child labor, and public schools

I was in a discussion in my high school class today, and we were learning about child labor in the US today.  I said that child labor helped the economy, because there was more unskilled labor available.  I also didn't like laws that banned child labor, because there is nothing wrong with children working at a business.  Also, I didn't want the government to mess around  But most people in my class, including the teacher, said that the child labor ban was good, since they should instead be going to school so they can get ahead.  The people in my class also used the bad things that happened to children to justify this.  For example, the teacher showed pictures and said the bad things that happened to the children who worked at the time.  But it isn't like the children were forced to do this, and only people on the edge of poverty would send their children to work.  Also, didn't things like this happen to adult laborers?  But today, children are forced into schools.  I know it is bad for the government to force people to go to schools.  But, is it bad for the government to ban child labor?

Also, somebody in class said that if child labor hadn't been banned, the Great Depression would have lasted longer.  This sounds like an ignorant statement.
 

 This would have been the perfect opportunity to point out that forcing children to go to school is about exposing them to propaganda safe from their parents' oversight, for example in order to make them believe that government protects them from child labor, instead of preparing them to get ahead in life.

Stranger:

This would have been the perfect opportunity to point out that forcing children to go to school is about exposing them to propaganda safe from their parents' oversight, for example in order to make them believe that government protects them from child labor, instead of preparing them to get ahead in life.

That would have been perfect.

There is also a forum that we use to discuss history.  I find that many are locked into the paradigm of government is good.  For example, when I propose no government, somebody does this reply:

"I'm going to have to disagree with you there, because in case you haven't noticed, all of the above statements that were made need a government to enforece them, otherwise another less fair government is established and the situations get worse.

This is fundamentally because of human nature, because anytime there are humans, those humans will develop a hierarchy no matter what.

... 

What about the cops?  If we had no taxes, and you were robbed, the cop would have to charge you to get back what had been stolen, leaving you worse off than when you started.

What about the Fire department?  I'm sorry, but I need $1000 or I can't put out your fire.  What? you say your money is in your house burning? oh sorry, but I need payment up-front.  I guess your valuables can burn.

What about the roads? who will maintain them?  Oh, lets sell them to private enterprises!  How would you like every road in the U.S. to be a tollway?  After all, you're paying a private enterprise to maintain it, and they need to make a profit!

What about your insurance?  when the guys fail to pay up, you can sue them.  But, with no laws, and no courts, who makes them?

And when you put your money in the bank, what stops them from keeping it and claiming it was never deposited?  After all, there's no government to stop them!

So, you keep your money at home.  And when some guy points a gun at you and takes it, and you can't pay the cop to get it back because it's all been stolen, what do you do?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot!  What's the value of the money from a government that doesn't exist?  And since there's no one to stop you from just printing more, what stops hyper-inflation of an already useless cash.

So, now, the U.S. government is no longer taking your money.  But, the one who is taking your money, less fairly and much more brutally, is the guy who had the biggest guns when all the governments went away.

That sound nice and fair, doesn't it?  Oh wait! NO!

It reminds me of a great quote that you should read by Winston Churchill:  "democracy is the worst system, except for all the others."" 

It was the increased production made possible by the Industrial Revolution that eventually (but not immediately) made it possible for children to not have to work, and to attend school.  Before the industrial revolution, children essentially had to work long hours on the feudal farm, with little chance for any formal education.  When they started building factories, it was actually an improvement for most children to work in a factory rather than on a farm.  They still worked long hours, but not AS long as before.  Eventually though, rising standards of living ensured that the parents could make enough money so that the children didn't have to work at all, and had time to actually go to school and get a formal education. 

In more modern times, child labor laws make little economic sense, and inhibit vocational opportunities for children, who are unlikely to learn the needs of the workplace in a modern educational setting, especially in public schools.  Perhaps if the schools were doing a better job, enhancing children's formal education with vocational learning would be unnecessary. 

The only thing I can think about concerning the Great Depression is that it put a lot of people out of work, so perhaps more children were trying to earn money to help their parents.  But the cause and solution to the Great Depression were political in nature, and largely due to mishandling by the Federal Reserve and the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations--child labor laws did nothing to correct that.

Lol, I don't even try anymore. Trying to make points with those who have collectivist mindsets is self-defeating. I once explained how Wal-mart isn't evil because they allow chinese children who would be doing much harsher work to instead obtain a less rigorous job at a manufacturing plant. I also explained how they are extremely poor and need the jobs. Most of the people arguing against me had nothing but emotional arguments. Its pretty annoying because at the same time you want to help them understand you while you want to smack them as well.  

drunknmunky, go ahead and SMACK 'EM! lol

They cant advocate something that makes them look bad. They're all fluff and no substance. They wanna be pretty for their friends.

