Child Labor Laws

[jackson33]

CP; So you don't misunderstand anything I'm saying, a child working should be the decision of the parent, at the request of the child. To carry this forward, it's none of any Government's business, State, Federal or otherwise.

 

There's plenty of time to develop work ethics. It can wait 2 more years. Having social institutions doesn't turn an entire population into wussies. In the age of 14-16, young people can learn a lot more by not being employed in mind-numbing jobs... you seem to forget that at the age of 14-16, kids have no diploma, no chance for an educated job. They'll be doing physically demanding jobs, because at that age, that's all they're good for. They cannot develop complicated things like creativity if they sit in school, then go to tire themselves to earn a little money, and then making a trade-off between a social life and sleep. [/Quote]

 

Not all kids mature in the same way, some frankly never do, at least with the desire to be self fulfilling or independent (opposed to dependent). Then to deny a child who might want to earn money or might enjoy the feeling of accomplishment, could be in time detrimental to those work ethics.

 

I'm not talking about the proverbial child labor camps, some feel Capitalist go overseas to promote, which is nonsense to begin with, but American kids and I'm sure in the UK or Europe, that are given the opportunity to do menial, non demanding work, would want to. Rather than sitting behind some computer playing games or watching TV 6 hours per day, many times becoming obese and setting up future bad habits, don't you think taking on some summer job or daily obligation (delivering papers) would be more practical.

 

You seem to forget the importance of material gain to people. If you do not limit the amount of time that children can work, then adults will somehow find a way to make children work a lot more. Also, a 14 year old will often think short-term: they prefer material gain (an iPhone) over a good education. You have to protect them against themselves and the adults. You must protect the children against short term thinking. [/Quote]

 

No, if a child is given an iPhone or anything that is a real luxury there is no responsibility involved and expectation will go further up the road. If they earn the money for that iPhone, there apt to be proud of that and the psychological development involved immeasurable.

 

Actually, I don't really understand you Americans... You already accept that you work much more than Europeans (less holiday, longer working weeks). You accept that you have practically no rights as an employee, and that you can be fired on the spot for no good reason (the so called at-will principle - unheard of in Europe). You accept that you have no healthcare, and you're proud of it. American education is very expensive and receives little state sponsoring, and you say that's good - compared to European education which is practically for free. And now you support child labor, and claim it's healthy for the development of children?? [/Quote]

 

Really another topic, but those that do work longer hours, take less vacations and advance, general have more material wealth than others. What about the employer and most our people are paid by one person directly or indirectly, doesn't that person also have rights as to who works, for whatever reason. Everyone can receive healthcare and over 60% have Private Insurance with a Company that is interested in keeping you on their rolls. You can't be serious if you think any Government Bureaucracy is concerned with your interest over that Government (which changes often) and especially when those person are not accountable to anyone, can't be fired and that can't be fired in Government in the US either. Your last sentence, yes reliance on yourself, IMO trumps dependency anytime...

 

It's quite difficult to discuss the economy with you guys, because I feel quite an alien (a morally superior alien, too)...[/Quote]

 

We come from two different generations (in this case), cultures and traditions, not to mention the extremely different demographics. However for what it's worth, I've always enjoyed discussion with folks from outside the US. I can at least understand our differences, but it's very hard for me to understand why some American's, feel the way they do about their own Country.

[rigney]

Actually, I don't really understand you Americans... You already accept that you work much more than Europeans (less holiday, longer working weeks). You accept that you have practically no rights as an employee, and that you can be fired on the spot for no good reason (the so called at-will principle - unheard of in Europe). You accept that you have no healthcare, and you're proud of it. American education is very expensive and receives little state sponsoring, and you say that's good - compared to European education which is practically for free. And now you support child labor, and claim it's healthy for the development of children??

 

Who sent that Jackson? I simply loved it. But you just can't quite relate it to a work ethic. I spent a couple summers in a machine shop on weekends. Eh! well, more than that when they needed me. And that, depending on what they had going on. From home, I could hit the building with a rock and there was no down town to worry mom and Dad. Never got paid a nickle, other than a bottle of Nehi Cola and a pack of Nabs every day. I had begged Leo and Ed, both machinists; to show me the ropes on how a steam engine worked. I was eleven that summer and the war was on full tilt and ka-ka was happening everywhere. Both guys talked to my Dad, who told them, yep! as long as you don't pay him or get him killed. Now, is that a Dad or what? I received an education on that field trip and two pairs of jeans, a denium shirt and new shoes, all, after the fact. Even Pop got a couple fifths of good booze out of the deal. In all honestly, I wouldn't have traded that experience for anything in the world. Bothered my Mom quite a bit, but Big Alice was mine on the weekends, even though Leo and Ed never left me alone with her longer time enough to go to the Johnny house. Well, you know what I mean? Come Snday nights, I'd be sweaty and tired; Ed and Leo, sweaty and tired, brothers Charley and Clarence King, sweaty and tired, but w'd have Alice stoked and ready to push empties up to the mine and "push back" on the loads going down to the river. On qccasion, before my head hit the pillow, I'd hear that one scream of her whistle after the switch was thrown as Ed and Charlie was taking her up the holler toward the mine. I was a kid, but memories like that are few and far between. And no regrets.

Edited February 18, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

rigney that quote came from Captain Panic, an articulate European Poster and the entire post was on the first page, this thread. Hopefully, you noted that in commenting to him, I understood the difference between our generations and Countries, expressing my opinions from that perspective.

 

Your childhood experiences are not much different than my own or many of the kids I hung around with and they were in a different time and in my opinion those experiences didn't hurt any of us. At about 11, I was setting bowling pins (semi-automatic machines) and if your have ever been in the back of a bowling alley, those pins can fly outside the pit. I did get paid though, think 5 cents per line or so and most the setters were much older, 13-16, which kind of set up my work ethics for life. There was nothing I wouldn't try doing and tried many things including buying a Bowling Alley in Benson, Arizona at age 23 and with my Dads help. By the way I quit a job with GM to try that...As I recall, you lied about your age at one time, joining the service and it seems you have worked most your life, which are good work ethics and pretty darn honorable, IMO.

