Obama wants to ban child farm labor

[joel]

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.

I assume you are saying this in irony. But I agree with it. Though as a parent, I'd let my children decide for themselves (because I'm wealthy enough to give them that luxury). I'd consider your coercion to be against my child, not against me.

And I consider it cruelty to force unemployment upon poor families (e.g. in the past) who need everyone to work in order to survive. That was just the reality in the past, that wealthy people today don't understand.

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.

If you are talking about actual cases of abuse, that's a different matter. No need for blanket labor laws for that.

The problem, of course, is that wealth in this nation isn't necessarily rising evenly.

All the more reason not to impose blanket laws on everyone. And if you do, they (unequally) oppress the poor.

In the quote from Mises, if we are talking about an "uneven rising", then at any point in time, the same reasoning would be that the legislation is superfluous for the wealthy, and harmful to the interests of the poor.

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?

Right, it "only" bars the wealthy from their rightful liberty. It bars the poor from a necessity, which results in greater poverty, a slower climb out of poverty, or even death.

I'm personally more concerned with those families (most of them immigrants, yes, some of them illegals) who cannot afford that luxury.

That makes no sense. They cannot afford the luxury of not working, so you are going to force them to not work. Thus perhaps killing them.

I'm sorry, I don't see this coercing other people's children as being compassionate. Rather, the exact opposite.

[...] getting little Paco out of the fields and in school is a good thing [...]

Go over to a poor country (or into the past) and enforce that, and it will result in mass death by starvation.

Also working in the field--e.g. in the summer--need not conflict with education (it didn't for me, growing up), yet it is a crime for your 13 year old Paco.

[Nathan Poe]

I assume you are saying this in irony. But I agree with it. Though as a parent, I'd let my children decide for themselves (because I'm wealthy enough to give them that luxury). I'd consider your coercion to be against my child, not against me.

And I consider it cruelty to force unemployment upon poor families (e.g. in the past) who need everyone to work in order to survive. That was just the reality in the past, that wealthy people today don't understand.

Unfortunately it's a reality in the present as well. And there are plenty of employers who (with children and adults alike) exploit the fact that not everyone can afford the luxury.

If you are talking about actual cases of abuse, that's a different matter. No need for blanket labor laws for that.

Who's to say what's abuse and what's just another day on the job?

All the more reason not to impose blanket laws on everyone. And if you do, they (unequally) oppress the poor.

Except the purpose of Child labor laws is not to oppress the poor, it's to punish the employers who would exploit them.

Now of course, those employers will then stop employing the 13 year olds, which is unfortunate, but if they are thus forced to hire adults, paying them a decent wage, it'll even out -- at least in theory.

In the quote from Mises, if we are talking about an "uneven rising", then at any point in time, the same reasoning would be that the legislation is superfluous for the wealthy, and harmful to the interests of the poor.

So what we really need is one set of laws for the wealthy, and another set that applies only to the poor -- I don't see that going over very well.

Right, it "only" bars the wealthy from their rightful liberty. It bars the poor from a necessity, which results in greater poverty, a slower climb out of poverty, or even death.

And this is what happens when we hold employers responsible -- are there any child labor laws you would find to be an acceptable intrusion on your rights?

That makes no sense. They cannot afford the luxury of not working, so you are going to force them to not work. Thus perhaps killing them.

No, we're forcing the employers to hire adults instead of children -- and forcing them to pay an adult wage, which would make forcing the children to work unnecessary.

(or did you assume that the children were being paid an adult wage? What would be the point of hiring children if they were?)

I'm sorry, I don't see this coercing other people's children as being compassionate. Rather, the exact opposite.

Again, the pressure is not being brought on the children, but on the employers -- if they hired adults and paid them what they were worth, child labor would be unnecessary.

Go over to a poor country (or into the past) and enforce that, and it will result in mass death by starvation.

Including America?

Also working in the field--e.g. in the summer--need not conflict with education (it didn't for me, growing up), yet it is a crime for your 13 year old Paco.

You're assuming Paco is only forced to work during the summer -- sadly, this is not the case.

