Youth Rights

catzmeow

Gold Member
Aug 14, 2008
24,064
2,983
153
Gunshine State
Posted by Agna in another thread:

Okay, you've posted this in it's entirety, but it is not all entirely relevant to a discussion of youth rights in the U.S.:

Perhaps one of the greatest objections to youth liberation is that regarding parental rights and responsibilities. The argument essentially goes that since parents are financially and legally responsible for many of the consequences of the actions of youth that they have guardianship over, it only follows that they should have control over the rights and actions of their offspring. This objection to youth liberation is a powerful one, but it fails to take into account an essential factor. The reason that youth are not capable of taking care of themselves, the reason that the parental objection of “while you’re under my roof, you’ll obey my rules” even works is because youth suffer from a condition of financial disenfranchisement. They are not permitted to be financially self-sufficient. In fact, financial self-sufficiency among youth is prohibited through a combination of child labor and compulsory schooling laws.

And these laws came about from a realization that this society NEEDS an educated populace where children aren't routinely forced by financial necessity into jobs that actually prohibit them from attaining an education. For every suburban child that wishes to be set free from parental control, there is a low income child that is being protected by the compulsory education laws by being forced into working to support his/her family.

We know that educational attainment has longterm impacts on economic attainment by individuals. In fact, in their lifetime, an individual with a college degree will SIGNIFICANTLY out-earn an individual who only attains a high school diploma, and discrepancy in earning is even more pronounced when you consider the difference between an individual who does not graduate from high school versus someone who attains a college degree.

Source: Higher Education Results in Higher Lifetime Income

These figures have been repeatedly substantiated by numerous studies.

Furthermore, unskilled labor in the U.S. remains the lowest earning field of work, and increasingly, there are fewer jobs available for individuals without some kind of skilled training and/or a degree. Our economy is no longer industrially or agrarian-based, it has become increasingly more reliant upon the technological, medical, and information sectors, which means that a greater degree of education will be required of Americans in the future.

If anything, in order to compete in a world economy, we need to place a HIGHER emphasis on educating youth than we currently do.

So, both for personal, and societal reasons, attaining an education is tremendously important. So important, in fact, that it outweighs the rights of youth to pursue other, possibly more interesting, lines of activity.


That they protect children and youth from unsafe working conditions. This is far from the truth. In most Western, industrialized countries, inhumane work conditions are no longer the norm, and rarely exist in the formal economy.

Incorrect. Quite a high number of jobs that are unskilled remain quite dangerous. Factory work, farm labor, and the construction trades are among the most dangerous. Not coincidentally, these jobs are also among the highest paying jobs for low-skilled workers. Thus, we are likely to find MORE, not fewer youth working in these areas, were we to remove child labor protections.

Workers in the formal economy are now protected through workplace regulation and safety codes. Numerous benefits available through the formal economy, such as healthcare plans, pensions, a minimum wage, and vacation and sick leave also serve to provide humane conditions for workers.

I take it you've never been in an animal processing plant. The very places that illegal immigrants are currently working: dangerous, dirty, dehumanizing jobs, are the very same places that you're likely to find youth working, and DID find them working before these child labor laws were put in place.

Extra: The 10 most dangerous jobs in America - MSN Money

In fact, child labor laws may accomplish the exact opposite of this stated reason for them. By prohibiting youth from working in the formal economy, child labor laws push youth who are desperate to work into the informal economy, which lacks workplace regulations, safety codes, a minimum wage, and other benefits of the formal economy.

Proof?

For instance, instead of working in a retail position, a young person may be forced to undertake arduous and difficult physical labor. (It is technically illegal for persons under 18 to perform difficult manual labor, but this rule is largely ignored in the informal economy.

And if these rules are already ignored in the informal economy, the hazard would increase for youth were the child labor laws changed.

And this law brings up another interesting point. In light of the biological differences between men and women, does it hold that a 17 year old man should be prohibited from working in construction, for instance, but that an 18 year old woman should not, even though the former is likely stronger than the latter?)

