Holes in my bucket! Feudalism and Child Labor?

SupaNova

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?

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.

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

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

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...

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.

benway

Johan Norberg wrote:

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.

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Whataboutery

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.
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.

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).

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

the topic of child labour is a lot more complex than it seems when looked at pragmatically; it is immoral...

Immoral? How so? When I was younger, my father would occasionally keep me from school and let me help him make his deliveries around Dublin in his van. Was this immoral from your point of view? What about farm kids mucking in and doing their bit around the fields? This is par for the course even nowadays from what I understand.

Granted, I wasn't sewing Nikes for forty hours a week but would you say child labour is always immoral?

benway

This post had been deleted.

Neoclassical economists are always going to view things in terms of growth, because that's all they're trained to do. An economic historian who doesn't accept that these laws were part of the process of redrawing the relationship between capital and labour doesn't deserve the name.

Obviously bargaining power and organised resistance had probably more influence than the legislation itself, which which merely formally announced that the battles had been won. I wouldn't disregard neoclassical explanations entirely, either, but you can get a more thorough, balanced overview here:

http://www.amazon.com/International-Labor-Standards-History-ebook/dp/images/B000RMS06C

Permabear wrote: »

However, many on the left are routinely unwilling to accept that the countries with the highest rates of economic freedom also have the fewest numbers of children in the workforce. Almost all countries with low economic freedom rankings have high percentages of working children. Therefore, it would seem that if one is actually serious about eliminating child labor (rather than just carping on about capitalist exploitation in this vaguely Marxist manner), maximizing economic freedom is a good place to begin.

It's also clear that countries with low inequality, per UNDP figures, tend to have very few children in the workplace figures, while those with high inequality do. And the correlation between market freedom and equality is a weak one.

Which would suggest that redistribution, free education, healthcare, specifically targeted welfare measures, a substantial minimum wage, strong employee's rights, etc., are in fact what's needed.

If we're going to take such blunt statistical measures at face value.

Valmont wrote: »

occasionally keep me from school

This. If you'd been out of school entirely, what would it have done for your prospects?

And the fact that children are more easily exploited by unscrupulous parents and/or employers, although many child workers are orphans in the first place.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

Immoral? How so? When I was younger, my father would occasionally keep me from school and let me help him make his deliveries around Dublin in his van. Was this immoral from your point of view? What about farm kids mucking in and doing their bit around the fields? This is par for the course even nowadays from what I understand.

Granted, I wasn't sewing Nikes for forty hours a week but would you say child labour is always immoral?

The definition of child labour commonly excludes minor work with family business; there are probably cases where it (child labour) isn't immoral, but generally speaking it is.

Suryavarman

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

Firstly, there is no such thing as "libertarian economics". People from many different economic schools of thought have considered themselves libertarians despite having different views on economics. While all would agree that free markets work, they disagree on the extent to which they work. Also, I don't think any of those schools actually advocate abolishing the central bank. While nearly all Austrian economists do want to abolish the central bank, Austrian economics itself does not.

Secondly, both I and the other libertarians on this forum have often held up many western countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as examples of what a libertarian economy would resemble. Modern Singapore and Hong Kong have also been mentioned as examples. There are also various places around the world where there are examples of how a libertarian economy could work, from the private provision of education to the masses in third world countries to the abolition of farm subsidies in New Zealand to companies voluntarily having their products tested for safety by Underwriters Laboratory.

Even leaving aside successes of libertarianism it's much easier to point out the abysmal failures of government. It's not exactly utopian to argue that going back to when a failed government policy was enacted and going with more freedom instead of more government control might have been a better policy. It's clear to everyone that the status quo isn't working but yet anyone that proposes more freedom is shouted down and ridiculed as the "pragmatists" discuss about what the Government should do to fix the problem. Any time a libertarian proposes a libertarian solution to a problem they are immediately reminded by somebody of how government "fixed" a problem, while at the same time that somebody ignores that the market was already solving that problem. Then it is the libertarian that is accused of being intellectually dishonest, dogmatic, utopian, evil, greedy and/or heartless. Maybe it's time to drop the name calling and leave the talk about Charles Dickens novels to the literature forum and start discussing libertarianism without all the hyperbole.*

*Just to note, that final paragraph isn't directed straight at you or your post KyussBishop but is just a general statement

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

What, like China?

http://www.clb.org.hk/en/files/share/File/general/Child_labour_report_1.pdf

Growth is part of the equation, but it's not the whole solution. That's, regulated, sustainable growth.

