catzmeow
Gold Member
- Banned
- #1
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.:
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:
