6 ms·
It's a shame children can't work more often. I think people are smart enough to tell the difference between abuse and an awesome opportunity for experience.
by eglover 12y ago
It's a shame children can't work more often. I think people are smart enough to tell the difference between abuse and an awesome opportunity for experience.
- Igglyboo 12y agoPeople may be smart enough to tell the difference but I don't think they're smart enough to write an ironclad law that won't allow for abuse. It's the letter of the law, not the spirit, that we have to worry about.
- eglover 12y agoYou don't need an "ironclad law" no such thing exists. You just need to recognize that it's wrong to abuse children. That's like saying you need an "ironclad law" to determine how wrong it is to be drunk when you've killed someone in traffic. ...What? It's manslaughter, wtf are you talking about?
- Igglyboo 12y agoYes because everyone has the same morals and follows them exactly. You're basically arguing that we don't need laws if everyone just recognized wrong from right.
- eglover 12y agoNo, I'm not. Pay attention. I'm saying you don't need to pack on unnecessary arbitrary laws because you think you're smarter than everybody else. There are universals, for the times when there is not, you MUST recognize that by forcing them you ONLY cause harm. There's no arguing that.
- hawkice 12y agoSo, this is a bit off topic on a super click-bait-y story, but I think the notion of child labor laws is that we specifically include child labor as statutory abuse, in the same way the basic speed limit law ("don't drive too fast to be safe") is augmented by the more specific and easily enforceable speed limit signs. It'd be great if we had the throughput to actually make wise decisions about such a broad range of potential disputes -- that way, we wouldn't discourage non-traditional calls that might suck up a lot of time -- but I think this is a fair compromise.
- KC8ZKF 12y agoAnd just like nobody actually thinks they are driving to fast to be safe, nobody would think that the jobs they provide would be abusive. Even long hours in a sweatshop would be randized as providing opportunities in a free market.
- eglover 12y agoNo. You're turning a fallacy into a bumper sticker. First of all, speed limits are way below the capabilities of how safely cars can move today. Hence, the original federal law that said limits should represent the top 80th percentile of drivers. (That's obviously not used anymore.) Slow can mean dangerous, don't depend on obvious quips for all your thinking. Second, "sweatshops" in the derogatory sense only exist in socialist countries where families are starving to death trying to support the government. If kids didn't work, they wouldn't have food. You know very well they and their parents would prefer that school be an option. Third, the work that these companies provide are NOT inherently wrong. Making clothes? Sounds like a good skill to me. Don't base your "opinions" on some dark imagery you've developed in your head.
- eglover 12y agoStop thinking of things in some petty nationalist sense. Communities can handle their own problems in a much smarter and more efficient way.
- forgottenpass 12y agoIdentifying an abusive employment opportunity is necessary but not sufficient to being in a negotiation position where people are not abused.
- couchand 12y agoThis is exactly right, and the thing people most frequently forget when considering labor laws generally, particularly minimum wage, overtime, and child labor. The unfortunate thing here is that even if most people are willing and able to say no to abusive employment practices, it only takes a few underinformed/underrepresented/broke people to create systemic issues. These are exactly the sort of situations we really do need statutory protection for.
- eglover 12y agoYou're already talking about a much different issue than what you listed. Laws on everything you listed reduce opportunity and all cause problems with unemployment. Yet, you've avoided the entire issue by saying, "Well... dumb minority poor people!" Let's ignore the fact that these are the people most harmed by "statutory protection" for a second and address the issue of superiority. You're telling me that your ideas must be enacted across the entire nation because you think dumb, minority, poor people all need your protection. They can't possibly work things out for themselves or seek help from friends, family and local communities to solve individual issues. Instead, you're going to blanket the whole thing and not harm a single person? How wrong you are.
- couchand 12y agoWow, what a strong reaction! I'm not sure what issue you think I've entirely avoided, I think my comment was pretty fair and direct. But let me try to elaborate a bit. I certainly wouldn't limit my points to minorities, though the reality of our current society is that the lingering effects of institutional racism means poverty is usually concentrated in communities of color. The problem with expecting folks to "work things out for themselves" is the extreme asymmetry of information in labor markets. It's far too easy for a single capitalist to take extreme advantage of those in poverty, and far too hard for workers, even when banding together to collectively negotiate, to compensate for that. The thing is, when you expect people to just "work things out for themselves" it pretty much always ends up favoring those already in positions of power, namely wealthy white males.