4 ms·

Child Labour laws allowed you to work for yourself cutting lawns because you didn't have to work 14 hours a day in a coal mine to help support your family.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
Nonsense, economic growth did that. Economic growth is also the reason why most adults don't work in coal mines for 14 hours/day. Do you seriously believe that if child labor laws were abolished, children would return to the coal mines?
- krschultz 18y ago
  Do your seriously believe childhood education would have been as pervasive without child labor laws? Only the richest could afford to send their child to school if you have the opportunity cost of giving up their paychecks. After child labor laws, what else are you kids going to do before they become old enough to work?
  - llimllib 18y ago
    You've responded to a totally different proposition than the one he presented! He argued that the abolition of child labor laws wouldn't cause a return to ceaseless child labor, and you're arguing against the notion that child labor laws in the past were not beneficial. Please don't erect strawmen in your arguments.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    In the era when paddy_m grew up (i.e., 1940-2000)? Almost certainly. Incidentally, if families truly needed their children's paychecks, wouldn't child labor laws merely consign them to starvation? In reality, child labor laws merely mitigate a small problem: depraved parents forcing their children to work for personal gain. (This is small in the sense that not too many such parents exist.) But unless paddy_m's parents fall into this category, child labor laws are irrelevant to him.
    - paddy_m 18y ago
      I'm 26. I started shovelling snow when I was 10, in 1992. When I was 13 I started mowing lawns. My parents never told me to go out and mow lawns. I wanted to. It was the best thing I did for myself in my junior high and highschool years.
netcan 18y ago
I think you might tie that to pg's last essay. Child labour laws exist because of some of the disaster of child labour based institutions. (ie similar to a disaster of a vendor going bankrupt). This obviously has a cost. The immediate cost is the loss of this child labour itself. I suppose the hope is that the reinvestment of that time in education would yield a long term gain (but note that investment does not take place in a 'free market'). Rigidly enforcing the laws would also kill off some end cases that clearly do more good then harm. Lawn mowing 14 yr olds, paid household chores, working for parents at family businesses, etc. So the laws are enforced more loosely.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  Working for family businesses is explicitly exempted in the states I'm aware of. A friend of mine made good money working for his parents' bait and tackle shop. It was tax-exempt, too!
  - paddy_m 18y ago
    From what I remember, when I was 14 I also worked for a large landscaping company (35-70 employees) they would have been happy to let me run the big mowers, however they weren't legally allowed to. I spent as much time mowing lawns as most of my classmates spent playing sports. That isn't outlawed. I still went to school

yummyfajitas 18y ago

Nonsense, economic growth did that. Economic growth is also the reason why most adults don't work in coal mines for 14 hours/day. Do you seriously believe that if child labor laws were abolished, children would return to the coal mines?

krschultz 18y ago
Do your seriously believe childhood education would have been as pervasive without child labor laws? Only the richest could afford to send their child to school if you have the opportunity cost of giving up their paychecks. After child labor laws, what else are you kids going to do before they become old enough to work?
- llimllib 18y ago
  You've responded to a totally different proposition than the one he presented! He argued that the abolition of child labor laws wouldn't cause a return to ceaseless child labor, and you're arguing against the notion that child labor laws in the past were not beneficial. Please don't erect strawmen in your arguments.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  In the era when paddy_m grew up (i.e., 1940-2000)? Almost certainly. Incidentally, if families truly needed their children's paychecks, wouldn't child labor laws merely consign them to starvation? In reality, child labor laws merely mitigate a small problem: depraved parents forcing their children to work for personal gain. (This is small in the sense that not too many such parents exist.) But unless paddy_m's parents fall into this category, child labor laws are irrelevant to him.
  - paddy_m 18y ago
    I'm 26. I started shovelling snow when I was 10, in 1992. When I was 13 I started mowing lawns. My parents never told me to go out and mow lawns. I wanted to. It was the best thing I did for myself in my junior high and highschool years.

netcan 18y ago

I think you might tie that to pg's last essay. Child labour laws exist because of some of the disaster of child labour based institutions. (ie similar to a disaster of a vendor going bankrupt). This obviously has a cost. The immediate cost is the loss of this child labour itself. I suppose the hope is that the reinvestment of that time in education would yield a long term gain (but note that investment does not take place in a 'free market'). Rigidly enforcing the laws would also kill off some end cases that clearly do more good then harm. Lawn mowing 14 yr olds, paid household chores, working for parents at family businesses, etc. So the laws are enforced more loosely.

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
Working for family businesses is explicitly exempted in the states I'm aware of. A friend of mine made good money working for his parents' bait and tackle shop. It was tax-exempt, too!
- paddy_m 18y ago
  From what I remember, when I was 14 I also worked for a large landscaping company (35-70 employees) they would have been happy to let me run the big mowers, however they weren't legally allowed to. I spent as much time mowing lawns as most of my classmates spent playing sports. That isn't outlawed. I still went to school