Child Labour: Is It Really That Bad?

I just realized the possibility that my entire wardrobe could have been made by the same kid somewhere in the Phillippines. But then I thought to myself...is child labour really that bad?

Think about it, without those jobs at Nike, Abercrombie & Fitch or the Gap they would have NO money at all. Twelve cents a day might seem pretty barbaric to us, but twelve US cents can go pretty far in a country that is a lot less fortunate that us. If you ask me, some money is better than no money at all.

Also, if these children were unemployed they would have nothing to do. They would most likely get involved in crime or drug production, or just stay at home and die of starvation or whatever disease happens to be going around. If nothing else, these jobs occupy the kids and give them something to do during the day.

Thirdly, think of the consequences if Nike or these other companies started manufacturing their products in North America or decided to pay the children in these countries 6 or 7 bucks/hour. The prices of their products would increase dramatically in order to keep profits up (We can't fault a company for trying to turn a profit, right?). Personally, I think $80 is pretty steep for a nice pair of jeans, I wouldn't want to be paying $180.

So overall, it seems that while the situation could be better for these children, it is better than the alternative. I've talked to a few people about this and some of the tend to agree. Any input?

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

Perhaps 'Forced Child Labour' would be more obvious? or hmm.... dunno

Nah, it's clear and consice English. You've just got babies on the brain.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaniaz
Nah, it's clear and consice English. You've just got babies on the brain.

---

Hehe... maybe :P Probably after I found out about baby sign language...

yeah you're right... exploiting children around the world and selling them into a form of slavery is a good idea. denying them education while paying them meager wages that require them to work 14 hour days, 6 days a week to pay for bread for their family... it's a good idea. yes. all while giving them absolutely no medical benefits when they live in regions where disease runs rampant and kills off their friends and family... of course this is a good idea... all so we can buy the shoes from these selfless companies that enslave them... the shoes that are marked up 400% when they hit the states... great idea. yay capitalism! how could this be bad!?!?! thanks to you i despise the species just a little bit more now. :shakehead2: :mad: :shakehead2: :eek: :shakehead2: :mad: :shakehead2:

I'm actually doing the Gilded Age, and trust me, child labor is no good thing.

I was about to vote neither but I saw that adidas had a point(even though it's his shoe company doing it :o ). Why not ship schoold and hospitals over and give them a working economy eventualy too? Also, Don't forget that everyone's mad at Bush for tempting these companys to send jobs overseas while weakening our own economy.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, think of the consequences if Nike or these other companies started manufacturing their products in North America or decided to pay the children in these countries 6 or 7 bucks/hour. The prices of their products would increase dramatically in order to keep profits up (We can't fault a company for trying to turn a profit, right?). Personally, I think $80 is pretty steep for a nice pair of jeans, I wouldn't want to be paying $180.[/b]

---

I guess you don't completely know how our government works. The government taxes imports so that it costs just as much to make something outside the U.S. as inside.

its not good. not when they get beaten if they dont work hard enough. not when they got to work 'til they faint.
it would be cool if the big companies decided to build a hospital and a school near their factories. in exchange of education and medical treatment the children could work in the factory a couple of hours a day and on weekends. or why not build a whole little village around the factory where the family get a place to sleep and live in exchange for their work. it would be really cool. and a happy worker is a good worker :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamwalker007
I was about to vote neither but I saw that adidas had a point(even though it's his shoe company doing it :o ). Why not ship schoold and hospitals over and give them a working economy eventualy too? Also, Don't forget that everyone's mad at Bush for tempting these companys to send jobs overseas while weakening our own economy.

---

Nope, brain drain has taken care of that...

well first of all, not every company that builds factories overseas or across the border practices "sweat shop" labor -- meaning workers are neglected, etc -- most don't do this. But the ones that do abuse the workers, etc are the only ones reported on, so that is the only picture we get most of the time. The countless others doing good, we never hear about -- not from the media anyways.