The assumption is that the most valuable activity, both personal and to society both, that the 17 year old man could be engaged in is attaining an education.

More ominously, many youth desperate to escape poor home conditions and parents who exercise their government-given rights to apply corporal punishment to their offspring, may engage in forms of work that are actually illegal, such as selling drugs or prostitution.

I don't believe that you can prove a correlation between this and the child labor laws, but nice emotional appeal.

(It is important to note that citation of this study does not imply endorsement or support of the suggested policies stated within. For instance, the analysis states that “UNICEF advocates a comprehensive strategy that supports and develops local initiatives and provides alternatives-notably compulsory primary education of high quality-for liberated children.”

There is a reason that UNICEF also promotes this goal: Education is directly tied to eradicating poverty, which makes it less likely that youth will grow up in unstable families, in the first place. It is only through attaining a higher level of educational attainment that people gain access to higher economic status and safer jobs, and society becomes more, not less, stable. An educated populace benefits everyone in the entire society.
A common complaint among adults and anti-youth bigots is that modern youth are lazy and apathetic. We should return to the father-son analogy in this instance, and ask how youth can honestly be called lazy and apathetic when they are in a state of forced dependency and are prohibited from working. (Or seeking meaningful work, for that matter.)

I'm not going to rebut absurd rhetoric like this. In many cases, I've praised my daughter's work ethic (she is 15), and discussed how intelligent and thoughtful she is. I don't consider her less able than an adult, but I do consider that her time is best spent getting an education at this point in her life, and that this education will benefit her considerably throughout her life, as well as others.

Lack of economic opportunity and work experience deprives youth of the potential for responsibility and self-management. If anyone wishes to complain about the apathy, laziness, or other similar negative quality of modern youth, they must first consider the lack of opportunity that has been offered them.

There are plenty of opportunities for youth to gain these skills in educational, recreational, and part time employment pursuits. Very silly paragraph.

Hence, a lack of opportunity for employment experience breeds the very incompetence that child labor laws are intended to prevent, and this is another instance of them achieving the exact opposite of their stated effect. This is a case where the medicine causes the illness.

pft. Bullshit.

The majority opinion holds that youth are not competent persons capable of making an informed decision about leaving school and working. Assuming this was true, they could simply return to school later if there were no age limits on school attendance, and continue where they left off.

Actually, these laws are designed to protect youth from those who would DEPRIVE them of an education. Young people have both a right, and a responsibility, to get an education. Society needs them to do so, and they themselves will benefit from it. These laws also prohibit parents and other adults from keeping youth from attending school because the parent wants the youth to earn money "for the family."

Because a hierarchical, authoritarian environment is not conducive to learning or education, school typically cripples the mental capacities of students who go through its gates rather than expanding them.

Interestingly enough, I've spent my career working with "uncrippled" ghetto dwellers who haven't been exposed to education. Ignorance flourishes, desperation is the law, and people die young working in fields that are crippling mentally and physically. Spend some time in the inner city with a man who has been doing hard labor all his life, and you may think differently about the crippling effects of educational opportunity.

Attaining work experience outside of school would likely enable youth to make more informed and responsible decisions, as they would be exposed to the realities of labor and “adult life” to a greater degree than the pseudo-intellectual environment of school could ever facilitate.

And, this can easily be done in the present system.
Ultimately, this boils down to the issue of whether one prefers schooling or education.

NO, it doesn't. It boils down to which is the most beneficial to both the individual and the society in which they dwell. Quite clearly, for a variety of reasons, educating our young people is NECESSARY and important.

We aren't a third world country. Opportunities for unskilled labor do not abound, nor do they provide much above a starvation wage. Our society is a technological society and is intrinsically bound to education.

When re-analyzed, we can see no compelling reason to retain child labor laws, as they are repressive and unnecessary, and every reason to abandon them in favor of a more enlightened standard.

If you want me to take you seriously, please stop inserting paragraphs like this.

We must next examine the issue of financial freedom for youth, and their right to own property and money, as well as manage their finances free from external restraint.

My daughter maintains and manages her own money. You'll get no argument from me on this topic.
 
