Obama wants to ban child farm labor

[Leonhard]

Some clarifications have been made about the draft here.

1. The proposed Child Labor in Agriculture rule will not prohibit all people under the age of 18 from working on a farm.
2. The proposed rule would not eliminate the parental exemption for owners/operators of a family farm.
3. This proposed regulation will not eliminate 4-H and FFA programs.
4. Under the proposed rule, children will still be able to help neighbors in need of help.
5. Children will still be able to take animals to the county fair or to market.

There are some further clarifications in there. Unfortunately there's nothing in those clarifications that answers the legitimate questions of whether kids would allowed to work a family farm, not owned by their parents. Such an exemption might exist, but haven't been included in this clarification (to avoid making it too long, though I wish there was some statements about it). I suspect this will be allowed as legitimate exemptions, though.

It seems the worst winds have been let out of the story at any rate.

And it seems the parental exemption is only confirmed to be there for LLC registered farms, and not for S-corp or C-corp farms. Unfortunately I don't know what those terms mean, CP can you interpret?

[OtherCheek]

Some clarifications have been made about the draft here.

1. The proposed Child Labor in Agriculture rule will not prohibit all people under the age of 18 from working on a farm.
2. The proposed rule would not eliminate the parental exemption for owners/operators of a family farm.
3. This proposed regulation will not eliminate 4-H and FFA programs.
4. Under the proposed rule, children will still be able to help neighbors in need of help.
5. Children will still be able to take animals to the county fair or to market.

There are some further clarifications in there. Unfortunately there's nothing in those clarifications that answers the legitimate questions of whether kids would allowed to work a family farm, not owned by their parents. Such an exemption might exist, but haven't been included in this clarification (to avoid making it too long, though I wish there was some statements about it). I suspect this will be allowed as legitimate exemptions, though.

It seems the worst winds have been let out of the story at any rate.

And it seems the parental exemption is only confirmed to be there for LLC registered farms, and not for S-corp or C-corp farms. Unfortunately I don't know what those terms mean, CP can you interpret?

My core concern is this: Will this proposed legislation/regulation increase the size and power of the federal government, or shrink it? I want to shrink it.

[Leonhard]

My core concern is this: Will this proposed legislation/regulation increase the size and power of the federal government, or shrink it? I want to shrink it.

That's fine OtherCheek, but then that's a different discussion. The main story that's going around in conservative circles is: "Obama is enacting laws to break up country family lifestyle! He's outlawing the children of parents on a farm from picking up their trade!" It seems this story, at least, is a bit overblown.

[OtherCheek]

That's fine OtherCheek, but then that's a different discussion. The main story that's going around in conservative circles is: "Obama is enacting laws to break up country family lifestyle! He's outlawing the children of parents on a farm from picking up their trade!" It seems this story, at least, is a bit overblown.

Yes, and I made that point in the OP. I see the two things as related. As givernment grows in size and power, they intrude into the lives of individuals and families. And the family is undermined in the process.

[Leonhard]

Yes, and I made that point in the OP. I see the two things as related. As givernment grows in size and power, they intrude into the lives of individuals and families. And the family is undermined in the process.

If you made the point, then why are you now switching to another point? You made two sure, and I asked some questions about one of them, and then you tell me your core concern is the other point?

And do I think the story is a bit overblown, though I haven't made up my mind about the proposal yet. It seems something like this would be a good idea at any rate. Similar laws already exists for children working in hazardous working environments elsewhere, and this would be a natural extension of those laws. I haven't made up my mind whether this particular proposal is an improvement or not. Though if it makes you feel better, in cases where I'm uncertain whether something is an improvement I tend to vote against it. Of course that won't make a difference in this case since I'm not an American.

[Nathan Poe]

I didn't specify WHAT I agreed with.

What I agree with is that Obama and his liberal administration are trying to creep further into controlling our homes. Not to mention the other ways our civil rights are being trampled.

Oh come now... Are you sure you're not just upset because this liberal administration has stolen your "protecting the children" rationale?

I'm sure the Conservatives can sue for trademark infringement.

[joel]

Well by that logic, this is the expansion of child labor laws in general -- a prime example of government intrusion which goes a long way back before Obama.

Correct.

No more of a problem than if that same 14 year old want to earn a little extra money by stacking inventory at his neighbor's grocery store.

Which also should not be a crime.

so do you think the gov't is going to be so literal as to outlaw all such family business?

I wouldn't put it past them. We have the police shutting down and citing children running lemonade stands. And preventing people from distributing food to the hungry. because of strict enforcement of stupid laws.

their friends, however, will have to work their own farms.

