America is divided over major efforts to rewrite child labor laws(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
America is divided over major efforts to rewrite child labor laws
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/31/us-child-labor-laws-state-bills/
142 comments
Both sides journalism prevents the headline from being “Republicans seek to weaken laws against child labor”
I'd accept "Republicans continue crusade against childhood innocence"
While I'll agree that a lot of their aims are definitely nefarious, I think the childhood innocence thing is a modern invention. Good intentions, but maybe misguided.
Kids need chores, responsibilities, struggles etc. Coddling kids until they are 18 and then throwing them into the world with 0 life experience is just setting them up for failure. I had a paper route for a couple years when I was 12 and got a job at McDonalds when I was 14.
A lot of this can be learned in extracurricular sports as well, but that's obviously not for everyone. Two a day football practices in summer were harder than any job I've ever had but no one says sports are bad for kids. I don't really see the difference, plus, you don't get paid for sports.
Of course I'm not suggesting kids should be working in the coal mines, but I don't see anything wrong with summer or weekend jobs, working on the family farm, etc. It's good for them and a part of learning how to be an independent adult. Kids shouldn't be infantalized and sheltered through college.
Kids need chores, responsibilities, struggles etc. Coddling kids until they are 18 and then throwing them into the world with 0 life experience is just setting them up for failure. I had a paper route for a couple years when I was 12 and got a job at McDonalds when I was 14.
A lot of this can be learned in extracurricular sports as well, but that's obviously not for everyone. Two a day football practices in summer were harder than any job I've ever had but no one says sports are bad for kids. I don't really see the difference, plus, you don't get paid for sports.
Of course I'm not suggesting kids should be working in the coal mines, but I don't see anything wrong with summer or weekend jobs, working on the family farm, etc. It's good for them and a part of learning how to be an independent adult. Kids shouldn't be infantalized and sheltered through college.
Agreed to an extent, it's ok for high school students to go get some work experience, I did when I was that age. Giving humans a window in their lives where they can focus purely on capturing a portion of ever expanding human knowledge, and, to be honest, hang out a bit, is a good thing in my opinion though.
That said, lets not lose sight of what's going on here, the DoL has been trying to crack down on 13yo kids in meat packing plants. If this is the line that we're trying to push the overton window past, I want no part of it.
That said, lets not lose sight of what's going on here, the DoL has been trying to crack down on 13yo kids in meat packing plants. If this is the line that we're trying to push the overton window past, I want no part of it.
Those are mostly unaccompanied minors who have no other options. If you want to allow them to live here (as many leftists do), how should they survive?
> Dreier estimates that some 250,000 children have crossed into the U.S. without their parents in the last two years, and that the majority of them wind up working full-time jobs.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173697113/immigrant-child-la...
> Dreier estimates that some 250,000 children have crossed into the U.S. without their parents in the last two years, and that the majority of them wind up working full-time jobs.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173697113/immigrant-child-la...
The people who own those plants employing them are not "leftists", quit projecting biases.
Hah, bias. Did you somehow miss the comments above?
> Republicans seek to weaken laws against child labor
> Republicans continue crusade against childhood innocence
There's a lot of bias there. And if those claims were true (spoiler: they aren't, for counterexample, according to the article, Republican legislatures in Texas and Montana have strengthened laws, the Democrat legislature in New Jersey weakened them, and the Virginia state legislature unanimously approved increasing penalties), they'd imply Democrats don't want these unaccompanied minors to work.
Even though this is not, in fact, a partisan issue, one thing is clear. There are many leftists in this discussion who don't want these unaccompanied minors to work. So how do you all expect them to survive?
> Republicans seek to weaken laws against child labor
> Republicans continue crusade against childhood innocence
There's a lot of bias there. And if those claims were true (spoiler: they aren't, for counterexample, according to the article, Republican legislatures in Texas and Montana have strengthened laws, the Democrat legislature in New Jersey weakened them, and the Virginia state legislature unanimously approved increasing penalties), they'd imply Democrats don't want these unaccompanied minors to work.
Even though this is not, in fact, a partisan issue, one thing is clear. There are many leftists in this discussion who don't want these unaccompanied minors to work. So how do you all expect them to survive?
I dunno about blanket statements like that. It's situational, and sometimes up to nature rather than nurture.
To outside observers, I was a fairly spoiled kid. I didn't have any jobs in high school, and I had a light load of chores. It's not that my parents were particularly wealthy, but I pushed back hard and was generally difficult with them, for the sake of preserving my study time, my free time, and getting a good night's sleep.
But it paid off. I got a scholarship, and went to a state university. Classes started a few days after I turned eighteen. I went out and got a part-time job immediately to pay for living expenses. I worked hard and did my job well, graduated, and landed a job that paid better than my parents.
From the get-go, I was a serious worker who put everything I had into the job while I was on the clock. I'm still that way today, and I find that people are either like that or they aren't. I find there's no correlation between the people who had jobs as teens and how serious, responsible, and industrious they are.
To outside observers, I was a fairly spoiled kid. I didn't have any jobs in high school, and I had a light load of chores. It's not that my parents were particularly wealthy, but I pushed back hard and was generally difficult with them, for the sake of preserving my study time, my free time, and getting a good night's sleep.
But it paid off. I got a scholarship, and went to a state university. Classes started a few days after I turned eighteen. I went out and got a part-time job immediately to pay for living expenses. I worked hard and did my job well, graduated, and landed a job that paid better than my parents.
From the get-go, I was a serious worker who put everything I had into the job while I was on the clock. I'm still that way today, and I find that people are either like that or they aren't. I find there's no correlation between the people who had jobs as teens and how serious, responsible, and industrious they are.
And I hate to make blanket statements about generational stuff, but the incoming teenage generation grew up with social media and covid. These kids are extremely sheltered from my experience. I've got two neighbor kids that I talk to once in a while who are 10 and 12. They're squishy fat babies with 0 social skills and throw tantrums when they don't have their iPads. I invite them and their mom over when I have fires. They play games on their phones and can't make eye contact with me or have a conversation. I've lived across the street from a park for two years now and haven't seen any kids there ever. Not once.
This is all very hand wavey but I'm worried about this new digital generation. I'm now the person I never thought I'd be saying this, but these kids are soft.
This is all very hand wavey but I'm worried about this new digital generation. I'm now the person I never thought I'd be saying this, but these kids are soft.
Grew up with social media and Covid. So… they grew up seeing their friends turned inside out from social pressures we never had to deal with and in the meantime they watched their grandparents and other members of older generations die of a disease prematurely while being physically isolated for an extended period of their formative years. In the meantime when back in class, they get periodic drills simulating someone trying to kill them, their friends, and their teachers en masse.
"Soft" is not how I'd describe that experience.
"Soft" is not how I'd describe that experience.
The world exists the way that it is regardless of how you would like it to be. The very idea that somehow watching older family members die from disease or illness is somehow unique to them is utterly ridiculous. Even WITH covid, the outcomes were pretty good. They didn't have to worry about dying from measles or being crippled with polio, and medical outcomes are much better nowadays across the board. And the periodic drills comparison is also ridiculous. Kids for generations in the US have been taught to hide underneath their desks in the case of NUCLEAR destruction. Doing it for shooter drills is simply another scare tactic.
Soft is a perfectly fine way to describe them.
Soft is a perfectly fine way to describe them.
> They didn't have to worry about dying from measles or being crippled with polio, and medical outcomes are much better nowadays across the board.
