Thread: Child Labour: Is It Really That Bad?

Brady you read Dream-scape's post wrong. He was talking about nations where they're not engaging in child labor.

Even if we were to interpret Dream-scape’s post as addressing child labor countries, it then makes a pretty big assumption. Schools are no use if the kids don't have time to go to them. Show me one example of a child laborer having time to go to school if they have to work 10+ hours a day.

On one hand capitalism is a necessary evil. Like you said, without those jobs they’d probably starve. But on the other hand, capitalism also suppresses growth, and any chance of those 3rd world nations from ever becoming a better place to live. Without any chance of enbettering themselves, the future generations of those nations will be bound to their everlasting cycle of oppression. Should that be their fate? By definition capitalism is the division of wealth. Someone always wins, and someone always loses.

I was originally going to vote neutral on this topic, but seeing how you worded the prompt, I can't really say that it is a necessary evil, because all you ask is if it is bad or not. So I have to vote that child labor is pretty bad, because it's essentially human oppression.

Originally posted by Squall+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Squall)</div>

Brady you read Dream-scape's post wrong.[/b]

I really don't believe so.

Originally posted by Squall@
On one hand capitalism is a necessary evil. Like you said, without those jobs they’d probably starve. But on the other hand, capitalism also suppresses growth, and any chance of those 3rd world nations from ever becoming a better place to live. Without any chance of enbettering themselves, the future generations of those nations will be bound to their everlasting cycle of oppression.

And since when was it Nike's job to make the world a better place?

<!--QuoteBegin-Squall
By definition capitalism is the division of wealth. Someone always wins, and someone always loses.

Yes.

Originally posted by bradybaker
And since when was it Nike's job to make the world a better place?

I would like to think that it is the people's job to make the world a better place....it saddens me that we have strayed so far off that concepts as artificial and meaningless as a corporation are used as a shield towards our humanity. In it's core, beyond the capitalism and the bullshit, we are all equal humans with needs and desires. Nike is a corporation created by humans and run by humans. Ideally, why should it be any different?

I'd like to quote a song by Incubus that I feel gets my point across beautifully:

We could live in a house outside of town,
We could build our own version of society,
Well...there’d be no one to answer to
And complicate our lives,
We could be
The epitome of self sufficience.
Time to pay! to pay!
Time to pay; you’ve got to pay me!
Why should i?
Why should we pay for your mistake?
To carry on
So far we’ve put finacial gain
Ahead of human needs,
Quality of our lives should be prioritized.[/b]

What good is it for someone to be richer than he can appreciate when there are people born into a poverty that they will never defeat?

Let's all get a reference point here. We're all talking about basically the same thing but from different frames of reference (you're all just talking past each other). So we're going to have to draw an arbitrary line.

At what age, does it constitute child labor?

Hell, I had my first job at age 15-16. My brother started working at 13 or 14 if I recall correctly. And it's not like that was 20 years ago or something either... I'm only 21 now and live in the ef'in USA.

So what age constitutes child labor? 12? 10? 8?

Is this age going to be the same for every country? Should it be? (i.e., should American ideals and values be forced upon other cultures?)

What if in a country among the culture is it pretty normal for a 12 year old to go out and get work. Then a factory comes along that pays a bit better than working the field or something (hypothetical example), so they go get work there. Is that child labor? Is it forced? Should we asses the situation through the eyes of American values? Or should we look at it through the culture of the country/area?

I see alot of talk and use of terms like "forced child labor". But what exactly is "forced" labor? Someone forcing you to work at gunpoint -- yes, I'm sure we can all agree on that one.

What about a child who must work because his parents are unable to. Or because the money his parents make is not enough to support the entire family, so at age 12-13 or so, it is traditionally the child's responsibility to go find work to help support the family. Is this forced work? Forced by who? The parents? The culture? The company?

When new factories open and people line up for blocks and blocks just to apply for a job, can we later say that the people working there are forced into labor?

I think it is important to remember that when looking at other countries, we should not be so quick to compare them to our own country or our own standards. We must consider them in their own unique situations and contexts as well.

What about a child who must work because his parents are unable to. Or because the money his parents make is not enough to support the entire family, so at age 12-13 or so, it is traditionally the child's responsibility to go find work to help support the family. Is this forced work? Forced by who? The parents? The culture? The company? *

When new factories open and people line up for blocks and blocks just to apply for a job, can we later say that the people working there are forced into labor? [/b]

Not that it really matters, but yes, you can say that they were forced into labor. Not by the company or culture or parents, but by the law of survival. I know that if there is not enough money so that all the basic necesities of my family are covered and we are all starving then I would quit school and work. Even if my parents don't want me to. The situation forces them to join the workforce at a much earlier age not because they choose to, but because they must. So if I had to point a finger, I would say they are being forced to work by an uneven system.