The way they see it, supporting something that puts someone in a position to better themselves would mean they're responsible for the person's affairs: "That African is working for $1/day? No way! I'm against that, for sure!"

If they stand against Africans CHOOSING to work for $1/day, they can leave the African's in squalor and keep their moral superiority. Why sully your reputation when you can just blame God, nature, warlords, racism and greedy businesses?

They apply this same philosophy across the board. Why? Because it requires little effort and leaves time for primping. See Bastiat's comments (sorry for posting this so much lately,but it's relevant):

The choice in their head: 

My fault: African making $1/hr in sweatshop

Others' fault: African with flies in nose

Why add to 'My faults'? I choose 'Others' faults'.

Hey guys I'm new here so forgive me lol.  How to you create your own blog entry??  Thats all I wanted to ask.  I see how to respond to one I'm just not sure how create my own.  Thanks guys.

pairunoyd:

Yes, we must admit that our opponents in this argument have a marked advantage over us. They need only a few words to set forth a half-truth; whereas, in order to show that it is a half-truth, we have to resort to long and arid dissertations.

Sadly you are right..plus the half-truths interrupt you constantly while you are trying to explain someone something.

 Capitalist: Um, child labor allows children to become productive at an early age and lets them learn about themselves. This allows them to mature early on and learn about what they enjoy and it eventually leads to a good work ethic.

Leftist: Oh SO WE SHOULD JUST MAKE KIDS NOT GO TO SCHOOL AND WORK FOR .5 AN HOUR?

 Capitalist: *sigh* No...I'm trying to explain that they should be able to choose what they want to do on their free time. A child working after school doesn't harm them.

Leftist: YOU WANT CHILDREN TO WORK AT SLAVE SHOPS

Capitalist: Oh nevermind...*facepalm* 

Yeah, Purplemage,

Young people all around the world are almost irreversibly contaminated by the nanny-state way of thinking sponsored by public school, combined with the lack of support of their own alienated parents.

From my personal experience, I can tell you that working at an early age develops and stimulates personal growth in all levels.

As I was a child, my father owned a drugstore, and our financial situation was fairly good, living a comfortable life. However, he offered me if I'd like to earn some extra money by helping him, and I gladly accepted.

He trained me in several simple tasks, such as taking orders at the counter, packing medicines and toiletries, checking the stock level and writing down out-of-stock items to be ordered, and even working occasionally at the cash.

Needless to say, in my small hometown there were no guv'mint do-gooders to watch around if I was working or not...

This early exercise - between 10 and 12 years age - taught me some fundamental values such as responsibility, discipline, to focus on the customer's needs, being honest towards your boss and your clients, respecting working hours, and many other valuable concepts that helped me through my whole professional life - actually, these things helped me build the very basis of my attitude towards work, which I still carry (I'm 46 now).

The few hours a week I helped in my father's business didn't impair my school performance - on the contrary, I think my math abilities improved and other knowledge areas also - and I got a "boost" on my purchasing capacity, that means my mini-cars' & Revell kits' fleet grew faster than ever.

I actually took advantage of the "lazy" hours I would anyway trash by playing some silly stuff or reading comics.

In summary, what the state-worshippers want is exactly that: to keep young people ignorant and alienated in order to manipulate them easily, and with many other additional "benefits" and political side-effects, such as keeping the labor unions' perpetual market reserve untouched, feeding back the cycle of unqualified workers and potential minimum-wagers etc.

Back to your initial theme, I encourage you to stick to your own opinion on this issue, even if not losing your valuable time by actively trying to change the statists' minds.

Go ahead, study and be independent!!

 Te

DrunknMunky:

 

 Capitalist: Um, child labor allows children to become productive at an early age and lets them learn about themselves. This allows them to mature early on and learn about what they enjoy and it eventually leads to a good work ethic.

Leftist: Oh SO WE SHOULD JUST MAKE KIDS NOT GO TO SCHOOL AND WORK FOR .5 AN HOUR?

 Capitalist: *sigh* No...I'm trying to explain that they should be able to choose what they want to do on their free time. A child working after school doesn't harm them.

Leftist: YOU WANT CHILDREN TO WORK AT SLAVE SHOPS

Capitalist: Oh nevermind...*facepalm* 

Look at how critizised I got in school.

My teacher basically painted a picture that child labor was evil.  He described the horrible conditions that happened around 1910, showed some pictures, and implied that the children were forced into this.  He then said it was better that kids were forced into school, where they could "get ahead".