Several companies that build factories outside the US in "poor" countries also build a community around that factory. They build schools for the children, houses for the workers and their families to live in, and pay wages higher than the average wage of the country. Only you won't read about these companies in the newspapers or see about them on TV, so for most people these companies don't exist, and they only wished companies were doing things like this... well news flash: they are. Companies that abuse and neglect their workers are in the vast minority of all companies that build/expand overseas/across-the-border

Quote:

---

Originally posted by adidas
yeah you're right... exploiting children around the world and selling them into a form of slavery is a good idea. denying them education while paying them meager wages that require them to work 14 hour days, 6 days a week to pay for bread for their family... it's a good idea. yes. all while giving them absolutely no medical benefits when they live in regions where disease runs rampant and kills off their friends and family... of course this is a good idea... all so we can buy the shoes from these selfless companies that enslave them... the shoes that are marked up 400% when they hit the states... great idea. yay capitalism! how could this be bad!?!?! thanks to you i despise the species just a little bit more now. :shakehead2: :mad: :shakehead2: :eek: :shakehead2: :mad: :shakehead2:

---

What he said.

The capitalist bastards are the only ones benefitting from the situation. If they wanted they could provide shelter, food, clothing and benefits to every one of their workers, bring the country out of poverty, and still have enough to fill their fat guts with steak every damn night and drive their overpriced cars. But no, apparently it's better to give them JUST enough to survive, because then they keep coming back. They have no other choice. Brilliant system, really.

Thanks dream-scape for mentioning those great points. You guys/gals seem to think that every company in the world is evil. The typical "sweatshop" you see described in a Michael Moore movie is only common in popular media, not in reality.

The fundamental purpose of any company is to make money. Capitalism is what allows you to have that nice computer you're sitting at and what allows you to live in a nice houses and go to a nice school. Be careful before you slap the hand that feeds you.

How are we to put a true opinion here about this issue, merely we sit back in our cosy houses and in our nice shoes, talking about problems that we couldn't remotely comprehend, or relate to. Im hypocritical, yes.

The media does only show 0.00000001% of what really happens. It's a world issue, companies can't just start buiulding schools and paying workers more, it's way beyond that. It lies in a deep rooted 'equal opportunity' human problem that is inherent in every structure of society. While i personally don't gratify my input into this subject, i certanly don't justify it. Imagine a 1% increase on every single consumable item in your contry, and put that into society growth initiatives such as health and education. 50 years time that kid making a Nike shoe, well shit he might be able to have bread with his rice, isn't that extra $1 yous spent on fancy surf shorts worth it, knowing a kid might of smiled for the second time that day??

We can't really relate can we? Well, if it would really help, I think most of us would be willing to bitchslap the hand that feeds us if it means those less fortunate might live better.

Then again we can't be sure if it does. But then again, we don't really know what they could be doing if they weren't in child labour. Perhaps farming or school or something. I don't know.

i'd just like to say that my name isn't supposed to reflect my allegiance to a shoe company... it's an acronym for something else.

it should also be noted that our government protects companies like nike and adidas with loose tariffs and generous subsidies.

Did you guys just decide to ignore what dream-scape wrote? It's funny how you are so willing to believe the media when it comes to them reporting on child labour (they would be hung if they even implied that it wasn't terrible, people would lose their jobs), but absolutely refuse to believe the media when it comes to issues of the government and war, even when those stories are written by agencies like the Associated Press who have no allegiance to any government.

Just a thought.

ummm well if i'm not mistaken the topic is child labor not how the media portrays companies that farm work out of third world nations.... and my point still stands...

We're not talking about how the media portrays the companies, its how they portray the facts about child labour. Child labour and child slavery and not the same thing.

