Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Working KidsFollow

#1 Dec 03 2013 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Today's generation of young people are probably worse off than the preceding couple of generations - economically speaking anyways.

Sure jobs are scarce and educational costs exorbitant, but do you think that our child labor laws are too prohibitive and perhaps contributing to the decline of the young skilled worker powering our economy?

Local politics have biased me on this issue.

The Gov is attempting to roll-back child labor laws in my state. After all he worked for a wage at 11 years old and he turned out ok - or so he tells us.

The proposed changes to current laws look something like this:
- Allow 12 year olds to work with some hourly restrictions (current minimum age for waged workers is 14).
- Relax the restrictions on the number of hours for kids between 14 and 16.
- Allow employers to pay a reduced minimum wage to kids under 16 ($5.25/hr vs $7.25/hr).
- Remove requirements for school superintendents to approve work for students under 16.

I'm ok with kids working. I think I'm ok with 12 year olds working. I like the hourly restrictions and I think they should preserved and enforced. I'm not at all down with the reduced minimum wage. I paid babysitters $5/hour two decades ago. I don't think the current minimum wage is at all unreasonable - even for twelve year olds.

Edit - Here's an article.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2013 5:00pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 Dec 03 2013 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't think child labor laws are contributing to a lack of skilled labor since child labor is almost entirely unskilled. Picking beans, delivering newspapers and sweeping floors aren't the skills lacking from today's workforce. I'd be concerned with predatory relationships with younger workers as well who have less social skills and experience in standing up for themselves and their legal rights as workers.

Given the current labor situation, I can't fathom any reason to relax restrictions on child labor other than appeasing business owners who want someone to sweep the floors and take out the trash for $5.25/hr rather than paying an unemployed adult.

I'm not intrinsically against kids working; my older son has worked for a couple years with his grandmother on some weekends helping set up events linen. But he makes good money for it and I obviously don't have to worry about him being mistreated.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Dec 03 2013 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
We could use more cockney orphan chimney sweeps I suppose.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Dec 03 2013 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
We could use more cockney orphan chimney sweeps I suppose.


Screenshot


At least until the robot ones are completed.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#5 Dec 03 2013 at 10:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
The thing is they want to put the kids to work in Theaters and Bowling Alleys.

The last thing I want during my trip to the cinema is some pre/pubescent kid, in emo-fashion, squirting artificial butter-stuff on my popcorn.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#6 Dec 03 2013 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
On second thought, I could probably get some kid to do my job. Pay them five bucks an hour, keep collecting my check. I can do something else during the day - maybe to work in a theater and watch movies for free.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#7 Dec 03 2013 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
The thing is they want to put the kids to work in Theaters and Bowling Alleys.
I'm okay with that if it's as the pins.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Dec 03 2013 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
There's no way in hell this is about anything other than businesses lobbying the government for more cheap labor (with no required benefits). Totally against it for that reason alone. There are already hardship laws that allow kids in less than favorable conditions to work to support their family. A normal 12 year old has no business holding a job (aside from the stereotypical paper / food delivery via bike), certainly not during the school week, and certainly not for the sole gain of the employer, who would most certainly abuse the lack of social development in the child to their benefit..
#9 Dec 03 2013 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Fine with the working part, not so cool on the wage part. That makes it sound like a way just to get cheap labor, and isn't going to help adult unemployment any either. Working at a bowling alley sounds nicer than digging a pit for septic tank, or the endless yard work, or changing a diaper on a sugar-high 2 year old, or whatever else I did for money when I was that age.

What is with you people and your low minimum wages anyway? For shame... Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#10 Dec 03 2013 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
I could see allowing some narrowly defined exceptions, but in most cases a kid should be a kid, why take that away from them? Things like Child actors where the kid is going to make more money than I will in my entire carreer? Sure. Paper / food delivery, seasonal fruit picking, lemonade stands and car washes? why not. Parents own a bakery and they want to pay you part time to help decorate baked goods or something? I'm ok with that. But it would have to be a carefully thought out series of circumstances that start with the premise "hey, this kid wants to do this because they find it fun or interesting, and are not being forced into it in any way"

I could see the whole thing being abused really easily though too.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#11 Dec 03 2013 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
*
229 posts
McDonalds supports this. They might even say that they're lovin' it.

I can't see small fries as crew members, however. A job washing cars or cutting grass seems more likely than being a greasy gear in the McDonalds machine.
#12 Dec 03 2013 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
So now we need child labor to make up for our imaginary lack in skilled labor they use as their excuse for outsourcing? Look how easy it is for them to sugar coat these things and make people think it's even remotely acceptable.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#13 Dec 03 2013 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Yeah, good idea. That's the problem with Western civilisation, not enough kids working for 5 bucks an hour.
#14 Dec 03 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Disgusting. My son is 12. I would never allow him to get a job at his age. Mow a few lawns, deliver some papers, sure those things will teach him a bit of responsibility, an hourly job he needs to be at between X and Y on a given night/weekend? Hell no. He's a kid, he should be doing homework, chores (again, learning responsibility), or playing. Also, why is a 12 year old's mopped floor cheaper than a 16 year olds?
#15 Dec 03 2013 at 4:17 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Isn't there a loop hole for working at a family business?

Anything outside of that, I would disagree. I understand the OP's position. Children growing up not working, not understanding the value of a dollar and expecting everything to be given to them, but I believe that is the job of the parents to instill a working mentality via chores.
#16 Dec 03 2013 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Laws vary state by state but, yes, family business are generally exempt (more or less) from child labor laws. It's not absolute -- I assume you can't have your five year old working a foundry -- but it's much more lax than for other scenarios.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Dec 03 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
I haven't seen an argument FOR this law yet. Anyone wanna bet on Gbaji's position?
#18 Dec 03 2013 at 6:21 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
I haven't seen an argument FOR this law yet. Anyone wanna bet on Gbaji's position?


Small Government, No regulation.

FREEDOM!
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#19 Dec 03 2013 at 6:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Setting aside the whole "taking jobs from adults" angle:

BrownDuck wrote:
There's no way in hell this is about anything other than businesses lobbying the government for more cheap labor (with no required benefits).


someproteinguy wrote:
Fine with the working part, not so cool on the wage part.

...

What is with you people and your low minimum wages anyway? For shame... Smiley: disappointed


Yodabunny wrote:
Also, why is a 12 year old's mopped floor cheaper than a 16 year olds?


To me, there's a problem with trying to simultaneously set a minimum wage designed to support a family of 4 and allowing children who are not supporting anyone at all, let alone a family of 4 to receive that same minimum. I totally understand the concerns with regard to competition for adult jobs, but if we're setting that aside (which we're basically doing if we're even considering this in the first place), then lowering the minimum for minors makes complete sense.

One can argue the flip side that the biggest obstacle to having a higher minimum wage is precisely because the same wage minimum applies to minors. I've often argued that we should keep the minimum wage low because it's what a teen is going to make as well, so by keeping it low a business can pay the young entry level kids that low wage and therefore be able to afford to pay their older staff (who might be supporting a family) a higher relative wage. Raising the minimum wage just gives those who don't need it more money while ******** over the folks who do need more.


While I'm hesitant about opening labor to younger minors for other reasons (a whole list of reasons!), I fully think we should already have two different minimum wages. One for dependents and one for those supporting themselves and/or a household. There's simply no reason at all why some 16 year old working at the local mall should be included in any sort of minimum wage discussion addressing the needs of working class parents to provide for their families. So that aspect of the issue I do kinda agree with. I think there would be a lot less opposition to raising minimum wages if we had this sort of division included. Of course, there could be some other side effects as well, but it's at least something to think about.


So to answer Yoda's question: Because we base minimum wage laws not on the value of the labor, but the needs of the laborer. That's why. And if we do that, then we ought to recognize that we're doing that and follow through with logical extensions of it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Dec 03 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
I've often argued that we should keep the minimum wage low because it's what a teen is going to make as well, so by keeping it low a business can pay the young entry level kids that low wage and therefore be able to afford to pay their older staff (who might be supporting a family) a higher relative wage. Raising the minimum wage just gives those who don't need it more money while ******** over the folks who do need more.

While I'm hesitant about opening labor to younger minors for other reasons (a whole list of reasons!), I fully think we should already have two different minimum wages. One for dependents and one for those supporting themselves and/or a household. There's simply no reason at all why some 16 year old working at the local mall should be included in any sort of minimum wage discussion addressing the needs of working class parents to provide for their families. So that aspect of the issue I do kinda agree with. I think there would be a lot less opposition to raising minimum wages if we had this sort of division included.


Surely even someone as obtuse as you can see where this leads...

Every newly updated corporate hiring mandate wrote:
Do not hire adults or those with family where a lower wage worker will suffice. Preference is to higher those subject to the lowest minimum wage category


gbaji wrote:
Of course, there could be some other side effects


Yeah, and one really big one. See above. It's nonsense to suggest that such a system is feasible, but then again, you've never been to let nonsense stand in your way.
#21 Dec 03 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
Sounds like a page from the same playbook where they wanted grade-school kids to do basic janitorial work if they were on any kind of food assistance plan in school.

But it would be funny to see some businesses try to staff up on minors. Then they would need to change the laws so the kids could work past 10 o'clock at night or operate any type of machinery.
#22 Dec 03 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Surely even someone as obtuse as you can see where this leads...

Every newly updated corporate hiring mandate wrote:
Do not hire adults or those with family where a lower wage worker will suffice. Preference is to higher those subject to the lowest minimum wage category


gbaji wrote:
Of course, there could be some other side effects


Yeah, and one really big one. See above. It's nonsense to suggest that such a system is feasible, but then again, you've never been to let nonsense stand in your way.


Yeah. That's precisely what I was thinking of. Depends on how steep the difference is though and whether the position in question is one you'd rather trust to someone older and presumably more capable. My point really was more about the problems inherent with the very idea of having a minimum wage in the first place, not necessarily what the perfect solution would be. If you've already accepted the fact that a minimum wage should exist, you are already accepting the idea of a wage being defined by what is needed by the worker and not how valuable the labor is to the employer. That concept already skews things IMO.

You basically have the problem where if the minimum applies to everyone then you're paying a higher wage to those who don't need it, which breaks the assumed case for having the minimum wage in the first place. But if you have a different minimum for adults versus teens, then you run into the very problem you just outlined. Again though, the flip side is that teens can't get jobs if the minimum wage is set too high because their labor is going to be that much more significantly less valuable than the minimum. You can theoretically minimum wage yourself out of a workforce if you're not careful. Therefore you can't raise minimum wage up sufficiently to really accomplish the presumed objective of having it in the first place.


I'd say that my solution is to just scrap the idea of having a minimum wage in the first place and let the older/better workers make more than the younger and less experienced ones naturally because their labor is actually worth more to the employer. But that would just be crazy talk, right? So *if* we have a minimum wage at all, we need to ask ourselves why it exists and what it's for. If it's to ensure that those supporting themselves and/or a family can always make enough to do that, then we need to not apply that to people who aren't doing that (and thus don't need that wage). How we do that can vary. Currently, we place extreme restrictions on teens working. But if we're even considering reducing or removing those restrictions, then we need to look at how to deal with minimum wage issues as well.

Not doing so would be a mistake IMO. And no, there is no ideal solution. Some are just better than others.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2013 4:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Dec 03 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I can't see any of my hotels' owners agreeing to bumping up other employees' wages because we were able to save a few bucks in other areas by hiring teens. Most of them would simply want to keep those savings.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#24 Dec 03 2013 at 7:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I can't see any of my hotels' owners agreeing to bumping up other employees' wages because we were able to save a few bucks in other areas by hiring teens. Most of them would simply want to keep those savings.


If the hotel down the street does this and you don't, they'll have responsible adults running their shifts, and you'll have a bunch of teenagers goofing off. Guess which one will regret that choice?

The free market does actually work if you give it a chance.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Dec 03 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Excellent
We already have a bottomed out economy where people who are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage have to take government assistance just to stay off the streets, and you want businesses to be able to pay them less? Smiley: oyvey

As for the "family businesses" - it primarily applies to farm labor, and even then there's laws regarding the maximum number of hours kids below 16 can work on the family farm.

Most kids working in a family business aren't really collecting a paycheck. The nail salon I go to has the youngest girl in the family (about 9 years old) hanging around, answering the phone, and helping to clean up (e.g. sweeping the floor), but the only reason she's there is because the entire family is working the salon and there'd be no one home to babysit her.

My parents had a newspaper route for the whole family. I got paid 25 cents a "bundle" to put inserts in from the stacks of paper and then pass them to a roller, who also got 25 cents per bundle to roll them up and stuff them into a cardboard box. (I preferred the "rolling" to the inserting... although both jobs left awful ink stains on your hands that only automotive grease cleaner could get off.) We had about 40 bundles to deal with, of twenty papers each. The family made $2 or so per bundle for this process and to then deliver the papers (it was the 80s and gas was 75 cents a gallon), and thus we employed neighborhood kids for this tedious unskilled labor. They were happy to spend an hour or so every Tuesday and walk away with a few bucks for their efforts.

On reflection this whole practice was probably illegal, but no one ever complained about it.
#26 Dec 03 2013 at 7:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I can't see any of my hotels' owners agreeing to bumping up other employees' wages because we were able to save a few bucks in other areas by hiring teens. Most of them would simply want to keep those savings.
If the hotel down the street does this and you don't, they'll have responsible adults running their shifts, and you'll have a bunch of teenagers goofing off. Guess which one will regret that choice?

Unless, you know, that hotel down the block didn't hire every "responsible adult" in the local labor market.
Quote:
The free market does actually work if you give it a chance.

Works fantastic for the business owner, sure. Ah, to remember the heady days of the 1920's when a responsible adult would be hired for a solid wage over a seven year old boy down at the garment factory...

Edited, Dec 3rd 2013 7:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 421 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (421)