I then talked with the teacher about this, and he said that child labor laws were good, because they drove up wages due to decreased supply.  The wrong thing with his reasoning was that jobs were lost since companies found it more expensive to hire.

P.S.: This person is an IB Economics teacher.  I want to see what is wrong with his reasoning when I learn economics from him. 

Tell teach he needs to find before and after pics of these 'slave shop kids'.

Here's my take on these like child labor laws and those 'exploited' by capitalist pigs.

There are people in dire situations. Whether they're subjugated by government, nature or any array of circumstances, they're suffering. For the most part, the only hope these people have of escaping is to become something of value to another person. By this, I mean the person must be able to help the person that they need help from. Sure, one can give them charity, but eventually, charity runs out and it impoverishes the charitable. And charity is not very motivating for many people, simply because, although they know others are suffering, they don't want to reduce their own standard of living. So the vast majority of us simply watch the ads on TV and never send a dime to help starving children.

So how do these people get a permanent rescue from their dire circumstances w/o someone coercing others to save them, thus impoverishing everyone (hey, why work if there's charity everywhere)? The suffering find a way to not only receive goods and services from others, but they find a way to provide their own goods and services. This is what business owners enable them to do. The business owner might be greedy and harsh, BUT, the business owner is helping the poor by helping himself. However, those that see these things are forced to face the reality of poverty. It's no longer hidden out on a farm or in a jungle in a foreign country. It's right there among them. Nevermind they didn't lift a finger to help them before. So how do they confront this horrible thing before them w/o coming out of it feeling guilty?

First and foremost, these liberals, these economics teachers, they'd prefer if these poor people had simply stayed far away from them. They want them to stay in remote jungles so they can blame, God, nature, warlords, rogue states, racism or what have you. If they can blame someone else, it means they can continue their life w/o feeling guilty. But when someone actually does something to improve these people's lives by giving them the ability to contribute something, the liberal can't acknowledge it. If he acknowledged it, that would mean he approves of their current level of poverty and that would cause him to feel guilty. So, instead of feeling guilty, by allowing these people to work and improve their lot in life, he'd rather not see them. He'd rather they disappear into the countryside, into the foreign jungles, so that he can keep blaming God, nature warlords, rogue states and racism - anything but himself. He want acknowledge this.

He would say the people that ARE helping the poor escape a worse fate are the bad guys. If he can claim them as the bad guys then he doesn't have to feel guilty. If he can claim them as the bad guys, he can feel justified in having the State steal from the bad guys to take care of the poor so that the liberal doesn't have to feel guilty. You see, the big government types don't live in the real world. They want to stay holed up in their politically correct world and bark out their heady ideals. Imagine someone w/ a severe illness. A doctor that's capable of helping this person is nearby. However, your liberal friend doesn't want the doctor to operate. Why? Because this doctor is taking advantage of the patient's illness. The doctor is exploiting this patient's illness and is using it to make a lot of money. The liberal would much rather the patient stay home and never be seen. But since he's there, the liberal can cry about the doctor's exploitation and demand the doctor do it for less. So the doctor that's actually helping the patient, making it possible for them to live, should be enslaved, according to the liberal. The liberal is high-minded and morally superior.

purplemage:

Look at how critizised I got in school.

My teacher basically painted a picture that child labor was evil.  He described the horrible conditions that happened around 1910, showed some pictures, and implied that the children were forced into this.  He then said it was better that kids were forced into school, where they could "get ahead".

I then talked with the teacher about this, and he said that child labor laws were good, because they drove up wages due to decreased supply.  The wrong thing with his reasoning was that jobs were lost since companies found it more expensive to hire.

P.S.: This person is an IB Economics teacher.  I want to see what is wrong with his reasoning when I learn economics from him. 

Ya, I occasionally hear something extremely irrational in my AP Economics class as well. Don't know why you are talking about child labor laws though. You just gotta except that in highschool you will be bombarded with collectivism.

 I agree that children should have the same rights as adults when it comes to working.  However I also am in favor of school vouchers, because the kid had no influence on the poverty of their parents.  However if they choose they want to work also or instead of school, they should be alowed the choice.  And yes your teacher was incorrect, child labor laws decrease the supply of low wage jobs just like the the minimum wage does. 

What your teacher is failing to realize is that 1.  Employers aren't going to pay 10$/hr for a job that will only produce 5$/hr, and 2. If a machine will do the job cheaper than a person, then there will be no job.

 Ask your teacher who he is to tell some kid who wants to work in order to buy a ps3 or to save for a car? Who is your teacher to tell him what to do?

Tuneman:

I agree that children should have the same rights as adults when it comes to working.  However I also am in favor of school vouchers, because the kid had no influence on the poverty of their parents.

You say