 

Noun

 

work ethic (plural work ethics)

 

The value that one ought to work hard at one's job or duties

 

The tendency to work hard at one's job or duties[/Quote]

 

I don't directly blame the young folks of today, they have been coddled, pampered and taught that what they can't achieve will be given to them, which is far from true. I do sincerely believe working is part of life and to ignore that during the time young people learn the things needed in life (their childhood), is an injustice to them.

[ParanoiA]

Heh, I'm tempted to type in my 15 year old son's debate presentation (if that's what you call it) on child labor laws. He's wanted a job since he was 13. He dreams of owning a car lot and air soft business. He has plenty of time for school, as if that's anyone's business anyway.

 

We did the paperwork so he could work at the skating rink here in town and now he also wants to work at the movie theater. Why should this be discouraged and why should he, and his parents for that matter, have to answer to the whims of strangers so taken by their own personal value systems that they can't see letting anyone else have a value system of their own? The hubris of the modern American still takes me by surprise sometimes.

 

One point he makes is that when kids get community service, it is government ordered labor - without pay. He then makes the accusation that perhaps this is about the adults fearing that kids will steal their jobs, so they protect themselves by denying children be paid and *not* denying their right to work. I have to say, hard to disagree with the observation.

 

So why are you whiny adults skeered of little kids taking your careers...huh?

 

Work is not a right. But a proper reward for work is a right.

Slaves have work... But only free people get a proper reward for the work they do.

 

Work is a right. I have a right to work anytime I want. I don't have a right to force someone to pay me to do work for them, but I can go outside and just start working in my yard. My son has a right, at 13 years old, to run around the neighborhood and do contract labor - mowing laws, raking leaves, and etc.

 

It's not about work, it's about marketing labor - getting paid for it. I think kids should enjoy whatever rights their parents afford them, as their parents answer for their actions. I don't think we need bureaucratic ding dongs invoking their value system on the general public just because they feel they need to draw lines in the sand.

 

In principle, the unemployed people can take up the jobs that 14-16-year-olds would do. I mean, youngsters have no diplomas, and anyone can do the simplest jobs. But older unemployed people are simply too expensive, and that's why people wouldn't mind to employ kids.

 

A long pet peeve of mine: Adults making careers out of teenager jobs.

 

Every time I see a grownup in a fast food job, and he's not the manager, I have to wonder why he's trying to make a career out of a kid's job. Why is he surprised they don't give him full time and benefits?

 

Sorry, but McDonald's is for kids. These are jobs you can train people for in about 15 minutes. Real adult jobs are more involved, and take a bit more than a review of the 3 buttons on the deep fryer.

 

These are perfect jobs for kids - simple, safe work that introduces multi-tasking, working with people, kissing the customer's ass, attendance perfection and etc - all the stuff that makes a nice entry level experience to selling one's labor. It's great precisely because there's not really that much on the line for the employer nor the teenage employee. But there are always bong hitting adults trying to make a damn life out of serving fast food.

 

If you want health insurance, a home mortgage, car payments and insurance, food and clothing, energy - particularly for more than just yourself - then you're going to need to provide labor that's worth it to someone else to pay that much for it. The cheeseburger business does not lend itself to an army of $55,000 a year flippers with pension and health insurance. You have every right to try and every right to suffer for it.

Edited February 19, 2011 by ParanoiA

[Moontanman]

I am so tired of this Bullshit, i am 56 years old and I have heard all my life about how the young kids are being coddled and given everything by old farts who live in the damn past and have no clue about anything but the past. i remember being 13 and being hired out to clean out an old farmers barn, i shoveled shit and put up hay for three days and the whole time i got a constant spiel about how young kids today were being coddled and how we didn't know the value of work then the bastard stiffed me for half the money he promised and told me it was a learning experience.

 

I raised two boys, they both worked as they grew up from chores to odd jobs for neighbors, i think the oldest got his first job picking up pine cones at around the first grade. They both worked hard worked their way through college and graduated and almost all their friends who were in the same or lower social economic class pretty much did the same thing. most of those kids would do almost anything for money if it was honest work.

 

But yes there were some of the kids who were just lazy, never raised their hand to do anything. Guess where those lazy little bastards came from, yeah, the wealthiest kids in the schools. They drove $40,000 sports cars went to the best schools and had no responsibilities at all. Their parents gave them everything, forbade them form working and the little bastards would then go to the places of work of the other kids and harass them because they worked.

 

 

Fuck this elitist bullshit, kids are no more coddled now than they were when I was a kid or when you old farts were kids, the rich kids were always coddled and the poor had to work, it's life but the idea that all or even most kids just sit around and pay video games and ask for handouts is so disingenuous it's difficult to deal with emotionally.

 

Should kids be able to do appropriate jobs? Of course they should but there should be limits and parents cannot always be trusted to be the decision makers in this.

 

I say the kids of today are just as industrious as they ever have been, the idea they are not is just old farts bullshitting each other about how hard they had it....

 

Oh yeah, some of those 55 year olds have no choice but to work at fast food joints, when your pension has been stolen by greedy companies sometimes you have to go back to work....

Edited February 19, 2011 by Moontanman

[ParanoiA]

I am so tired of this Bullshit, i am 56 years old and I have heard all my life about how the young kids are being coddled and given everything by old farts who live in the damn past and have no clue about anything but the past. i remember being 13 and being hired out to clean out an old farmers barn, i shoveled shit and put up hay for three days and the whole time i got a constant spiel about how young kids today were being coddled and how we didn't know the value of work then the bastard stiffed me for half the money he promised and told me it was a learning experience.

 

I raised two boys, they both worked as they grew up from chores to odd jobs for neighbors, i think the oldest got his first job picking up pine cones at around the first grade. They both worked hard worked their way through college and graduated and almost all their friends who were in the same or lower social economic class pretty much did the same thing. most of those kids would do almost anything for money if it was honest work.

 

But yes there were some of the kids who were just lazy, never raised their hand to do anything. Guess where those lazy little bastards came from, yeah, the wealthiest kids in the schools. They drove $40,000 sports cars went to the best schools and had no responsibilities at all. Their parents gave them everything, forbade them form working and the little bastards would then go to the places of work of the other kids and harass them because they worked.

 

 

Fuck this elitist bullshit, kids are no more coddled now than they were when I was a kid or when you old farts were kids, the rich kids were always coddled and the poor had to work, it's life but the idea that all or even most kids just sit around and pay video games and ask for handouts is so disingenuous it's difficult to deal with emotionally.

