Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Holes in my bucket! Feudalism and Child Labor?

  • 11-04-2012 6:47am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭


    I get genuinely excited when someone claims they can show Libertarianism be more full of holes than Swiss cheese. I was left disappointed though, as said poster starting singing from the usual anti-libertarian hymsheet, in doing so exposing his/her own ignorance or dishonesty, while chalking up unfounded victories for government intervention.

    It is increased production that increases wages and phases out child labor, not government legislation. All it takes is the most basic of critical thinking to understand this. If a family requires both parents and children to work to survive, preventing the children from working will end in malnourishment and death. The only way a society phases out child labor is when the adults within a society have the productive capacity to produce enough for both parent and child’s survival. It is the same force, rising productivity, which raises wages. If it was by government decree that wages rose, what is government waiting for? Why not raise minimum wage by a factor of 100 tomorrow?

    If the usual anti libertarian brigade criticising “libertarian economics” whatever that is, had so much as looked at a Wikipedia page they would see that from Sachs to Krugman there is agreement. Some are obviously aware of this as it has come up on numerous threads, but still it is thrash out to spoil and divert threads, in a recent one whilst simultaneously accusing libertarian posters for dishonest debating.

    Sachs:
    "My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops, but that there are too few”

    UNICEF:
    The absence of the work opportunities provided by sweatshops can quickly lead to malnourishment or starvation. After the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Asia, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution." UNICEF's 1997 State of the World's Children study found these alternative jobs "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production."

    Johan Norberg:
    “[Sweatshop critics] say that we shouldn't buy from countries like Vietnam because of its labor standards, they've got it all wrong. They're saying: "Look, you are too poor to trade with us. And that means that we won't trade with you. We won't buy your goods until you're as rich as we are." That's totally backwards. These countries won't get rich without being able to export goods.”

    Krugman:
    “as manufacturing grows in poor countries, it creates a ripple effect that benefits ordinary people: ‘The pressure on the land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise.’ In time average wages creep up to a level comparable to minimum-wage jobs in the United States.”


    Yet the claimed logical implications, of the very market capitalism responsible for phasing out child labor, and the destruction of the feudal system in the West, that are at work in the 3rd world today is that the same market forces would do a u-turn and reverse the process??? Amused? Confused? Yes. But maybe the usual brigade can expand upon this?


«134567

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    My only question to this would be - why are these wealthy corporations only paying a wage that necessitates the children of a family to work as well as the parents in order to keep the family alive?

    The only logical answer I have is exploitation.

    I find it sickening that libertarians routinely endorse child labour.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Let me get this straight, your argument is:

    (a) Third world children should be glad of their sweatshops; and
    (b) The failure of third world governments to intervene so as to vindicate the rights of exploited children is evidence that a minimal state is "optimal"?

    Some odd logic here.

    Seems like you're also trying to push a revisionist version of the history of organised labour recast as a triumph of the unregulated market? Can't fault you for ambition, at least. This is going to be fun.

    Btw, if you'd read that UNICEF report, you'd see, right in the first paragraph of the foreword:
    In this report, UNICEF urges that priority be given to efforts for the immediate end of hazardous and exploitative child labour and to urgent support for education, so that children may acquire the knowledge and skills that can enable them to improve their lives. It also stresses the need for basic services, social development strategies, income-generation measures and legal protection for children, their families and communities.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    So you are for child labour then?
    Also you seem to be saying Krugman is for it also.

    How about paying a wage that allowed the parents to work and send their kids to school.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Don't be facetious, you know well I was referring to you and your ilk.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Yeah, I used to have that "ugh it's awful wipe it out" gut reaction too. Then I started actually reading about it. And while it's still awful, the alternative seems to be worse.
    When you look at facts like their payment of wages higher than average, it's not ideal, but wiping it out would be entirely detrimental to these children and their families.

    I think twisting it around to "ahh you support child labour!!" is disingenuous and just emotive attempts to stop genuine discussion :confused:

    I'd like there to be no child labour without the effects that stopping it immediately would have. I'd also like there to be no more world hunger or crime...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Honestly, can we avoid dismissing peoples posts based upon labelling them as "anti-Libertarian" etc., and throwing these accusations around?

    Seriously, could there be some mod intervention to force people to address peoples arguments, instead of dismissing their posts?
    It is totally inevitable, that threads will spin into the usual ideological arguments, without them getting anywhere, if honest arguments aren't enforced; it seems totally counterproductive to wait for that to happen, and then just lock the threads.

