This is a great example of unintended consequences. Child labor, and/or sweatshops to make cheap products might be bad, but it is currently their best alternative, so getting rid of it makes their lives worse off. If only people would understand this principle more often. It relates to so many things, where the government does something out of good intentions but has disastrous results.
If nobody is forcing these poor people to work in horrible conditions, then why would they be voluntarily choosing to work in them if working didn’t have some benefit for them? By taking these opportunities away, they’d be even poorer than if they worked in a sweatshop. Making $1 an hour is better than making $0 an hour.
@@brettolson9544 The focus on voluntary exchanged is always toxic..this is why we need a Min wage law, or as I call it "calling the bluff on the market's magic hand"...if we do not have a min wage then the best possible "voluntary exchange" could be catastrophically abyssmal.
+Chaaos2 one of the toughest things to do, even for Liberty minded individuals, is to look at people's ideas on an individual basis. It is completely alright to disagree with 99% of what someone says and agree with 1% of what they say. Even though Krugman is a Keynesian it doesn't mean that an Austrian is unable to agree with a single thing that comes out of his mouth. Information and ideas are what they are, regardless of whose mouth they come out of. Another example of someone I generally agree with saying something that I agree with is Obama with his recent speech at Howard. Here is the link fee.org/articles/president-obama-tells-college-students-the-cold-truth/ Try reading that article and ignore the fact that Obama is saying it. Do you agree with the excerpt from the speech? To finally hammer this point home - in the realm of ideas it doesn't matter who said what. All that matters is the quality and reason in what was said. So if the information that many of those children who were laid off became child prostitutes or starved is indeed factual it doesn't matter if Hitler came back from the grave to say it. All that matters is the words themselves.
Well that's one way to defend child factory labor. Child Labor in the underdeveloped world has been occurring for over 50 years, how long do they need to wait for their economies to develop?
It's certainly not accelerated by attempts to ban it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act >> UNICEF sent a team of investigators into Bangladesh to learn what came of the children who were dismissed from their factory jobs. UNICEF's 1997 State of the World's Children report confirmed that most of the children found themselves in much more deplorable situations, such as crushing stones, scavenging through trash dumps, and begging on the streets. Many of the girls eventually ended up in prostitution. How fast such countries can develop will probably be tied to their economic freedom. Right now Bangladesh, for example, is still a repressed country, although steadily becoming freer: www.heritage.org/index/images/scoresovertime/2020/bangladesh.jpg
@@rajashashankgutta4334 How long? What does economic theory say about the temporal aspects of economic development? Why is it faster is some nations than in others and at different historical periods?
I won't lie, I had a thought about this before. Not to this extent of detail, but after thinking I realized if these shithead companies didn't exist, these kids'd just starve.
+Dallas Mann Also, before globalization was prominent; billions and billions of foreign aid or food aid was donated to these third world countries and didn't work. I can safely assume after 10-20 years from now, these world countries' standard of living will increase due to globalization.
+dman john Yeah, but that's because a lot of those countries A:Abandon what they do and B:Governments refuse help for some reason or another. A third would country having guns and the internet forced down its throat is gonna flop, just look at Africa :/
More people die from abundance of food than starvation. Humans produce more than enough food to feed all humans. Western lifestyle is extremely wasteful compared to developing countries. These kids don't HAVE to starve. It's just that nobody gives a flying f...
in Thailand child abandonment is a huge issue, there's a muay Thai master who adopts these children, gives them food, shelter, water, a bed, as long as they help him with his farm...he trains all the children how to read and the art of muay Thai, when they are grown up they must leave and make their own way, most of these kids come out masters and go all around the world opening schools, one of those kids was my master who is well known and runs a very profitable gym in southern California, would humanitarians feel better if there are laws against this?
+廖浩 Yet are own government (USA)now prevents young family members (under 16) from working the family farm. What is to stop the "Do Gooders" from banning what the muay Thai master is doing?