 

I mostly agree with you here. I don't think they're being "coddled" at all. No, I think we misinterpret their attitude and outlook and we are precisely to blame for it. The major, majority of a child's life and development all the way into adulthood "nowadays" consists of standing in line, showing up to be processed by grownups, being directed and micro-managed every step of their life.

 

They're not really "lazy", they're waiting on us to tell them what to do. They don't know how to initiate things, adults have always initiated everything. They don't know how to do stuff without our direction because we direct every damn moment of their lives and then one day: poof! You're on your own buddy.

 

Just an opinion and maybe I'm wrong, I don't feel that strongly about it. But I can't help but notice how over the course of decades we micro-manage more and more of their lives for longer and longer stretches of their development.

 

Should kids be able to do appropriate jobs? Of course they should but there should be limits and parents cannot always be trusted to be the decision makers in this.

 

Talk about elitism... Parents are not 100%, but they will always outperform strangers in care and nurturing and knowing what's best for them, most of the time. Drafting a few minor laws to stop crazy parents and protect kids from child abuse is entirely reasonable. Drafting laws to protect kids with society's pluralized moral system is the elitist bullshit. We're way down that road right now.

 

I say the kids of today are just as industrious as they ever have been, the idea they are not is just old farts bullshitting each other about how hard they had it....

 

Right on.

 

Oh yeah, some of those 55 year olds have no choice but to work at fast food joints, when your pension has been stolen by greedy companies sometimes you have to go back to work....

 

I actually do understand this, despite my previous post on the matter. There's a reason I've been practicing greeting my co-workers at the door lately...there's a Wal-Mart greeting job with my name on it.

 

But, this is more emotional argument. Pensions stolen by greedy companies? Yes it has happened. Is that common, though? Greedy people have embezzled from companies too. Is that common, though?

 

The greedy government has raided our social security "pensions" too. Is that common, though? Oops! There went my argument!

Edited February 19, 2011 by ParanoiA

[Moontanman]

I mostly agree with you here. I don't think they're being "coddled" at all. No, I think we misinterpret their attitude and outlook and we are precisely to blame for it. The major, majority of a child's life and development all the way into adulthood "nowadays" consists of standing in line, showing up to be processed by grownups, being directed and micro-managed every step of their life.

 

They're not really "lazy", they're waiting on us to tell them what to do. They don't know how to initiate things, adults have always initiated everything. They don't know how to do stuff without our direction because we direct every damn moment of their lives and then one day: poof! You're on your own buddy.

 

Just an opinion and maybe I'm wrong, I don't feel that strongly about it. But I can't help but notice how over the course of decades we micro-manage more and more of their lives for longer and longer stretches of their development.

 

I have to agree with you on this, people do tend to micro mange their children more now days, kids never learn how to make decisions, my wife and I both agreed way before we had kids we would not program ours in any one direction and allow them to make as many decisions as possible and allow them to deal with the consequences, (we were both raised by extreme authoritarian fathers who couldn't deal with the idea of a child making any decisions) once you get that going work ethic seemed to follow. One of the things that amazed me when i was raising kids was the number that had no clue as to consequences of their actions, it was almost scary.

 

Talk about elitism... Parents are not 100%, but they will always outperform strangers in care and nurturing and knowing what's best for them, most of the time. Drafting a few minor laws to stop crazy parents and protect kids from child abuse is entirely reasonable. Drafting laws to protect kids with society's pluralized moral system is the elitist bullshit. We're way down that road right now.

 

That's all I am really saying, parents should have the power to make most decisions but they cannot always be trusted to make the best ones and there needs to be some limits, not total limits but limits none the less.

 

 

Right on.

 

 

 

 

I actually do understand this, despite my previous post on the matter. There's a reason I've been practicing greeting my co-workers at the door lately...there's a Wal-Mart greeting job with my name on it.

 

I often think of that too.

 

But, this is more emotional argument. Pensions stolen by greedy companies? Yes it has happened. Is that common, though? Greedy people have embezzled from companies too. Is that common, though?

 

The greedy government has raided our social security "pensions" too. Is that common, though? Oops! There went my argument!

 

You are correct, this is an emotional argument and I let my emotions get the better of me. (I am a very emotional person, i cry, laugh, get angry, and I let people know when these emotions are coursing through my head) I am lucky in that i worked for the DuPont corporation, generally they treat their employees quite well, especially their retirees but they have made cuts to the benefits i worked for over the years, nothing I can really do about it but it seems less than fair.

 

You do hear about people loosing their pensions at a high enough rate to see why there are so many Walmart greeters who are also geezers

 

I have heard the idea of how the younger generation is being coddled my whole life, i never understood it, saw very little of it anywhere but in kids who's parents were rather well of finacially and substituted money and things for love and encouragment, the real problem is that children are being raised in a way that cripples their ability to make decisions not to mention leaves them clueless as to the consequences of their actions...

 

My thoughts on this are clouded by things that happened in my life as well, i was rather badly abused as a child, i am all about protecting children from this, nothing enrages me faster than to see a child being abused.... it's one of the few things i could easily hurt someone over and yes there are degrees of abuse and not preparing your children for life might be one of the worst forms of abuse in the long run...

Edited February 19, 2011 by Moontanman

[ParanoiA]

I am lucky in that i worked for the DuPont corporation, generally they treat their employees quite well, especially their retirees but they have made cuts to the benefits i worked for over the years, nothing I can really do about it but it seems less than fair.

 

You do hear about people loosing their pensions at a high enough rate to see why there are so many Walmart greeters who are also geezers

 

Ah, I see what you're saying. We have that here, too. The company likes to pit the young against the old and the Union struggles to keep it under control. They love to float contract ideas that involve yanking the rug out of the retirees. Thankfully, we've remained loyal to them in the end. Not sure how much longer that will last, though.

 

But, Moontanman, this is why I question the structure. Think about it...what you're talking about here is your employer - someone you no longer work for - who is still buying products and services for you. It's the weird arrangement of allowing employers to pay us with benefits instead of more money.

 

If you traded in your benefits for the equivalent in cash over all the years you worked there, you remain in charge of all of your stuff. No fighting and scratching every few years to hold on to the crumbs they give you to live off of.