Funny you should mention, measles is back, and worldwide fatalities is on the rise. And are you suggesting that US healthcare has improved in the last couple decades? Antivax efforts have made the possibility of a return of endemic polio possible since folks travel, and it's not extinct. Measles was on its way to extinction in the 1990s, but after Wakefield's fraudulent study and the partisan politicization of disease, a host of diseases we never had to worry about anymore are popping back up again. As child vaccination rates continue to drop, we will see it all again.
The adults by and large have all been vaccinated. The kids however are being treated like guinea pigs in an ideological experiment where the losers are the kids themselves.
And as a child of the 70s and 80s, yes, I personally remember the ever-present threat of nuclear war growing up. I also remember the teen suicide rate being abnormally high due to it. Kinda like the rise we see today. It takes its toll, and doesn't at all mean they're "soft".
Funny you should mention, measles is back, and worldwide fatalities is on the rise. And are you suggesting that US healthcare has improved in the last couple decades? Antivax efforts have made the possibility of a return of endemic polio possible since folks travel, and it's not extinct. Measles was on its way to extinction in the 1990s, but after Wakefield's fraudulent study and the partisan politicization of disease, a host of diseases we never had to worry about anymore are popping back up again. As child vaccination rates continue to drop, we will see it all again.
The adults by and large have all been vaccinated. The kids however are being treated like guinea pigs in an ideological experiment where the losers are the kids themselves.
And as a child of the 70s and 80s, yes, I personally remember the ever-present threat of nuclear war growing up. I also remember the teen suicide rate being abnormally high due to it. Kinda like the rise we see today. It takes its toll, and doesn't at all mean they're "soft".
It does mean that they're soft.
Necessarily.
If you grew up in the 70s and 80s, you likely lived during an era where your parents paid little to no attention to what you were doing on a daily basis. People had children after a childhood of benign neglect and decided that they were going to be their kids' friends and began to hover. They bought into every stupid little bit of propaganda and couldn't let their kids out of earshot. So now they have a bunch of kids who only ever get away from their parental units when they're at school, and they are unsocialized as hell because most hoverparents will take their kids' word over that of their teachers.
They have no internal conflict resolution skills because their parents would jump in to handle the situation. They have little to no socialization skills. They need apps to find dates.
Generations are largely what their parents make them to be, and these kids are the absolute epitome of soft. And they're gonna be real big mad in another 30 years when they don't get anywhere with work because their entitlement continues to outweigh their performance.
Necessarily.
If you grew up in the 70s and 80s, you likely lived during an era where your parents paid little to no attention to what you were doing on a daily basis. People had children after a childhood of benign neglect and decided that they were going to be their kids' friends and began to hover. They bought into every stupid little bit of propaganda and couldn't let their kids out of earshot. So now they have a bunch of kids who only ever get away from their parental units when they're at school, and they are unsocialized as hell because most hoverparents will take their kids' word over that of their teachers.
They have no internal conflict resolution skills because their parents would jump in to handle the situation. They have little to no socialization skills. They need apps to find dates.
Generations are largely what their parents make them to be, and these kids are the absolute epitome of soft. And they're gonna be real big mad in another 30 years when they don't get anywhere with work because their entitlement continues to outweigh their performance.
> I had a paper route for a couple years when I was 12 and got a job at McDonalds when I was 14.
Flipping burgers has always been legal, and remains legal.
> Of course I'm not suggesting kids should be working in the coal mines
From the article, Iowa now allows minors to work in "industrial laundries, light manufacturing, demolition, and roofing". Roofing consistently ranks among the top 10 most dangerous professions in the US, according to the BLS. Industrial laundries deal with heavy machinery and nasty chemicals.
Flipping burgers has always been legal, and remains legal.
> Of course I'm not suggesting kids should be working in the coal mines
From the article, Iowa now allows minors to work in "industrial laundries, light manufacturing, demolition, and roofing". Roofing consistently ranks among the top 10 most dangerous professions in the US, according to the BLS. Industrial laundries deal with heavy machinery and nasty chemicals.
[deleted]
Allowing a 17 year old to work the night shift is a "crusade against childhood innocence"?
You act like that's a bad thing? Journalists are supposed to report the news not their opinions or what they think is the good side and the bad side.
If you want that, just watch Tik Tok or read the opinion columns.
But I actually applaud Washington Post for attempting to be somewhat neutral on this issue. If you actually read the article, the states are simply relaxing laws that were more strict than federal laws.
So the logic would be - if a state follows federal labor laws, are they "exploiting child labor"? Clearly the feds have set laws they feel are reasonble.
I mean, if a child labor law said "Kids can't work at all", then it was changed to "Kids can work up to 10 hours per week", that would be weaking child labor laws. Is that wrong?
If you want that, just watch Tik Tok or read the opinion columns.
But I actually applaud Washington Post for attempting to be somewhat neutral on this issue. If you actually read the article, the states are simply relaxing laws that were more strict than federal laws.
So the logic would be - if a state follows federal labor laws, are they "exploiting child labor"? Clearly the feds have set laws they feel are reasonble.
I mean, if a child labor law said "Kids can't work at all", then it was changed to "Kids can work up to 10 hours per week", that would be weaking child labor laws. Is that wrong?
> If you actually read the article, the states are simply relaxing laws that were more strict than federal laws.
> Clearly the feds have set laws they feel are reasonble
I did read the article. Iowa now allows minors to work in roofing and industrial laundries. If it's true they're aligning with federal laws (doubtful) I'm going to go ahead and say that federal laws about children working in roofing are not currently reasonable, and that Iowa should not have done this if they gave two shits about children.
> if a child labor law said "Kids can't work at all", then it was changed to "Kids can work up to 10 hours per week", that would be weaking child labor laws
Is that what happened though? Be honest. What does the article say?
> Clearly the feds have set laws they feel are reasonble
I did read the article. Iowa now allows minors to work in roofing and industrial laundries. If it's true they're aligning with federal laws (doubtful) I'm going to go ahead and say that federal laws about children working in roofing are not currently reasonable, and that Iowa should not have done this if they gave two shits about children.
> if a child labor law said "Kids can't work at all", then it was changed to "Kids can work up to 10 hours per week", that would be weaking child labor laws
Is that what happened though? Be honest. What does the article say?
Ok, but are you arguing that the media shouldn't report the news objectively, rather they should decide the "good side" and "bad side" and then report their opinion?
I don't want that. I'm an adult. I don't want to know another adult's opinions, I'd like an objective report on the facts. I can make my own decision as to whether it's a problem and if it's is, who I believe is on the "good side" and who is on the "bad side".
But regardless, let's look at one of the issues you raise - Iowa allowing minors to work in roofing and industrial laundry. Annoying, the article doesn't link to the actual law, it rather links to another news article. Yuck.
So let's see what the actual law looks like[1] that the Governor signed:
- 92.8 Under eighteen — prohibited occupations:
- No person under eighteen years of age shall be employed or permitted to work with or without compensation at any of the following work activities or business establishments:
- 14. Roofing operations
- 92.5 Fourteen permitted work activities:
- 12. Laundering.
- 92.6 Fourteen and fifteen — occupations work activities not permitted [big list of prohibited activities involving hazards like machines or chemicals]
Now I'm super confused. The law (as I read it), seems to explicitly ban roofing by minors.
For laundry services, it adds laundry services, which I imagine would involved loading and unloading washers and dryers, which doesn't seems like an overly hazardous activity to me, especially with the section outlawing hazardous activities.
Note the law says "no one under 16 may perform work during school hours". So a fourteen year could be employed in laundry services after school or weekends, so to me that seems like a reasonably limitation. It also prohibits work before 7am and after 9pm and limits it to 28 hours per week for 14 year old (so 8 hours in addition to working Saturday and Sunday).