What are you talking about? Family members can help out on farms. They just aren't as useful as they used to be, as most farms these days are much larger and require the knowledge and ability to use heavy machinery. I spent my summers working with my uncle on his farm by doing the off jobs he needed doing while he worked the fields. The only reason a family farm would require someone be over sixteen is if heavy machinery is involved.
+Nicole Gentry look under federal government regulations. You will find that it is illegal to use family members under 16 (this is where I am not sure) to work a farm.
"Exemptions from the Child Labor Provisions of the FLSA The federal child labor provisions do not apply to: • Children 16- and 17 years of age employed by their parents in occupations other than those declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. • Children under 16 years of age employed by their parents in occupations other than manufacturing or mining, or occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor." This is the PDF of federal child labor laws that took me ten seconds to find. You can be employed by your parents under 16, so long as said employment does not conflict with schooling hours.
So i come from a country that has child labour (Pakistan) and I've seen child labour up close and personal. And here's some thing the video missed out, child labour only occurs because people in poorer countries have little access to family planning therefore often have a large families and are unable to feed their children furthermore since poorer countries have no safety nets or welfare if the house holds income earners dyes or falls ill the children often have to work. sweatshops do offer better pay and working conditions compared to alternative such as farm work or recycling rubbish where kids are often over worked and sexually assaulted.
+B1gHagar Jesus... Way to make a gigantic red herring out of his comment. His post has nothing to do with abortion, Sharia Law, or Pakistan's political system. Go troll elsewhere.
+Ultimate3036 What a load of bull! You said child labor only happens because poor countries don't have access to family planning. What do you think they do at planned parenthood clinics? By the time people go to planned parenthood, they've either screwed up their plan and are now pregnant. The rest of my comments are just as valid as the abortion comment. Grow up kid.
B1gHagar His original comment was regarding how many families are forced to participate in child labor due to inability to care for children due to large family size. This does not involve Sharia Law nor abortion, and you could only very loosely link it to Pakistan's government because of lack of services. Merriam-Webster definition of family planning. [quote]family planning noun \-ˈplan-iŋ\ Medical Definition of family planning : planning intended to determine the number and spacing of one's children through effective methods of birth control[/quote]
Family planning is done before the child is conceived, not after. A family's inability to care for their children is because they can't care for themselves. Further, if neither of you understand what being posted, maybe you should quit commenting.
Not every child does it voluntarily or because they have to for their living a huge ammount of kids are being kidnapped and forced to work (example cocoa industrie chocolate all over the world) what your opinion about that?
I always knew something was wrong with my teacher when i was in year 6, she told us never to buy products without the fair trade label on them. Whenever i told her that the sweat shop workers needed the money more, she either scolded me or changed the topic
Rule of law? What rule of law? Child protection law? How do you improve the standard of living for workers when there isn’t even a labor law? Seems to me it’s this video that jumped to the conclusion
Often, laws on the labor market make the situation worse, similar to this case. The solution is not to have rules that regulate and prohibit something. Better is to find a way to improve the situation.
+Learn Liberty I think we should buy what we need and let the country with its problems sort out the economics of it all. Mostly, we should be consistent. If you boycott child labour products, make sure you also also boycott anything that is from the middle east like petroleum products like gas, petrol, plastics etc bcs they mistreat their women. Avoid chinese products bcs they limit children to one child and make them work in 'sweat shops' etc. Either do it all and boycott everything while you are searching for Koni 2012 or just live your life and be as charitable as possible when you can.
Learn Liberty: Yeah, we should boycott those because prostitution is a great career choice. If Washington (and various states) didn't have prevailing wage laws & minimum wage laws, as well as a high corporate income tax rate--maybe less "cheap crap" from poor countries would be purchased in America. It's simply competition & the consumer wins.
Why can't the parents provide their kids with schooling and food? And don't these companies make huge profits off of these kids, why don't they send them to school in return or give the parents higher wages? Oh yeah... they don't cause if they do that, they'll lose their only incentive of setting up a factory there...... extremely cheap labour, that btw, is available out of the desperation of these people to survive. Their means of survival is all gone when the corporations and the powerful privatize and control the land and resources that the majority need to live on.