 

It's precisely this attitude of voluntarily subordinating yourself and survival. You've elected a master over your affairs, purely with your behavior. We all do this, and have been doing this for decades now. No one really questions it.

 

Well, some of us do. I don't want my employer buying me health insurance, paying into a pension and all that - give me the cash. Just like I don't have them buy my milk and cheese. Let me use my imagination, creativity, and my very personal knowledge of what makes me happy to determine how I want to negotiate health services and living off of savings.

[Moontanman]

Ah, I see what you're saying. We have that here, too. The company likes to pit the young against the old and the Union struggles to keep it under control. They love to float contract ideas that involve yanking the rug out of the retirees. Thankfully, we've remained loyal to them in the end. Not sure how much longer that will last, though.

 

We never had a union, the pay and benefits were so good no union could ever get a foot hold.

 

But, Moontanman, this is why I question the structure. Think about it...what you're talking about here is your employer - someone you no longer work for - who is still buying products and services for you. It's the weird arrangement of allowing employers to pay us with benefits instead of more money.

 

I honestly never questioned it, my plan was to invest in the company and work till i was 58 and retire with 40 years with the company and a benefit package that would have been unreal but as the say the plans of mice and men....

 

If you traded in your benefits for the equivalent in cash over all the years you worked there, you remain in charge of all of your stuff. No fighting and scratching every few years to hold on to the crumbs they give you to live off of.

 

I honestly didn't think i was capable of doing that my self and I have seen several people who thought they could invest and retire are now walmart greeters or the equivalent, I honestly know of no one who actually did better than they could have by sticking with the company, the stock market is evidently not exactly a sure thing...

 

It's precisely this attitude of voluntarily subordinating yourself and survival. You've elected a master over your affairs, purely with your behavior. We all do this, and have been doing this for decades now. No one really questions it.

 

Rather rule in hell than serve in heaven huh?

 

Well, some of us do. I don't want my employer buying me health insurance, paying into a pension and all that - give me the cash. Just like I don't have them buy my milk and cheese. Let me use my imagination, creativity, and my very personal knowledge of what makes me happy to determine how I want to negotiate health services and living off of savings.

 

Good luck with that, as I said I've seen more disasters than good times come out of doing that... I at one time held options on several hundred DuPont shares, the value of these options fell to the point of being worthless and never really recovered...

[ParanoiA]

I honestly didn't think i was capable of doing that my self and I have seen several people who thought they could invest and retire are now walmart greeters or the equivalent, I honestly know of no one who actually did better than they could have by sticking with the company, the stock market is evidently not exactly a sure thing...

 

What do you think the company invests those pension funds in? Most people have 401k's and pensions are all but obsolete. You're about to know millions of people who did better than they could have with a pension.

 

There are no sure things, not even when companies are the ones making the promises. There is no difference in risk, either the company hides the risk from you and does all of the investing or you rub your eyes clear, realize the risk and do the investing yourself. (You can invest in all kinds of things. Stocks are just popular. Again, not used to thinking for ourselves about these things so it all seems so daunting. And since economics is apparently not a priority for public schools, we have generations of clueless now.)

 

Companies can absorb losses better, that's for sure. But then, here we go again shifting responsibility to others to make life easier for ourselves. Ethics is ethics. You don't like it when someone does it to you, not sure why it's ok to do it to them. I suppose we could use the "rich people are evil" card, but I've never been one for prejudice and making excuses to hate minority groups and use that to take their property and their rights. We've got enough of that to live down as it is...

 

Rather rule in hell than serve in heaven huh?

 

I disagree with the premise, but absolutely. Without hesitation. I don't find anything heavenly about servitude and subordination, begging for crumbs from my master. F#@k that.

 

Good luck with that, as I said I've seen more disasters than good times come out of doing that... I at one time held options on several hundred DuPont shares, the value of these options fell to the point of being worthless and never really recovered...

 

Well thanks, there's millions and millions of us doing it right now. We call it 401k's. They are administered by our employer - which I would like to see change - and they aren't free of all kinds of restrictions yet, but they are the next step to a better solution for retirement that gives the individual more control.

 

The problem you encountered is why diversification is such a big deal with retirement investment accounts. Spread the risk, spread the reward, slow crawl over the years to a pile of savings.

 

 

 

But all of this is irrelevant anyway. You don't have to risk your money just to save it for retirement. People do that because they want to earn interest on their savings - to do that, you must risk. But if you don't want to risk, so you don't lose your ass, then don't. Just put it in a good ole savings account and let the $250,000 FDIC insurance gaurantee it.

 

We're capitalists in a republic. There is nothing subordinate about that. That's why it's so weird to see so much voluntary servitude and fear of personal accountability. We're all just scared to death about everything. How sad.

[jackson33]

Fuck this elitist bullshit, kids are no more coddled now than they were when I was a kid or when you old farts were kids, the rich kids were always coddled and the poor had to work, it's life but the idea that all or even most kids just sit around and pay video games and ask for handouts is so disingenuous it's difficult to deal with emotionally. [/Quote]

 

Moon; Without mentioning your filthy language on a public forum or showing where your contradicting you own statements, the point was Societies in general are coddled, pampered and kids IMO are taught today Government will or should care for them. I don't go a day not seeing some post telling of the posters free healthcare, free education, free food or any number of items, not conceding that none of it was free, not necessarily from the US. That's what brought out my comments.

 

Factually most generations, have been coddled and pampered more than the previous and this might be coming to an end, which most of us "old farts" are TRYING to explain. My parents born early in the 20th Century, living through the great depression, WWII and before the advent of socialism in the US provided for themselves to a degree few today could handled. My Grandparents born in 19th Century had no cars, radios, telephones, indoor water and bathrooms and lived lives few people today could adjust to.

 

Kid's do spend hours in front of TV's, do play electronic games, do unnecessarily become fat or obese and are coddled and it's NOT just the rich. The poor or less advantaged get food stamps and money can be spent on Games or whatever the adults will put up with.

 

Should kids be able to do appropriate jobs? Of course they should but there should be limits and parents cannot always be trusted to be the decision makers in this.