[joel]

And there are plenty of employers who (with children and adults alike) exploit the fact that not everyone can afford the luxury.

Payment for labor (which includes the cost of desirable working conditions, but for simplicity we'll include it all in "wages") is subject to the law of supply and demand. It tends toward the marginal revenue resulting from the labor (which is determined by the consumers). If wages are less than this, then employers have a profit incentive to increase wages. The (Marxist) exploitation theory of wages (and the "iron law of wages") have long since been refuted by economists.

It would be nice if everyone learned economics. The state of things today seems to me analogous to people not learning about science, and almost everyone walking around thinking the Earth is flat. And making legislative decisions based on that!

Who's to say what's abuse and what's just another day on the job?

I acknowledge that drawing that line is tricky.
And it may vary depending on the situation. As we can clearly see that what is necessary to survival to others (or even an improvement in their welfare) is mistakenly thought of as abusive by modern (wealthy) Americans.

Except the purpose of Child labor laws is not to oppress the poor

Yes, this and pretty much all other laws supported by the "Left" cause the very things they are trying to prevent.
The Left is full of good intentions and counterproductive means.

the pressure is not being brought on the children, but on the employers

A law that says people can't hire you has the same effect as the one that says you cannot sell your labor services. Who it is nominally imposed upon makes no difference in its effect.

This kind of fallacy shows up a lot in Leftist thinking. E.g., they propose imposing a luxury tax, imagining that it is imposed on the rich, whereas the result of a tax is the same whether it is nominally imposed upon the buyer or on the seller. And then, because luxuries usually have elastic demand, the tax falls most heavily on the producers (including labor) who produce the goods. Another example is "payroll taxes" nominally paid by the employer.

Now of course, those employers will then stop employing the 13 year olds, which is unfortunate, but if they are thus forced to hire adults, paying them a decent wage, it'll even out -- at least in theory.

No, it's just an imposed mass unemployment. Because of this supply (of labor) does fall, but that can mean that total revenue (to laborers) also falls. It would also reduce total output of production, meaning a lower supply of goods and thus higher prices for the goods the poor need to buy. It also slows economic growth, which is the only thing that can really raise the masses out of poverty. If it causes output for the laborers to fall too much, they may not survive, as is likely in a poor country.

In the quote from Mises, if we are talking about an "uneven rising", then at any point in time, the same reasoning would be that the legislation is superfluous for the wealthy, and harmful to the interests of the poor.

So what we really need is one set of laws for the wealthy, and another set that applies only to the poor -- I don't see that going over very well.

No, it's bad for the wealthy and worse for the poor. So get rid of it.
I'm for equality before the law.

-- are there any child labor laws you would find to be an acceptable intrusion on your rights?

No.
What is needed is only laws against child abuse and slavery.
Granted abuse may be tricky to define. Some people think spanking or making your kid do anything is abuse. Others disagree. I think modern legislation has erred too far on the side against families/parents, and should shift back in the direction of parental rights.

If the 13 year old is voluntarily selling his labor in a consensual exchange, I'd think it should be pretty hard to argue that it's child abuse.

Including America?

Just preceding the earlier Mises quote, he wrote,

"The history of capitalism in Great Britain as well as in all other capitalist countries is a record of an unceasing tendency toward the improvement in the wage earners' standard of living. This evolution coincided with the development of prolabor legislation and the spread of labor unionism on the one hand and with the increase in the marginal productivity of labor on the other hand. The economists assert that the improvement in the workers' material conditions is due to the increase in the per capita quota of capital invested and the technological achievements which the employment of this additional capital brought about."

While the labor legislation only harmed them and retarded this progress.

[Nathan Poe]

Payment for labor (which includes the cost of desirable working conditions, but for simplicity we'll include it all in "wages") is subject to the law of supply and demand. It tends toward the marginal revenue resulting from the labor (which is determined by the consumers). If wages are less than this, then employers have a profit incentive to increase wages. The (Marxist) exploitation theory of wages (and the "iron law of wages") have long since been refuted by economists.