None of this seems outrageous. Delivering newspapers was a common job for minors. That involved riding or walking a bike early in the morning, which seems more hazardous to me than doing laundry.
[1]https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF5...
I don't want that. I'm an adult. I don't want to know another adult's opinions, I'd like an objective report on the facts. I can make my own decision as to whether it's a problem and if it's is, who I believe is on the "good side" and who is on the "bad side".
But regardless, let's look at one of the issues you raise - Iowa allowing minors to work in roofing and industrial laundry. Annoying, the article doesn't link to the actual law, it rather links to another news article. Yuck.
So let's see what the actual law looks like[1] that the Governor signed:
- 92.8 Under eighteen — prohibited occupations:
- No person under eighteen years of age shall be employed or permitted to work with or without compensation at any of the following work activities or business establishments:
- 14. Roofing operations
- 92.5 Fourteen permitted work activities:
- 12. Laundering.
- 92.6 Fourteen and fifteen — occupations work activities not permitted [big list of prohibited activities involving hazards like machines or chemicals]
Now I'm super confused. The law (as I read it), seems to explicitly ban roofing by minors.
For laundry services, it adds laundry services, which I imagine would involved loading and unloading washers and dryers, which doesn't seems like an overly hazardous activity to me, especially with the section outlawing hazardous activities.
Note the law says "no one under 16 may perform work during school hours". So a fourteen year could be employed in laundry services after school or weekends, so to me that seems like a reasonably limitation. It also prohibits work before 7am and after 9pm and limits it to 28 hours per week for 14 year old (so 8 hours in addition to working Saturday and Sunday).
None of this seems outrageous. Delivering newspapers was a common job for minors. That involved riding or walking a bike early in the morning, which seems more hazardous to me than doing laundry.
[1]https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF5...
Journalists shouldn't strive to show "both sides" regardless of merit.
If one side says it's raining and the other claims it's dry as a bone, "both sides" is irrelevant.
It is the responsibility of a journalist to go open a window and look outside. They don't have to call anyone a liar or an idiot. But they do have to call out which one comports with inarguable facts on the ground as much as possible.
There's the little detail of 14 year olds going to school, working a few hours per day, and… when do they get to take part in extracurriculars? When do they get to do homework? When do they get to study for quizzes and tests? When do they get to work on class projects?
When do they get to relax? Spend time with friends? Play games? Learn things outside the normal curriculum that piques their interest?
Or should they just be constantly on task unless they are asleep? Is this the life we really want for our kids?
If one side says it's raining and the other claims it's dry as a bone, "both sides" is irrelevant.
It is the responsibility of a journalist to go open a window and look outside. They don't have to call anyone a liar or an idiot. But they do have to call out which one comports with inarguable facts on the ground as much as possible.
There's the little detail of 14 year olds going to school, working a few hours per day, and… when do they get to take part in extracurriculars? When do they get to do homework? When do they get to study for quizzes and tests? When do they get to work on class projects?
When do they get to relax? Spend time with friends? Play games? Learn things outside the normal curriculum that piques their interest?
Or should they just be constantly on task unless they are asleep? Is this the life we really want for our kids?
This isn't even really a fairness thing: The headline left out a critical, factual piece of information. "America is divided" leaves out the clear distribution along political lines. It's not likes support for child labor is uniformly and randomly distributed across political or demographic lines on the issue--it is clearly supported by one party and opposed by the other. By leaving this fact out, the headline is softening the blow and providing cover.
> If one side says it's raining and the other claims it's dry as a bone, "both sides" is irrelevant.
That's a terrible example. Nobody is claiming that reporters should be report on undeniably false statements. I don't expect reporters to report on a lunar landing then include a bunch of stuff that the Apollo landing is fake.
But that's not what's happening here, is it?
What you have is reporters reporting on one side of an opinion. Opinions are not facts, they are a subjective judgement of facts. What many reporters do is start with an opinion, then write an article with selective inclusion of facts to support that opinion.
That's garbage reporting. It's not news it's writing an opinion column.
> There's the little detail of 14 year olds going to school, working a few hours per day, and… when do they get to take part in extracurriculars? When do they get to do homework? When do they get to study for quizzes and tests? When do they get to work on class projects?
You realize that work is voluntary right? This law doesn't force minors to work? And usually when you work you "pick up shifts"? They do all those things when they aren't in school and aren't working.
And you're looking at this with a very upper middle class perspective. Extracurricular activities? Play games? Free time? Some families don't have that luxury. Kids work because the family needs the income. I'm not sure banning work so that families have less income is really helping the poor.
And you know what? Some kid want to work. If given the choice between surfing Tik Tok, or playing on the soccer team, they choose work. They like having extra money. They like working in an industry they plan to enter full time for the experience.
It's not the 1920's. We aren't sending 10 year olds down in coal mines.
That's a terrible example. Nobody is claiming that reporters should be report on undeniably false statements. I don't expect reporters to report on a lunar landing then include a bunch of stuff that the Apollo landing is fake.
But that's not what's happening here, is it?
What you have is reporters reporting on one side of an opinion. Opinions are not facts, they are a subjective judgement of facts. What many reporters do is start with an opinion, then write an article with selective inclusion of facts to support that opinion.
That's garbage reporting. It's not news it's writing an opinion column.
> There's the little detail of 14 year olds going to school, working a few hours per day, and… when do they get to take part in extracurriculars? When do they get to do homework? When do they get to study for quizzes and tests? When do they get to work on class projects?
You realize that work is voluntary right? This law doesn't force minors to work? And usually when you work you "pick up shifts"? They do all those things when they aren't in school and aren't working.
And you're looking at this with a very upper middle class perspective. Extracurricular activities? Play games? Free time? Some families don't have that luxury. Kids work because the family needs the income. I'm not sure banning work so that families have less income is really helping the poor.
And you know what? Some kid want to work. If given the choice between surfing Tik Tok, or playing on the soccer team, they choose work. They like having extra money. They like working in an industry they plan to enter full time for the experience.
It's not the 1920's. We aren't sending 10 year olds down in coal mines.
Voluntary? For someone in middle school? For the vast majority of these kids, I guarantee you it wasn't their idea.
In seven states, you must be 18 to get married. In the rest, it isn't that minors are rushing to head down the aisle. In 1959, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which defines children's rights to protection, education, health care, shelter, and good nutrition.
The ONLY country that refuses to ratify it is the US. Why? Many states reserve the right to exercise the death penalty on minors and still allow child brides, where several states have no minimum age at all to which parents can choose their minor's spouse—commonly a much-older male adult. We have states willing to send 10 year olds down the aisle today in the name of "religious freedom".
As for "we aren't sending 10 year olds down in coal mines," that's only because we aren't sending anyone down into coal mines much anymore. It is an industry well into decline with scarce jobs for adults. As a nation, more and more kids are ending up in jobs that violate the law for their hazardous nature, like meat packing and roofing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/child-labor-laws-migrants-i...
And while these particular jobs are still illegal for kids to have, there are both a lot of adults trying to get more kids working these and other jobs as well as legislators (overwhelmingly if not exclusively from just one side of the political aisle) trying to tear down what relatively few job prohibitions exist for children.
I think it's more than fair to call out efforts to expand the number of jobs that kids can be pushed into at a young age as a trend rather than a one-off.
In Arkansas, a bill signed by Governor Sanders removes the requirements for kids under 16 to prove their age and provide parental consent to get jobs.