 

I say the kids of today are just as industrious as they ever have been, the idea they are not is just old farts bullshitting each other about how hard they had it....[/Quote]

 

By what standards are you judging parental discretion as appropriate. Farmer Joe, might work his kids long hours at appropriate times, while you might think that's not appropriate or some bearocrat in some State House. These are parental decisions and there are plenty of laws in all States, to protect children from just about any abusive treatment.

 

Of course many kids are industrious, nobody has suggested otherwise, but IMO by promoting Government controls over parents you would be limiting the numbers that could be...Missouri by relaxing those restriction, would be a good thing...If you forgot the thread topic.

 

 

Good luck with that, as I said I've seen more disasters than good times come out of doing that... I at one time held options on several hundred DuPont shares, the value of these options fell to the point of being worthless and never really recovered.[/Quote]

 

Interesting, just when did DuPont share values drop below 20$/sh and that was at the same time everything was falling. Today there worth 55$/ and the company is doing just fine. As a retired person and "an old fart", I am down to buying six-ten stocks per week and selling on profit or fear of further losses, but nearly always average a little gain. Apple Computer has gone from 10$ to 360$ in ten years, Google from it's initial offering at 90$ to 630$ in it's six years as a public company, Best Buy from .10/sh in the mid 90's to 35$ today (as high as 55$), Berkshire Hathaway as made billions for millions of people and Wal Mart made thousands, millionaires...

[Moontanman]

Interesting, just when did DuPont share values drop below 20$/sh and that was at the same time everything was falling. Today there worth 55$/ and the company is doing just fine. As a retired person and "an old fart", I am down to buying six-ten stocks per week and selling on profit or fear of further losses, but nearly always average a little gain. Apple Computer has gone from 10$ to 360$ in ten years, Google from it's initial offering at 90$ to 630$ in it's six years as a public company, Best Buy from .10/sh in the mid 90's to 35$ today (as high as 55$), Berkshire Hathaway as made billions for millions of people and Wal Mart made thousands, millionaires...

 

Early 90's my share options were for $50 a share if I remember correctly, (really don't remember the actual prices from the early 90's), the actual price was $5 over the current option share price, i decided to let it ride, shortly there after it began a fall it never really recovered from and the option ran out before it climbed back up.

 

Factually most generations, have been coddled and pampered more than the previous and this might be coming to an end, which most of us "old farts" are TRYING to explain. My parents born early in the 20th Century, living through the great depression, WWII and before the advent of socialism in the US provided for themselves to a degree few today could handled. My Grandparents born in 19th Century had no cars, radios, telephones, indoor water and bathrooms and lived lives few people today could adjust to.

(btw, i grew up that way too)

 

I agree we need to cut out the socialism roll it back to the late 18 early 1900's I mean almost no one is hungry these days, people need to starve so they will work for nothing, far too many paved roads, who needs em, mud was good enough for our great grand parents, fire department? crap, by a fire extinguisher, police? who needs em, EMT's just socialism, Jackson you wouldn't know socialism if it jumped up and bit your testicles off.... wow no cussing..... and you don't know jack about children or what they need or how to motivate them....

 

Kid's do spend hours in front of TV's, do play electronic games, do unnecessarily become fat or obese and are coddled and it's NOT just the rich. The poor or less advantaged get food stamps and money can be spent on Games or whatever the adults will put up with.

 

Yeah, keep em hungry and cold, that will stop those new fangeled video games and

evil TV's out of the hands of the poor.

 

By what standards are you judging parental discretion as appropriate. Farmer Joe, might work his kids long hours at appropriate times, while you might think that's not appropriate or some bearocrat in some State House. These are parental decisions and there are plenty of laws in all States, to protect children from just about any abusive treatment.

 

Well except in Missouri....

 

Of course many kids are industrious, nobody has suggested otherwise, but IMO by promoting Government controls over parents you would be limiting the numbers that could be...Missouri by relaxing those restriction, would be a good thing...If you forgot the thread topic.

 

Why are reasonable rules agreed on by the majority of the people so frightening to you Jackson?

 

“Never use a big word when a little filthy one will do.” ~Johnny Carson

Edited February 19, 2011 by Moontanman

[rigney]

Moon; Without mentioning your filthy language on a public forum or showing where your contradicting you own statements, the point was Societies in general are coddled, pampered and kids IMO are taught today Government will or should care for them. I don't go a day not seeing some post telling of the posters free healthcare, free education, free food or any number of items, not conceding that none of it was free, not necessarily from the US. That's what brought out my comments.

 

Factually most generations, have been coddled and pampered more than the previous and this might be coming to an end, which most of us "old farts" are TRYING to explain. My parents born early in the 20th Century, living through the great depression, WWII and before the advent of socialism in the US provided for themselves to a degree few today could handled. My Grandparents born in 19th Century had no cars, radios, telephones, indoor water and bathrooms and lived lives few people today could adjust to.

 

Kid's do spend hours in front of TV's, do play electronic games, do unnecessarily become fat or obese and are coddled and it's NOT just the rich. The poor or less advantaged get food stamps and money can be spent on Games or whatever the adults will put up with.

 

 

 

By what standards are you judging parental discretion as appropriate. Farmer Joe, might work his kids long hours at appropriate times, while you might think that's not appropriate or some bearocrat in some State House. These are parental decisions and there are plenty of laws in all States, to protect children from just about any abusive treatment.

 

Of course many kids are industrious, nobody has suggested otherwise, but IMO by promoting Government controls over parents you would be limiting the numbers that could be...Missouri by relaxing those restriction, would be a good thing...If you forgot the thread topic.

 

 

 

 

Interesting, just when did DuPont share values drop below 20$/sh and that was at the same time everything was falling. Today there worth 55$/ and the company is doing just fine. As a retired person and "an old fart", I am down to buying six-ten stocks per week and selling on profit or fear of further losses, but nearly always average a little gain. Apple Computer has gone from 10$ to 360$ in ten years, Google from it's initial offering at 90$ to 630$ in it's six years as a public company, Best Buy from .10/sh in the mid 90's to 35$ today (as high as 55$), Berkshire Hathaway as made billions for millions of people and Wal Mart made thousands, millionaires...