Last edited:
Youth liberation?

Sure. At the moment they are an adult they are liberated. Until then, they live in PEGWINNLand and I am the All-Knowing-All-Seeing-Lord-Protector-and-Benevolent-Despot.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Youth liberation?

Sure. At the moment they are an adult they are liberated. Until then, they live in PEGWINNLand and I am the All-Knowing-All-Seeing-Lord-Protector-and-Benevolent-Despot.
Dude, tell the truth. That's when WE get liberated...from car pools, balanced meals, not drinking too much in front of the kids, being quiet during sex, etc.
 
Youth liberation?

Sure. At the moment they are an adult they are liberated. Until then, they live in PEGWINNLand and I am the All-Knowing-All-Seeing-Lord-Protector-and-Benevolent-Despot.
Dude, tell the truth. That's when WE get liberated...from car pools, balanced meals, not drinking too much in front of the kids, being quiet during sex, etc.

LOL. There are certainly benefits at our end.
 
Posted by Agna in another thread:

Okay, you've posted this in it's entirety, but it is not all entirely relevant to a discussion of youth rights in the U.S.:

So this is the "evisceration" I've heard about? Oh, dear. :lol:

And these laws came about from a realization that this society NEEDS an educated populace where children aren't routinely forced by financial necessity into jobs that actually prohibit them from attaining an education. For every suburban child that wishes to be set free from parental control, there is a low income child that is being protected by the compulsory education laws by being forced into working to support his/her family.

On the contrary, you're clearly unfamiliar with the history of the American schooling system and the American labor system as it relates to "minors." The beginning of child labor laws were not ill-conceived in that they were intended to protect the most vulnerable members of society from brutal work conditions. But activists like Jane Addams went too far in applying these same restrictions to individuals with the rights of adults, and to forms of employment that were relatively benign. More than that, a degree of malevolence and greed was later responsible for youths' expulsion from the workplace and coerced entry into the schoolhouse. Examine the sadly crooked graph below.

AdolescentSchoolandWork.png


Notice that the number of white males aged 16 in school prior to 1930 and beyond exceeded that of the number of white males aged 16 that were working, but not by a substantial amount. In the early 1930's, however, with more than a quarter of the population unemployed due to the Great Depression, the government was successful in passing legislation largely eliminating youth from the formal workforce, eliminating them as a source of competition for the multitudes of unemployed workers. Previous attempts to do this, such as the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916, were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. (See Hammer v. Dagenhart.) But this process was renewed once the Depression was in full swing through measures such as the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act, which set a minimum working age of 16 in many industries. This second attempt to expand the Commerce Clause was again declared unconstitutional in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Not to be deterred, several components of the 1936 Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act included federal guidelines prohibiting "child labor." The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was the final nail in the coffin, and essentially established the current working age of 16.

Now, I don't know if this "suburban child" mention is a reference to my own childhood, but I have a slight suspicion that you're a bit more "suburban" than me, if it is. Since you choose to focus on my personal characteristics here and elsewhere...I'm Mexican, and an indio Mexican at that. I live in L.A. And not some lovely little neighborhood in Beverly Hills either. You, on the other hand, are...not...and you "work with" racial minorities or troubled youth or some other shit.

We know that educational attainment has longterm impacts on economic attainment by individuals. In fact, in their lifetime, an individual with a college degree will SIGNIFICANTLY out-earn an individual who only attains a high school diploma, and discrepancy in earning is even more pronounced when you consider the difference between an individual who does not graduate from high school versus someone who attains a college degree.

Source: Higher Education Results in Higher Lifetime Income

These figures have been repeatedly substantiated by numerous studies.

Furthermore, unskilled labor in the U.S. remains the lowest earning field of work, and increasingly, there are fewer jobs available for individuals without some kind of skilled training and/or a degree. Our economy is no longer industrially or agrarian-based, it has become increasingly more reliant upon the technological, medical, and information sectors, which means that a greater degree of education will be required of Americans in the future.

If anything, in order to compete in a world economy, we need to place a HIGHER emphasis on educating youth than we currently do.