The Governor of Iowa recently signed into law a bill that loosens protections for kids in employment. It extends the hours in which they are allowed to be on the clock, it opens up more potential options for where kids can work, and it even allows kids as young as 16 to serve alcohol in restaurants. Hilariously, the 16-year-old teenagers would be required to have training on "prevention and response to sexual harassment" when serving alcohol to adult strangers. (Might as well remove seat belt laws as long as we teach folks about the dangers of car accidents.)
Some kids want to work. Some kids would want to race Formula 1 too. When did we decide as a nation to have kids do whatever they want regardless of the risks posed to them? No, this trend isn't about the kids. It's the adults who are falling down on their jobs.
In seven states, you must be 18 to get married. In the rest, it isn't that minors are rushing to head down the aisle. In 1959, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which defines children's rights to protection, education, health care, shelter, and good nutrition.
The ONLY country that refuses to ratify it is the US. Why? Many states reserve the right to exercise the death penalty on minors and still allow child brides, where several states have no minimum age at all to which parents can choose their minor's spouse—commonly a much-older male adult. We have states willing to send 10 year olds down the aisle today in the name of "religious freedom".
As for "we aren't sending 10 year olds down in coal mines," that's only because we aren't sending anyone down into coal mines much anymore. It is an industry well into decline with scarce jobs for adults. As a nation, more and more kids are ending up in jobs that violate the law for their hazardous nature, like meat packing and roofing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/child-labor-laws-migrants-i...
And while these particular jobs are still illegal for kids to have, there are both a lot of adults trying to get more kids working these and other jobs as well as legislators (overwhelmingly if not exclusively from just one side of the political aisle) trying to tear down what relatively few job prohibitions exist for children.
I think it's more than fair to call out efforts to expand the number of jobs that kids can be pushed into at a young age as a trend rather than a one-off.
In Arkansas, a bill signed by Governor Sanders removes the requirements for kids under 16 to prove their age and provide parental consent to get jobs.
The Governor of Iowa recently signed into law a bill that loosens protections for kids in employment. It extends the hours in which they are allowed to be on the clock, it opens up more potential options for where kids can work, and it even allows kids as young as 16 to serve alcohol in restaurants. Hilariously, the 16-year-old teenagers would be required to have training on "prevention and response to sexual harassment" when serving alcohol to adult strangers. (Might as well remove seat belt laws as long as we teach folks about the dangers of car accidents.)
Some kids want to work. Some kids would want to race Formula 1 too. When did we decide as a nation to have kids do whatever they want regardless of the risks posed to them? No, this trend isn't about the kids. It's the adults who are falling down on their jobs.
> Voluntary? For someone in middle school? For the vast majority of these kids, I guarantee you it wasn't their idea.
Middle school? So under 8th grade or 13 years of age? That employment is already illegal. We're talking about about 15-18 year olds (high school).
Can you share the data you have that "the vast majority of minors employed, aren't employed voluntarily"? That's a bold claim. According to the BOL, 1 out of 5 minor between 16-18 were employed outside of school hours. Are you suggesting a large portion of those are working involuntarily?
> In seven states, you must be 18 to get married.
You're changing the subject. We're talking about minors working.
> As a nation, more and more kids are ending up in jobs that violate the law for their hazardous nature, like meat packing and roofing.
As you admit, and the article states - those minors are illegally employed. Thus the law already bans it.
> In Arkansas, a bill signed by Governor Sanders removes the requirements for kids under 16 to prove their age and provide parental consent to get jobs.
All that law does is eliminate a permitting system. California doesn't require such permits if the child isn't in school. Vermont or Colorado doesn't require them if they work outside school hours.
It doesn't sounds like Arkansas is really standing out as doing something out of the ordinary.
> The Governor of Iowa recently signed into law a bill that loosens protections for kids in employment
Maybe you missed my analysis above. I looked up the law and read it. Did you? None of it seems all that weird. It provides protection against hazardous jobs, it limits hours, preventing it from interfering with school.
> When did we decide as a nation to have kids do whatever they want regardless of the risks posed to them?
Are you suggesting that these laws "allow kids to do whatever they want"?
Middle school? So under 8th grade or 13 years of age? That employment is already illegal. We're talking about about 15-18 year olds (high school).
Can you share the data you have that "the vast majority of minors employed, aren't employed voluntarily"? That's a bold claim. According to the BOL, 1 out of 5 minor between 16-18 were employed outside of school hours. Are you suggesting a large portion of those are working involuntarily?
> In seven states, you must be 18 to get married.
You're changing the subject. We're talking about minors working.
> As a nation, more and more kids are ending up in jobs that violate the law for their hazardous nature, like meat packing and roofing.
As you admit, and the article states - those minors are illegally employed. Thus the law already bans it.
> In Arkansas, a bill signed by Governor Sanders removes the requirements for kids under 16 to prove their age and provide parental consent to get jobs.
All that law does is eliminate a permitting system. California doesn't require such permits if the child isn't in school. Vermont or Colorado doesn't require them if they work outside school hours.
It doesn't sounds like Arkansas is really standing out as doing something out of the ordinary.
> The Governor of Iowa recently signed into law a bill that loosens protections for kids in employment
Maybe you missed my analysis above. I looked up the law and read it. Did you? None of it seems all that weird. It provides protection against hazardous jobs, it limits hours, preventing it from interfering with school.
> When did we decide as a nation to have kids do whatever they want regardless of the risks posed to them?
Are you suggesting that these laws "allow kids to do whatever they want"?
I’m in Alabama and it seems like we’re actively working to make the education system worse so we can use the kids to replace the immigrant laborers who are leaving.
That’s not true. In what way could that be true? I think people forget there are these things called parents. This is not sone kind of forced labor or dawn of industrial age coal mine situation or something like that. There’s nothing wrong with kids doing some work under the guidance of their parents. As far as the “education system,” this is largely a function of parents as well.
There have always been parents, including when kids worked in mines or up chimneys.
The situation in the US now is very different from the dawn of the industrial age. You really parents are going to have to ship their kids off to coal mines and Soviet style factories? People can downvote all they want but they are not living in reality if they think that.
I'm from the Midwest. Poor folks ship their kids off to clean the pork plants and slaughterhouses on the night shift. Cargill and JBS were some of the worst. It was easy to tell in school, they were dead tired and stunk of bleach.
> The situation in the US now is very different from the dawn of the industrial age.
Different for many, and different for you, but not for all.
> The situation in the US now is very different from the dawn of the industrial age.
Different for many, and different for you, but not for all.
People act like we left this all behind hundreds of years ago but child labor didn't really end as standard practice even in densely urban environments until the Great Depression...
I believe it. A kid died about a year ago while working in a poultry plant.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/slaughterhouse-children...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/slaughterhouse-children...
Every time its heartbreaking. I'm glad they're covering this in the news at least though.
I'm afraid it's yourself who is divorced from current US reality.
US Laws have explicit carve outs for agricultural work, in the fields and in the slaugtherhouses.
Even so, children still work illegaly, without the appropriate permissions:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/06/12/child-labor-is...
US Laws have explicit carve outs for agricultural work, in the fields and in the slaugtherhouses.
Even so, children still work illegaly, without the appropriate permissions:
In February [ 2023 ], the Labor Department announced that it had found more than a hundred children between the ages of thirteen and seventeen working in meatpacking plants and slaughterhouses, in eight states, for Packers Sanitation Services, one of the nation’s largest food-sanitation companies.
The facilities themselves are owned by major corporations, including Tyson Foods and JBS. (All three companies denied that they had engaged in any wrongdoing.)