 

Whoo! Hold on there for a minute and keep a few of those stocks under your hat. Shucks, I'd like to diversify a bit myself. Just don't send a prospectus though email, some folks out there will steal anything they can get their fingers on. Edited February 19, 2011 by rigney

[Pangloss]

I agree with replacing pensions with 401k plans for government employees, at least going forward. Employees should be advised to structure their plans such that retirement planning is not dependent upon matching employer contributions. When times are good and budgets are balanced, an employer contribution can provide a useful incentive to bring in good people. When times are lean and budgets are in the red, the contribution can be eliminated without harming the employee's retirement plan. A 401k can never be borrowed-from or eliminated due to a budget cut because it belongs to the employee, not the employer. It's portable, too, so if the employee leaves government service they can continue to develop it with a private employer. It's untaxed until payout, and in an emergency the employee can have their money any time they want it (the employer has no say in this either).

 

Everybody wins.

[jackson33]

Early 90's my share options were for $50 a share if I remember correctly, (really don't remember the actual prices from the early 90's), the actual price was $5 over the current option share price, i decided to let it ride, shortly there after it began a fall it never really recovered from and the option ran out before it climbed back up. [/Quote]

 

Well Moon, either your mistaken on times or prices or I must have research the wrong DuPont, since the stock listed on the NYSE grew (no consistent drop) from the 20$ price in 1990 to near 60$ in 97 thru 99, held steady in high 40's and low 50's to the so called financial crisis (2008), where it dropped into the 20's and is now back up. Additionally, DuPont (DD) has one of the longest records for paying dividends, going back to 1962 and since 1990 has paid a total of 32.00 per share. Simply said each share you held an option on would have paid you back 87.00 per. Any purchase made or covered option must have been around 20.00, would have returned you 87.00 today. Actually DD is one of the most stable equities in the market and held by most every 401K program or Financial Institution. For what it's worth I got this off my Scottrade Research Program and can't copy/paste. The dividend however is this link;

 

http://www.dividend.com/historical/stock.php?symbol=DD

 

I agree we need to cut out the socialism roll it back to the late 18 early 1900's I mean almost no one is hungry these days, people need to starve so they will work for nothing, far too many paved roads, who needs em, mud was good enough for our great grand parents, fire department? crap, by a fire extinguisher, police? who needs em, EMT's just socialism, Jackson you wouldn't know socialism if it jumped up and bit your testicles off.... wow no cussing..... and you don't know jack about children or what they need or how to motivate them....[/Quote]

 

Actually under the term "Progressivism", socialism began it's roll in the US in about those times. It would be wonderful if we could go back to those levels of freedom and nothing gained from science and technology would have been lost, probably it would have advanced a few degrees more.

 

Yeah, keep em hungry and cold, that will stop those new fangeled video games and

evil TV's out of the hands of the poor. [/Quote]

 

For what ever reason your now twisting words. I favor (don't oppose) welfare programs for the truly needy, even if I prefer it was done by people that understand just what that means. Churches and Benevolent Organization, not the Federal Government.

 

Why are reasonable rules agreed on by the majority of the people so frightening to you Jackson? [/Quote]

Because I don't agree and what makes you think a majority favor "Child Labor Laws", a National Amendment couldn't get ratified and most parents believe they are good parents and perfectly capable of making decisions for their own kids.

 

 

 

 

 

Whoo! Hold on there for a minute and keep a few of those stocks under your hat. Shucks, I'd like to diversify a bit myself. Just don't send a prospectus though email, some folks out there will steal anything they can get their fingers on. [/Quote]

 

rigney; At 78 everyone would give you the same advise, a few high yielding (dividends) and diversified (different sectors of the market) stocks, maybe 8 or 10 percent in gold or silver all with cash you can afford to play with and if not any, Municipal Bonds preferably through an ETF. If you are within 10% of where you were in 2007 or better and drawing some income, it would be my guess your in good shape. That reminds me, I've got to change my profile Email address, I lost my long held ATT address, when going WiFi High Speed.

[Moontanman]

Well Moon, either your mistaken on times or prices or I must have research the wrong DuPont, since the stock listed on the NYSE grew (no consistent drop) from the 20$ price in 1990 to near 60$ in 97 thru 99, held steady in high 40's and low 50's to the so called financial crisis (2008), where it dropped into the 20's and is now back up. Additionally, DuPont (DD) has one of the longest records for paying dividends, going back to 1962 and since 1990 has paid a total of 32.00 per share. Simply said each share you held an option on would have paid you back 87.00 per. Any purchase made or covered option must have been around 20.00, would have returned you 87.00 today. Actually DD is one of the most stable equities in the market and held by most every 401K program or Financial Institution. For what it's worth I got this off my Scottrade Research Program and can't copy/paste. The dividend however is this link;

 

http://www.dividend.com/historical/stock.php?symbol=DD

 

You are correct, i was wrong, i recived stock options twice, the first time was in late 80's or early 90's I sold them in 1995 just before they expired and made money, the second set was in 1996 or so but had a more limited life and the stock never rose enough to make any money off them before they expired, niether time was I in a finacial position to actually buy the stocks, finances has never been my long suit. I am very lucky i gave 25 years of my life to DuPont instead of some fly by night company.

 

 

Actually under the term "Progressivism", socialism began it's roll in the US in about those times. It would be wonderful if we could go back to those levels of freedom and nothing gained from science and technology would have been lost, probably it would have advanced a few degrees more.

 

Possibly wonderful for you, not for most people, and not because they are lazy. Being poor then was a bitch, if you rolled everything back to then the economy would tank just like it did in the great depression, socialist programs brought us out of that not unbridled capitalism. I'm not even going to bother to tell you how bad labor conditions were at that time, I know you don't care, but we would have to go back to similar population size for there to be any possibility of that working for any reason. If you went back to that time with the population we have now all you would have is anarchy. in some ways compared to today, "back then" was not as good as you seem to think, crime was rampant, women were not much more than chattel and so were children, the poor were taken advantage of by greedy Capitalists, no thought was given to workers, if one was injured he could be replaced in an hour with some other poor sap who was hungry. yes it would be wonderful, for heads of industry, the perpetually rich who inherited their money, and those who owned large tracts of land they could work people on and make money from. Every one else was pretty much cannon fodder for every one who had money and power. The situation is so radically different today i cannot understand those who would take us back.

 

You cannot have a purely Capitalist society any more than you can have a purely Socialist society, their has to be a happy medium between the two, the richer and more advanced, not to mention more populous a nation become the more it is the self interest of every to keep people from starving in the streets.