Boy, it is really hard to find good information on child labour. :|

The way I see it, the issue is not how the media portrays it or not...it is not whether it is the worst working environment or not. It is about injustice. No matter how you see the issue it is always blatantly there. These children do not deserve to be working their childhood away while some fat executive bastard is being paid thousand of dollars a day for doing 1/2000th of the work that those kids are doing. For figuring out more ways in which they can cut costs so that he can earn even more money to build up his ego. I wish that those kids could save up for like 5-7 years and buy a computer so that they can go ahead and post their point of view on how great everything is for them.

It severly pisses me off that people are rich beyond their spending capacity when others are so poor that they can't even go to school because they desperately need to work to get paid an amount of money that if you find on the floor you may think twice before you perform the great effort of bending down to pick it up.

I know that there is little ways of not sounding hypocritical when taking this stance, but all I can say is that at the moment I am complying with the system for I truly don't have much of a choice that is truly going to make a difference. Not yet, and perhaps not ever. But I wouldn't think twice before I fucking beat the hell out of the hand that feeds me. I would do anything within my power if I knew that it would result in making things right and fair again. If I knew we could rescue the values of humanity that have been lost behind a dollar sign that rules the ways people think. I would let go of all the commodities I have to make sure that everyone would have what they need. We can move on from there forth.

Funny, I bet those kids dream of living in a capitalist society like America.

If I was them I would too....people in misery always dream of being at the top, always dream of moving upwards and getting what they deserve...

That doesn't justtify the fact that the system is unfair and that the economy is unevenly distributed in a way that an average american worker can probably work for one year, then move to a poor 3rd world country and live like a king for a decade or more. It is always great to be on the top of the pyramid...

Child labor is nto a good thing at all. I understand that factories do move over seas to decrese their exspenses, but that is no reaosn for innocant children to be forced to work. I do belive, however, that comapnies cna go into a community and create jobs and a better standard of living for many many people. I also, understand the some poor fasmilies need thier children to work so they can survie. If child labor were to be abolished, some familes may starev beacse there owukldtn be enoguh income for them to survie. Child labor is Morrley worng, but unfortantly it is economicly sound for some poor people in 3rd world countires. Ooh, I cant decide... I belive it is morrly wrong, but is equaly worng to haev whoel family starev to death ebacse their children cannot work.... I would be 100% aganist it if buissnesses coudl come into town and pay adults enghout o support the whoel family, but anything less, well then it gets kinda grey for me....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
We're not talking about how the media portrays the companies, its how they portray the facts about child labour. Child labour and child slavery and not the same thing.

---

well, you asked about child labor... child labor is in a sense child slavery. these companies set up shop in financially ravaged cities, they offer the children and families money, money that they need to survive... i don't see much choice in the matter if you're starving. then they pay them enough to live. in return the children are deprived of an education and forced to work for money/food. -- the media portrays the facts on child labor true... they show one side of it... they show the dark side... now how does that make them any less reputable facts... and how does that make child labor any different from slavery? it doesn't. of course the companies give the families money... but it's not enough to earn a better life... it's just enough for the families to get by.

so with you're logic i can give a homeless man just enough money for food and shelter as long as he devotes the majority of his waking hours to me and my needs. and if he gets hurt helping me i'll just get another homeless man... so on and so forth.

child labor is bad. to find the good in it is like finding good in slavery. "well gee, we got those blacks out of the jungle, put a roof over their head and gave them food... WE'RE HELPING THEM!" :shakehead2:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

child labor is in a sense child slavery[/b]

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

how does that make child labor any different from slavery? it doesn't.[/b]

---

Those are two very different statements. You should make up your mind. I disagree with both of them however, last time I checked slavery didn't involve paying those who were doing the work.

<!--QuoteBegin-adidas@
in return the children are deprived of an education

---

Please see dream-scape's post.

<!--QuoteBegin-adidas
these companies set up shop in financially ravaged cities, they offer the children and families money, money that they need to survive... i don't see much choice in the matter if you're starving. then they pay them enough to live. in return the children are deprived of an education and forced to work for money/food.