    Maybe this is better suited to Feedback, but three times lately, discussion on Libertarianisms core issues in a topic has been shut down, which is very counterproductive; you can't have any discussion on Libertarianism without it immediately focusing on its core issues, so shutting down discussion like that basically helps limit criticism of Libertarianism.

    Maybe I'm wrong on that point, and excuse me for criticizing mod actions (I understand how sick of these threads some mods are), that just is increasingly my impression of how these topics have been going lately; it would be good to see a different tack taken.



    Addressing the topic at hand:
    The single core fault in Libertarian arguments right now, is the lack of demonstrated empirical testing (emphasis on testing) of the economics.

    It is the difference between saying "Libertarian economics will work" (which is what most Libertarian supporters seem to state right now) and "Libertarian economics might work", and getting people to acknowledge that is the very first step needed to be able to have a non-ideological debate on the topic.
    Getting people to acknowledge that though, is (fascinatingly and frustratingly) incredibly difficult to do; many Libertarian supporters have acknowledged some level of uncertainty on the economics though, to their credit.

    If you can not start a debate on this topic from empirical principals, how can you have anything other than an ideological debate which will go around in circles endlessly?


    Excuse the ranty nature of this post; I can just see this easily spinning into another ideological debate, and getting shut down at some stage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    This post had been deleted.
    UNICEF wrote:
    Myth Two

    Child labour will never be eliminated until poverty disappears — It is true that the poorest, most disadvantaged sectors of society supply the vast majority of child labourers. The conclusion often drawn from this is that child labour and poverty are inseparable and that calls for an immediate end to hazardous child labour are unrealistic. We are told we must tolerate the intolerable until world poverty is ended.

    This is very convenient for all those who benefit from the status quo. But it is also untrue. The fact remains that when a child is engaged in hazardous labour, someone — an employer, a customer or a parent — benefits from that labour. It is this element of exploitation that is overlooked by those who see child labour as inseparable from poverty. However poor their families may be, children would not be harmed by work if there were not people prepared and able to exploit them. And child labour, in fact, can actually perpetuate poverty, as a working child grows into an adult trapped in unskilled and badly paid jobs.

    Of course, poverty must be reduced. Its reduction by economic growth, by employment generation and by investment, by better distribution of income, by changes in the global economy, as well as by better allocation of government budgets and better targeting of aid flows will reduce the potential pool of child labourers. But hazardous child labour can and must be eliminated independently of wider measures aimed at poverty reduction.
    Permabear wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    No, I would advocate that they should pay a wage concomitant with the attainment of basic human rights and dignity for their workers and their families, and that working conditions should equally respect the rights and human dignity of these same workers.

    Treating people as an end in themselves, rather than a means, remember?
    bluewolf wrote: »
    I'd like there to be no child labour without the effects that stopping it immediately would have. I'd also like there to be no more world hunger or crime...

    And I'd like that people would actually read and internalise the likes of the UNICEF Report before commenting on what is obviously a very complex issue, rather than bandying about soundbites in the name of trying, and failing miserably, to make an ideological point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Creating awareness of bad working conditions is of huge importance and can be very beneficial to the workers involved. As seen recently with the Apple factory in China. Once enough people are aware of these bad working conditions it hurts the companies profits and they are forced to improve their behavior. It is pretty obscene that companies make huge profits from these factories and give the bare minimum back. The argument that they will just leave makes no sense, like they will shut up shop if the profit margin drops from an 80% mark up to 75%. Many of these corporations could easily pay enough so that children would not need to work even having schools etc on site. It would cost less than a rounding error on their profits.
    Yes it is an emotive topic child labour disgusts most people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    benway wrote: »
    And I'd like that people would actually read and internalise the likes of the UNICEF Report before commenting on what is obviously a very complex issue, rather than bandying about soundbites in the name of trying, and failing miserably, to make an ideological point.

    Like this, you mean?
    20Cent wrote: »
    So you are for child labour then?
    Also you seem to be saying Krugman is for it also.

    How about paying a wage that allowed the parents to work and send their kids to school.

    Yes, it would be nice if we could move past that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Whataboutery


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    That's the same ILO whose Decent Work Agenda proposes:
    Creating Jobs – an economy that generates opportunities for investment, entrepreneurship, skills development, job creation and sustainable livelihoods.

    Guaranteeing rights at work – to obtain recognition and respect for the rights of workers. All workers, and in particular disadvantaged or poor workers, need representation, participation, and laws that work for their interests.

    Extending social protection – to promote both inclusion and productivity by ensuring that women and men enjoy working conditions that are safe, allow adequate free time and rest, take into account family and social values, provide for adequate compensation in case of lost or reduced income and permit access to adequate healthcare.