In other words, there's no reason for employers to pay less-than-substantial wages -- so why is it that many of them still do?

I acknowledge that drawing that line is tricky.
And it may vary depending on the situation. As we can clearly see that what is necessary to survival to others (or even an improvement in their welfare) is mistakenly thought of as abusive by modern (wealthy) Americans.

So modern (wealthy) Americans should mind their own business and tell the government to stop trying to draw that line -- assume that those who are working in let's say less than ideal conditions are doing so out of necessity, and to outlaw this would be detrimental?

Yes, this and pretty much all other laws supported by the "Left" cause the very things they are trying to prevent.
The Left is full of good intentions and counterproductive means.

A law that says people can't hire you has the same effect as the one that says you cannot sell your labor services. Who it is nominally imposed upon makes no difference in its effect.

This kind of fallacy shows up a lot in Leftist thinking.

Yet another example is the outlawing of prostitution -- it would seem that the Left is not the only ones who fall for this fallacy.

But that's somewhat off topic, so we'll let it go for now.

No, it's just an imposed mass unemployment. Because of this supply (of labor) does fall, but that can mean that total revenue (to laborers) also falls. It would also reduce total output of production, meaning a lower supply of goods and thus higher prices for the goods the poor need to buy. It also slows economic growth, which is the only thing that can really raise the masses out of poverty. If it causes output for the laborers to fall too much, they may not survive, as is likely in a poor country.

The problem is that this country already has an untapped labor pool -- in fact, unemployment is disturbingly high these days. If the work needs to be done, and the employer is forced to hire adults, why wouldn't they do so?

No, it's bad for the wealthy and worse for the poor. So get rid of it.

No labor laws at all -- a completely free and unregulated market.

What is needed is only laws against child abuse and slavery.

And a reasonable definition of both.

Granted abuse may be tricky to define. Some people think spanking or making your kid do anything is abuse. Others disagree. I think modern legislation has erred too far on the side against families/parents, and should shift back in the direction of parental rights.

Including the right to sell your child's services to an employer.

If the 13 year old is voluntarily selling his labor in a consensual exchange, I'd think it should be pretty hard to argue that it's child abuse.

Except that legally speaking, children cannot make such voluntary agreements -- they are their parents' responsibility.

What, for example, would be the result where the 13 year old volunteers, but the parents refuse to consent?

Just preceding the earlier Mises quote, he wrote,

"The history of capitalism in Great Britain as well as in all other capitalist countries is a record of an unceasing tendency toward the improvement in the wage earners' standard of living. This evolution coincided with the development of prolabor legislation and the spread of labor unionism on the one hand and with the increase in the marginal productivity of labor on the other hand. The economists assert that the improvement in the workers' material conditions is due to the increase in the per capita quota of capital invested and the technological achievements which the employment of this additional capital brought about."

Interesting -- does it go into specifics about what kind of "prolabor legislation" it was?

While the labor legislation only harmed them and retarded this progress.

Doesn't your quote refute this assertion?

[joel]

In other words, there's no reason for employers to pay less-than-substantial wages -- so why is it that many of them still do?

No, it's that wages tend toward the marginal value of the labor (according to the consumers). Some activities will have higher or lower marginal value than others. I would expect the wages for pointless labor--like digging holes and filling them back in for no reason--would be zero. The point is that prices (of all factors of production: cotton, machines, labor) are determined by their marginal productivity, as opposed to "exploitation" theories.

So modern (wealthy) Americans should mind their own business and tell the government to stop trying to draw that line -- assume that those who are working in let's say less than ideal conditions are doing so out of necessity, and to outlaw this would be detrimental?

No, a line does need to be drawn.
And the assumption in the opposite direction is at least as bad.
If anything, I think one should err on the side of presumption of innocence. You can't assume that just because someone is working in less than ideal conditions that there is any violation of rights going on.

One guide should be that the focus should be on protecting the rights of the child. Things like simply banning him from earning money (or equivalently from being employed) are counterproductive to that end.

Yet another example is the outlawing of prostitution -- it would seem that the Left is not the only ones who fall for this fallacy.