Stupid. (and unjust)

Though if it makes you feel better, in cases where I'm uncertain whether something is an improvement I tend to vote against it. Of course that won't make a difference in this case since I'm not an American.

It wouldn't make a difference even if you were an American. This was not something that was going to be up for a vote. It was not even going to be voted on by the legislature. If had passed it would have been passed by unelected bureaucrats.

(Which, I argue, is unconstitutional. Support the "Write The Laws Act". https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/ )

[Nathan Poe]

My core concern is this: Will this proposed legislation/regulation increase the size and power of the federal government, or shrink it? I want to shrink it.

So why don't we repeal all of the child labor legislation and let the families -- and families alone -- decide how much work their kids can handle? That'll shrink the government even further.

[Cow Poke]

[Nathan Poe]

Correct.


Which also should not be a crime.

It's not -- but it is regulated -- a minor can only work so many hours, not after a certain time, etc.

I wouldn't put it past them. We have the police shutting down and citing children running lemonade stands. And preventing people from distributing food to the hungry. because of strict enforcement of stupid laws.

I've read some of those cases -- sounds more like an issue of local police than the big bad feds.

Stupid. (and unjust)

And yet, as Leonhard was nice enough to show, it's not coming to that.

[joel]

It's not -- but it is regulated -- a minor can only work so many hours, not after a certain time, etc.

Ok, looking into it more, I see you are right.
But it is a crime if you are 13.


A lot of things are crimes if you are 14 or 15: e.g. making anything, baking, loading/unloading goods from a vehicle.
So you can't bring the inventory into the grocery store from the truck. And even stacking it in the back room may be illegal, falling under "occupations in connection with [...] warehousing and storage."
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/complian...ldlabor101.pdf

Apparently it's illegal to do any woodworking, or operate a vehicle, or use an electric mixer in baking, or various other things, until you are 17 (or 18 in some cases).

It's illegal for 15-year-old to work during "school hours", as defined by the local government school, even if those aren't the child's actual school hours ("i.e., attends a private school or is home schooled").

And some states add additional restrictions.

I think all this kind of thing is immoral meddling (via the threat of physical force) in other people's lives, and a violation of liberty and justice.

I'm glad I grew up on a family farm, so I fell into the exception, so it was legal for me to do things like drive tractors and trucks, and do woodworking projects.

[Nathan Poe]

Ok, looking into it more, I see you are right.
But it is a crime if you are 13.

And exactly how much should a 13 year old be doing in the job market?

You know, people are always up in arms when they hear about children slaving away in some third-world sweatshop, blissfully unaware that America has a long history of the exact same thing -- which only stopped as a result of those darned invasive federal laws which are currently being demonized.

http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu...s_history.html

Now, I'm no fan of the government sticking its nose into my life any more than the next guy, but there are a few times that even the staunchest conservative has to agree that it's warranted.

I'm glad I grew up on a family farm, so I fell into the exception, so it was legal for me to do things like drive tractors and trucks, and do woodworking projects.

So this law, had it existed in your youth, wouldn't have changed a thing.

[joel]

And exactly how much should a 13 year old be doing in the job market?

I'd say that's none of your business, coercing all 13-year-olds.
If they want to earn some cash, and learn something about work and money, maybe even start their own small, summer business what's that to you? What gives you the right to stick your nose in and use force against them?

You know, people are always up in arms when they hear about children slaving away in some third-world sweatshop, blissfully unaware that America has a long history of the exact same thing -- which only stopped as a result of those darned invasive federal laws which are currently being demonized.

http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu...s_history.html

Now, I'm no fan of the government sticking its nose into my life any more than the next guy, but there are a few times that even the staunchest conservative has to agree that it's warranted.

This seems like a misconception. I think people are shocked at conditions when they look back in the past when people as a whole were less wealthy. Or people in poor countries today. Poor conditions are not a result of a lack of laws but of poverty. Family members including children worked long hours at unpleasant jobs because they were not rich enough to be able to afford not to. I think people today don't realize how unusual it is to be so rich as to be able to afford to have all children not work.

And conditions improved because we people increased in wealth, as the economy grew, not because of laws imposed. This is true not just of child labor, but of labor in general. As economist Ludwig von Mises wrote,

"As far as labor legislation and union pressure did not exceed the limits of what the workers would have got without them as a necessary consequence of the acceleration of capital accumulation as compared with population, they were superfluous. As far as they exceeded these limits, they were harmful to the interests of the masses. They delayed the accumulation of capital thus slowing down the tendency toward a rise in the marginal productivity of labor and in wage rates. They conferred privileges on some groups of wage earners at the expense of other groups. They created mass unemployment and decreased the amount of products available for the workers in their capacity as consumers."
Human Action XXI.7 http://mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec7.asp

So this law, had it existed in your youth, wouldn't have changed a thing.