    Promoting social dialogue – Involving strong and independent workers’ and employers' organizations is central to increasing productivity, avoiding disputes at work, and building cohesive societies.

    I hope it's not a thing that you're going treat these organisations as authoritative when the context suits you, and dismiss them when it doesn't? They are the experts in the field.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    Yes, it would be nice if we could move past that.

    Yes, it would. But I don't see how else this thread is going to go. It's premised on "sticking it to the anti-libertarians".

    I don't see that many of the so-called "anti libertarian" posters are necessarily set against libertarian ideals. It's just a question of their practical application.

    It seems to me that there's a bunch of people with varying outlooks, who like to explore ideas, who are all being lumped together as the "usual suspects", out to get the libertarians. Speaking for myself, that simply isn't the case.

    The biggest problem is that these threads tend to get quite frustrating, because it seems that certain topics are out of bounds - by engaging with them, you can improve your own understandings, as well as ours.

    It's not about "winning" or "losing", it's about learning. Some of you seem to have lost sight of that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    benway wrote: »
    Treating people as an end in themselves, rather than a means, remember?
    Even though to pay for the various government programs you undoubtedly support, treating people as a means to an end as opposed to an end in themselves is exactly the logic you support. How do you explain this apparent contradiction in your views?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    benway wrote: »
    I don't see that many of the so-called "anti libertarian" posters are necessarily set against libertarian ideals. It's just a question of their practical application.

    It seems to me that there's a bunch of people with varying outlooks, who like to explore ideas, who are all being lumped together as the "usual suspects", out to get the libertarians. Speaking for myself, that simply isn't the case.

    The biggest problem is that these threads tend to get quite frustrating, because it seems that certain topics are out of bounds - by engaging with them, you can improve your own understandings, as well as ours.

    It's not about "winning" or "losing", it's about learning. Some of you seem to have lost sight of that.
    Yes this is it exactly; I actually agree with a wide swathe of Libertarian principals when it comes to social things, but the core economic faults really stand out to me, and that economic part of the debate does seem to be treated in an untouchable manner.

    Libertarian supporters seem to focus almost exclusively on the theory; on first glance, the theory does have some parts that look distasteful, but which make more sense as you read up on it more, so I can totally see where people are coming from there.

    Lets assume (assume because I haven't read up on it enough yet) the theory (while controversial) is completely fine, and the world it would in theory implement seems like it may well be far better, but when you start examining the core economics from a pragmatic/practical sense, i.e. actually implemented it and deliberately seeking out potential problems (i.e. applying falsifiability), a lot of holes start to appear.


    There are a lot of Libertarian supporters that I can't even get to agree that it has not been empirically tested, and as a consequence, who I can't get to agree that it should be examined empirically rather than ideologically/theoretically.

    I can't even get some people to discuss this stuff, so I can't even determine if they do or do not reject testing Libertarianism in a scientific way, which (from my point of view) is bizarre.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Not really.
    Its the "If you can't address every issue you can't address one argument". As stated several times it would be preferable for companies to pay enough so that children can go to school instead of working.

    Just to be clear, child labour is ok with libertarians?
    Yes or no answer will do thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Where is this limited to Western corporations? Also, I don't think that you can assume their lives would be "much worse" without sweatshops. That argument is like saying that someone should be glad to have one leg cut off, because it would be "much worse" to have both cut off.

    The point is that the sweatshop system is a trap, it only benefits the employers and consumers, it doesn't operate to alleviate poverty in the long term - I'm all for western corporations setting up in third world countries, but only if steps are taken to address the gross power imbalance between the corporation and their workers, to ban child labour - before the age of 15, per the ILO minimum age convention - and to fix wages consistent with basic human dignity.

    I'm taking a wild guess that you haven't actually ever been to a third world country, spoken to street kids, spent time in the slums, or seen working conditions for child labourers?
    Valmont wrote: »
    Even though to pay for the various government programs you undoubtedly support, treating people as a means to an end as opposed to an end in themselves is exactly the logic you support. How do you explain this apparent contradiction in your views?

    It's not difficult when your understanding of rights extends beyond A Very Short Introduction to Locke and Kant.

    We can start with the internationally accepted standards of basic human rights and basic human dignity for everyone. The same kinds of values that underpin organisations like the ILO and UNICEF, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Once these basic rights are protected, and any encroachment on the rights of of others can be rationally justified, by objective criteria, to be communicated to those whose rights are thus curtailed, and are proportional to the rational object, including the minimum violation of the right sufficient to attain the goal. The UDHR neatly traverses this:
    Article 17.

