child labor

[haplesshobo]

For all this talk of yellow peril and how americans are being xenophobic with their reaction to the emergence of china as an economic power, do you also think this same racism is at play when americans try to impose their labor standards such as those on child labor on developing countries? Or, do you think its ignorance where people are well meaning but simply misguided?

By trying to impose western standards on every developing country with conditions that are not up to Western standards, all they're saying is that they wish to condemn all nonwhite peoples to a lifetime of scratching in the dirt for sustenance and to permanently lock in unfair advantages for workers in the developed world. By placing those barriers to entry from developing countries, do white people consciously realize they are preserving their living standard at the expense of non-whites?

Nobody likes child labor, but the bigger picture says that economic development is unilinear. And, unfortunately, at the bottom is child labor and that it is is an integral part of the fledgling economies. There really isn't any way around it, until these countries move from the gap to the rest of the developed world.

It seems especially racist for white countries to impose THEIR moral standards onto other countries and citizens with regards to labor conditions. And, its also ironic that they're lecturing those developing countries about their labor conditions, when every rich, developed country went through a period such as we're seeing in the Cambodias and Chinas of the world today. With luck, we'll be seeing it in the Nigerias and Zimbabwes of tomorrow. As a african aquaintance once told me, many african countries WISH they had the problems of cambodia and indonesia- Africa would be much, much, much better off if it were dotted with sweatshops rather than subsistence farms.

And, anybody who's actually gone to those countries, you realize that families have so many children and are so poor, that the children need to go to work to help support their family. Quite simply, their countries don't have a safety net in place for these families, nor do they have an adequate eductional system in place for these children if they aren't working. And, even if there is a rudimentary school system, it will charge the children money, which the family doesn't have, to enroll in school and which effectively shuts the children out. Would the child end up in school if he wasn't working in this sweat shop? Probably not. More likely, far more children would end up in child prostitution or end up doing back breaking work as a farmer rather than going to get an education.

Do white people simply not realize that, or simply don't care?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

I don't think child labour is an integral part of economies; the real problem is that in some countries, there's so many superfluous and contradictory regulations about employment of adults and the manner in which they can be hired and fired, that employers simply can't afford to comply, or even to risk hiring adult employees in a non-compliant fashion, who then might turn them in or blackmail them or attract the attention of regulators or whatnot. As a result, there's no work for adults because employers are unwilling to offer it. So adults go into the informal economy for themselves (street vendors and the like), while the factory owners hire children, who tend to be in more of a legally gray area.

[grimfan]

Human suffering is not a justifiable means to an end, which in this case is economic prosperity.

However, I do agree that it seems unfair for Western countries to now put a moratorium on all things "inhumane" now that they're developed enough to suddenly adopt a high attitude towards things like child labour and environmentalism. Hmm, the British sure weren't that civilized when just last last century they were employing 5 year olds as chimney sweeps and relegating families to workhouses. I know issues like child labour and environmentalism mean well, but maybe we should calculate how much pollution and damage countries like the U.S. or Britain did when they emerged as economic powers, and apply the same standards to up-and-coming nations like China or Brazil.

[haplesshobo]

exactly grimfan.

to criticize nonwestern countries for their enviornmental and labor laws is to ignore the west's equally poor record when their economies were first starting out. i can't think of any developed country today which didn't go through similar turmoils. its only when countries become more developed can they afford to implement such standards.

when we talk about human suffering, shouldn't we let those countries and workers decide for themselves? my african aquintance told me that he knew africans would get exploited, but that it was still better than the alternative.

[Chad]

By trying to impose western standards on every developing country with conditions that are not up to Western standards, all they're saying is that they wish to condemn all nonwhite peoples to a lifetime of scratching in the dirt for sustenance and to permanently lock in unfair advantages for workers in the developed world.

Yes, that's exactly what they're saying. It could never have anything to do with something like misunderstanding the problem.

As a african aquaintance once told me, many african countries WISH they had the problems of cambodia and indonesia- Africa would be much, much, much better off if it were dotted with sweatshops rather than subsistence farms.

Yeah, since we're such huge advocates of subsistence farms.

Would the child end up in school if he wasn't working in this sweat shop? Probably not. More likely, far more children would end up in child prostitution or end up doing back breaking work as a farmer rather than going to get an education.

All the more reason for child labor! Shit, why did we ever outlaw it when it's obviously such a great enterprise? No more prostitution for children if they're in sweatshops!

Honestly, where do you get this crap from? Obviously everybody realizes child labor is a lesser evil than child prostitution. But you're framing this as if there's only two ways for children of the developing world: child labor or prostitution. That's like if I said "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT CHILD RAPE, YOU SUPPORT CHILD MURDER. PICK ONE."
The idea is to eliminate these bad conditions altogether, since they are not unrelated.
It's absurd and sorry but this thread is total shit.
But I could've guessed that of all people here, you would be the one to come out in defense of child labor. It fits your agenda.

