Logic: Do not try this at home

Nice ninja edits changing proves to implies. LOL. It still doesnt make your argument though. Have a citation showing that mcdonalds prefers to hire dropouts over others?

Does anyone have a citation that third world factories prefer to hire children over adults?

If you think Newt has a better shot in the general than Romney you are crazy. Anybody that leans independent will either vote for Obama, some 3rd party, or just stay at home and laugh at the horrible choices.

Who said that Newt had a better shot than Romney in the general election?

It's almost like you don't understand the difference between adults working in the first world and children working in the third world, without parental supervision, without government intervention and subordinate to the physical and emotional abuse of their employers.

You realize that sweatshops aren't just some theoretical consequence of the free market. They have existed for a long time and they exist today. You know where they don't tend to exist? In countries with strong child labor laws.

I'm not sure if this is nittery over the words "seem to imply" or the example itself.

In any case, 13ball is strongly insinuating that there is no other reason that makes sense for why factories would prefer to hire children other than the fact they are more easily exploitable. The analogy of high school dropouts versus college graduates suggests why: even though unemployed college graduates are numerous and would appear to be superior to high school dropouts, to my knowledge McDonalds is still hiring high school dropouts. Why? Maybe because many unemployed college graduates would refuse to take a job at McDonalds because they want to keep searching for something better or else refuse to take a "demeaning" job. Maybe because college graduates have the liability of being more likely to be short-term, causing greater retraining costs. Maybe high school dropouts can sometimes in fact be superior to college graduates in some areas (say, they may be more obedient).

These reasons help us understand why similar reasons may apply to child labour in Third World countries. Perhaps there are plenty of unemployed adults who would refuse to take a "demeaning" job. Perhaps adults who take the jobs often filled by children have a tendency to only hold them temporarily. Perhaps children can be superior to adults in some areas (their small size, for instance, could be an advantage for operating some machinery).

Maybe this isn't a logical proof, but I don't care. It was intended as an analogy that hopefully could get my point across without having had to have written all this.

This sentence made me think you did

"Although Newt has a ton of baggage in a general election, his record remains more acceptable to conservatives than Romney's record. "

And then the morally superior angels who write the labor laws import cheap products made in places without such laws, and then wring their hands about how manufacturing is leaving small town America and how terrible that is. It's a great system, really.

The best part about you guys arguing that kids aren't being exploited is the fact you are suggesting they VOLUNTEER their time so SOMEONE ELSE can save money on janitors.



Of course, Newt wasn't suggesting volunteering though. He was suggesting that they get paid. So paying them money was suggested, has exploitation begun? I have a feeling you are going to argue against your own statement here.

Sure there's a difference. All I'm saying is that the fact that employers are choosing to hire children despite there being unemployed adults doesn't tell us anything about whether they're doing it to exploit children.

Places with strong child labour laws invariably are high income countries. (Can you point me to a counterexample?) If your country is high income, you're not going to work in a sweatshop even if it was available, because there will be better jobs available (and potentially welfare).

Than I was not sufficiently clear. My point was that Newt's baggage is considerable in a general election, but much less of a problem in the primaries and in comparison to Romney.

Even if for the purposes of argument we say that your assumption (McDonalds, others hire high school dropouts over college kids because they're easier to exploit) is a valid one) it still doesn't justify the same employment practice involving children.

You also pass over the idea that there are plenty of laws that attempt to prevent any type of worker from being exploited (having a minimum wage, allowing unions to exist, etc.). This keeps in check the vast difference in bargaining power that an employer generally has compared to their employee. Maybe some adults will still be taken advantage of within the ceiling of reasonability set by these protections. We can't, and shouldn't fault an employer for that.

Children are different, and Newt is wrong, because we cannot expect them to have the life experience and education that allows them to make the same meaningful choice. As they gain this experience, they're given more freedom to make these choices. It's a ridiculous notion that children are growing up without a work ethic because the opportunity to clean **** up for 3 hours a day at school was given to a union janitor instead of them.

I don't know how that's a response to that post. Also, apparently if someone saves money this implies exploitable.

Maybe he wasn't, but my point is that schools sometimes require students to do things involuntarily that may reduce the amount of paid work of adults, but hardly anyone kicks up a fuss about it. Start paying them a small hourly wage and it becomes exploitative child labour.

" It's a ridiculous notion that children are growing up without a work ethic because the opportunity to clean **** up for 3 hours a day at school was given to a union janitor instead of them."

best strawman i've seen in awhile. Well done!

Why don't you kids make a new thread instead of exploiting this one? Like my puns ?

Yup, I had to complete 100 hours of community service to graduate from my public school.

Same, also I had to do the same for college.

mhmm

It's not nittery at all, you are (intentionally?) misunderstanding the argument at like a fundamental level.


Bolded is something you invented.

The reason why we have child labor laws is because children are easier to intimidate and coerce. We respect contracts between adults, but children cannot meaningfully negotiate wages and working conditions. That's what 13ball was saying. Focus on that instead of what you think he might be "insinuating".

Basically exactly what Gingrich said

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1107864.html

No, it doesn't justify it. It just means we shouldn't see that employers are hiring children and conclude it must be because they're easier to exploit.

I agree that children are different, and different laws should apply to them. That doesn't mean that a 13 year old working a regulated part-time job with his parent's permission is somehow being cruelly exploited because maybe he doesn't understand the full consequences of his decision.

Ummm yeah, forcing kids to work for free to take the place of someone who worked for a wage is exploiting them. Because you can make up some excuse like "they will be prepared for life" isn't changing that.

Serious question, my wife has been hiring kids from the ages of around 14-16 (roughly) for the past 10 years or so to do things around our home. Most recently to help her put up some Xmas stuff but generally to sweep out the garage, hose down the patio, etc. These are kids from the neighborhood and she always talks to the parents first.

Often times they'll knock on the door to see if she needs some help so they can pick up a few bucks and she'll find something for them to do. Although I don't think anyone would find this morally objectionable is this technically illegal?

If you don't see the obvious difference between the two statements here i don't know what to say.