    (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    Under such an arrangement, I don't see how anyone could properly claim to be treated as a "means", their fundamental rights and human dignity are, at all times, respected.

    Denying less powerful sectors of society these rights, in the name of unrestricted rights for others, allowing exploitation in the name of freedom, is a huge difficulty with the general "libertarian" theory of rights, as I see them ... any errors are my own, and I'm sure you'll all be quick to correct me.

    Seems to me that it's an anaemic scheme of rights, existing only minimally in the economic sphere taking in self-ownership, the corollary of the ownership of the "fruits of one's labour", and a basically unrestricted property right.

    Essentially, the right to property trumps all, because you have the absolute right to be left to your own devices on your own property.

    Further, the theory of coercion is very limited, extending only to "force" and "substitutes for force". It doesn't seem adequate to take account of coercion by necessity - yes, the slum kid or child worker on a Kenyan vegetable farm comes looking for work, but that doesn't mean that he or she hasn't been forced by circumstances - a lack of viable alternative - to accept exploitative conditions. Those without property are very limited in their options ... less property equates to less freedom.

    Very often, the lack of viable alternative comes down to common agricultural and grazing lands having been expropriated to private hands in the first place, but that's another story.

    And, seeing as we're on the topic of contradictions, I don't see how below-subsistence wages are consistent to a right to the "fruits of one's labour", and conditions that tend to damage the most fundamental "possession", the childrens' own bodies, could be justified, even under the most narrow libertarian approaches.

    You people aren't actually trying to justify child labour, are you?


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    Can anyone point to a prelapsarian era when child labour didn't exist? What came before the coal mines of the 19th century that leftists often hold up as some kind of 'result' of capitalism?

    Child labour is not the result of capitalism. Capitalism is the solution to child labour. The Industrial Revolution saw dramatic and rapid increases in the standard of living for everyone in society, and that progress is something that has largely continued to this day. Developing nations that have embraced free trade are following in those footsteps, and they are working their way out of poverty. The emerging middle classes in the developing world are testament to this. What is the alternative? Grinding poverty for everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    There seems to be two camps of people who get involved in the various Libertarian themed threads we have on this forum.

    Group 1 - People who want to engage, debate and discuss

    Group 2 - People who use such threads as a fairly cheap, point scoring, e-penis measuring contest.

    I suggest that people decide which group they want to be part of, (Group 1 is preferable) and then continue this discussion. Do be aware though, that it likely that those in Group 2 won't be around for much longer :)

    Cheers

    DrG


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Soldie wrote: »
    Capitalism is the solution to child labour.

    No, agitation by organised labour, leading to the imposition of binding labour laws and regulations was the solution to child labour. Government acting as a restraining influence to the self-interest of employers.
    Soldie wrote: »
    The emerging middle classes in the developing world are testament to this.

    No offence, but this would seem to suggest that you don't know much about the developing world, or haven't spent any significant time there.

    Now, can someone tell me, is child labour justifiable by reference to libertarian principles - yes or no?


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    benway wrote: »
    No, agitation by organised labour, leading to the imposition of binding labour laws and regulations was the solution to child labour. Government acting as a restraining influence to the self-interest of employers.

    Yes, of course. The government just waves its magic wand and suddenly child labour is banished. I wonder if the developing world is privy to this information. Who knew that child labour could be resolved at the stroke of a pen instead of growing and developing an economy? Before you chalk this one of as a victory for the statists you might consider the rapid increase in living standards that took place during the Industrial Revolution, and what it can be attributed to. It's a remarkable coincidence that that same increase is today being replicated in countries that have embraced free trade. Why is the West rich? If you can't answer that question without the obligatory "by exploiting the rest of the world" then I'm not really interested in your response. For all your patronising remarks to others about being confused and not understanding, you yourself have shown yourself to be lacking when it comes to understanding how an economy actually works.
    No offence, but this would seem to suggest that you don't know much about the developing world, or haven't spent any significant time there.

    I have to laugh at this. The best you can come with up is a cheap ad hominem after complaining in other in another thread about a lack of substantive discussion. What were you hoping to achieve with this remark? For what it's worth, I've been in plenty of developing countries, not that it's of any relevance. Can you tell me what you attribute China and Brazil's growth to, to pick two examples? Do you acknowledge that the average living standards in these countries has increased in recent years?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Expanding more on my previous posts, relating to empiricism of 'Libertarian economics' (which I've defined before, as free market with no regulation or central bank, though that's open to change in definition):

    All sweeping claims that "capitalism solves this" or "the free market solves that" all depend upon the premise that the theories backing Libertarian economics have been empirically shown to hold up in practice.