But that's somewhat off topic, so we'll let it go for now.

Yes, and the war on drugs. We could go on and on.
Good thing I'm neither "Left" nor "Right". And I don't think that's a useful or reasonable spectrum anyway.
(The logical consistency of libertarian philosophy is one of the things that first attracted me about it.)

The problem is that this country already has an untapped labor pool -- in fact, unemployment is disturbingly high these days. If the work needs to be done, and the employer is forced to hire adults, why wouldn't they do so?

I think the chronic unemployment is the result of government intervention. doing all they can to prevent needed market corrections from occurring. (and causing the need for the correction in the first place)

No labor laws at all -- a completely free and unregulated market.

Certainly for acts between consenting adults.

Laws regarding children may be somewhat different due to their not being entirely independent, in a guardianship relationship.

Including the right to sell your child's services to an employer.

Is it okay to give your child's labor services away for free? Is it only bad if they get paid for it?

But I guess I'm more concerned with the rights of the child. I.e. where the child wants to sell his own labor services (and be the owner of the resulting wages). That's different from the parent treating their child like a slave.

Does a parent have the right to force their child to work? That's a different, but also interesting, question.
Is it okay to force your child to clean up after themselves, make their bed, take out the trash, walk the dog, do schoolwork, do yardwork/gardening/farming,
paint the house, produce goods, hunt/gather food? Does the answer change when it's needed to keep food on the table?

Is it okay to send him off to a schoolhouse and force him to do school work (under the orders of someone who is not his parents) for what amounts to a full-time job, but not okay to send them to a nearby farm some days out of the summer, to do some work?

Except that legally speaking, children cannot make such voluntary agreements -- they are their parents' responsibility.

What, for example, would be the result where the 13 year old volunteers, but the parents refuse to consent?

I'm not super happy with the way the law treats children. I understand it is common for homeschooled students to graduate high school at 14-16 or so. I think 16 used to be the usual age for beginning college.

I remember times about age 12-13 when my dad paid me (and friends, some of whom were younger than I) to do work on the farm. I remember I and my friends being fully capable of making such voluntary arrangements/decisions for ourselves.

For some reason another memory pops up, from about the same time, of I and my friends signing up with one of those music clubs where you get a bunch of CDs for free by agreeing to buy a few at regular price. We were capable of understanding, entering into, and managing such a contract.

I think some things like a statutory "age of majority" should not be a fixed numerical age, but should be based on the child's demonstrated independence. If a child can demonstrate himself independent, he should, to that extent, have the legal rights of an adult.

In which case, the parents would no longer have the right to forbid him from earning money.
But to the extent, the child is dependent upon the parents, the the parent's consent would be required, I think.

But is that what you are concerned about? It seemed you were more concerned about parents forcing children to work, more than parents refusing to let their child work.

Interesting -- does it go into specifics about what kind of "prolabor legislation" it was?

From the context, I think he means things like minimum wage laws, hours restrictions, conditions requirements, legislation enforcing labor cartels.

While the labor legislation only harmed them and retarded this progress.

Doesn't your quote refute this assertion?

No (and I do recommend following the link and reading the passage, if you like), it says that the improvement in wages and conditions followed both "the development of prolabor legislation and the spread of labor unionism on the one hand and with the increase in the marginal productivity of labor on the other hand."

Thus you have some people saying that the improvement was caused by the legislation. But other people--"the economists"--saying that the improvement was "due to the increase in the per capita quota of capital invested" (i.e., economic growth) and that the legislation only retarded this improvement.

A few paragraphs later, he points out that looking at the history alone cannot tell us which of the two is correct. In both cases, merely pointing at the history is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The question must be settled by reasoning about economics. Mises here concludes, based on the economic reasoning in that book, that it was capital accumulation that caused the improvement and that the legislation worked counter to the improvement. "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."

He says that those who defended the legislation (and those who later wrote histories of the conditions of labor) "were ignorant of economics and boasted of this ignorance."