Permabear wrote:

Otherwise, we get situations such as described in the OP, where 50,000 children were forced out of factories and back onto the streets to become prostitutes, scavengers, and hustlers.

Bit Dickensian there, no? I like that you've cherry picked one sentence from a 400 page report and ignored the rest, also.

Valmont

benway wrote: »

Bit Dickensian there, no? I like that you've cherry picked one sentence from a 400 page report and ignored the rest, also.

Dickensian? The UNICEF report itself said that the children were now breaking rocks, rolling cigarettes, and engaging in prostitution!

benway

The UNICEF report also said:

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.

But some of you don't seem overly concerned about that bit, or any of the rest of it.

KyussBishop

Suryavarman wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Alright, "Libertarian economics" is more a catch-all term than having an absolute definition, but my principal arguments behind it still stand:
Libertarian supporters themselves contend that a truly free market has not been tried (i.e. not been empirically tested), and that this is an essential component of Libertarianism.

It would help more if individual posters outlined their specific economic views though, instead of having to rely on that catch-all term.

Suryavarman wrote:

Secondly, both I and the other libertarians on this forum have often held up many western countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as examples of what a libertarian economy would resemble. Modern Singapore and Hong Kong have also been mentioned as examples. There are also various places around the world where there are examples of how a libertarian economy could work, from the private provision of education to the masses in third world countries to the abolition of farm subsidies in New Zealand to companies voluntarily having their products tested for safety by Underwriters Laboratory.

Many of those are partial examples of the implementation of components of Libertarian economics (lets say that means "Libertarian-compatible economics"); are any of those (e.g. Singapore or Hong Kong) a complete example of a desired Libertarian economic system, or are they all incomplete in some way?

If any of them are an ideal implementation of economics for a Libertarian government, they will be very useful in the discussion, for sake of research and examination.

Suryavarman wrote:

Even leaving aside successes of libertarianism it's much easier to point out the abysmal failures of government. It's not exactly utopian to argue that going back to when a failed government policy was enacted and going with more freedom instead of more government control might have been a better policy. It's clear to everyone that the status quo isn't working but yet anyone that proposes more freedom is shouted down and ridiculed as the "pragmatists" discuss about what the Government should do to fix the problem. Any time a libertarian proposes a libertarian solution to a problem they are immediately reminded by somebody of how government "fixed" a problem, while at the same time that somebody ignores that the market was already solving that problem. Then it is the libertarian that is accused of being intellectually dishonest, dogmatic, utopian, evil, greedy and/or heartless. Maybe it's time to drop the name calling and leave the talk about Charles Dickens novels to the literature forum and start discussing libertarianism without all the hyperbole.

Okey, I agree with this generally and yes, I'd like the discussion to take a much more dispassionate/rational look at Libertarianism, while avoiding the ideological arguments it's gotten trapped in a lot lately.

One thing I do disagree with a bit though, is that I don't think many people are against more economic Libertarianism, people just are against absolute economic Libertarianism.

Permabear wrote:

Most economists today accept that economic liberalization is a necessary precursor to economic growth. The case of India is just one example. Until the mid-1970s, India had one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world. Over the past three and a half decades, the economy has been opened up to private sector entrepreneurship and foreign investment to an unprecedented degree, and has seen robust sustained growth rates of between 6 and 9 percent annually as a consequence. A recent report by Edelweiss Capital anticipates that India's GDP will quadruple by 2020.

Okey, I agree with that generally and free markets are a very good economic setup for economic growth; too much regulation can be harmful, though taking it to the other extreme and having little to no regulation is also harmful.
A balance, with minimal regulation where absolutely necessary is (in my opinion) the best way; the details of such regulation are a big topic in themselves.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Interesting, though I don't think both sides are mutually exclusive; in a cold-rational sense, child labour does provide countries with an unfair advantage competitively, when it comes to cheap labour.

It's an interesting situation, where consumers in developed nations have the advantage of these cheap goods, at the expense of a well-maintained manufacturing industry and associated jobs; it's seems in the interest of the general population of a developed country, not only to oppose child labour on moral grounds, but also exploitative cheap labour in general where it makes them uncompetitive and costs them jobs.

I don't think there's a way to completely resolve that short term; customers demanding that producers, e.g. Apple, ensure these workers get a fair wage and have decent rights (despite the increase in price), is a start though (and may alleviate child labour, with increased wages of parents).