+likahmac It's fine to expect more from the companies you deal with, but it's also important to think carefully about what you expect. Most companies would prefer to have a more experienced employee than not, so children are at a disadvantage from the outset. It's only the lower cost of child labor that entices companies (and consumers). If you expect a company to pay more for child labor, you're effectively pricing children out of employment. Let's say you have a 15 year-old and a 17 year-old applying for the same position. If hiring the 15 year-old means the company also has to build a school, it's much simpler just to hire the 17 year-old. Of course, the company can also just throw some money at a sham charity and satisfy your requirement. But then the money that would otherwise go to the child ends up with the charity, instead.
+grantcivyt in places where children earn less then our minium wage here in America and those products are brought over here, I think the company's profiting should invest in those places school's and water sources. working as a kid myself in the fields during summer when I was in Jr high and up I would save my money for the rest of the upcoming school year so I can have what I needed or wanted because my parents didn't have financial freedom and wanted me to learn what it takes to make a dollar. for those kids that are working in sweat shops I feel bad for them, they probably are spending their money just on food and water to just survive. that's why things like this hit a soft spot for me because I know it isn't easy and if that kid have enough to spend on school and wants. then it's a sad thing on how those children's minds are gonna develop.
+likahmac I sympathize with your view, but I really don't want businesses operating charities. It's difficult enough to make one decent product. There's no reason at all to expect they'll do a good job investing in schools or water sources. Our government can't manage our own schools or water resources! It's much, much better for the business to operate as efficiently as it can, so that you, the owners and me can each of us donate carefully to the charities we think are most effective. I have no faith in a businessman's ability to (as a side job) manage a school, establish a water supply or direct charitable funding. I can point you to dozens of failed charitable efforts where the charity was actually the sole focus! If you care about doing good rather than *appearing to do good*, you shouldn't want businesses doing charity for good public relations.
I expressed a similar opinion before and got the question: 'Would you want your kids to work in a sweat shop?' I said yes. I would rather my children work and eat than starve.
Okay but here's the thing though: because they can hire children for less, companies are less inclined to hire the adults. Or are these jobs not wanted by adults even when they're starving? Or do they pay children the same?And what about the incentive for parents to birth as much children as possible in order to have as much income as possible?
Anouk Fleur the answer is simple - the companies pay for the best labor they can get for the price regardless of age. The adults would generally be hired in higher skilled and higher paying jobs than children, if they have any education at all. Alternatively, they are generally stronger so they may also be hired for jobs that require that and pay more. If the adult is both less educated and weaker than children, the adult would get paid less. And the marginal cost of having more children is definitely more expensive than the marginal income they bring in. That is not the reason why people in the third world have more children
Parents in poor countries have as many kids as possible to help them work already, its why the birth rate in poor countries is far greater than developed countries.
I think he missed the point on purpose. I do not care about children working. Kids work on farms, in their family's stores etc. The issue is the conditions that they work in and the fraction of pay that they receive for it. Yeah it's great to get my sneakers so cheap, but why do we think that the only way to make that happen is to exploit labor or raise prices? How about these beneficent companies take a hit in the P&L and skip on beating last year. Slavery, child labor, income equality all make perfect economic sense, but that doesn't make them right. This sounds like some of the same justifications for slavery. The slaves would starve without us giving them work and keeping them fed. You can suggest good effects in any negative situation. The Mongols killed 60 million people, because of them the forests absorbed 700 million tons of carbon dioxide, and they saved future generations (of the dead 60 million offspring) from overpopulating regions of the earth. YAY Mongols?!?!?!?! GTFOH
Child labor regulations can be a double-edged sword at times. While it can help adults get better paying jobs, it can prevent a young adolescent from getting convenient part-time work to help the family. Plus in the US, we now have a huge portion of the younger generation who are quite self-entitled as if everyone else owes them something just for existing and who get extremely whiny when they learn they have to deal with the realities of working smarter as well as harder not to mention emotionally "triggered" when they hear something they think is hateful even if it is scientific and factual.