So, both for personal, and societal reasons, attaining an education is tremendously important. So important, in fact, that it outweighs the rights of youth to pursue other, possibly more interesting, lines of activity.

Unsurprisingly, you have utterly conflated the meanings of "school" and "education." Though the basis of the American schooling system was of a similarly well-meaning manner at first, various negative intentions Directly contrary to your claim, one of the primary purposes of the establishment of the school system was to ensure "industrial discipline."

To quote Grace Llewellyn's own quotation of historian Lawrence A. Cremin, author of American Education: The National Experience 1783-1876,

"[Factories] required a shift from agricultural time to the much more precise categories of industrial time, with it's sharply delineated and periodized workday. Moreover, along with this shift in rhythm, the factory demanded concomitant shifts in habits and attention and behaviour, under which workers could no longer act according to whim or preference but were required instead to adjust to the needs of the productive process and the other workers involved in it...The schools taught [factory behaviour], not only through textbook preachments, but also through the very character of their organization--the grouping, periodizing, and objective impersonality were not unlike those of the factory."

To branch into another facet of my anarcho-syndicalist beliefs, (Yes, I read what you wrote about Professor Chomsky, and I know that you think anarchists are idiots, but that's too bad), this "industrial discipline" is preserved not only in the industrial sector, but in the technological, medical, and "information" sectors that you mentioned. Though I'm deviating from standard youth rights doctrine into my own personal beliefs, the preservation of hierarchical management inhibits the efficiency of the workplace, even in an industrialized first-world country. As you ought to know, the libertarian socialist recognizes that the formal certification process involved in the school system is not necessarily involved with skill level, as the orthodox economist will claim, but with a basis for instilling "industrial discipline" in future workers so that they might perpetuate a system of hierarchical wage labor.

Had I time, I would elaborate on such modern successes as the Brukman Factory and the Hotel Bauen in Buenos Aires, and the Fabrica Sin Patrones, and the 200+ workplaces and 10 to 15 thousand workers that now operated using direct democracy and workers' self-management in order to illustrate the successes of autogestion.

But I digress. The "industrial discipline" that students are indoctrinated with while in schools is wholly inapplicable to many facets of a post-industrial society, as the technological, medical, and information sectors that you mentioned often require greater innovative skills than are provided by such indoctrination.

Consider the words of Dan Greenberg.

"In the post-industrial society there is essentially no place for human beings who are not able to function independently. There is no room for people trained to be cogs in a machine. Such people have been displaced permanently from the economic system. The economic demands of post-industrial America are something that you hear from personnel directors in every industry and company today, small or large. The demands are for creative people with initiative, self-starters, people who know how to take responsibility, exercise judgment, make decisions for themselves."

Incorrect. Quite a high number of jobs that are unskilled remain quite dangerous. Factory work, farm labor, and the construction trades are among the most dangerous. Not coincidentally, these jobs are also among the highest paying jobs for low-skilled workers. Thus, we are likely to find MORE, not fewer youth working in these areas, were we to remove child labor protections.

I'll be willing to wager that these dangerous sectors remain preferable to criminal ventures that those prohibited from meaningful work are attracted to. You also need another reminder of the facets and components of dual labor market theory. Since you continue to operate on the incorrect assumption that I, ASFAR, or any other youth rights activist is content to preserve the school system in its current condition, you incorrectly assume that we would be content to permit the current state of affairs go on as it is.

I take it you've never been in an animal processing plant. The very places that illegal immigrants are currently working: dangerous, dirty, dehumanizing jobs, are the very same places that you're likely to find youth working, and DID find them working before these child labor laws were put in place.

Extra: The 10 most dangerous jobs in America - MSN Money

I see we're moving on to the personal jabs. Just for the sake of "informing" you, I'm quite familiar with the jobs that illegal immigrants do. Whether it's my grandfather's strenuous toil in the bracero program, my uncle's collapse in a ditch in a vineyard, or the rest of my family's numerous experiences, including my mother's, I'm quite familiar with the struggle of immigrants. I'm also familiar with the society that they're forced to live in when they're not permitted to emigrate. Even the affluent are afflicted...was it fair for my cousin to be kidnapped and killed even after her father paid the local cartel $4 million for her return? I think not. So believe me, I'm quite familiar with the struggle of immigrants.