    As I've said a lot before, it is the difference between "the free market does solve that" and "the free market might solve that", which is a very important distinction.

    Basically, people are stating things as a certainty that they can not logically state are certain; this doesn't invalidate what they say, but if people don't qualify their statements with "might" and highlight the uncertainty (and that they are discussing theory), then it more easily leads to a black/white ideological discussion.


    If a level of uncertainty is added to these statements, it opens them up to being challenged by looking at past economies which have had similar components to Libertarian economics (even if those past economies did not implement the whole of the components associated with Libertarian economics).

    It also opens up the arguments to being challenged by pragmatic arguments, looking at the logical conclusion of implementing them in practice, and instead of people saying "capitalism solves that" and that being an argument, they have to provide greater documentation and proof showing that to back it up.

    That would be a more empirical and interesting discussion, because people could use actual historical events and hard-research to back up their points, and ideological statements could not be arguments in themselves, because the burden of proof would be on you to back those statements up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Correlation does not imply causation; back that up with something more solid (an article, anything).

    There can be any number of reasons not related to economic freedom, why certain countries have more children in the workforce.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Soldie wrote: »
    The best you can come with up is a cheap ad hominem after complaining in other in another thread about a lack of substantive discussion.

    The best I can come up with? There was a lot more in my post, and the one above, feel free.

    And, that wasn't an attack, that was a question. From the time I've spent in the developing world, I've always been struck by how small the "middle class" is and how privileged, by comparison to the grinding poverty that defines these countries. To be honest, the term "middle class" is pretty much meaningless.

    Some of my best friend are middle-class Africans, they live behind barbed wire and electric fences, with armed private security guards at their gates. Outside their gates there's a whole mass of people living in absolute destitution.

    You can have a great life as part of the "middle class" elite, but there's a constant risk of robbery, carjacking, burglary. To be honest, it's always struck me as very consistent with how I'd imagine a libertarian society to look like.

    Went back to Kenya for a month last year after a little while away, they've got a boom, massive growth and property bubble going on at the moment - some of my friends are getting very rich indeed, but conditions for the rest of society haven't changed one iota - there's still famine.

    A 5% growth rate doesn't mean much if it's all going in to the pocket of a tiny segment of society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    SupaNova wrote: »
    I get genuinely excited when someone claims they can show Libertarianism be more full of holes than Swiss cheese. I was left disappointed though, as said poster starting singing from the usual anti-libertarian hymsheet, in doing so exposing his/her own ignorance or dishonesty, while chalking up unfounded victories for government intervention.

    Snap. I too get genuinely excited when someone puts forward claims in the OP that those who poke holes in Libertarianism are exposing their own ignorance or dishonesty.smile.gif
    Anyhoo to the rest of the OP.

    It's interesting that you've used selective quotes from Sachs and Krugman to back up the Libertarian position of completely free markets when they are in fact diametrically opposed to the ideology.

    They are both well known for being against Libertarianism policies:
    no child labour laws, unfettered and unregulated capitalism, low or no corporate taxation, ending all foreign aid, etc.

    However, my reading of their views on this is that they are not against any forms of globalisation that allow foreign companies to manufacture abroad, but of course aiming for or working towards a strict regulatory framework that seeks to protect workers rights, environmental rights and so on and extracts high taxation from corporate interests.

    They took a pragmatic view about it, that globalisation as it exists currently is exploitative, but in some cases is at least better than starvation. Not exactly cause for celebration or for claiming vindication.

    They're not in any way endorsing these practices, nor in my view do they see them as evidence that unfettered unregulated Libertarian policies would work or eventually solve these problems of poverty and inequality.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Okey, that establishes a (pretty definite) link between poverty and child labour, and that economic growth (with associated increase in wages for the poor) is the gradual solution to that.

    The term 'economic freedom' is not explicitly defined though (from reading up on it there are competing definitions), and it is not a precursor to the economic growth needed to reduce child labour (although it may be one path to that).


    On (very brief) reading, the topic of child labour is a lot more complex than it seems when looked at pragmatically; it is immoral, but it's something that has to be approached very carefully by the looks of it.

    Blanket-banning of child labour in developing countries, where those children are from an overly poor background, can arguably put them into a worse situation (there's evidence of this in the past, where they had to resort to more desperate and harmful attempts to earn money, out of circumstances).

    Bringing poor families out of poverty through economic development is the way to solve that, but it's an unavoidably slow process (and I'm not sure at the moment where I stand, on a lot of issues with this topic).


Advertisement