A blanket-ban isn't the way to go, but public awareness of the issue and customers pressuring the producers/corporations to improve the workers lot, does seem better; as the situation improves, it can be gradually more strictly controlled, until a ban can then be enforced.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

benway wrote: »

The UNICEF report also said:

But some of you don't seem overly concerned about that bit, or any of the rest of it.

You can call for "an immediate end" all you want but it isn't going to happen, as the Child Deterrence Act proved. There is no quick "income generation measure" (deliciously vague) that can magic away these problems -- unless you have a proposal?

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

Libertarian supporters themselves contend that a truly free market has not been tried (i.e. not been empirically tested)

An entire economic system imposed (who will do the imposing?) on society cannot be empirically tested. The very idea doesn't make any sense -- are you aware of the debate surrounding historicism? In short, the issue is more complex than simply "testing libertarian economics".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

benway wrote: »

The UNICEF report also said:

But some of you don't seem overly concerned about that bit, or any of the rest of it.

Isn't this a strawman argument? The current discussion is centred around the morality or necessity of child labour, or otherwise. Isn't taking a swipe at people because they don't support government funded social programs irrelevent? Or at least, why haven't you made it relevent?

I ask because on this thread and the other one you were making a lot of noise about proper engagment. Strawmen arguments don't have a role in proper engagement. I think that if you're going to insist that people engage properly that you have a responsibility to do so too; also, "leading from the front" is obviously the best way to achieve the kind of intellectual culture you seemingly desire for the forum.

I know that's OT but this theory forum is in a deep enough rut at the moment and it's worth having a mini "meta-discussion" about it.

Suryavarman

KyussBishop wrote: »

Alright, "Libertarian economics" is more a catch-all term than having an absolute definition, but my principal arguments behind it still stand:
Libertarian supporters themselves contend that a truly free market has not been tried (i.e. not been empirically tested), and that this is an essential component of Libertarianism.

Whilst libertarians generally contend that a truly free market has not been tried in the past, this shouldn't be considered a cop out. In general we don't completely reject peoples attempts to engage us on the state of 19th century America's economy and we are quite open to criticisms of that system. The problem is when people try to compare our standard of living to the standard of living back then instead of comparing to other countries of the period or what the standard of living was like in say 1890 compared to 1840. That is why these threads eventually turn into mud slinging matches. It's also worth debating why libertarians don't think these were true free markets and what difference it makes.

It would help more if individual posters outlined their specific economic views though, instead of having to rely on that catch-all term.

Personally I believe that for the most part there is no need for any regulation. I think that the environment could be preserved by the market if the government were to enforce private property rights. If that fails and the market can't protect the environment adequately then I am not against government enacting environmental regulation. I think that the only services the Government should be providing are the courts, a police force and a defence force (although I'm not sure Ireland needs a defence force). The reason I support the government providing these services is that I think that the government could provide them better than the private sector. I do support allowing areas to secede from a nation and trying to provide these services privately though.

Many of those are partial examples of the implementation of components of Libertarian economics (lets say that means "Libertarian-compatible economics"); are any of those (e.g. Singapore or Hong Kong) a complete example of a desired Libertarian economic system, or are they all incomplete in some way?

If any of them are an ideal implementation of economics for a Libertarian government, they will be very useful in the discussion, for sake of research and examination.

They are all incomplete although I do think it is worth debating whether they would be an improvement over what we currently have in Ireland.

Okey, I agree with this generally and yes, I'd like the discussion to take a much more dispassionate/rational look at Libertarianism, while avoiding the ideological arguments it's gotten trapped in a lot lately.

One thing I do disagree with a bit though, is that I don't think many people are against more economic Libertarianism, people just are against absolute economic Libertarianism.

I do think that a lot of people are fundamentally opposed to more libertarianism. It wasn't long ago that I was one of them.

Okey, I agree with that generally and free markets are a very good economic setup for economic growth; too much regulation can be harmful, though taking it to the other extreme and having little to no regulation is also harmful.
A balance, with minimal regulation where absolutely necessary is (in my opinion) the best way; the details of such regulation are a big topic in themselves.

Could you give a general overview of what kind of regulation you would support?

Interesting, though I don't think both sides are mutually exclusive; in a cold-rational sense, child labour does provide countries with an unfair advantage competitively, when it comes to cheap labour.

It's an interesting situation, where consumers in developed nations have the advantage of these cheap goods, at the expense of a well-maintained manufacturing industry and associated jobs; it's seems in the interest of the general population of a developed country, not only to oppose child labour on moral grounds, but also exploitative cheap labour in general where it makes them uncompetitive and costs them jobs.