[Nathan Poe]

No, it's that wages tend toward the marginal value of the labor (according to the consumers). Some activities will have higher or lower marginal value than others. I would expect the wages for pointless labor--like digging holes and filling them back in for no reason--would be zero. The point is that prices (of all factors of production: cotton, machines, labor) are determined by their marginal productivity, as opposed to "exploitation" theories.

This is quite interesting -- I'm no economics expert (as you can plainly see), but I'm learning quite a bit.

There's still one thing that puzzles me -- a specific example that I thought you might help shed some light on.

Last year, Georgia and Alabama enacted some pretty strict laws making it harder for farmers to hire undocumented workers. Now, you would think that in states with about 10 percent unemployment, there would be plenty of documented workers to take up the slack. This was not the case. Turns out, almost 50% of the farmers reported that they couldn't find enough pickers, and as a result, an estimate $115 million in crops were lost -- rotted in the fields.

Of course, we can agree that there were several factors which led to this, but could one of them be that those farmers underestimated the marginal value of the labor they were hiring for?

Or is it something simpler, like supply and demand? As the supply of eligible labor plummeted, the farmers should have expected to pay more for it?

No, a line does need to be drawn.
And the assumption in the opposite direction is at least as bad.
If anything, I think one should err on the side of presumption of innocence. You can't assume that just because someone is working in less than ideal conditions that there is any violation of rights going on.

One guide should be that the focus should be on protecting the rights of the child. Things like simply banning him from earning money (or equivalently from being employed) are counterproductive to that end.

Fair enough.

Yes, and the war on drugs. We could go on and on.
Good thing I'm neither "Left" nor "Right". And I don't think that's a useful or reasonable spectrum anyway.
(The logical consistency of libertarian philosophy is one of the things that first attracted me about it.)

I'm seeing the value of it myself.

I think the chronic unemployment is the result of government intervention. doing all they can to prevent needed market corrections from occurring. (and causing the need for the correction in the first place)

Isn't another issue that our postindustrial society is getting too specialized? Market corrections also mean human "corrections" -- but the problem with skilled labor is that it's skilled in only certain areas -- A person spends months, maybe years, to become skilled in their particular field, only to discover that their field is no longer in demand -- now the only available jobs are in a field in which they have no training, no experience, and no qualifications.

Ironically enough, it's the unskilled laborers who have the advantage -- they can adapt much quicker.

I don't blame any particular governmental policies for this -- it seems to me an inevitable side effect of increasing wealth.

Certainly for acts between consenting adults.

Laws regarding children may be somewhat different due to their not being entirely independent, in a guardianship relationship.

And when the guardian's wishes contradict the child's, we have a delicate situation.

Is it okay to give your child's labor services away for free? Is it only bad if they get paid for it?

Depends on the services -- clearly there are plenty which are completely unacceptable even for free.

But I guess I'm more concerned with the rights of the child. I.e. where the child wants to sell his own labor services (and be the owner of the resulting wages). That's different from the parent treating their child like a slave.

Except is the child ever really the owner of the resulting wages? We're not talking about little Timmy with his lemonade stand here, we're talking legally contracted labor -- and minors cannot enter into contracts -- it's always through the guardians one way or another.

Does a parent have the right to force their child to work? That's a different, but also interesting, question.
Is it okay to force your child to clean up after themselves, make their bed, take out the trash, walk the dog, do schoolwork, do yardwork/gardening/farming,
paint the house, produce goods, hunt/gather food? Does the answer change when it's needed to keep food on the table?

So at what point does it become slavery? Surely I can compel my child to do all these chores for me; can I thus rent him out to my neighbors?

Is it okay to send him off to a schoolhouse and force him to do school work (under the orders of someone who is not his parents) for what amounts to a full-time job, but not okay to send them to a nearby farm some days out of the summer, to do some work?

When you put it that way, it sounds perfectly reasonable -- and as guardian, I have ownership of his earnings.

I'm not super happy with the way the law treats children. I understand it is common for homeschooled students to graduate high school at 14-16 or so. I think 16 used to be the usual age for beginning college.