The children worked overnight shifts at such jobs as cleaning bone saws and head splitters with hazardous chemicals. At least three were injured. Packers, which is owned by Blackstone, the world’s largest private-equity firm, paid a civil fine of a million and a half dollars.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/06/12/child-labor-is...
What that article doesn't tell you is that those are illegal immigrants, who would be working illegally even if they weren't children. Those companies obviously don't care about the law.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173697113/immigrant-child-la...
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173697113/immigrant-child-la...
So are children working in US factories and processing plants or not?
The context here is whether child labour occurs in the US.
The context here is whether child labour occurs in the US.
No, the context is whether that labor is illegal. It is, and it remains illegal even with the changes discussed in the article.
And those are mostly unaccompanied minors, with no other way to support themselves, so it's not so simple as saying they shouldn't be working.
And those are mostly unaccompanied minors, with no other way to support themselves, so it's not so simple as saying they shouldn't be working.
And then you have the entertainment industry, with all its "problems".
> The situation in the US now is very different from the dawn of the industrial age. You really parents are going to have to ship their kids off to coal mines and Soviet style factories?
Genuine question: why do you think they wouldn't?
These days of course they are called Amazon warehouses or non-union car factories or industrial slaughterhouses but the point is still the same.
Genuine question: why do you think they wouldn't?
These days of course they are called Amazon warehouses or non-union car factories or industrial slaughterhouses but the point is still the same.
Necessity trumps any sort of "but parents care too much about their kids". Parents all over the globe care about their kids, but many of them put their kids to work because it's what's necessary to keep the family fed and housed. It's no different in the US, especially with how the labor market and prices look with recent inflation.
“Necessary”? It’s so weird people think that the system “must” work like this, that there are no alternatives.
“All those kids had to go to work” - 5 families have more wealth than 50% of Americans combined, but somebody’s kid needs to work in a meat packing plant? The system doesn’t need to work like this.
“All those kids had to go to work” - 5 families have more wealth than 50% of Americans combined, but somebody’s kid needs to work in a meat packing plant? The system doesn’t need to work like this.
I absolutely don't think the system should work this way. But people will send their kids to work if the money is needed to keep the family afloat. And the families who have to do this aren't thinking about the wealthy, they're more concerned with being able to afford their home and put food on their table. They're not thinking about how the system should be, they're thinking about how it is now and how to cope with it.
Yeah, but there are modern equivalents of that period's parental negligence and collective failure. We have contemporary versions of the exploitation of mines and factories.
If mines and factories were what we recognize (from today's perspective) as abuse in that industrial economy, what do you suspect are the current places that might need protection in the today's economy?
If mines and factories were what we recognize (from today's perspective) as abuse in that industrial economy, what do you suspect are the current places that might need protection in the today's economy?
Labor can be forced through many different mechanisms. What matters ultimately is just how much flexibility one has to not work or how many necessary things needed for surviving depends on actively working. Everything else are just levels of choice of flexibility within working, but you still for all functional purposes need to work. There’s a whole lot of illusion of choice we like to give people anymore.
I already shared this link once but you should read it to.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/11/us-child-lab...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/11/us-child-lab...
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic and trolling or if you really believe that. Please look at any number of recent news headlines regarding Alabama and how our education systems and libraries and such are regressing. It’s becoming dangerous for educators even teach basic reproductive safety to our students.
Children being maimed in factory labor is unfortunate but it's the fault of their parents. We merely created the crushing economic pressure that made it necessary for their children to work and removed the legal obstacles to the factory hiring them. Ultimately this is a matter of personal responsibility, like every other bad thing we caused to happen.
2024 and we are still divided on this issue ? It must be like , "We got 99 problems but this ain't one"
It's easier for congress to rat-hole over already solved issues than it is to work to solve actual issues. It's been this way for decades now and it's exhausting. We need to find a way to solve this failure in the incentives that congress people have
I'm so fucking glad I'm not a kid right now.
We're trying to make the education system somehow worse than the dumpster fire it was when I was little, we have people campaigning on making sure kids don't get free lunches for...reasons?... and now we have people trying to ensure they can be exploited so the 0.1% class can make an extra 0.1% this year.
Screech about bootstraps all you want, it's awfully hard to pull yourself up by them if you don't have shoes at all. This isn't politics, this is thunder-dome-ism.
We're trying to make the education system somehow worse than the dumpster fire it was when I was little, we have people campaigning on making sure kids don't get free lunches for...reasons?... and now we have people trying to ensure they can be exploited so the 0.1% class can make an extra 0.1% this year.
Screech about bootstraps all you want, it's awfully hard to pull yourself up by them if you don't have shoes at all. This isn't politics, this is thunder-dome-ism.
I agree that teaching kids things that aren’t true, or telling them to not believe their own eyes, just to follow a particular political ideology is not good but I’m not sure what you mean about it getting so much worse. It is very hard to have any kind of education system without involvement from parents and instilling a value of education. I’ve seen many kids unable to recite basic facts or understand basic things that they were definitely taught in public schools. Being able to work at sandwich shop a little bit more a week and maybe learn a bit about business and how to deal with people and act professionally is not going to scar these kids. This idea is leftist hysteria.
> Being able to work at sandwich shop
I’d much prefer the kids who struggle with academics be given a comprehensive trade school education than having them act as a labor release valve for when businesses are unwilling to hire adults.
I’ve worked at sandwich shops and the idea that this is a good way to learn about business is not the experience I had.
I’d much prefer the kids who struggle with academics be given a comprehensive trade school education than having them act as a labor release valve for when businesses are unwilling to hire adults.
I’ve worked at sandwich shops and the idea that this is a good way to learn about business is not the experience I had.
If you can't even afford shoes, it's likely you're dropping out of school to go work and you need less restrictions so that you can get more hours and better opportunities.
If I need someone for an 8 hour shift and laws only allow me to hire you for 6, then I'm going to hire someone else instead of you.
If I need someone for an 8 hour shift and laws only allow me to hire you for 6, then I'm going to hire someone else instead of you.
Fuck that, kids should have basic necessities (food, clothing, education etc), at a minimum, covered through public funding. If the government has one fucking purpose, that's it right there. If people can't even have a fucking childhood what are we doing.
While I agree with you, most red states can't even afford that kind of thing and are already paying out a ton in overburdened welfare programs (except maybe Georgia and a few others that are aggressively anti-welfare). In the absence of those funds and that regulation, at least allow older teenagers to compete against grown adults in the labor market if they need the money.
They absolutely CAN afford those kinds of things if they'd stop giving away sweetheart tax deals to major corporations and actually accept federal funds when they're offered.
If they can't afford it, why do they keep turning down federal money that will let them do exactly that?
Maybe red states could afford nice things if they'd stop screwing up their economies?
How will Brett Favre's girl can play volleyball, or how can his pharma company can make money without capturing welfare dotations ?
Yeah, the funding streams are bonkers at the moment. We need to be able to get the funding to kids, the money exists, we've just made the logistics insane.
11.6 million kids in poverty in the us. The naive approach: just give each kid 1k/mo would cost 12B/mo or 144B/yr, so 3.2% of the 2023 4.5T annual budget. That's entirely doable given the political will.
11.6 million kids in poverty in the us. The naive approach: just give each kid 1k/mo would cost 12B/mo or 144B/yr, so 3.2% of the 2023 4.5T annual budget. That's entirely doable given the political will.
> most red states can't even afford that kind of thing
What made them so poor? Was it bad governance?