But as I said before, I don't think defining how they are "forced" really helps the problem or points us in direction to the solution...the fact is that it happens, and we must trace the problem to it's origin and help correct it. However in this case, that would take a severe (but more than necesary in my opinion) readjustment of the current global economy...

My point was not defining how they are forced, but what "forced labor" means. And when we say "child labor," what age we mean. In this way we all have the same point of reference and can actually have an intelligent conversation. It is nearly impossible without these same reference points, because one person could be talking about "age 8 and younger is wrong" while the other is talking about "age 13 and younger." But neither person knows this and just assumes the other has the same reference point as they do. This does no good and does not lead to constructive or intelligent conversations. It only serves as a barrier to communication, and my point was that if we are to hold an intelligent conversation on this topic, these barriers need to be removed or reduced.

It is not that hard to see either. If you go back and re-read the thread, nearly everyone is just talking past each other. There is no point in this. That was my point.

I do see what you mean, though...I have tried to answer all the questions and points that were brought up, but many of the one's I have made in response to them have been ignored, along with other people's. If one is going to debate, imo, he shouldn't just ignore the tough issues, he should try and tackle these the most, because those are where one shines or learns the most...

I wasn't talking past anyone.

Again, I recognize that it is okay and even encouraged for children to work in some countries, and of course I never claimed it was forced. But my point was that it would be kind of hard for a society that to progress if all of their children just go to work all day.

Then again, they are really underpaid.

Originally posted by Placebo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Placebo)</div>

Err.. you might wanna consider changing the subject of the thread.
I honestly believed this was about childbirth pain
Maybe its just me .. heh.

Perhaps 'Forced Child Labour' would be more obvious? or hmm.... dunno[/b]

HAHA so did I. And yes, child-birth pains are WORSE than they tell you.

Much worse.

*cries in a corner*

On topic: I agree with bradybaker
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
They would most likely get involved in crime or drug production

or prostitution

webster defines "slavery" as

1. The condition of a slave; bondage
2. The practice of enslaving humans
3. Drudgery

webster defines "drudge" as

1. Labor at hard, uninteresting tasks
2. An overworked person; a spiritless toiler

Originally posted by shel
webster defines \"slavery\" as
3. Drudgery

webster defines \"drudge\" as
1. Labor at hard, uninteresting tasks
2. An overworked person; a spiritless toiler

That definition of "slavery" is really a colloquial use of the word. I have never heard it used in this sense to mean or imply the work was forced or underpaid. For example, if you have a wood-burning fireplace and have to go out and chop wood for the winter, someone might ask how your days was, and you might reply "It was pure slavery." You just mean that it was hard and tiring work.

I used to work in a pretty busy kitchen, and we would say sometimes that we had to go "slave away" at work. We didn't mean we were slaves or were forced to work or were underpaid, but that it was hard and intensive work.

Just like people might say their boss is a "slave driver." This doesn't mean that he owns slaves or pays only a "slave wage." It means that he expects people to work hard at what they do.

So that 3rd definition really has nothing to do with this topic, since I don't think that is the meaning of "slavery" that is being talked about, unless you are saying that it is wrong for someone to choose to do hard work.

i didnt know it just became an "expression".

the definition doesnt imply choice

i think Nike should adopt a new slogan

somebody's gotta do it.

Originally posted by shel
i didnt know it just became an \"expression\".

Well it could mean different things in different parts of the world. Where I come from in the states, for as long as I can remember, it has always been used in that 3rd definition as a colloquial term to mean hard or tiring work [that one chooses to do].

We might say there is a 4th definition, which I think is what this thread is about, in the context of "slave labor" that when said, to me does not necessarily mean hard or tiring work, but implies less than living wages, worker abuse, etc... People in slave labor usually do hard labor, but hard labor in itself does not constitute slavery or slave labor in the context of what is being talked about in this thread.

i was looking at slave labour in the context of the history of slavery.