Again, I would encourage you to study the facets and components of dual labor market theory. The primary labor sector is the ideal one, in which "skilled" workers, often unionized, and with a considerable capacity to promote to higher positions and earn higher wages and benefits. The secondary labor sector

And if these rules are already ignored in the informal economy, the hazard would increase for youth were the child labor laws changed.

They would not, because you continue to operate on the inaccurate assumption that we wish to change nothing except child labor laws.

The assumption is that the most valuable activity, both personal and to society both, that the 17 year old man could be engaged in is attaining an education.

Indeed. But we have already addressed the nature of the current school system as it relates to the indoctrination of "industrial discipline." Rest assured, this is not a radical tenet espoused only by me. Consider what Reiver, my fellow socialist, has had to say on the matter.

Political Forum - View Single Post - Capitalism vs Socialism

"Consider, for example, education. That should fullfil the human capital investment role. Indeed, orthodox and radical schools agree that such a role exists. However, the socialist is able to also refer to the consequences of hierarchy. They'd acknowledge that such hierarchy isn't simply based on 'division of labour' criteria (in order to maximise productivity). Instead, its about controlling labour militancy (and therefore maintaining economic rents). Education then has the additional role of legitimising that hierarchy (e.g. you do not attend university to increase your productivity, you attend to achieve the certification required to be considered for the 'good jobs'). This will then suggest the social benefits from education are not fully realised (e.g. see Britain where its tertiary education investments have reduced social mobility, given it provides extra opportunities to lower ability youngsters from high income backgrounds). To deliver optimal education we'd need a socialist economy."

You should familiarize yourself with these components of political economy before making such remarks.

I don't believe that you can prove a correlation between this and the child labor laws, but nice emotional appeal.

Congratulations on completely ignoring the UNICEF study, which I again brought to your attention this morning. Though the raw numbers and rates between the United States and Bangladesh are very obviously different, the two nations share a common framework of a dual labor market among many populations. According to the UNICEF study that I cited earlier, after the implementation of the Child Labor Deterrence Act, which prohibited the importation of goods produced by child labor, UNICEF estimates that 50,000 children lost employment positions in the garment industry, and instead were forced to resort to "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution," all of which UNICEF described as being "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production." Consider the commentary of the UNICEF study regarding the wisdom of attempting to outright prohibit child labor.

While international commitment and pressure are important, boycotts and other sweeping measures can only affect export sectors, which are relatively small exploiters of child labour. Such measures are also blunt instruments with long-term consequences that can actually harm rather than help the children involved.

I would advise you to familiarize yourself with this data.

There is a reason that UNICEF also promotes this goal: Education is directly tied to eradicating poverty, which makes it less likely that youth will grow up in unstable families, in the first place. It is only through attaining a higher level of educational attainment that people gain access to higher economic status and safer jobs, and society becomes more, not less, stable. An educated populace benefits everyone in the entire society.

You continue to conflate schooling with education, and are unable to proceed further until you are able to comprehend dual labor market theory and the industrial discipline promoted by the school system.

I'm not going to rebut absurd rhetoric like this. In many cases, I've praised my daughter's work ethic (she is 15), and discussed how intelligent and thoughtful she is. I don't consider her less able than an adult, but I do consider that her time is best spent getting an education at this point in her life, and that this education will benefit her considerably throughout her life, as well as others.

I don't know why you keep reverting to this belief that you and your daughter constitute the center of the universe. This "absurd rhetoric" refers to the attitudes of many anti-youth commentators in the media, which is atrociously biased against youth as a whole.

There are plenty of opportunities for youth to gain these skills in educational, recreational, and part time employment pursuits. Very silly paragraph.