I remember times about age 12-13 when my dad paid me (and friends, some of whom were younger than I) to do work on the farm. I remember I and my friends being fully capable of making such voluntary arrangements/decisions for ourselves.

For some reason another memory pops up, from about the same time, of I and my friends signing up with one of those music clubs where you get a bunch of CDs for free by agreeing to buy a few at regular price. We were capable of understanding, entering into, and managing such a contract.

I think some things like a statutory "age of majority" should not be a fixed numerical age, but should be based on the child's demonstrated independence. If a child can demonstrate himself independent, he should, to that extent, have the legal rights of an adult.

What you're proposing already exists -- a minor who can "demonstrate himself independent" can petition for emancipation via the courts (a few states don't even require a hearing -- a minor must simply declare himself emancipated). Likewise, should a minor marry or join the military (with parental consent, of course), they are also automatically considered emancipated form their parents.

The question is, what about those minors who don't go one of these routes? For them, 18 becomes the magic number. Seems pretty arbitrary to me as well, but it's as good as any other.

In which case, the parents would no longer have the right to forbid him from earning money.
But to the extent, the child is dependent upon the parents, the the parent's consent would be required, I think.

But is that what you are concerned about? It seemed you were more concerned about parents forcing children to work, more than parents refusing to let their child work.

I am -- I'm just wondering if it works both ways.

From the context, I think he means things like minimum wage laws, hours restrictions, conditions requirements, legislation enforcing labor cartels.

Most of which have been pretty sensible, IMO.

No (and I do recommend following the link and reading the passage, if you like), it says that the improvement in wages and conditions followed both "the development of prolabor legislation and the spread of labor unionism on the one hand and with the increase in the marginal productivity of labor on the other hand."

Thus you have some people saying that the improvement was caused by the legislation. But other people--"the economists"--saying that the improvement was "due to the increase in the per capita quota of capital invested" (i.e., economic growth) and that the legislation only retarded this improvement.

A few paragraphs later, he points out that looking at the history alone cannot tell us which of the two is correct. In both cases, merely pointing at the history is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The question must be settled by reasoning about economics. Mises here concludes, based on the economic reasoning in that book, that it was capital accumulation that caused the improvement and that the legislation worked counter to the improvement. "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."

He says that those who defended the legislation (and those who later wrote histories of the conditions of labor) "were ignorant of economics and boasted of this ignorance."

Well, there's certainly a lot to look at -- I'll be sure to when I get the time.

[joel]

There's still one thing that puzzles me -- a specific example that I thought you might help shed some light on.

Last year, Georgia and Alabama enacted some pretty strict laws making it harder for farmers to hire undocumented workers. Now, you would think that in states with about 10 percent unemployment, there would be plenty of documented workers to take up the slack. This was not the case. Turns out, almost 50% of the farmers reported that they couldn't find enough pickers, and as a result, an estimate $115 million in crops were lost -- rotted in the fields.

Of course, we can agree that there were several factors which led to this, but could one of them be that those farmers underestimated the marginal value of the labor they were hiring for?

That's possible. In order to get enough labor, they would have had to pay higher wages.
Perhaps in this case, the wage required to hire enough labor to harvest all the crops exceeded the marginal productivity of harvesting those crops. In which case it made economic sense to let them rot instead. (i.e., it would have cost more to harvest them than they would have gained by selling them) The problem caused by not forseeing the the legislative change or its impact.

Or perhaps it could be a timing issue--that it was economical to pay the higher wages, but not enough time to get the word out and attract enough labor on short notice.

Isn't another issue that our postindustrial society is getting too specialized? Market corrections also mean human "corrections" -- but the problem with skilled labor is that it's skilled in only certain areas -- A person spends months, maybe years, to become skilled in their particular field, only to discover that their field is no longer in demand -- now the only available jobs are in a field in which they have no training, no experience, and no qualifications.

Specialization (division of labor) is a good thing. It's one of the things that makes an economy more productive.