---

Umm...over here in good old North America couldn't you say that we are \"forced\" to work to survive. Why do we work? So that we can have a home and something to eat. For a significant percentage of our great \"Western civilization\", that's all they get, a home and something to eat.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

they show one side of it... they show the dark side... now how does that make them any less reputable facts[/b]

---

Please see dream-scape's post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by adidas@
of course the companies give the families money... but it's not enough to earn a better life... it's just enough for the families to get by.

---

Just like here in North America. I think you might be living too comfortably in the middle class. Maybe you should donate some of that money to starving children in Ethiopia?

<!--QuoteBegin-adidas
so with you're logic i can give a homeless man just enough money for food and shelter as long as he devotes the majority of his waking hours to me and my needs.

---

Again, look at the lower class of America, people living below the poverty line.

I'm not saying that child labour is the best idea ever concieved, I'm simply saying that it's definitely not as bas as most people seem to think. Would you rather live in a communist society where everyone gets their share? Yeah, I don't see any problems in that theory...do you?

I'm against child labor. The fact is, by paying little kids a few cents an hour, the company saves INSANE amounts of money. They could sell their shoes for a buck or two and still be making a decent profit. It would be EASILY feasible to pay the kids a little more, or even a LOT more, and still make a huge profit without upping the price on their murchandise. However, upping their pay to the $6-7 range per hour wouldn't be good to do right off, since that would severely mess with the inflation of their country. However, making a moderate increase to the $1 an hour mark probably wouldn't severely alter the economy while providing the kids with enough money to improve their conditions. Also, if the company DIDN'T up their pay, at least they COULD open schools, hospitals and food facilities in the area with free benefits for workers at their factories. Plus, if they publicized it well, it would up their popularity in the states significantly as a humaine company.

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

I really don't believe so.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Err.. you might wanna consider changing the subject of the thread.
I honestly believed this was about childbirth pain :P
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

:shakehead2: :whyohwhy:

Quote:

---

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". :cry:

the definition doesnt imply choice

i think Nike should adopt a new slogan

somebody's gotta do it.

Quote:

---

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... :mad:

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 :P

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Truthbearer

---

Quote:

---

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. :P

Just curious really, not meaning to sound rude.

Quote:

---

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. :P

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-OpheliaBlue

---

Quote:

---

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.[/b]

---

No way, you're teasing me. Serisouly?!?!

Quote:

---

Anyways, I'll try and limit my references to utilitarianism in the future. *:P[/b]

---

No no, I think it's interesting. I was just reading an exerpt from Mill's Utilitarianism the other day, and how he was irritated that people today keep saying that it's the exact same thing as hedonism. And that a utilitarian should more focused on quality rather than quantity in his hedonistic pursuits. (As I'm typing this I'm trying to find that exerpt but I can't :( . But I liked this quote: "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied." ). Anyway, I had always been kind of frightened by the whole "Act Utilitarianism" principles of Bentham, and so the point I WANTED to make was that I got a better feeling about the philosophy after reading some of Mills more "Rule" utilitarianism principles.

That made no sense, but I know what I meant.

Funny about the whole kicking the head around bit. :lol:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Truthbearer

---

Quote:

---

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]

---

I don't know much about utilitarianism or whatever, but I do know that it is time that we start again. I don't necesarily mean that civilization must fall...just the system. If it is inevitable to end one without the other (meaning that the system has been as effective as they could have ever wished), then I still think it is a necesary evil....social justice is something that is worth the effort of it all

Utilitarianism, "the greatest good for the greatest number" or "the greatest good over the least pain". Basically it's a theory that says the morality of any action of law is defined by its utility. (Utility, referring to pleasure/preference/or referring to an objective set of values)

--------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to bring it up again Ophelia...lol. Sounds like some good reading you have there though, I haven't actually read any of Bentham or Mill's stuff...unfortunately, but I hope to soon. I mostly just remember what I was taught in philosophy class. It probably sticks out in my mind because of the whole head kicking thing.