 

For what ever reason your now twisting words. I favor (don't oppose) welfare programs for the truly needy, even if I prefer it was done by people that understand just what that means. Churches and Benevolent Organization, not the Federal Government.

 

It's your definition of the truly needy i have a problem with. Your contempt and disgust of anyone who is in need is really sad, your ideas are just as bad as those who do their best to keep everyone in that cycle of dependence, welfare is much like a drug, it's difficult to get off once you are rooted deeply in that type of culture. Doesn't make those people any less human but throwing them to the wolves is wrong and doesn't help the problem in any way, I think it would make it much worse, much worse... It's one reason i never oppose giving help to people in need who want an education to help them get out.

 

Because I don't agree and what makes you think a majority favor "Child Labor Laws", a National Amendment couldn't get ratified and most parents believe they are good parents and perfectly capable of making decisions for their own kids.

 

This is true, most parents are, do i have to give examples of parents who were not before you cared to protect those children? Without laws to protect children all the parents have to do is tell every one it's none of their business if little johnny works 80 hours a week instead of school. Parents, even today can teach their kids almost anything and their is no over sight what so ever, i wonder what will happen the kids from the West Borough Baptist Church, how about parents who teach their kids life is nothing but a series of handouts, that is a big part of the problem right now. parents should have to live up to certain standards, the only way to do that is to limit their powers in some way. As I have said before there is already precedence for this, we protect children from lots of things already and rightly so. All i want is for kids not to be worked against their will or in a way that interferes with their school work because with no education what you get is an idiot like me. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[rigney]

rigney that quote came from Captain Panic, an articulate European Poster and the entire post was on the first page, this thread. Hopefully, you noted that in commenting to him, I understood the difference between our generations and Countries, expressing my opinions from that perspective.

 

Your childhood experiences are not much different than my own or many of the kids I hung around with and they were in a different time and in my opinion those experiences didn't hurt any of us. At about 11, I was setting bowling pins (semi-automatic machines) and if your have ever been in the back of a bowling alley, those pins can fly outside the pit. I did get paid though, think 5 cents per line or so and most the setters were much older, 13-16, which kind of set up my work ethics for life. There was nothing I wouldn't try doing and tried many things including buying a Bowling Alley in Benson, Arizona at age 23 and with my Dads help. By the way I quit a job with GM to try that...As I recall, you lied about your age at one time, joining the service and it seems you have worked most your life, which are good work ethics and pretty darn honorable, IMO.

 

I only joined the National Guard, the war was over and I was going on sixteen.

 

I don't directly blame the young folks of today, they have been coddled, pampered and taught that what they can't achieve will be given to them, which is far from true. I do sincerely believe working is part of life and to ignore that during the time young people learn the things needed in life (their childhood), is an injustice to them.

[jackson33]

I am very lucky i gave 25 years of my life to DuPont instead of some fly by night company. [/Quote]

 

Yes Moon, you were very lucky and it's too bad you hadn't covered those options, but the point is investing in the US Economy (Stock Markets) has always been a good investment and one that our Government should consider in supplementing and eventually replacing the SS System. In the meantime I'll keep collecting 1300.00 per month for doing nothing and have long past my SS contributions, including interest.

 

You cannot have a purely Capitalist society any more than you can have a purely Socialist society, their has to be a happy medium between the two, the richer and more advanced, not to mention more populous a nation become the more it is the self interest of every to keep people from starving in the streets. [/Quote]

 

Nobody is starving in the streets today and few died of malnutrition in the 30's. Your welcome in thinking social programs somehow benefit the less advantaged, but it's my opinion it also creates a dependent society and we have a good share today totally dependent on Government.

 

It's your definition of the truly needy i have a problem with. Your contempt and disgust of anyone who is in need is really sad, your ideas are just as bad as those who do their best to keep everyone in that cycle of dependence, welfare is much like a drug, it's difficult to get off once you are rooted deeply in that type of culture. Doesn't make those people any less human but throwing them to the wolves is wrong and doesn't help the problem in any way, I think it would make it much worse, much worse... It's one reason i never oppose giving help to people in need who want an education to help them get out. [/Quote]

 

It's my belief, people who are able bodied, mentally/physically, to labor for there needs, should do so. There are social networks set up for anybody that falls into this category, efficiency speaking, all of which are "Private Benevolent" organizations. Again, dependency on Government makes the person feel less human, until it becomes a seen right, in their mind. Education is a State Right (Pangloss) and will remain so. Moon, you can attend any NC School district, voice your opinions or run for office in that district. You can also attend your city, county or Congressional District meeting pushing for higher "School Taxes", voice other opinions or run for office. I don't believe your disability would keep you from this. But keep in mind on Average in the US, we spend about 10K$ per student, many States substantially more and it's getting less results than 30 years ago, or IMO 60 years ago. This I believe is the fault of Federal Intervention....

 

All i want is for kids not to be worked against their will or in a way that interferes with their school work because with no education what you get is an idiot like me. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.[/Quote]

 

Back on topic, good: I haven't seen any poster suggesting anything of the sort and few parents in this Country would allow, much less force their child to work, even if over 16, if they don't wish to. Other laws are already in place protecting minors under 18 from just about everything. Were talking about the parent/minor relationship, being imposed on by Government and I strongly oppose any Government dictating what goes on in any families home. As I think we have discussed before, I don't know you, never will, we disagree on some issues and agree on some, but from my definition for idiot, your not...

[Moontanman]

 

Jackson, I withdraw from this discussion, I generally try to stay out of discussions i am less than knowledgeable about, i apologize for giving you a rough time, an apology is meaningless if it's not public and I hope you will accept it in the spirit it is offered, your knowledge base on this is far beyond mine, I hate politics and i should probably stay out of most discussions about it.

[Iggy]

Child Labor, for the most part, remains a States prerogative.

 

Not exactly.

 

The Fair Labor Standards Act (1938), a federal law, stringently regulates child labor.

 

The history is kind of interesting. In 1918, in Hammer v. Dagenhardt, the supreme court ruled very much like you would want them to... that child labor is deplorable, but it is not the federal government's business to set laws regulating it. It is a state's right and responsibility.