The issue you describe here also pertains to physical capital. Investors may invest huge sums of money and time in producing buildings, machinery, etc. designed for a special purpose. A shift in consumer demand or technological change might make that capital useless, so that it makes economic sense to let the building/machines just sit there idle. The immediate reason is because the complementary factors of production are too expensive relative to the value of the output. E.g., it costs more to buy the raw materials and labor needed as inputs to the factory than the output of the factory is worth.

In both cases (the factory or the education/training) the failure/loss results from the failure of the investor to correctly forecast the future market. All investment is based on forecasting future demand/conditions. This case of profit/loss is no different than other cases of profit/loss in a market.

And like you point out with labor, some physical capital is more specialized than others. Some can be shifted to other uses more readily than others.

Except is the child ever really the owner of the resulting wages? We're not talking about little Timmy with his lemonade stand here, we're talking legally contracted labor -- and minors cannot enter into contracts -- it's always through the guardians one way or another.

With my children, I intend to maintain a clear line between my property and my child's property, as much as possible.
When I've worked, the pay was always mine.

So at what point does it become slavery? Surely I can compel my child to do all these chores for me; can I thus rent him out to my neighbors?

Does that make a difference in whether it is slavery? It doesn't seem like it would.

Suppose you had your child make crafts, which you then sell to your neighbors.
Or suppose you had your child sell his labor services--making crafts--to your neighbors.

There is only a nominal difference between the two.

[Nathan Poe]

That's possible. In order to get enough labor, they would have had to pay higher wages.
Perhaps in this case, the wage required to hire enough labor to harvest all the crops exceeded the marginal productivity of harvesting those crops. In which case it made economic sense to let them rot instead. (i.e., it would have cost more to harvest them than they would have gained by selling them) The problem caused by not forseeing the the legislative change or its impact.

The irony being, of course, that the legislature had the exact effect its proponents hoped for -- getting illegals out of the job market.

Seems to me that the dirty little secret of American economic success is illegal immigrant labor -- as much as the politicians decry them, look what happens without them?

It might be that the flip side of that coin (at least in agriculture) would be child labor -- although to a lesser degree.

Or perhaps it could be a timing issue--that it was economical to pay the higher wages, but not enough time to get the word out and attract enough labor on short notice.

Distance is always a factor as well -- an unemployed man in Montgomery isn't going to hoof it all the way to Birmingham unless the work is worth the trip.

Specialization (division of labor) is a good thing. It's one of the things that makes an economy more productive.

But wouldn't you agree that there is such a thing as overspecialization? A potential worker had best have multiple skills to be desirable in an everchanging market.

The issue you describe here also pertains to physical capital. Investors may invest huge sums of money and time in producing buildings, machinery, etc. designed for a special purpose. A shift in consumer demand or technological change might make that capital useless, so that it makes economic sense to let the building/machines just sit there idle. The immediate reason is because the complementary factors of production are too expensive relative to the value of the output. E.g., it costs more to buy the raw materials and labor needed as inputs to the factory than the output of the factory is worth.

In both cases (the factory or the education/training) the failure/loss results from the failure of the investor to correctly forecast the future market. All investment is based on forecasting future demand/conditions. This case of profit/loss is no different than other cases of profit/loss in a market.

And like you point out with labor, some physical capital is more specialized than others. Some can be shifted to other uses more readily than others.

Of course, an employer can afford (albeit not for long) to let machinery sit idle -- a worker often doesn't have that luxury -- bills to pay, and all that.

With my children, I intend to maintain a clear line between my property and my child's property, as much as possible.

The point is that you're making a distinction that you're under no obligation to make -- What's theirs is legally yours, at least until they turn 18.

Other parents may not be as ethical as you. Think of all the child actors who ended up broke because their managers/parents squandered their money.

When I've worked, the pay was always mine.

Your parents were good to you.

Does that make a difference in whether it is slavery? It doesn't seem like it would.

Suppose you had your child make crafts, which you then sell to your neighbors.
Or suppose you had your child sell his labor services--making crafts--to your neighbors.

There is only a nominal difference between the two.

Even if your child has no interest in providing those services, and is only doing so on your orders?