That wasn't my point. It's that it was fine on the farm, so why not elsewhere? If I could operate a tractor, why not other machinery? If I could unload 50lb bags and stack them in storage on a farm, I see no harm in someone else the same age doing the same thing at somewhere not a farm. If I could gain experience and exercise re-shingling a roof, why is that illegal for other kids? (I think I remember seeing in the list that this is one of the jobs forbidden to those under 18).


But if you are wanting to ask about this particular law, I remember times, say, in Jr. High when friends would come and work on the farm with me to earn some cash. That would have been illegal. I see no reason why it should be.

[Nathan Poe]

I'd say that's none of your business, coercing all 13-year-olds.
If they want to earn some cash, and learn something about work and money, maybe even start their own small, summer business what's that to you? What gives you the right to stick your nose in and use force against them?

Fair enough.

mmd-mining4.jpg

These kids learned quite a bit about hard work before they were even 13, and earning $1-$3 a week certainly taught them the value of money (in the interest of full disclosure, we're talking 1880s wages here).

You're absolutely right -- the government had no business then, nor do we have any business now, to tell their parents that these kids weren't ready.

This seems like a misconception. I think people are shocked at conditions when they look back in the past when people as a whole were less wealthy. Or people in poor countries today. Poor conditions are not a result of a lack of laws but of poverty. Family members including children worked long hours at unpleasant jobs because they were not rich enough to be able to afford not to. I think people today don't realize how unusual it is to be so rich as to be able to afford to have all children not work.

What difference does it make? Rich or poor, the last thing you want is the government telling you you can't put your kid to work.

And conditions improved because we people increased in wealth, as the economy grew, not because of laws imposed. This is true not just of child labor, but of labor in general. As economist Ludwig von Mises wrote,

"As far as labor legislation and union pressure did not exceed the limits of what the workers would have got without them as a necessary consequence of the acceleration of capital accumulation as compared with population, they were superfluous. As far as they exceeded these limits, they were harmful to the interests of the masses. They delayed the accumulation of capital thus slowing down the tendency toward a rise in the marginal productivity of labor and in wage rates. They conferred privileges on some groups of wage earners at the expense of other groups. They created mass unemployment and decreased the amount of products available for the workers in their capacity as consumers."
Human Action XXI.7 http://mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec7.asp

So it wasn't necessarily the laws, but rising wealth, which encouraged employers to raise their standards.

The problem, of course, is that wealth in this nation isn't necessarily rising evenly. You, for example, I'm assuming are well-off enough to never need to send your children into the kinds of deplorable conditions we hear about all the time. Work, for your 13 year old, is more of a luxury than a necessity -- and why should the government interfere with his (or your) luxuries?

I'm personally more concerned with those families (most of them immigrants, yes, some of them illegals) who cannot afford that luxury. I'm assuming (and perhaps I assume too much) that these new laws were written with them in mind.

539w.jpg

Now it's true that the same legislation which would keep little Paco out of the tomato fields and in school where he belongs also might infringe on your 13 year old's right to go out into the labor pool and earn some extra cash outside of home. Personally, I think sometimes you gotta take the bad with the good.

(of course, I'm assuming that you think getting little Paco out of the fields and in school is a good thing -- let me know if I'm assuming too much)

That wasn't my point. It's that it was fine on the farm, so why not elsewhere? If I could operate a tractor, why not other machinery? If I could unload 50lb bags and stack them in storage on a farm, I see no harm in someone else the same age doing the same thing at somewhere not a farm. If I could gain experience and exercise re-shingling a roof, why is that illegal for other kids? (I think I remember seeing in the list that this is one of the jobs forbidden to those under 18).

Because like it or not, our government has decided that kids need certain protections from potentially dangerous or unsafe things. For the longest time, farm labor has been exempt from those protections -- it would appear that someone in the department of labor has decided that those exemptions are no longer needed.

But if you are wanting to ask about this particular law, I remember times, say, in Jr. High when friends would come and work on the farm with me to earn some cash. That would have been illegal. I see no reason why it should be.

I don't think the law is meant to inconvenience those who have a choice -- I think it's more about protecting those who don't from people who would exploit them. Your inconvenience has been considered an acceptable price to pay.

Look at the big picture -- the big, bad gov't might not be out to get you.

Nevertheless, there's no longer any reason to worry -- an update to the OP says that the proposal has been soundly struck down.

[Cow Poke]

Nevertheless, there's no longer any reason to worry -- an update to the OP says that the proposal has been soundly struck down.

Well, then!