Obviously, I don't agree, considering that these pursuits don't end up producing a meaningful result in many cases. Youth may have their minimum wages...that may still be garnered by their guardians. Once they possess the capacity to sign legal contracts, own property, and work as they please, then perhaps we shall agree on this matter.

pft. Bullshit.

Indeed. But what about my paragraph?

Actually, these laws are designed to protect youth from those who would DEPRIVE them of an education. Young people have both a right, and a responsibility, to get an education. Society needs them to do so, and they themselves will benefit from it. These laws also prohibit parents and other adults from keeping youth from attending school because the parent wants the youth to earn money "for the family."

One wonders whether this would be a problem were they not legally bound to them. Your problem is that you place an inordinate amount of focus on one issue, and assume that we are interested in reforming that issue while otherwise maintaining our current state of affairs, which is not the case.

Interestingly enough, I've spent my career working with "uncrippled" ghetto dwellers who haven't been exposed to education. Ignorance flourishes, desperation is the law, and people die young working in fields that are crippling mentally and physically. Spend some time in the inner city with a man who has been doing hard labor all his life, and you may think differently about the crippling effects of educational opportunity.

Just a little tip: I have a feeling I've spent a bit more time in the inner city than you have. My family's been spread out over various parts of South L.A. and the surrounding county; Watts, Compton, South Gate...thankfully, many of them have moved on to a position of greater affluence at this point. But really...you're white. You "work with 'troubled' youth." I live with so-called "troubled youth." I grew up with them. We went to school together. We got kicked out of school together. We went to continuation school together. I have a feeling I know them.

As to the comment made outside of the personal attack, evaluate a student of Summerhill School and evaluate a student from a hierarchical, authoritarian, typical school, and tell me which has encountered preferable conditions.

And, this can easily be done in the present system.

You already know for a fact that I dispute that.

NO, it doesn't. It boils down to which is the most beneficial to both the individual and the society in which they dwell. Quite clearly, for a variety of reasons, educating our young people is NECESSARY and important.

We aren't a third world country. Opportunities for unskilled labor do not abound, nor do they provide much above a starvation wage. Our society is a technological society and is intrinsically bound to education.

More yammering that ignores the aforementioned realities of dual labor market theory and the industrial discipline of the current school system.

If you want me to take you seriously, please stop inserting paragraphs like this.

I'd say the same to the above, but it's one inane sentence.

My daughter maintains and manages her own money. You'll get no argument from me on this topic.

Ah yes, your daughter. As earth-shattering a revelation as this may be, there are other youth in existence besides your daughter. Your observation of your daughter, a single individual, does not form a basis for any capacity to judge the capacities of youth as a whole, which is one of the reasons that your "criticisms" contain such gaping flaws.

Youth liberation?

Sure. At the moment they are an adult they are liberated. Until then, they live in PEGWINNLand and I am the All-Knowing-All-Seeing-Lord-Protector-and-Benevolent-Despot.

Mmkay. Guten tag, mein herr.

Dude, tell the truth. That's when WE get liberated...from car pools, balanced meals, not drinking too much in front of the kids, being quiet during sex, etc.

As much fun as these things are, my anarchist friends already gave me that and more. Hence, my own fleeting "adolescence" (essentially gone now) was enjoyable enough.
 
Last edited:
Alright Agna, without giving me some long-winded explaination.

Simply put:

What do you consider "economic power"?

And why do you feel youths should have "political power" and the right to bear arms?

Youths, I also assume you define as 12/13-17.
 
Economic power amounts to the right to freely work, the right to own property, and the right to sign legal contracts.

I feel that youth should have the other rights because they are rational agents capable of making informed decisions about their present and future lives, and have successfully accomplished such endeavors in the past. Modern adolescence is only about a century old. The word "teenager" first appeared in print sometime around...1943, I believe.
 
They are not rational agents. That's where everything falls to pieces.

Well, it also falls to pieces when you say that allowing children into the work force will improve safety, lol. That's pretty much understood by all the free world to be a lie, and is why the child labor laws were put into effect in the first place. Children were working in mines, in mills, in boats, in factories, and dying in droves. Being starved, beaten, etc. because they were considered little adults, with the same ability to reason and function...and predators took advantage of them then, as they would now, given the opportunity.
 