***** The entitlement is when someone demands that the state get used to seize healthcare from one person and then distribute it through a bureaucracy or ten to give that person an easier ride in exchange for votes. Marxism is self-destructive. Healthcare is a product and not an unalienable right. I have seen what happens when people claim that everyone has a right to a product like when they said "everyone has a right to own a house" which then led to a series of governmental interventions that led to the subprime mortgage incident.
Something that would definately help is to stop pulling down developing countries. To see what I mean, go watch the documentary "Neocolonialism in Africa".
Child Labour laws are dumb, anyway. The premise is that children can only be forced to work, and therefore any company hiring children has to somehow be forcing them into it aka Child Abuse. Children can work if they want to work. Most of them may not want to. That's fine, too. Cases of Child Abuse need to be handled on an individual basis, not with a blanket law like this.
Hot take! How about we don’t exploit the countries where child exists, to the point where child labor is a necessity for basic needs to be met? This video just advocates a band aid solution in order to maintain economic hegemony over developing nations.
@Oscarda016 Child labor isn't imposed by other countries, it's a necessity for the family's survival. The best example is agriculture and economics in rural and remote areas of the third-world. Families have their kids work on farms or whatever trade their parents are in (mining, fishing, logging, hunting, gathering other plants, raising livestock) and are involved in chores and handicrafts in a younger age than they would have been. These are difficult jobs, yet the parents themselves have to teach their kids and the kids themselves want to help their parents because it's their survival on the line. Couple that with malnutrition, common tropical diseases like malaria and dengue, infections, high maternal mortality and infant mortality, there's something to what this guy's saying. The alternatives are worse, and these alternatives are not imposed but just a fact of life, that nature can be harsh.
@@nustadamy child self would disagree with you, as would my current self. Forcing children to be dependent on their parents is worse. People who can be employed are people who can leave their home situation.
@@amazinggrapes3045 I think you misunderstood what I said. I believe children should be able to divorce themselves from their parents, and given every resource for employment should they want it as it eliminates choices from them. Myths of workplace exploitation of minors, are in fact created to exploit minors at all times. The fact is most parents care for their kids, child over-employment is a function of poverty, not capitalism.
What if we could pool our money and assist by sending it to other countries to make sure that they provide education, food, and housing to children. Then the organization that provides these funds could use their collective power to enforce proper spending of these funds. We could call this "international aid", the enforcers could be called an "oversight committee" and we could call this pooling of fiscal resources "taxes". Strange that these terms sound familiar, but are fought so hard by those on the right.
Goodness, we have CEO's paying themselves hundreds of millions (even if they fail and destroy their company) and here we are saying that child labor is where we should be cutting costs.
Thanks for the video and the topic. As seen in the comments many ppl just get upset. Poor ppl and families will usually try to get to work much sooner than families with more wealth. Getting an education is important since math and language studies will teach more logical and more efficient thinking. I hated my school but some of the skills I do value. Calculus and geometry etc. Reading maps Learning two languages to a certain level ( although with language I have to admit that I learned more outside of school than actually in school itself). So the question is, school systems, are they really that good? (Not the general topic of getting and education just schools itself). IF a 14 yo is able to get a job to get additional money for him or herself and it would actually help them in investing in their future, why forbid it? Intellectuals can talk about topics like this, this is the skill that makes them intellectuals.
@Learn Liberty I applaud you for doing this, you found someone who really studied and understood the realities of child labor. I live in a third-world country knowledgeable about the hardships of my people, many of these commenters don't understand because they have never seen the reality of poverty, only behind television screens, short exotic vacation tours, and at most temporary charity. Poverty is a fact of life, not imposed by some scary foreigner, they are lucky to have been born in better places but they are too sentimental to recognize reality.