What made them so poor? Was it bad governance?
We absolute should provide that, and government absolutely shouldn't be involved in that. Whatever society can do itself, government should never be involved in.
....uh...I'm an anarchist but...the world isn't perfect. We can do a lot to reduce power structures but we still need to designate someone to take money from billionaires and move it to poor people, otherwise the billionaires will just spend the money on private security to fend off the starving hordes.
Omg I truly want to be respectful in my reply. But... just... I need to communicate to you that this logic is so messed up. Just because systems of capital want something from us, that does NOT mean that we must provide it. We don't need to allow a social context where a child must work harder to survive or support their family -- we can, and should, reject that premise. If the household is failing in that way, we need to ask how we elevate that household.
Social welfare exists to protect ppl from the exact sort of thing you are arguing permission to indulge.
There's no lack of wealth in this country, it's just been captured and is distributed massively unequally in fucked up ways.
Social welfare exists to protect ppl from the exact sort of thing you are arguing permission to indulge.
There's no lack of wealth in this country, it's just been captured and is distributed massively unequally in fucked up ways.
Unfortunately in this society a lot of people look to screw each other over for a payday.
If I have a retail business I likely can't be there every single minute that it's open. There's no incentives for me to hire someone who I can get massively fined for if I don't make sure they clock out when they're supposed to and go home on time. It's literally just not worth the hassle to worry about.
It's similar to why people in Texas with tree farms don't hire US citizens. It's not because they're trying to pay illegals less money -- in fact the ones that I know pay well but still hire illegals -- it's because every time they hire a US citizen two weeks into the job they "accidentally" cut the tip of their pinky finger off with a hedge trimmer and file a worker's compensation lawsuit. One nursery I know had this happen to them _dozens_ of times.
It's unfortunate that the world works this way but running a business is fraught with risk and most smart business owners want to avoid hassle and turnover (teenagers in jobs are fickle and do things like blow off work -- I sure did). You only hire the cheapest labor if you literally have no other choice.
If I have a retail business I likely can't be there every single minute that it's open. There's no incentives for me to hire someone who I can get massively fined for if I don't make sure they clock out when they're supposed to and go home on time. It's literally just not worth the hassle to worry about.
It's similar to why people in Texas with tree farms don't hire US citizens. It's not because they're trying to pay illegals less money -- in fact the ones that I know pay well but still hire illegals -- it's because every time they hire a US citizen two weeks into the job they "accidentally" cut the tip of their pinky finger off with a hedge trimmer and file a worker's compensation lawsuit. One nursery I know had this happen to them _dozens_ of times.
It's unfortunate that the world works this way but running a business is fraught with risk and most smart business owners want to avoid hassle and turnover (teenagers in jobs are fickle and do things like blow off work -- I sure did). You only hire the cheapest labor if you literally have no other choice.
This is the HN classic pro-sweatshop labor argument but aimed at americans? An interesting variant I guess.
I grew up dirt-maximum-food-stamps-and-rent-control poor, in New York City, and I was LUCKY that labor laws allowed me to work full time since I was 15 years old.
This helped me to avoid homelessness and complete high school.
This helped me to avoid homelessness and complete high school.
Working a full time jobs is hardly the only possibility that would have enabled you to avoid homelessness and complete high school.
Systems are complex things, if you look at individual pieces in isolation you end up with suboptimal outcomes.
Systems are complex things, if you look at individual pieces in isolation you end up with suboptimal outcomes.
> Working a full time jobs is hardly the only possibility that would have enabled you to avoid homelessness and complete high school.
Sure you know more about my own lived experience than I do...
Sure you know more about my own lived experience than I do...
The specifics of your personal situation is irrelevant when talking about government policy.
Paying highschool students is one example of a possible solution that eliminates requiring underage employment for graduation.
Paying highschool students is one example of a possible solution that eliminates requiring underage employment for graduation.
And didn't exist at the time that I was in high school. You say that wasn't my only option but that doesn't reflect my reality at the time.
Especially with a crazy parent saying when you're 14 "work and contribute money to the rent or get the fuck out".
So I worked.
Still got kicked out with no meaningful money and nowhere to go at 18, by the way. Then I worked three jobs and lived off of the free coffee at work and couldn't afford to buy my own food for a few years.
And, at least back then when you had to apply in person, when you're young and white and male and walk into the office trying to apply for EBT in NY literally no one wants to help you and some will actively prevent you trying to get the benefits you're entitled to by trying to give you the runaround.
Especially with a crazy parent saying when you're 14 "work and contribute money to the rent or get the fuck out".
So I worked.
Still got kicked out with no meaningful money and nowhere to go at 18, by the way. Then I worked three jobs and lived off of the free coffee at work and couldn't afford to buy my own food for a few years.
And, at least back then when you had to apply in person, when you're young and white and male and walk into the office trying to apply for EBT in NY literally no one wants to help you and some will actively prevent you trying to get the benefits you're entitled to by trying to give you the runaround.
> You say that wasn't my only option but that doesn't reflect my reality at the time
No, I didn’t say that but it turns out:
> Especially with a crazy parent saying when you're 14 "work and contribute money to the rent or get the fuck out".
Talking with social services would have been an option to avoid homelessness for yourself. Some people in similar situations are trying to help their families which is a complex topic.
No, I didn’t say that but it turns out:
> Especially with a crazy parent saying when you're 14 "work and contribute money to the rent or get the fuck out".
Talking with social services would have been an option to avoid homelessness for yourself. Some people in similar situations are trying to help their families which is a complex topic.
> Talking with social services would have been an option to avoid homelessness for yourself.
Lol, not that easy and especially then when you couldn't do any of that shit online, as previously stated.
You have no idea how many institutional barriers there were to most people getting benefits before basically 2008. People would literally lie to you to try and derail you through the system.
NY wasn't exactly tripping over itself to give out money back then unless you were a model poor person (single mother, etc). Applying for these services in person meant you relied on the sympathy and personal investment in your situation of the case workers in the city offices.
Growing up my mom always made sure whenever we had to appear at city offices or go to free clinics that we looked extra poor, extra grubby and extra dirty. That was the reality but you really did have to look the part and leave your dignity at home.
Bleeding-heart people know absolutely fucking nothing about the reality of poverty and will also tell other people what their idea of it is like assuming they also have no real experience with it.
Lol, not that easy and especially then when you couldn't do any of that shit online, as previously stated.
You have no idea how many institutional barriers there were to most people getting benefits before basically 2008. People would literally lie to you to try and derail you through the system.
NY wasn't exactly tripping over itself to give out money back then unless you were a model poor person (single mother, etc). Applying for these services in person meant you relied on the sympathy and personal investment in your situation of the case workers in the city offices.
Growing up my mom always made sure whenever we had to appear at city offices or go to free clinics that we looked extra poor, extra grubby and extra dirty. That was the reality but you really did have to look the part and leave your dignity at home.
Bleeding-heart people know absolutely fucking nothing about the reality of poverty and will also tell other people what their idea of it is like assuming they also have no real experience with it.
Easy isn’t the same as possible. I had a family member go through NYC social services back in the 1940’s, it’s been functioning for a long time.
Parents threaten to or actually kick their kids out on a depressingly regular basis there’s various procedures for dealing with it. I don’t think talking through the specifics of your situation would be appropriate on a public forum like this, but you can look them up.
Parents threaten to or actually kick their kids out on a depressingly regular basis there’s various procedures for dealing with it. I don’t think talking through the specifics of your situation would be appropriate on a public forum like this, but you can look them up.