Economic power amounts to the right to freely work, the right to own property, and the right to sign legal contracts.

I feel that youth should have the other rights because they are rational agents capable of making informed decisions about their present and future lives, and have successfully accomplished such endeavors in the past. Modern adolescence is only about a century old. The word "teenager" first appeared in print sometime around...1943, I believe.

Do you happen to have any info about at what age was a person considered old enough to sign contracts in, say, 18/19th century England? I wonder what apprentices signed when they sidned on to work for tradesmen.
I'd investigate myself, but knowing you, you probably already have all that info at your fingertips. :lol:
 
Here ya go:
CHild Labor
David Cody, Associate Professor of English Hartwick College

"In Defoe's day he thought it admirable that in the vicinity of Halifax scarcely anybody above the age of 4 was idle. The children of the poor were forced by economic conditions to work, as Dickens, with his family in debtor's prison, worked at age 12 in the Blacking Factory. In 1840 perhaps only twenty percent of the children of London had any schooling, a number which had risen by 1860, when perhaps half of the children between 5 and 15 were in some sort of school, if only a day school (of the sort in which Dickens's Pip finds himself in Great Expectations) or a Sunday school; the others were working. Many of the more fortunate found employment as apprentices to respectable trades (in the building trade workers put in 64 hours a week in summer and 52 in winter) or as general servants — there were over 120,000 domestic servants in London alone at mid-century, who worked 80 hour weeks for one halfpence per hour — but many more were not so lucky. Most prostitutes (and there were thousands in London alone) were between 15 and 22 years of age.
Child Labor

Dumbshit. I love predatory POSes who pose as wanting what's best for the kids.
 
They are not rational agents. That's where everything falls to pieces.

Well, it also falls to pieces when you say that allowing children into the work force will improve safety, lol. That's pretty much understood by all the free world to be a lie, and is why the child labor laws were put into effect in the first place. Children were working in mines, in mills, in boats, in factories, and dying in droves. Being starved, beaten, etc. because they were considered little adults, with the same ability to reason and function...and predators took advantage of them then, as they would now, given the opportunity.

At what age do you think people should be allowed to begin to work? Are you against teens having afterschool jobs? Should kids raised on family farms do chores? At what age ought teens be allowed to work as baby sitters?
 
Economic power amounts to the right to freely work, the right to own property, and the right to sign legal contracts.

I feel that youth should have the other rights because they are rational agents capable of making informed decisions about their present and future lives, and have successfully accomplished such endeavors in the past. Modern adolescence is only about a century old. The word "teenager" first appeared in print sometime around...1943, I believe.

Right to freely work? But ignore school?

The right to own what kind of property? A teenager in school would own what kind of property?

Right to sign legal contracts? I wouldn't advise it. This would open up so many scams, including credit cards.

If youth (12-17) have shown anything since 1943, it's that most of the time they don't care, irrational, want to party, arrogant, naive, hypocritical, overly emotional, confused, and cannot understand several concepts until they're older.

Which endeavors in the past have Youth successfully accomplished?

Jacksonville.com

The wholesale social breakdown Davis said he has witnessed during two years in juvenile court are reflected in statistics compiled by the state Department of Juvenile Justice:

The number of Duval County juveniles ages 10 through 17 charged with crimes from July 1, 2007, to June 30 increased 13 percent compared to the previous year. At the same time, the number of crimes involving juveniles increased 16 percent, meaning, youths were committing more crimes.

Murders and manslaughters charged to juveniles went down, from 14 to 10, but other violent crimes increased sharply. Armed robbery increased 25 percent; other robberies climbed 28 percent.

Auto theft, a non-violent crime but one that is also considered the juvenile "starter felony," increased 26 percent.

Grand larceny jumped 18 percent.

Davis said fights at schools are becoming more common and can involve 30 or more students. Bullying is a problem, too, with groups of aggressors assaulting individuals along racial lines, he said.