True, we cannot boycott child-labour production. In the sort-run, the impact on those countries, and children, would be devastating. Beisdes have you ever tried to buy a pair of running shoes, or even affordable clothing, without supporting child labour? We could all walk around neked, but that's too impractical. On a day like today in this part of the world, I'd be dead in oh, 20 minutes? But we've got to look further than that. For instance the IMF and World Bank who are basically run by the richest countries (ie. those who profit from cheap products and higher corporate profits). Their policies, such as Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which lay out the conditions for granting loans to third wolrd countries, have had a real impact on the conditions in those countries which lead to child labour (for instance, significant down-sizing of government, beginning with social services).

At first, I was thinking that child labour isn't too bad, as long as they're happy...if they are.

But reading adidas post got me thinking at the nostalgia I'd get if I helped those poor children get a better life like we do in the new world, lol.

It's a confusing topic...I really don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Everybody deserves a nice life.

Like Truthbearer, I'd get extremely pissed if the concept of child labour was really inspired by some fat bastard executive...

Personally, I wouldn't want to be working at a very young age for a very small amount of money. But thankfully I live in the wonderful United States of America so I have more opportunity to become successful. But yea child labor is bad. We should just take all the factories out and let the children enjoy their childhood of starvation and having nothing and barely (if even that) surviving because there aren't any jobs for them.

Yes it would be nice if we lived in a world peacefully united and spread all the wealth around so everyone is happy and satisfied, but we don't. Of course most irrational people in the world just blame everything on the big bad USA. Attempting to argue reason into these people is, in most cases, a fruitless effort.

At least the factories these children CHOOSE to work in are there, otherwise they might be making a lot less. But this isn't to say that they don't deserve better wages. I believe they do. But if a company decided to move into a 3rd world country and started paying everyone the American minimum wage then it would, in a sense, be devastating to the economy because doing so would cause other companies in the area to raise their wages in order to compete, and most companies would not be able to keep up and would either have to move elsewhere or go out of business, thus losing even more jobs. These "sweatshops" everyone seems to be focusing on are actually pretty rare simply because big corporations can't handle the media backlash that would present itself if it was discovered that children were being mistreated.

So I encourage everyone to try and look at the big picture here. I know the world isn't perfect by any means, but we have to make do with what we have.

I refuse to accept that. I do not agree that we just have to be content with the way things are and look the other way. When injustice is taking place we should all jump at the chance of making it right for those that suffer because of it. It is a known fact that life isn't, has never been nor will ever be "fair", but that shouldn't stop up from striving towards a more balanced equilibrium.

When a company moves to another country, believe me, they are not thinking about anyone but the company. They don't move to a certain 3rd world country thinking "hey, we can give thousands of starving people jobs and help make the world a better place!!!!1LOLZ!!!!". They are thinking about themselves, how their company can save money by eliminating costs. How can they benefit from it? Otherwise they wouldn't have many reasons to leave to another country in the first place, as it is fairly obvious, and I don't think the fact they could be helping X community but aren't, would really make it hard for them to sleep at night.

So what is your solution?

the solution really isn't something that can be posted in a couple of lines but rather a rather complex response that would imply a very detailed plan of action, which to be honest I haven't quite worked out yet, at the expense of being underprepared if the time ever came where the world looked at me for a solution

Sarcasm aside, all I can tell you is that the system is corrupt beyond repair, and that the only way we can rid ourselves from the greatest evils of society, is for it to collapse against itself...for it to be rebuilt from the ashes, having learned from all of our mistakes...

Originally posted by Truthbearer
the only way we can rid ourselves from the greatest evils of society, is for it to collapse against itself...for it to be rebuilt from the ashes, having learned from all of our mistakes...

And from a strictly utilitarian point of view, I would argue that child labour is a better alternative than the entire collapse of modern society.

Child Labor is good. It allows kids to have the choice to get jobs and make money.

Forced Child Labor takes away choice.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Truthbearer

the only way we can rid ourselves from the greatest evils of society, is for it to collapse against itself...for it to be rebuilt from the ashes, having learned from all of our mistakes...

And from a strictly utilitarian point of view, I would argue that child labour is a better alternative than the entire collapse of modern society.[/b]

Dude what is your deal with utilitarianism? I see you mention it often. Well, only twice actually.

Just curious really, not meaning to sound rude.

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
Dude what is your deal with utilitarianism? I see you mention it often. Well, only twice actually.

Just curious really, not meaning to sound rude.

Haha, just on a utilitarianism kick I guess.

Actually I was talking with one of my friends recently about Jeremy Bentham (the founder of the philosophy). When he died, he had his body stuffed and put on display. Crazy eh? And one time, a few guys stole his head and started kicking it around like a soccer ball.

Anyways, I'll try and limit my references to utilitarianism in the future.