Another controversial issue from the world of global business and economy.

I invite everyone to read the following article (source: 'The Scotsman' newspaper (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=212012004).)


Economic truths of child labour

JOHN BLUNDELL

EVERY high street in Scotland offers us items created by people whose poverty we can barely imagine. The tea in our cups was plucked by young women earning pennies in Sri Lanka. Our coffee has similar origins. Now we are learning that fashionable trainers were crafted by children in grim circumstances in Laos or the Philippines.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO), an arm of the United Nations, has just published a report outlining these horrors and urging steps the world should take to suppress child labour. It says that one in six children are at work between their sixth and 17th birthdays. The occurrence of child labour seems a good barometer of local poverty.

The ILO’s arguments are more than moral outrage - they also say the children are of less economic value without decent schooling.

I don’t contest the good intentions of these arguments. I’m sure I’d be pained if I saw children in workshops in Cambodia or Somalia. Yet for the ILO’s economic literacy, I give low marks: suppressing child labour would only deepen misery.

In its foggy way, the ILO argues parents should be paid the equivalent of their child’s market value, replacing the income forfeited if the child attends school instead. It is ambiguous where this money would come from but presumably through taxation of the population - ie, the parents.

It is easy for us to "tut" about child labour from our capitalist affluence. If you live in the deeply impoverished nations where markets have been suppressed or deformed, your only asset is your ability to work, and that of your children.

Sometimes I find people assume children did nothing more than picnic and play happily until the evil capitalists forced them into textile mills and down the mines after the Industrial Revolution. The truth is that child labour was the reality of life in all rural economies long before Dickens got on the case of child chimney sweeps.

It was the rise of capitalism that permitted the extended years of leisure we call education. Working in the newly-emerging factories was regarded as a far better option than slaving in the fields - linen was more profitable than turnips.

Child labour is not the modern invention of "globalisation". All farming has always used children. Scotland’s school summer holidays exist not so everyone can fly down to the Spanish Costas, but so children are free to help with the harvest. To learn rural skills was the reality of education in most of human history. In more urban areas, the young would learn other appropriate skills.

I believe that working in scruffy factories in Manila or Nairobi is an opportunity for the people involved. Making fashion garments or chic trainers for eventual sale on Princes Street offers far greater benevolence than the humbugging of overseas aid. Aid is famously described as a device by which the poor people in the West fund the rich of the Third World. But free trade in shirts transfers money from the rich of the West to the poor of the East.

All the US democratic presidential candidates have been out-shouting each other about child labour as a malignancy caused by globalisation. Our own politicians are apprehensive about "asylum seekers", the new euphemism for immigration. Do people try to flock westwards because of our crazy policies? Or do they look for a solution to the economic problems they have in their own country?

The biggest single preventable cause of poverty is the European Union’s agricultural policies. Affluence could spread across the planet if we opened our markets to non-EU foodstuffs. I remain baffled why no Scottish politician campaigns to cut the price of our groceries. Would it not be popular?I’m not advocating sending any child into dangerous or degrading roles, but I do believe every school could allow pupils to widen their knowledge and experience by participating in local commercial life. It could be fun. It could be life-changing. Many of Scotland’s young are held captive in schools that bore them and alienate them. All that we seem willing to accept is newspaper rounds and there is even talk in Brussels of banning them. Participating in your community’s shops, say, can only widen experience. We regard student jobs as a degradation. It ought to be part of growing up.

As the economies of Asia accelerate, the number of children working tumbles as parents prefer to buy education. They know an educated child should earn more and so help the extended family. Self interest must be a better guide than abstract good intentions from the ILO’s office block in Geneva.

Next time you are exploring the ever cheaper wares in your favourite shops, look at the origin labels. The people who produce these items are richer than they would be without production lines near their homes.

A pernicious argument is that children working stop adults earning full wages. This is precisely the economic dunce-speak that used to argue a woman’s place is in the home. Adam Smith argued that a poor man’s poverty can be his asset, he can trade or work his way up. The Third World’s great advantage is their relative cheapness. Muddled, if kindly, thinking wants to suppress this.