 

That decision was, however, overturned in 1941 with US vs. Darby. It asserts that the US government has the right to regulate the hiring and firing of workers because interstate commerce is in its preview. On these grounds federal laws restricting child labor (most especially the Fair Labor Standards Act, but also the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) have been and can be upheld.

 

Therefore, the US congress has every legal right to affect laws involving child labor (as they have successfully done).

 

Is exploiting a child who cannot say no a separate issue?

No. I'm against forcing a person to work against their will. It really doesn't matter to me whether that person is a child or not. How come people act like things are only terrible when done to children?

 

However, there is a difference--and I think you agreed with this in a later post though I think it bears repeating.

 

Forcing a person to work against their will really isn't the issue. An 8-year-old will gladly agree to work if their parent asks them to whether or not it is in their interest to do so. This is why Jackson's comment misses the point,

 

CP; So you don't misunderstand anything I'm saying, a child working should be the decision of the parent, at the request of the child. To carry this forward, it's none of any Government's business, State, Federal or otherwise.

 

Jackson is mistaken for reasons that I'm about to quote, but more than that, that a child requests, or desires, employment matters not at all. The same right given to an adult has greater potential harm for a child. This is why, for example, a child saying "I want alcohol" isn't a reason to allow them to have it. I think this is what MoonTanMan was saying.

 

The state's authority over children's activities is broader than over like actions of adults. This is peculiarly true of public activities and in matters of employment. A democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the healthy, well rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens, with all that implies. It may secure this against impeding restraints and dangers within a broad range of selection. Among evils most appropriate for such action are the crippling effects of child employment, [n15] more especially in public places, and the possible harms arising from other activities subject to all the diverse influences of the street. [n16] It is too late now to doubt [p169] that legislation appropriately designed to reach such evils is within the state's police power, whether against the parent's claim to control of the child or one that religious scruples dictate contrary action.

 

It is true children have rights, in common with older people, in the primary use of highways. But even in such use, streets afford dangers for them not affecting adults. And in other uses, whether in work or in other things, this difference may be magnified. This is so not only when children are unaccompanied, but certainly to some extent when they are with their parents. What may be wholly permissible for adults therefore may not be so for children, either with or without their parents' presence.

 

Supreme Court 1943

Edited February 21, 2011 by Iggy

[jackson33]

Iggy; Since the "Child Labor Amendment" appeared to be failing, yes in 1938 the "Fair Labor STANDARDS Act", a general guideline was enacted. Without trying to prove tonight, this Act was directed toward farmer/ranchers who were using child labor at low wages to do menial jobs. "Stringently" (?)

 

OVERVIEW

 

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) , which prescribes standards for the basic minimum wage and overtime pay, affects most private and public employment. It requires employers to pay covered employees who are not otherwise exempt at least the federal minimum wage and overtime pay of one-and-one-half-times the regular rate of pay. For nonagricultural operations, it restricts the hours that children under age 16 can work and forbids the employment of children under age 18 in certain jobs deemed too dangerous. For agricultural operations, it prohibits the employment of children under age 16 during school hours and in certain jobs deemed too dangerous. The Act is administered by the Employment Standards Administration's Wage and Hour Division within the U.S. Department of Labor. [/Quote]

 

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-flsa.htm#basic

 

Attempts at child labor reform continued, aided by the widespread publicity from Hine's photographs. As a result, many states passed stricter laws banning the employment of underage children. In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, better known as the Federal Wage and Hour Law. The Act was declared constitutional in 1941 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The Act set a work week of 40 hours, with a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour. It prohibited child labor under age 16 while allowing minors 16 and over to work in non-hazardous occupations. The Act set 18 as the minimum age for work in industries classified as hazardous. No minimum age was set for non-hazardous agricultural employment after school hours and during vacations. Children aged 14 and 15 could be employed in non-manufacturing, non-mining, and non-hazardous occupations outside of school hours and during vacations for limited hours. [/Quote]

 

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/about.htm

 

The discussion here is Missouri's recent proposal to change certain laws, allowing those kids that wish to work, with parental consent to hold jobs, previously denied, of which neither the previous or proposed changes are in conflict. Additionally, States generally enforce these laws, opposed to Federal Agents (DoL) and until very recently little enforcement existed in any State, not to mention "by the piece" workers, whom employers can always find a way to use.

 

Therefore, the US congress has every legal right to affect laws involving child labor (as they have successfully done).[/Quote]

 

Not really, but protective features are enforced by the Courts.

 

Federal and State Child Labor Laws

 

Most states have child labor laws. State child labor laws may be more protective or less protective of working children than the federal child labor laws (FLSA). For example, states may have different minimum ages for employment, different hours of work restrictions, and additional occupations identified as hazardous.

 

If a working child is protected by both federal and state child labor laws, then the more protective law (whether it is the state or the federal law) is followed.[/Quote]

 

http://www.stopchildlabor.org/USchildlabor/fact1.htm

 

Jackson is mistaken for reasons that I'm about to quote, but more than that, that a child requests, or desires, employment matters not at all. The same right given to an adult has greater potential harm for a child. This is why, for example, a child saying "I want alcohol" isn't a reason to allow them to have it. I think this is what MoonTanMan was saying.[/Quote]

 

Aside from mentioning PARENT/Child agreement and legal to begin with, this was an opinion, before commenting and remains my opinion. What a parent wishes to allow their teenagers to do, within the confines of social acceptance and other law, is none of any Governments business. I think Skeptic mentioned this early on, this thread, but most this intrusion into kids and labor has come from Organized Labor, even in some places today where school age kids have organized to pick up trash along highways, clean up neighborhoods as been opposed by Labor and in many places not allowed.

 

By the way Iggy welcome back, seems like its been awhile....

[Iggy]

"Stringently" (?)

 

Yes, "stringently". Provisions are described here: http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/wage-and-hour-law/Child-Labor-under-the-Fair-Labor-Standards-Act.html

 

Therefore, the US congress has every legal right to affect laws involving child labor (as they have successfully done).

Not really

 

Yes, really. I gave you a specific example where congress passed a federal law involving the proscription of child labor which was upheld in the supreme court.

 

this was an opinion

 

I understand, but it is a mistaken opinion. You may want child labor to be a state's issue (which is fine--you are entitled to your opinion) but that is not the case.