[theblueprint_Ni]

Has paid farm labor for underage kids been a widespread problem? Have there been a reasonable number of reported abuses to justify having to create another law? If not, why in the world does the government feel the need to spend more money creating and enforcing unnecessary and counterproductive laws? Maybe there HAS been a problem that needs to be addressed...but every farm kid I've known has never complained about the business. I'd like to understand the data used to support the need.

[Jaecp]

Has paid farm labor for underage kids been a widespread problem? Have there been a reasonable number of reported abuses to justify having to create another law? If not, why in the world does the government feel the need to spend more money creating and enforcing unnecessary and counterproductive laws? Maybe there HAS been a problem that needs to be addressed...but every farm kid I've known has never complained about the business. I'd like to understand the data used to support the need.

It's almost like if you get raised up a certain way, you tend not to question it easily

[theblueprint_Ni]

It's almost like if you get raised up a certain way, you tend not to question it easily

That's very true. But I'm still curious why the government feels the need to get involved. I can understand if there's a widespread problem in rural America concerning the youth and the abuses they suffer as minors. But is there a real problem that should be addressed? Why spend time and money on this, and why feel the need to step in and parent the situation? At the philosophical level, what are they trying to achieve and what message are they trying to convey? I'm truly opened to being convinced if there's some old west type lawlessness and some sweat shop farm house kind of environment has engulfed the youth. Don't we have wars in the middle east that need closure? It just seems that the government should take care of old business before starting new business.

[joel]

The irony being, of course, that the legislature had the exact effect its proponents hoped for -- getting illegals out of the job market.

I'm opposed to such legislation.

But wouldn't you agree that there is such a thing as overspecialization? A potential worker had best have multiple skills to be desirable in an everchanging market.

Multiple skills is good.

"specialization" can be meant in different senses. It can mean having/acquiring only one skill. Or it can mean that at any given time your work focuses on one thing (even though you may have more than one skill).

I had in mind the latter, you had in mind the former, so we were miscommunicating a bit.

Of course, an employer can afford (albeit not for long) to let machinery sit idle -- a worker often doesn't have that luxury -- bills to pay, and all that.

That's not quite right.
It's not that the owner of the machine can afford to let it sit idle, it's that he cannot afford to run it.

And he may not be able to afford to let it sit idle either. That is, he may have lost his whole investment and gone broke.

An employer too has bills to pay and may be just scraping by. And may lose his capital at any moment.

The point is that you're making a distinction that you're under no obligation to make -- What's theirs is legally yours, at least until they turn 18.

Then let's change that law.

Even if your child has no interest in providing those services, and is only doing so on your orders?

I'm saying they are both slavery or both not.

[Nathan Poe]

I'm opposed to such legislation.

As am I.

Multiple skills is good.

"specialization" can be meant in different senses. It can mean having/acquiring only one skill. Or it can mean that at any given time your work focuses on one thing (even though you may have more than one skill).

So it would seem. But there is the danger of neglecting certain skills in order to focus on the ones which are earning your wages for you at a given moment.

If you'll forgive my oversimplification, a lawyer who suddenly finds himself out of demand (I know, impossible in this day and age, but go with me on this one) might be able to fall back on the accounting skills he once had -- but he's going to find himself up against more than enough real accountants to make his job search nigh-fruitless.

I had in mind the latter, you had in mind the former, so we were miscommunicating a bit.

I'm glad we worked that out.

That's not quite right.
It's not that the owner of the machine can afford to let it sit idle, it's that he cannot afford to run it.

And he may not be able to afford to let it sit idle either. That is, he may have lost his whole investment and gone broke.

An employer too has bills to pay and may be just scraping by. And may lose his capital at any moment.

Fair enough.

Then let's change that law.

Which brings us to the million-dollar question: Change it to what?

I'm saying they are both slavery or both not.

I'm thinking we'd best decide which, because we're going to find plenty of families in both situations.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Nick:
Exactly, becuase America is so much worse off now than in late 2008 right?

Well, let's see...

National debt:
Then: $10 trillion - Now: $15 trillion

Unemployment
Then: 7.3% - Now: 8.1%

It certainly doesn't look any better.