It gives these countries an unfair advantage in some industries. It doesn't give them an advantage in everything as that is impossible. The third world can't possibly produce everything. First world countries are always going to have a comparative advantage in producing something.

benway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Isn't this a strawman argument? The current discussion is centred around the morality or necessity of child labour, or otherwise. Isn't taking a swipe at people because they don't support government funded social programs irrelevent? Or at least, why haven't you made it relevent?

What? How is that a strawman argument? I'm just pointing out that one sentence out of that UNICEF Report is being bandied about as gospel, but a whole raft of proposals contained in it are being ignored completely, presumably because they don't fit the ideologically defined point that people are going to make, irrespective of what anyone else says. The report gives an expert opinion on a proposed solution to the problem of child labour, it couldn't be more relevant.

And I repeat, what UNICEF propose is to immediately ban child labour, world wide, supplemented primarily by:

"Urgent support for education, so that children may acquire the knowledge and skills that can enable them to improve their lives." Obvious, maybe, but the whole problem with sweatshop labour is that it's unsustainable. The kid who starts off sewing shoes at age 5 isn't going to be able to do much else when he/she reaches 20. The amount of money he/she earns isn't going to lift him or her into the middle class.

Far from lifting developing countries out of poverty, this kind of subsistence work is a poverty trap in its own right. This is why I object to child labour, as stated in a previous post, and I don't really feel the need to take it much further than that.

Obviously, to some of us, it would be the role of government to make educational resources available to slum kids, who wouldn't have the means to access it otherwise.

The report "also stresses the need for basic services, social development strategies, income-generation measures and legal protection for children, their families and communities." More market distorting state intervention, in other words.

Valmont wrote: »

There is no quick "income generation measure" (deliciously vague) that can magic away these problems -- unless you have a proposal?

I have one. Massive redistribution and punitive taxes on the ultra wealthy in these countries, accompanied by a blanket ban on removing funds, above a certain level from the country.

It's not that many developing countries are poor, it's more that they're so horribly unequal, especially post-colonial states ... nations of 30 billionaires and 30 million paupers.

And no, I would have not even the slightest qualm about doing this, virtually without exception of these guys accumulated their wealth through corruption, land grabbing and exploitation, although I've dealt with the philosophical basis >here< if that tickles your fancy. If even a quarter of the stolen land and resources in a country like Kenya could be recouped, it'd change millions of lives for the better.

Unrealistic? Maybe. But no more unrealistic than thinking that economic growth in itself will inevitably lead to an end to child labour, or a massive reduction in poverty, for that matter.

Valmont wrote: »

The very idea doesn't make any sense -- are you aware of the debate surrounding historicism? In short, the issue is more complex than simply "testing libertarian economics".

Which debate is this? I thought that The Poverty of Historicism very effectively refutes Marx's theory of history, but that's about all it does. It also raises serious question marks over Hayek's approach to spontaneous order and cultural evolution, if I remember correctly, been a quite while since I've read it.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

If it doesn't affect their development (educational, social or otherwise), then sure, that'd be acceptable. I don't have a hard-set definition of child labour to be honest; I'm only just reading up on the topic a little now.

Valmont wrote: »

An entire economic system imposed (who will do the imposing?) on society cannot be empirically tested. The very idea doesn't make any sense -- are you aware of the debate surrounding historicism? In short, the issue is more complex than simply "testing libertarian economics".

It gives you solid data with which to empirically examine the economic system, and the problems therein.

The claim that economics can not be empirically tested would actually bolster my wider arguments; you can not claim with certainty that "free markets will solve 'x', 'y'", or that any particular Libertarian economic system will "work as advertised".

So, this opens up wider comparisons of components of Libertarian economics to components of past economic systems; most particularly, components of the economic systems which western countries have implemented in the last 30 years (which is where I see the "oh but that was not a true free market" argument a lot, because of how much the economic crisis impacts its credibility).

Permabear wrote:

What do you mean by "unfair advantage"? Who determines which labor market advantages are fair and which are unfair? By the standards of some theocratic Middle Eastern nations, we in the West have an "unfair" advantage because we "allow" women to work. Maybe we should shuttle women back into the kitchen so as to be on a level playing field with our Muslim brethren.

If country 'A' uses child labour, and as a result is more competitive than country 'B', which does not, then that is an unfair advantage.

Most countries in the world have principally agreed child labour is wrong, so that anyway, is not an example of some countries imposing their morals on others.