By the 18th century, the colonies were probably the richest area of the world. By the late 19th century, the US economy was larger than the other major industrial countries combined. The US also has extraordinary advantages, unmatched anywhere. Sweatshops in the US in the early 20th century were a shocking scandal - and the least of it. US wealth and privilege is based to a very large extent on a century of hideous slave labor camps. And more. Known to scholarship, but not the popular culture. There was no need to tolerate throughout US history, and there’s no need to tolerate elsewhere right now. It’s part of the general elite policy choices designed to enrich the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the defenseless.
19th century. Google the pictures of US cities in that era. There were slums, open sewage, unsafe working conditions, crowded public spaces and everything else.
I never understood what part of denying children the opportunity to have their own money and get a taste of adult life was supposed to help them. It kind if seems like people want children to be dependent at all costs That being said, the notion that private property is going to help them is hilarious. Kids in America are not allowed to work... and young people in America have been foundering. There are other factors, but their childhood of education has completely failed to prepare them for an adulthood of employment, and they have no money to start out with except that which their parents feel like giving them, assuming they have any to give. And then they spend most of what little they can make on occupying space, because homes are all owned privately by somebody who never sets foot in them. That's what private property laws have done for us. People don't even buy homes to live in them; they buy homes to sell them, their children's future security be damned, so they can make even more money so they can roll in riches they only have access to because other countries go without. There aren't enough Earths to sustain any more Americas. The actual solution is just to grant all kids and other workers employee protections and pay them in a way that supports them.
Have you considered that without child labour, the demand for labour would increase, wages would increase and the standard of living would be higher. I think you want to make excuses for child labour because it is convenient for the capitalist story and to keep prices low.
Russian Bot actually you are not a counting for inflation and the fact that millions will die of starvation as the price for labour will be to expensive.
As you said yourself, making laws against child labour will make wages higher. But that will make the product also more expensive. As a result, people will not buy products from these countries anymore, this will lead to mass unemployment and eventually starvation.
@@ASOIAF-Henrikbecause foreign countries are completely incapable of feeding themselves without the USA taking over and hoarding all their resources 😂
The worst kind of appeal to promote global trade. Just look at the state of the human condition. The places we're doing much of this trade isn't for things Americans necessarily "need" or cheaper products, and some of these labor conditions have terrible health consequences for their workers, including death(not necessarily health-related). This doesn't lift people out of any conditions that weren't already imposed on them.. Where are the incentives and disincentives for their politicians and business leaders to make good decisions? The way US business interests manipulate your government and tax dollars to do their "business" in some parts of the world is to encourage their dictator henchmen to intimidate their citizens, deprive workers of sleep, beat them at times, and sometimes murder and raze entire residential areas to keep the locals in line from fear. I guess it's a bit better than being attacked or detained mistakenly by American forces. Does trade do well in some places? Yes, but I would say it's much less than even a quarter of the trade we engage in that is actually going towards doing anything for ordinary people. And don't get me wrong: We all love affordable goods. But there is nothing to say that any of these factors somehow create more innovation or really make the world a better place. What we're really talking about is aristocratic leverage of power and you're part of it no matter who you are. Sometimes it might be better to know about everything that happened in every transaction, hear the stories of those that did the actual work, and how manipulating numbers for someone else's benefit is mostly all there is behind many of these business practices and the provisions in trade pacts. If you truly consider yourself a libertarian, you have to ask yourself at some point where actual individual rights fit in outside of guns, property, trade, and screwing your neighbor. There never seems to be a question of necessity or common interest. And just recognizing that that exists is not any more socialism than saying you have to protect your border. I'm talking about legitimate awareness. This is about being the creatures at the beginning of '2001: A space Odyssey' and Roman spectators. Both sound poor but humans need to evolve further than just being mind and body slaves to a pecking order as well. Most of the time we don't seem much different than those primate creatures depicted, which is quite pathetic considering how arrogant the "human" race is..