Rich countries should welcome the new nations joining the markets. Child labour will evaporate as prosperity spreads. In the meantime, Scottish pupils might find a day’s work far more educational than torture by blackboard.

• John Blundell is director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs.



This is a 'non-politically correct' point of view however I found it rather interesting.

Anyway, what do you think?
Let's talk about child labour, foreign aid and free market as means of spreading the wealth around the globe.

I believe the outrage many feel regarding child labor stems from the varied articles and televised news pieces exposing the child slave-labor factories, and not so much the basic idea of a child needing to work to help the family eat.

Child labor is very capitalistic in that it reduces expenses thereby raising profits. If I have to pay an adult $5 a day but can pay a child $1.50 a day, I can take that savings and invest in a second factory employing more labor and providing me with more profit. That is the ideal; however, all too often we hear more about the child locked in a room to sleep, and forced to work 12-14 hours a day six days a week, because the parent "sold" them to the factory owner for the wages they can produce.

As long as we have wars, be they politically motivated or of a religious nature, and as long as there is a drug trade, there will be a need for the children to go out and help to support the family; with the adults either unable to work due to death or injury or conscription, or drug/alcohol addiction as well, supplying the family with the means to survive becomes everyone's responsibility.

Foreign aid has become one of the most misguided wastes of money and resources imaginable. I am sure many of you have heard the saying "Give a man a fish and he can eat today, but teach a man to fish and he can feed himself tomorrow", or something like that; the problem with most foreign aid is that it is used to keep giving away fish, and the underlying problems are never addressed. There have been millions of people across the African continent who have died from starvation, and billions of dollars in foreign aid have been sent there to feed these folks, but THEY KEEP LIVING IN THE DROUGHT PRONE AREAS and the famines recur almost predictably. Use the aid to relocate them, to teach about agriculture/crop rotation, to irrigate the land, but don't keep just feeding them when they have no food.

Also, foreign aid is a source of extortion; if you do not give us aid we will go to your enemy for it, or we will no longer be your ally, or we will change our trade agreements, etc. The U.S. gives Israel over 1 billion a year in foreign aid, and I have yet to ever see a satisfactory explanation of why, other than they are an ally in an important area of the world. We have given billions in foreign aid to countries via loans, only to forgive them at a later date. The politicians need to reevaluate the amount of money contributed by tax-payers that is being sent to other countries, and address the economic crises that have been steadily growing in this country the past thirty years; the homeless, the healthcare costs, the number of children still living in poverty in this country, the continued shipping of technology and manufacturing jobs overseas, and so on. The money we are sending Brazil to help subsidize their mining operations could be better spent on the steel industry in our own country, as an example.

Free markets will assist the third world countries to climb up the ladder, but in evening out the playing field there will be a necessary lowering of the standard of living for others, and that will be the main obstacle to overcome. Those already used to certain luxuries will be hard to convince that it is for the good of all to sacrifice some of them.

With the ever increasing global population, there will be many hard choices to be made in the coming years with regard to these topics. I am not very optimistic that they will be choices many of us would embrace in the present.

Sorry for the long and rambling read.:p

Not to hijack the thread, but..The U.S. gives Israel over 1 billion a year in foreign aid, and I have yet to ever see a satisfactory explanation of why, other than they are an ally in an important area of the world.Seems reason enough to me.

Also, back on topic, but it isn't necessarily war, pestilence or famine forcing parents into subjugating their children into "slavery." Sometimes's it's just greed, sloth and avarice.

Child labor has been a part of society since the dawn of time. Often it was out of necessity, but just as likely to be a result of greed.

Even today in "civilized" and "modern" countries, children are working for little or nothing on farms and ranches. Families were much larger in the past than they are today, mainly because farms and ranches needed the extra hands to raise the crops and tend the herds.

Does this mean it's right? Is child labor wrong? The answers to these questions would vary, depending upon where you live, how your society views the issues and what the local custom is.

Yes, we give foreign aid to a very long list of countries who seem to be doing nothing to fix the problems. They are treating the symptoms but not addressing the problems. I liked the example of the people living in drought stricken areas... why not move them? Use that aid money to fix the PROBLEM, not the symptom.

In my opinion and according to the values I was raised with, forcing children to work long hours for little pay, mistreating the children, and all the other things that happen... are wrong. But then, I'm not starving, greedy, or selling my children into slavery. For some I suppose it's a way of life.

The real issue here is not getting the children out of the situation, the real problem is to keep them from being put in those situations in the first place. The children who are in those situations need to be taken out of that setting. Unfortunately, as long as people can force children to work like that, as long as people will sell their children into slavery, and as long as there is greed and avarice, we will continue to see these issues.

We can all agree that mistreating children is wrong, but how do you make people stop? All the aid money in the world is not going to change the people who perpetrate those actions. As long as there are people who will pay for and engage children in this kind of forced labor, there will be people who will allow/sell their children to be put in those situations.

I suppose if we all stopped buying clothes, VCR's, tea, coffee, and a multitude of other products it might slow down... but probably not.

I wish I had the answer.

Just to talk about child labor...
I believe that working in scruffy factories in Manila or Nairobi is an opportunity for the people involved. Making fashion garments or chic trainers for eventual sale on Princes Street offers far greater benevolence than the humbugging of overseas aid. Aid is famously described as a device by which the poor people in the West fund the rich of the Third World. But free trade in shirts transfers money from the rich of the West to the poor of the East.
Would it not be popular?I’m not advocating sending any child into dangerous or degrading roles, but I do believe every school could allow pupils to widen their knowledge and experience by participating in local commercial life. It could be fun. It could be life-changing. Many of Scotland’s young are held captive in schools that bore them and alienate them.
I don't really think it's an opportunity for children, anywhere they are from, to work from dawn to dusk in a glue/dust environnement. It may be fun and life-changing for western children to fill grocery bags 2 hours per week, but I'm pretty sure it's boring and alienating and dangerous and degradating (as health degradation) for philipinese ones to make shoes 12 hours per day.
Yes it's an opportunity "wealthwise", but there is no opportunity for those children to do more than that in their life.

Sadly I don't have a solution, or I wouldn't be here for sure, but I guess as global wealth of those countries should rise, lifestyle may change. And I hope, as a short time solution, that sort of "rules" for children labor (that can't be avoided as today) could be set in order to give those children opportunities.
Couldn't it be fun if those kids learn how to read in some schools? 2 hours per week, perhaps?

I'm sorry that I didn't participate in the topic more, kinda busy this week.

So, a few points quickly:

1. Is it possible that Marx was right and capitalism and free market is naturally exploitative? Even if Blundell (original article) is right and child labour is a natural part of a less-affluent society wouldn't the capitalists who employ the said labour were to benefit from its fruits and not the people if the rest of the world opened its markets for child labour produced goods?

2. Do working conditions matter at all? There were points about dawn to dusk work in unhealthy environments...but aren't those conditions the same for the adult work force in the same society? I don't think that work hours and unhealthy work environment are exclusive to child labour. If that's true then it is down to the moral issue if children deserve better conditions than their own parents...right?


Off topic but since it was bought up, here is a quote:


Former Secretary of State and NATO forces commander Alexander Haig [said] he is pro-Israeli because Israel
is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.

Regarding point 1, Marx was *sort of* right. Free market economics is designed around competition, so anything that gives an edge is exploited unless laws are enacted to prevent it. Child labor is one of those things that has been historically exploited. However, so far most if not all "collectivist" economies (i.e. USSR, Cuba, China) have *also* been plagued with child labor (especially on farms) even after the free markets were abolished. It seems that poverty and the need for "all hands on deck" is the more accurate culprit rather than the economic system involved.

On point 2, obviously the goal is for acceptable working conditions for everyone who works. Some jobs are just inherently very dangerous (coal mining for example) and children have absolutely no place in such industries from any sort of moral view.

2. Do working conditions matter at all? There were points about dawn to dusk work in unhealthy environments...but aren't those conditions the same for the adult work force in the same society? I don't think that work hours and unhealthy work environment are exclusive to child labour. If that's true then it is down to the moral issue if children deserve better conditions than their own parents...right?
That's a mind boggling 2nd point for me. Can we apply the same work condition to children and adults? Do you ask your kids to carry the frigde or the washing-machine when you move to a new house?
I can't hardly argue that child labor should be removed, but I see no valid point to say that children and adults can work in the same conditions... :confused:

That's a mind boggling 2nd point for me. Can we apply the same work condition to children and adults? Do you ask your kids to carry the frigde or the washing-machine when you move to a new house?
I can't hardly argue that child labor should be removed, but I see no valid point to say that children and adults can work in the same conditions... :confused:

Aren't you confusing working conditions with work difficulty?