Just another reason that you shouldn't have yourself stuffed and put on display I guess.

For some reason I feel like an on-off Utilitarianist. I guess I am only one when it suits everyone around me including me. I just decide things on what would best uphold Democracy. That is how my choices are made in my brain.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
I just realized the possibility that my entire wardrobe could have been made by the same kid somewhere in the Phillippines. But then I thought to myself...is child labour really that bad?

Think about it, without those jobs at Nike, Abercrombie & Fitch or the Gap they would have NO money at all. Twelve cents a day might seem pretty barbaric to us, but twelve US cents can go pretty far in a country that is a lot less fortunate that us. If you ask me, some money is better than no money at all.

---

Ok, yes there is a difference between Child Labour and Child Slavery. I worked on the farm when I was a kid, I loved it. What you are referring to above is Child Slavery (please don't tell me you would accept 12 cents a day). Throughout the thread you have said "there is a difference between child labour and slavery, the media only portrays the worst etc etc". What I want to know, is are you talking about Slavery or Labour? The thread is talking about Child Labour, but it is clear in the first post that you are referring to Child Slavery. You can't pick both.

Child Labour where they barely get enough money to feed themselves, thus forcing childeren into sweatshops at a very young age is deplorable. I mean the American line of "bring freedom and democracy to the world" would be great if they applied it to Nike and other exploitative brands.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
I just realized the possibility that my entire wardrobe could have been made by the same kid somewhere in the Phillippines. But then I thought to myself...is child labour really that bad?

Think about it, without those jobs at Nike, Abercrombie & Fitch or the Gap they would have NO money at all. Twelve cents a day might seem pretty barbaric to us, but twelve US cents can go pretty far in a country that is a lot less fortunate that us. If you ask me, some money is better than no money at all.

---

Ok, yes there is a difference between Child Labour and Child Slavery. I worked on the farm when I was a kid, I loved it. What you are referring to above is Child Slavery (please don't tell me you would accept 12 cents a day). Throughout the thread you have said "there is a difference between child labour and slavery, the media only portrays the worst etc etc". What I want to know, is are you talking about Slavery or Labour? The thread is talking about Child Labour, but it is clear in the first post that you are referring to Child Slavery. You can't pick both.

Child Labour where they barely get enough money to feed themselves, thus forcing childeren into sweatshops at a very young age is deplorable. I mean the American line of "bring freedom and democracy to the world" would be great if they applied it to Nike and other exploitative brands.

The only way you can truly say that 'child labour is good' is if you yourself went to one of these places and endured the same conditions as them. When you return, if you still think it is a great idea, then by all means shout it out. Send your childeren there at the age of five while you're at it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Roller
The only way you can truly say that 'child labour is good' is if you yourself went to one of these places and endured the same conditions as them. When you return, if you still think it is a great idea, then by all means shout it out. Send your childeren there at the age of five while you're at it.

---

Roller the one thing you are forgetting is that you can't have someone from one place who enjoys a certain standard of living go to another place that is completely different and has a lower standard of living and expect to get a valid answer. The only way that he would be able to tell you the truth about it was if he were to have been born there, raised there, and then worked there.

Quote:

---

Roller the one thing you are forgetting is that you can't have someone from one place who enjoys a certain standard of living go to another place that is completely different and has a lower standard of living and expect to get a valid answer. The only way that he would be able to tell you the truth about it was if he were to have been born there, raised there, and then worked there.[/b]

---

True, the kid may be born in the country and have known no different and not see anything wrong with it. This is because the kid has never experienced any other way of living - send him to live in a first world country for five years, and he would no longer accept what he previously thought was normal.

