Holes in my bucket! Feudalism and Child Labor?

SupaNova

benway wrote: »

Patrick M. Emerson and André Portela Souza - Is There a Child Labor Trap? Inter-generational Persistence of Child Labor in Brazil

Ok this is the last paper I am going to read, if you read one and it meets some minimum standards that I have asked for let me know, none so far have backed up the claims made.

From the paper, the data does show parents who were classified as child laborers are more likely to have children that will be classified as child laborers than parents that weren't. This is a far cry from the claim that child labor condemns one to an endless cycle of child labor in fact the study even gives data that shows child labor has been in decline, and then there is absolutely nothing in the study regarding multinationals setting up factories and creating supposed perpetuating poverty:
"Note that 67.8 percent of children who are not child laborers have fathers who were (and 32.7 percent have mothers who were). This reflects the fact that the child labor market participation rates in Brazil have been falling through time since at least 1950."

benway

Ok, believe what you want, there's plenty more where that came from. I don't want to post paywalled sources, plus I'm happy to accept the authors' findings, the evidence in that paper is stronger on the point that adult earnings are significantly reduced by child labour - it was about a poverty trap rather than a child labour trap. More here, including the multiple equilibria models, which generally show a poverty trap equilibrium and one where raising earnings above a certain level causes take-off to a higher level equilibrium, with little child labour, etc., etc. Thing is, I'm only stating a consensus viewpoint - UNICEF, the ILO and UNDP, and virtually any development NGO would agree with me on this. If you want to post evidence going the other way, then have at it.

Child labour is a neglected element of the poverty trap – part of the “Faustian bargain” poor people are forced to make in order to achieve a degree of immediate security. It is both a result of poverty and a way of perpetuating it. Especially in its worst forms, it dehumanizes children, reducing them to an economic asset, which in turn fuels spiralling population growth among countries least able to cope. By turning a blind eye to abuse of young workers, it impoverishes and even destroys the human capital that is necessary for the economy to grow in the future

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc95/pdf/rep-i-b.pdf

I am still wondering where the money is going to come from to develop domestic industry, and the local economies, where a vast amount of the working population are earning subsistence level wages, or even below, and where Western capital investment has historically tended to take the form of short-term flows rather than sustainable long-term investment?

SupaNova wrote: »

It is increased production that increases wages and phases out child labor

SupaNova wrote: »

Do you understand why such a conclusion is bad if other causal factors are ignored?

Kinda a crushing irony here, no?

Channel Zero

SupaNova wrote: »

Your case that it was unions and minimum wage laws is no stronger than the claim it was the ending of the gold standard that ushered in a slower era of growth since 1970.

Ok. Well, you're still choosing to ignore established history then. The established history of the large influence of unions and government legislation on improving wages and alleviating conditions such as child labour. Simple as that.

You can't understand, well that's obvious.

I didn't fully understand your points due to your wording. Less rolleyes and more clarity would have helped.

Have you read anything yet?

Do you understand the stats?

Have you read the source material?

Yes, yes and yes.

If so are conclusions of the following kind:
Study finds an increase in number of "sweatshops" in a country and there is no growth, so study concludes therefore "sweatshops" don't lead to growth.

Again, this is hard to understand due to your wording. Is this a question? If you re-word it, maybe i can try to answer it. You seem to be refuting some conclusions on links based maybe on ignoring of other "causal" factors. I get that much. I think..

Do you understand why such a conclusion is bad if other causal factors are ignored? This is an extremely basic point. Do they contain theory as to why it was the welfare state and why it was not something else?

Again, it's been established beyond doubt; it's a historical fact that the welfare state has alleviated poverty greatly.
You are now asking me if i understand "why such a conclusion is bad if other causal factors are ignored". What are these other causal factors that have been ignored and how would they disprove the statement that the introduction of the welfare has alleviated poverty?
Possibly this is for another thread though.