Just to use your own lifting heavy weights example IMO conditions mean factors like having the appropriate tools (gloves and straps or forklifts for example) in order to be able to safely carry out the task.

Of course you are right that shoveling coal for several hours a day is not something that a child should ever do (actually my father did exactly that in his teens and it didn't prevent him from becoming a university prof but that's a different story) but the point that I was trying to make is that in case of a society where unsafe or unhealty working conditions is prevailing and dominant in all sectors (any 3rd world country) why do we only care about the children? Why not about their parents as well?

Aren't you confusing working conditions with work difficulty?Nope I don't think so. What I'm saying is that a child shouldn't have to carry something heavy in the first place, even with best tools to do it well. (someone would point out that nowadays school bags weight half a child, but that's another story)
A growing kid shouldn't lift something heavy, even if the weight corresponds to his/her lifting capability.
That's my point mainly. Adults have a better stamina (physically or mentally) than children, thus they shouldn't have the same working conditions.

And I'm not saying that working conditions should be better for kids only (they should be for everyone in the range of possible), but kids shouldn't be considered as "mini-adults".

So the point is that adults have better tolerance for bad conditions both physically and mentally due to natural factors right?

Thus equal ammount of glue fumes in the Nike sweat shops causes more damage to kids than adults...is that the point here?

Yes it is.

It occurred to me this morning while reading the paper...........



Our children continue to be sexually active at earlier ages, yet we ......




Continue efforts to ban easily accessible information regarding contraception from these children, and .........



We continue the assault on Planned Parenthood clinics because of one aspect of their available resources, thereby ........




We limit the choices of our children who are unwilling to exercise the option of abstinence, and so .........



Are we not guilty of forced child labor:confused:





But seriously, by limiting the options available to sexually active kids we are in fact forcing many to become adults before they are ready; the steadily shrinking welfare programs (which have long needed to be fixed) no longer offer any saftey net to many of these children, leaving the only option for many being to quit school and enter the work force to care for themselves and their children.

Sorry, if this does not make a lot of sense, but it is early and I am only on my first cup of coffee.

I haven't read all of this thread but I have read Blymet's comments and it made me think of something.

When I was in high school the boys varsity bball coach was the "sex education teacher" for the whole county. He preached the dogma of smallville USA with a heavy Baptist influence of abstanance (sp). As a senior we tried to get a petition going to allow condom vending machines in bathrooms. It was shot down at every turn but the ironic thing is "mr sex ed's" daughter got pregnant by one of his bball players :D She was only 13.

My county in NC was #2 for infant mortality and teen pregnancy. Instead of teaching safer methods the bible beaters won out with the whole abstanance(sp) campaign. It's stupid, and it's still in effect and we are still in the top 3 teen pregnancy and infant mortality. The sad thing is we are one of the fewest populated counties in NC due to 85% being gov't controlled land (Great Smokey Mtns Nat'l Park, and the Cherokee Indian Res).

When will they learn that their approach isn't working?

They don't care that their approach does not work. Their desire is to limit the populace's options to those approved by their narrow religious viewpoint, even to the point of absurdity (e.g., trying to pass laws that prevent abortion even if the mother's life is at risk). Because this social conservatism is married to (indeed, owns the proponents of) fiscal conservatism, things like social welfare and infant mortality aren't of much concern. "Pro-life" is a misnomer; they're more aptly described as "pro-birth."

To add more to Bylimet's line of thought, puberty at the age of 7 is becoming common. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4530743.stm)

An interesting qoute from the above link:


Some say girls who reach puberty earlier are more likely to drop out of school and have lower incomes.

Data shows that they are also more likely to become mums earlier.

With more and more women putting off having a baby until later life, this might be a good thing and help reverse trends of top heavy ageing population, said Professor Söder.



Emphasis is mine.