The 40s is long before the city completely went to shit, ran annual budget deficits starting in 1961 and had a massive fiscal crisis in 1975 (after most of its tax base left the city) where it was one day away from formal bankruptcy followed by almost two whole decades of being a rotting, stinking, hollowed-out mess.
Good or bad I don't think your scenario is what this article is about.
"Federal law forbids all minors from working in jobs deemed hazardous, including those in manufacturing, roofing, meatpacking and demolition." "although there is an effort underway led by Republican lawmakers, to undo those restrictions,"
"Federal law forbids all minors from working in jobs deemed hazardous, including those in manufacturing, roofing, meatpacking and demolition." "although there is an effort underway led by Republican lawmakers, to undo those restrictions,"
I grew up dirt poor and worked 3 jobs to put myself through college, and I still wouldn't wish that shit on anybody.
Because rich people thought you were worthless. If the 0.1% and congress wasn't comprised of psychopaths you would have had your needs paid for so you could have focused on your education.
> [W]hile colonization, with its techniques and its political and juridical weapons, obviously transported European models to other continents, it also had a considerable boomerang effect on the mechanisms of power in the West, and on the apparatuses, institutions, and techniques of power. A whole series of colonial models was brought back to the West, and the result was that the West could practice something resembling colonization, or an internal colonialism, on itself
- Michel Foucault
- Michel Foucault
Where is the sweatshop from these changes in laws? This is beyond hyperbolic. This is not about sweatshops.
You think the desirable employers are the ones that need bodies so badly they’ll hire children?
Don’t kid yourself, they’ll be lucky if they work in sweatshops and not in abattoirs.
Don’t kid yourself, they’ll be lucky if they work in sweatshops and not in abattoirs.
Where are the sweatshops? Are you all delusional? Have you all not heard of the fact that teenagers have worked jobs for decades? This is unbelievable.
it's worse than sweatshops. from the article:
> Despite such findings, a new Iowa law signed last year by Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) allows minors in that state to work in jobs previously deemed too hazardous, including in industrial laundries, light manufacturing, demolition, roofing and excavation but not slaughterhouses. Separately, West Virginia enacted a new law this month that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to work some roofing jobs as part of an apprenticeship program.
> Six more states are also evaluating bills to lift restrictions preventing minors from working jobs considered dangerous. A Georgia bill would allow 14-year-olds to work in landscaping on factory grounds and other prohibited work sites. Florida’s legislature has passed a law, drafted by the state’s construction industry association, that would allow teens to work certain jobs in residential construction. It’s awaiting approval from DeSantis.
> Despite such findings, a new Iowa law signed last year by Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) allows minors in that state to work in jobs previously deemed too hazardous, including in industrial laundries, light manufacturing, demolition, roofing and excavation but not slaughterhouses. Separately, West Virginia enacted a new law this month that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to work some roofing jobs as part of an apprenticeship program.
> Six more states are also evaluating bills to lift restrictions preventing minors from working jobs considered dangerous. A Georgia bill would allow 14-year-olds to work in landscaping on factory grounds and other prohibited work sites. Florida’s legislature has passed a law, drafted by the state’s construction industry association, that would allow teens to work certain jobs in residential construction. It’s awaiting approval from DeSantis.
[deleted]
Just ratify the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" [1].
It's long overdue!
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...
It's long overdue!
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...
Alternative source that's not paywalled https://usaherald.com/changes-to-child-labor-law-being-propo...
Most states trying to loosen standards are just trying to get in line with federal regulations (from their already more-stringent state standards) which are mostly minor changes like allowing minors to serve alcohol or work an extra two hours a day.
On the other hand, the media is constantly driving this idea home that there are no jobs for young people, so it's kind of hard to know which side of their ass they're talking out of.
What I do know is if you look at the data we have since COVID, young men have been dropping out of high school and college in record numbers in order to work to support their families out of necessity. Inflation has crushed a lot of poor and middle class people.
If regulators and rich liberals really want to save the children, they should get a handle on supply chains and pricing of basic necessities so that young people don't have to choose between feeding themselves/their families and their education.
On the other hand, the media is constantly driving this idea home that there are no jobs for young people, so it's kind of hard to know which side of their ass they're talking out of.
What I do know is if you look at the data we have since COVID, young men have been dropping out of high school and college in record numbers in order to work to support their families out of necessity. Inflation has crushed a lot of poor and middle class people.
If regulators and rich liberals really want to save the children, they should get a handle on supply chains and pricing of basic necessities so that young people don't have to choose between feeding themselves/their families and their education.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/247407/average-annual-co...
It's not even basic necessities (food, healthcare, misc bills), it's that the median person is spending an overwhelming fraction of their take home income on housing.
Supply chains will bounce around and settle (though there's work to do there), but we've created so much bad regulation around just building places to live that they're a goddamn investment vehicle instead of a human right.
If we cut housing costs in half they'd still be absurd but suddenly everyone would have an insane amount of financial flexibility relative to where they are.
It's not even basic necessities (food, healthcare, misc bills), it's that the median person is spending an overwhelming fraction of their take home income on housing.
Supply chains will bounce around and settle (though there's work to do there), but we've created so much bad regulation around just building places to live that they're a goddamn investment vehicle instead of a human right.
If we cut housing costs in half they'd still be absurd but suddenly everyone would have an insane amount of financial flexibility relative to where they are.
Housing isn't a basic necessity?
Seems like the most basic, to me.
Seems like the most basic, to me.
You're right, but semantics aside, the examples you gave seemed to be leaning towards production of goods whereas housing is more of a financial system and regulatory issue.
> On the other hand, the media is constantly driving this idea home that there are no jobs for young people
I have no idea what you're talking about. Where I live I constantly see articles about worker shortages in low wage roles like restaurant workers and retail that have typically been the main jobs for teenagers.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Where I live I constantly see articles about worker shortages in low wage roles like restaurant workers and retail that have typically been the main jobs for teenagers.
LMGTFY
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/06/why-so-few-teenagers-have-jo...
https://www.epi.org/publication/young-workers-covid-recessio...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/24/wearying-and...
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-young-people-not-find-work
https://www.reddit.com/r/Adulting/comments/18k394x/the_econo...
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/good-jobs-are-out-of-reac...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/06/why-so-few-teenagers-have-jo...
https://www.epi.org/publication/young-workers-covid-recessio...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/24/wearying-and...
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-young-people-not-find-work
https://www.reddit.com/r/Adulting/comments/18k394x/the_econo...
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/good-jobs-are-out-of-reac...
Your Google skills suck, or you're lying on purpose:
1. First 2 articles are from 2019 and 2020. Obviously pre and early pandemic economy was totally different.
2. Third article is about a totally different topic, but even goes against your point. It's about people the government says should be working, but can't because of illness.
3. You think a Quora link of a random person asking "Why do young people not find work?" is proof of anything?
4. Again, a random reddit post is not evidence of anything
5. Your last link, again, is about a totally different topic: "Good jobs are out of reach for many 20-somethings in the U.S." This whole article is about children working.
But please, tell me how to Google again...
1. First 2 articles are from 2019 and 2020. Obviously pre and early pandemic economy was totally different.
2. Third article is about a totally different topic, but even goes against your point. It's about people the government says should be working, but can't because of illness.
3. You think a Quora link of a random person asking "Why do young people not find work?" is proof of anything?
4. Again, a random reddit post is not evidence of anything
5. Your last link, again, is about a totally different topic: "Good jobs are out of reach for many 20-somethings in the U.S." This whole article is about children working.
But please, tell me how to Google again...