Morally, you shouldn't accept conditions in which you yourself would not work in, although I do realise that in reality it is a different question.

if its optional child labor hell no they are making money it may not be alot to us but helps put food on their families tables and keeps the price of stuff down

[quote]

Quote:

---

if its optional child labor hell no they are making money it may not be alot to us but helps put food on their families tables and keeps the price of stuff down

---

Mmm you see I'm not quite sure you understand the kind of choice they have... work in a sweatshop or have no money at all... struggle to make a living to feed your sick and dying mother or let her die and die with her, or turn to crime.... not really the best choice around.

And you're concerned about keeping the price of things down... well the reason clothes cost so much is because of the massive mark-up the brands put on clothes just for the label. If some more of that money went to the person making it then it would not change the price of things.

Wow, I'm suprised this thread is still alive! :shock:
Btw, this subject reminds me of a movie - 'Rundown'
Anyone seen it?

A large part of the movie revolves around a brazilian community being forced into slave labour because they earn 65c a day (which is better than 0c)

... I'm just reading the topic name... but for me, I love child labor, it's so cost efficiant, especialy when you starve em.... so what if I'm evil...
but really, I don't like it that much... it's a little wrong in a way, but if it's easy stuff, than I think that it should be okay...

Oh pleeeaseeeeeeeeee!!! There are millions of children suffering in abject poverty, being chained to machinery, forced into the sex trade, and dying for pennies a day. Do not be under any illusions, THEY SUFFER FOR OUR CONVIENIENCE AND VANITY. We dont see half of wot goes on, and while Bush and Blair pick each others tics, kids are dying every second, no love, no comfort cos no-one cares. How any idiot could suggest that they are benefitting from this treatment in any way is beyond me.

anyone that even tries to justify manipulating the poor is an immoral peice of dogshit....that said i dont know how its possible to live in american society without having something that was made over seas by some gaudy commercial industry. this is why i plan on moving to costa rica.

Just a question: Did you read the rest of the thread, or just look at the topic?

The argument mostly focused around the compensation they recieved for doing work, assuming the work conditions were tolerable. Obviously, if children are forced to work in a factory where their life is clearly on the line for meager pay, you can't really defend it. But if they're working in decent (Note: Decent does not mean extravagant. I know the conditions are horrible, and by decent I mean survivable conditions) conditions for the same pay, I believe that much of child labor becomes viable. The children forced into the work are mostly from the poorer classes, and likely wouldn't be able to afford an education. If they could, it likely wouldn't increase their pay above what they're making in the factories.

The amount they are paid has little relevance as well. Because of the state of their home's economies, the money they make is worth far more than we take it to be. Because America's currency is so strong relative to their local currencies, they may be making less than a cent an hour, but that would still be enough to pay for food and clothing.

Just go back and read the rest of the thread. Honestly, if you're going to drag a thread out of the grave after being buried for three months or more, you might as well do us the courtesy of reading the previous posts to give yourself an informed position.

i understand the position very well....im sure there are benefits from it. However the reason this is done isnt to benefit the children or the poor ,,,,see it for what it is...a company taking advantage of a situation they know they will benefit from....it just happens that the children reap benefits as well,,,i would argue that these benefits arent even that much better than if they didnt work for the companies.....so my opinion stands and the ceos need to die like any good disease.

Now you're showing ignorance. YES, the companies are profiting far too much relative to the kids. I would advocate making the products produced to the immediate area, at prices relative to the pay of the workers. If they make jeans, let them buy the damn jeans. But just saying that the company or the CEOs need to die is a very short-sighted approach. Removing the factories will harm the locals far more than the larger company. Remember, these are multi-billion dollar companies. Losing one $1,000,000 factory won't hurt them. But if hundreds or thousands of locals lose their jobs which pay for food for their families, it WILL hurt them. Devastate them, really. Because of the extended presence, they've come to rely on the factories as a source of income. If they factories had never been there, they wouldn't have developed the reliance, but that's too late to be helped for the moment.

Still, you can't be so simple-minded to believe that the solution is that obvious. If it were, it would already have been used.

eating kiddies is good... no I'm not a cannible... I swear <.<.... >.>