to undermine economic and political power in the colonies, ensuring we they remain desperate enough to take a bad deal. This isn't free market economics, this is blackmail, extortion, racketeering. If you want to zoom in on a single example and say, "ah, well, this youngster found a pretty flower and smelled it, how can you begrudge him a sniff?" while ignoring the churning, smoke-filled skies above, I suppose it will help you sleep at night, but I'm not fooled. Poverty is a mugging.
- MrNeon 3y ago
  >For many millennia we were commoning, herding, living in symbiosis with game- and fruit-bearing wildernesses, etc. It's not since the enclosure of the commons that subsistence outside employment has been made, largely, illegal. And I wouldn't in a thousand years want to have a quality of life as low as we had back then.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bdzr 3y ago
  > For almost all of human history we have been wealthy and free. Are we on reddit?

foota 3y ago

I think the point that it's voluntary means it's a good trade for both sides isn't entirely accurate, at least in the long run. I'd argue it could be that someone is forced into working due to their conditions (e.g., if I don't work I won't have enough food) but in a way they're trading something that had both more long term value and you could argue it comes with negative externalities. In this case, if a child is working they're not learning or playing with others, and they're potentially being traumatized if the articles claims are to be believed. This has a long term effect on their well being, and produces a sort of negative externality. Is it the case that we shouldn't allow this? I'm not sure, since in the long run maybe I'd rather be nourished than innocent, but its probably reasonable to argue that there could be more oversight in terms of what content they're reviewing or how much they're paid to make it a better deal for them.

surge 3y ago
"Child" is used loosely by commenters on this article, its fairly obvious they mean teenager when they say "underage". It was stated the hours were flexible and they're going to college so its assumed this is after school. Given its perfectly fine for teenagers (not children) to take part time work here and many of us here had to earn extra money before becoming adults or to help save up for education. I don't see the problem. My part time job bought me my own computer, that I used to start the career I'm in now. If you want me to believe they're more exploited than I was at my part time job at McDonald's of which was also of great benefit to me, you're nuts. This article tries to make this is somehow exploitative. This would be a great part time job here, it just pays the rate there, and its normal to pay kids less than adults anyway since its assumed their living costs are mostly covered by parents (a living wage is unnecessary) and their inexperience and unreliability makes its so if you're going to pay full rate you're better off with an adult. If the kids were doing to to make money for the latest Playstation, this would be fine here. I'm not seeing an issue going off what's in the article, if anything it seems like a huge boon considering what other jobs are likely available to teenage workers. >“It’s digital slavery,” says Hassan. It's only slavery if you're not allowed to leave, if its a bad deal, the wages aren't worth your time and effort, then don't do it. Go work in a blacksmith shop or something else they do in Pakistan that's somehow accepted but far more hazardous. The whole article is framed in a completely champagne social justice lense and not what's practical or what works or is to a mutual benefit for both parties. If demand for those jobs has gone up and this depresses wages, that's how it works here.

mattdeboard 3y ago

The reason I constructed my initial response to you in the way I did was to try to make it clear I was acknowledging how complicated this topic is. It’s not as easy as “pay them a Western wage” or “unionize the global south” or whatever. It’s too complicated for easy answers. It’s not all bad. It’s not all good, either, though. I spent the time to make my comment because your original comment that it’s too easy for well-fed westerners to poo-poo the situation was well-made, and correct in certain context.

beepbooptheory 3y ago

How do employees/workers get more than what they are trading away?

pjscott 3y ago
They trade away time and effort in exchange for money. Presumably they value the money more than the time and effort, because if they didn't, they wouldn't make that trade.
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  Why do you think they value the money more than the time and effort?

rexpop 3y ago

> Poverty is the default. For almost all of human history we were dirt poor. I don't know where you get this absurd idea. For many millennia we were commoning, herding, living in symbiosis with game- and fruit-bearing wildernesses, etc. It's not since the enclosure of the commons that subsistence outside employment has been made, largely, illegal. For almost all of human history we have been wealthy and free. What we now recognize as "poverty" is induced by the holders of Capital in order to maintain a pool of vulnerable workers obliged to cater. We use military might and policing to undermine economic and political power in the colonies, ensuring we they remain desperate enough to take a bad deal. This isn't free market economics, this is blackmail, extortion, racketeering. If you want to zoom in on a single example and say, "ah, well, this youngster found a pretty flower and smelled it, how can you begrudge him a sniff?" while ignoring the churning, smoke-filled skies above, I suppose it will help you sleep at night, but I'm not fooled. Poverty is a mugging.

MrNeon 3y ago
>For many millennia we were commoning, herding, living in symbiosis with game- and fruit-bearing wildernesses, etc. It's not since the enclosure of the commons that subsistence outside employment has been made, largely, illegal. And I wouldn't in a thousand years want to have a quality of life as low as we had back then.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bdzr 3y ago
> For almost all of human history we have been wealthy and free. Are we on reddit?