Notice the pattern in this guy's posts.. his intent is to accuse anyone left-of-center of being 1. racist 2. Mao-loving 3. communist
He is an idealogue and his posts only serve to present an extremely polarized spectrum of political views. Everyone's either a lover of free trade and freedom or an advocate of Stalinist dictatorship. These types of people do nothing for any honest discussion, every debate is just an attempt to smear.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

Nobody likes child labor, but the bigger picture says that economic development is unilinear. And, unfortunately, at the bottom is child labor and that it is is an integral part of the fledgling economies. There really isn't any way around it, until these countries move from the gap to the rest of the developed world.

huh? i think child labour is the result of an economy moving from "developing" to "developed". where did you get the idea that it is an integral part of a fledgling economy? it would mean that without child labour, the fledgling economy would fail.

to use China as an example, those that are working at the heart of the rising economy in China are generally urbanites and urbanites in China usually don't have working children. it is the rural poor that, because of economic displacement and the growing gap between the rich and the poor, that may need their children to work.

[Chad]

He's not confused about this.. his intent was to paint anyone who advocates labor regulations as a white racist. He is trying to exploit the forum's contempt for white racism to get us to buy into his way of thinking where child labor is an acceptable and natural thing.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

By placing those barriers to entry from developing countries, do white people consciously realize they are preserving their living standard at the expense of non-whites?

BTW, you're taking a really Buchananite view of the US economy with this statement. The manual jobs that are being done by child labour in Asia would never be done in the US, even by some illiterate illegal immigrants. Even if Western protests, divestments, etc. drove all manufacturing activity out of countries where there's a severe child labour problem, all that would happen is countries with a less severe child labour problem taking up the slack (with adult labour) --- likely China and Malaysia.

[haplesshobo]

Originally Posted by Chad

Yeah, since we're such huge advocates of subsistence farms.
All the more reason for child labor! Shit, why did we ever outlaw it when it's obviously such a great enterprise? No more prostitution for children if they're in sweatshops!

Honestly, where do you get this crap from? Obviously everybody realizes child labor is a lesser evil than child prostitution. But you're framing this as if there's only two ways for children of the developing world: child labor or prostitution. That's like if I said "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT CHILD RAPE, YOU SUPPORT CHILD MURDER. PICK ONE."
The idea is to eliminate these bad conditions altogether, since they are not unrelated.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody likes the idea of child labor. I'm simply pointing out that non-racist people are misguided where their actions actually does more harm than good. Its like white people who don't think they are racists even though their actions are still racist. You need to point out how their actions are racist to them.

Its only when the country is sufficiently developed and rich enough that you can hope to stop child labor. Every developed country used child labor on the climb to economic success, and doesn't need to use it today. However, to demand that countries going through that transition to stop using child labor would only cripple their economic development.

I'm curious, Chad, how you propose to prevent it as well as allow those non-western countries to develop.

Perhaps, integral was the wrong word. But, to make the transition from substinence farms where you have working children into a developed country, you're always going to have this gap where you have too many children. And, these children always end up working to support their family as they would have done otherwise on the farm.

[Chad]

Child labor was not an essential part of development for most countries. They don't develop by slowly climbing up the ladder, slowly increasing production and export.. usually there is some key event(s) that lead to a very sudden and rapid development. Development is not a linear process. I believe this is a fundamental difference in belief between people: some believe everybody can work their way up from the bottom, slowly but surely, and they will get to the top, eventually.
While putting children to work will help a family make more money, it doesn't do anything to change the situation or the reasons why that family is struggling in the first place. The idea is to change things so that the family won't have to put children to work.
Malaysia's development was rapid. Poverty rates went from 50% in 1970 to 5% in 2002. The key was the leadership, who developed their own ideas for how to improve things and didn't get tricked into taking loans from imperialist countries seeking to make them another debtor state.
“The philosophy underlying Malaysia's development is that growth is not to be pursued as an end in itself. Growth should always be accompanied by equitable distribution of the nation's wealth, so that all segments of society benefit from the development process,” -Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
In every single "developing" country you can find specific reasons why they are not really developing and rely on child labor.
And the family-owned farm operation is quite different than the sweatshops of the industrial revolution in the U.S., the nature of the labor was quite different and the payoff was much, much lower. A child working with the family to run the farm is learning valuable skills and is in the care of mother and father, the natural place for the child to be. The child also reaps rewards through this, because if production increases the whole family benefits, and not just the father. In the factory, the child gets no benefit from working harder except getting to keep his job. Farm labor is hard, but sweatshop work is worse because the child is working for someone who doesn't have his best interests in mind. The child's parents want the best for them.