Permabear wrote:

Have you asked Western consumers whether they would be willing to give up their cheap electronics and cheap clothes? A friend recently was enthusing about the cheap skirt she bought in Penney's for €10, along with €2 T-shirts for her daughter. Naturally, all had been manufactured in Asia. How much would the same skirt and T-shirts have cost if manufactured by Western unionized labor?

Western nations are not uncompetitive because some children work in the Third World. They are uncompetitive because they have priced themselves out of the market with extravagant minimum wages and organized labor. As such, we have high rates of unemployment, especially among young people, and soaring levels of debt.

How many western consumers even know the stuff they are buying is produced using child labour or other unfair working conditions?

If every product had to advertise that it was produced in these conditions, and there were competing (but more expensive) products advertising they do not, what do you think people would choose?

Remember also, that the massive majority of the profits go to the company selling the product, so mandating certain minimum working and pay conditions, actually would not affect the price that much.

Permabear wrote:

Really? I don't know anyone who has been demanding that Apple increase the price of iPhones and iPads. Do you?

Now, can you please define this extremely slippery notion of a "fair wage"? By local standards, Foxconn, which manufactures components for many technology companies, including Apple, pays significantly in excess of the average wage. How much should it pay in order to be "fair"?

Err, a lot of people are demanding that Apple examine the peoples working conditions, yes; it's rather a big (and growing) PR issue for them at the moment.

A fair wage would take into account the cost of gaining and maintaining an acceptable standard of living in a country, and various other factors; average wage is meaningless if the majority of people in a country get shít pay.

Suryavarman wrote:

Whilst libertarians generally contend that a truly free market has not been tried in the past, this shouldn't be considered a cop out. In general we don't completely reject peoples attempts to engage us on the state of 19th century America's economy and we are quite open to criticisms of that system. The problem is when people try to compare our standard of living to the standard of living back then instead of comparing to other countries of the period or what the standard of living was like in say 1890 compared to 1840. That is why these threads eventually turn into mud slinging matches. It's also worth debating why libertarians don't think these were true free markets and what difference it makes.

Oh no, not a cop out in any way; a lot of the time that problems exposed by the current economic crisis are put forward though, there is often that selective argument "but it wasn't a true free market".

Suryavarman wrote:

Personally I believe that for the most part there is no need for any regulation. I think that the environment could be preserved by the market if the government were to enforce private property rights. If that fails and the market can't protect the environment adequately then I am not against government enacting environmental regulation. I think that the only services the Government should be providing are the courts, a police force and a defence force (although I'm not sure Ireland needs a defence force). The reason I support the government providing these services is that I think that the government could provide them better than the private sector. I do support allowing areas to secede from a nation and trying to provide these services privately though.

Do you think any economic regulation is required to mitigate harmful market bubbles? Or to prevent (rather than to deter or punish after the fact) fraud or mismanagement by banks or people in other areas of the financial market?

In general, what's your view on economic regulation? (as that seems to be the big sticking point for a lot of problems in Libertarianism)

Suryavarman wrote:

Could you give a general overview of what kind of regulation you would support?

Well I'm still learning a lot about economics at the moment, and gaining a better understanding of stuff, but I think regulation to enforce near-complete transparency in the markets would be a good idea.
A public record of every transaction made, and much of the internal workings of banks, would give an extremely useful data set for detecting and preventing fraud.

Mandatory credit risk checks before giving out loans, and making it illegal to reclassify risk on loans, perhaps splitting the banking market into full-reserve banks and more risky investment banks (or at least, some way of giving customers control on how much risk their money is placed in).

I'm still learning a lot of basic stuff when it comes to economics (primarily surrounding economic crisis), but these are some things that re-occur to me, off the top of my head. Benway I think could provide a lot of better examples, through his knowledge of problems from the economic crisis.

Suryavarman wrote:

It gives these countries an unfair advantage in some industries. It doesn't give them an advantage in everything as that is impossible. The third world can't possibly produce everything. First world countries are always going to have a comparative advantage in producing something.

Ya I agree; there's nothing wrong with them having some advantage, so long as it's ethical (and before the definition of ethical gets called into question, I'm primarily talking about child labour, which almost all countries agree is wrong).

KyussBishop

Where is a good link to that UNICEF report btw? Don't immediately see it on first page.

benway

KyussBishop wrote: »

Where is a good link to that UNICEF report btw? Don't immediately see it on first page.

No link was provided.

http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/download.htm

KyussBishop

Cheers; yes to be honest, I think economic equality, more than growth, is the important factor here.
Growth alone won't do much if people are kept in crippling poverty, so much of the initial views in my posts relating to solving child labour, are a bit simplistic.