"It is not uncommon for 13- and 14-year-old boys to have assault weapons in their homes," he said. "You get cases of armed robberies at schools."

Biggest change

In the 2007-08 school year, 18 guns were found at Duval County schools, according to information from the school system. So far this school year, seven have been confiscated. All the cases resulted in arrests, said school spokeswoman Jill Johnson

And the first thing we should do is give these youth is guns? :lol:
 
Do you happen to have any info about at what age was a person considered old enough to sign contracts in, say, 18/19th century England? I wonder what apprentices signed when they sidned on to work for tradesmen.
I'd investigate myself, but knowing you, you probably already have all that info at your fingertips. :lol:

I believe it was 21.
And women could not own anything in their own right. Any woman in England who married, her husband automatically gained power and control over her income and her property. So if she were to die without any children, he could keep it for himself and send her children to the orphanage (read Dickens).

Or...if she had property and married a man....and HE died...he nearest MALE relative would inherit all, including HER property.

But 21 was still a man's "majority".
 
They are not rational agents. That's where everything falls to pieces.

Well, it also falls to pieces when you say that allowing children into the work force will improve safety, lol. That's pretty much understood by all the free world to be a lie, and is why the child labor laws were put into effect in the first place. Children were working in mines, in mills, in boats, in factories, and dying in droves. Being starved, beaten, etc. because they were considered little adults, with the same ability to reason and function...and predators took advantage of them then, as they would now, given the opportunity.

I don't suppose you find it necessary to read this entire thread. Read it from the beginning, and then come back and blather.

Really, I don't even know how I tolerate you criticizing me when you can't respond to the most elementary textual criticism of the Bible.
 
I did respond. I just don't need 18,000 words to make a point.

A couple of words and the truth will suffice for me.
 
Here ya go:
CHild Labor
David Cody, Associate Professor of English Hartwick College

"In Defoe's day he thought it admirable that in the vicinity of Halifax scarcely anybody above the age of 4 was idle. The children of the poor were forced by economic conditions to work, as Dickens, with his family in debtor's prison, worked at age 12 in the Blacking Factory. In 1840 perhaps only twenty percent of the children of London had any schooling, a number which had risen by 1860, when perhaps half of the children between 5 and 15 were in some sort of school, if only a day school (of the sort in which Dickens's Pip finds himself in Great Expectations) or a Sunday school; the others were working. Many of the more fortunate found employment as apprentices to respectable trades (in the building trade workers put in 64 hours a week in summer and 52 in winter) or as general servants — there were over 120,000 domestic servants in London alone at mid-century, who worked 80 hour weeks for one halfpence per hour — but many more were not so lucky. Most prostitutes (and there were thousands in London alone) were between 15 and 22 years of age.
Child Labor

Dumbshit. I love predatory POSes who pose as wanting what's best for the kids.

Thansk. I am already familiar with working conditions for children in Dicken's time. I am curious if they were considered of legal age to sign contracts as apprentices, indentured servants and such. Or if parents or legal guardians signed them for them.
 
Oh, and btw...CHristians also lead the fight against child labor:

"After radical agitation, notably in 1831, when "Short Time Committees" organized largely by Evangelicals began to demand a ten hour day, a royal commission established by the Whig government recommended in 1833 that children aged 11-18 be permitted to work a maximum of twelve hours per day; children 9-11 were allowed to work 8 hour days; and children under 9 were no longer permitted to work at all (children as young as 3 had been put to work previously).
Child Labor

Those damn backwards evangelicals, again. Doing things like demanding separation of church and state, removing children from adult prisons, freeing slaves and getting rid of child labor.

Ignorant fucks.
 
Thansk. I am already familiar with working conditions for children in Dicken's time. I am curious if they were considered of legal age to sign contracts as apprentices, indentured servants and such. Or if parents or legal guardians signed them for them.


Parents. Only parents could do it. Which was why a common dodge was for some flesh-trafficking asshole to pose as a child's "parent" then sell them in prostitution or just outright.

Because they couldn't get busted unless it was proven that they weren't the parent.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top