The media also reported these:
https://www.abc.org/News-Media/News-Releases/abc-2024-constr...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/11/06/worker-short...
https://www.kornferry.com/insights/this-week-in-leadership/t...
I don't vouch for any of these articles, am just saying labor shortage has been a persistent narrative, so not sure what your point is?
https://www.abc.org/News-Media/News-Releases/abc-2024-constr...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/11/06/worker-short...
https://www.kornferry.com/insights/this-week-in-leadership/t...
I don't vouch for any of these articles, am just saying labor shortage has been a persistent narrative, so not sure what your point is?
Almost all of those are skilled labor industries. They're not hiring teenagers.
That and/or their workplace activities take place during hours when kids are in school.
What teenagers are going to be hired into Financial Services, IT, Government, Construction, Professional/Business Services and Healthcare jobs!? You're out of your mind.
That and/or their workplace activities take place during hours when kids are in school.
What teenagers are going to be hired into Financial Services, IT, Government, Construction, Professional/Business Services and Healthcare jobs!? You're out of your mind.
Labor shortage as a persistent narrative is at least 200 years old. How long is this shortage gonna last?
Rising wages due to labor shortages is likely more effective in quality of life increases in the face of elevated prices versus allowing children to work longer and more risky jobs. But conservatives are somewhat allergic to labor having any power or wage increases, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. As long as there is enough anti-immigrant sentiment that keeps immigration subdued (versus Canada’s “open doors, citizen economics around housing and wages be damned”), the problem works itself out eventually with structural demographics and a compressing working age labor force. The world is getting old fast; bad for capitalistic heavy socioeconomic systems (which relies heavily on surplus or under compensated labor), good for people who must exist in the labor market.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/our-w...
https://hbr.org/2022/11/the-global-population-is-aging-is-yo...
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Anal...
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/our-w...
https://hbr.org/2022/11/the-global-population-is-aging-is-yo...
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Anal...
But this ignores the fact that if wages rise too much, the product or service the company sells may become uneconomic. I literally have seen people complain about how "the man" is trying to keep wages down while at the same time bitching that their fast food meal costs $11 dollars. I guarantee many of these small business owners of places like restaurants are not exactly raking in the dough (in most cases a software engineer with like 5+ years of experience can make more money with less risk). I make a good living but I've noticed myself eating out less because it's tough for me to stomach a $100+ per person bill at even a reasonable (i.e. not super fancy) restaurant.
McDonalds has literally written into their quarterly filings that people who make below $40k/yr can't even afford to eat at their restaurants anymore and that their pricing (driven largely by rising wages) has moved their customer demographic up-market.
Thanks for that tidbit, I didn't know that. Totally agree. I always used to think of McDonald's as about as "cheap but gets the job done", now I think of it as "not-that-cheap and I can get the job done better at home".
I make a good living but I can count on one hand the number of times I've eaten at a $100/person restaurant. I can't even fathom that being just a "reasonable, not super fancy" meal.
Pre-pandemic I would have probably said the same. But I'm guessing you don't live in Austin, TX, or you don't drink alcohol.
> tough for me to stomach a $100+ per person bill at even a reasonable (i.e. not super fancy) restaurant
food has gotten more expensive but it's not that expensive. $25 entrees is unaffordable for most people, how are you getting to $100/head at reasonable restaurants? Does everyone order the ribeye?
food has gotten more expensive but it's not that expensive. $25 entrees is unaffordable for most people, how are you getting to $100/head at reasonable restaurants? Does everyone order the ribeye?
$100 a person at reasonable restaurants? lol. I guess one way to win arguments is to just make things up. Send links to the online menus please.
It's not hard at all. Obviously things are very location dependent, but here is what I would call a "nice but not fancy" restaurant in downtown Austin, TX: https://www.tavernabylombardi.com/austin-downtown-menu#menu=.... First, note that "100+ per person" really means the total comes to 75-80 per person before tax and tip. It's not hard to hit that with a glass of 1 alcoholic beverage, some shared appetizers, a main course, and a shared dessert.
To emphasize, there are obviously cheaper restaurants, and given how much it costs to live in Austin, I'm not bemoaning their prices. I'm just saying that pre-pandemic I would have thought of a $100+ meal in Austin as "very fancy, special occasion" place, and now it's easy to hit that at tons of places in Austin. I used to eat out a lot more at places like the above when it was ~$60 pre-pandemic, but it's not worth it to me at $100+.
To emphasize, there are obviously cheaper restaurants, and given how much it costs to live in Austin, I'm not bemoaning their prices. I'm just saying that pre-pandemic I would have thought of a $100+ meal in Austin as "very fancy, special occasion" place, and now it's easy to hit that at tons of places in Austin. I used to eat out a lot more at places like the above when it was ~$60 pre-pandemic, but it's not worth it to me at $100+.
I’d recommend Ramen Tatsu-ya. I didn’t get by all that much during the pandemic, so I was shocked when I did finally return and a bowl was still like $12. I’ll take that over McDonald’s every time.
Oooh, thanks, great recommendation. I love Ramen Tatsu-ya but haven't been in a while. Just taking a look at their menu online and I'm also pretty shocked how comparatively low their prices are. Like their Hibi-Gibi Punch with Sake is $6. I can hardly remember the time I paid less than $10 for any alcoholic drink besides beer.
tatsuya is old news, their tonkatsu broth is too thick IMO. Lot's of new ramen places to check out - Sazan (different style, really good, reasonable $), marufuku (overpriced but better than tatsuya), ichiumi (quite good and reasonable $)
You can get really fancy food for ~$100/person in austin like barley swine or Uroko. You can get fantastic tacos for less than $3 each.
The market gives you the opportunity to overpay if you want to, though. It's not a representative example.
The market gives you the opportunity to overpay if you want to, though. It's not a representative example.
Yes, of course, I never said it was. Point being that I wouldn't consider Taverna to be on the level of Barley Swine or Uroko, yet it's easy to spend a hundred bucks there, while pre-pandemic it would have been more like $60.
Ok, I see what you're getting at. I think downtown is alot worse about this than anywhere else in atx
What impact do you expect laxer child labor laws to have on a restaurant like that?
> But this ignores the fact that if wages rise too much, the product or service the company sells may become uneconomic
It doesn’t ignore it, it welcomes it.
If the business requires underpaid or poverty level wage workers to survive, it is not a sustainable business. It is a transfer from the poor to the better off. Corporate profits can always come down if the business wants to attempt to survive, and failing that, it can close up shop.
We’ve been living on aggregate suffering of a underclass to deliver consumer excess, broadly speaking. Like I said, structural demographics is breaking capitalism. The total fertility rate will continue to decline, locking in further future working age labor participation compression.
Fast food is first, but it’ll work its way up the value chain as other low wage but high value jobs hit the wall (CNAs, home health aids, etc).
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/01/global-fertilit...
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/27/labor-shortages-air-traffic...
It doesn’t ignore it, it welcomes it.
If the business requires underpaid or poverty level wage workers to survive, it is not a sustainable business. It is a transfer from the poor to the better off. Corporate profits can always come down if the business wants to attempt to survive, and failing that, it can close up shop.
We’ve been living on aggregate suffering of a underclass to deliver consumer excess, broadly speaking. Like I said, structural demographics is breaking capitalism. The total fertility rate will continue to decline, locking in further future working age labor participation compression.
Fast food is first, but it’ll work its way up the value chain as other low wage but high value jobs hit the wall (CNAs, home health aids, etc).
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/01/global-fertilit...
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/27/labor-shortages-air-traffic...