+hybridmcgee The people in the developed world were poor before they were rich. They went through the very same economic conditions occurring in the third world, today. There's no skipping. By arguing against trade with the poor, you're only arguing to delay their progress and prolong their conditions. What good does it do the worker in those countries if we stop buying what he makes? What good does it do him if you impose a minimum wage that shifts his job to someone else with better skills?
grantcivyt Again, you're misunderstanding my whole point about how trade is designed to work in the modern world, which is far from what is being portrayed in this propaganda piece. There is no interest in practice that is intended above all else to improve anyone's lives other than those who don't really need the improvement. And with that being the prime directive, the result is actually the opposite of improving class division or reducing poverty. You think if China didn't control("manipulate") its own currency, that their middle class would actually be growing? Not even close. Above all else, you seem to be under the impression that America was not protectionist before. That essentially meant that even though we were not a wealthy nation, we had the dignity to not be subjected to foreign meddling and make allies with those who suffered in the same way that forced those before to colonize the western world. Importing and foreign investment were very unappealing for over 150 years because people were aware of how it left them beholden to powerful, imperial, foreign interests(especially European). And so our very independence had so much to do with our own innovation, elbow grease, and sending a clear message that we don't need a more powerful group or entity to subjugate us under the impression that eventually our lives will somehow be improved if we just do more for less. And, unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of BS that many Americans in modern times have bought into with absolutely no historical evidence to support that as a reliable formula. Minute men and state militias were basically unions that were fighting imperial power over local control. That is completely contrary to how property rights seem to only matter for those with the most power or property rights. This is what makes the US the first modern, working, constitutional democratic-republic. But it is under threat by the very mentality that people need aristocratic power or permission to enable ANY improvement over the state of their own lives. People deserve what they get for believing such obvious lies. Because once someone cedes that leverage away, they encourage losing even more in the future.
+hybridmcgee "Again"? I don't think we've spoken before. There's plenty of interest in improving the lives of those less fortunate, but much of the charity that results is gone to waste. What you call meddling I call choice. I'm not advocating for domestic products to be somehow excluded from the marketplace. It's you who's advocating for people to have less choice. If you think buying domestic is the way to go, have a conversation with people and try to persuade them. It's difficult, isn't it? It's much easier to force them through protectionist laws. America was very minimally protectionist, but there was little need for it in most industries. We were simply better at producing lower-cost products in a competitive environment. I'm really baffled by your calling trade with someone from a different country "meddling." How about I trade with whomever I want, and you don't meddle in my affairs by restricting my market?
grantcivyt Yes, "again" because it's like you didn't even understand what I originally wrote. I'm confronting the usual program and I have to repeat my point in depth while it still has difficulty penetrating the line of code you're used to following. I never said that trade was all bad. You're just trying to set up a straw man suggesting I stated or implied that it was. But you know that's a lie because there is no evidence to show that. It's simply a product of your own reactionary programming. If we play that game then I can say that you ARE pro-slavery, but I don't think you would appreciate that when you didn't say that either. Essentially, all I am arguing against is for human rights and a fair standard of living. But you're probably one of those people who believes that as long as you have choices in the marketplace that slave labor is absolutely fine. Well, perhaps you want to go enjoy that lifestyle because the future is so bright living in those conditions. It's so kind of you to support that kind of regime and not subject yourself to it. Do you really have a choice in what you believe? Yes. Do you want that choice? That's probably an easier question for me to answer than for you but I'm also certain that a great deal has gone into instilling your beliefs into you. How much of that have you challenged? Does your conscience go dormant when you are rewarded for ignoring it? You know exactly what I am talking about when I refer to meddling. It's about powerful interests(especially foreign) creating dependency through monopolies deliberately designed to have more influence over economics and politics than civic engagement. When that takes precedence over sovereignty then that is not choice at all. But you don't understand that because you just see the carrot in front of you and are never able to reach it. You keep following it anyway. And America was not minimally protectionist until what progressed in the last 21 years with the WTO, which roots lie in 1947 after WWII with the UN and GATT. I encourage you to check into it. The bottom line is that trade can influence human rights by creating the right incentives instead of simply seeking instant gratification at the cost of someone else's standard of living. And that is regardless of what you think someone else should appreciate that you know damn well you couldn't handle in contrast to how you live. It's called being spoiled and all it takes is being trained to use certain mental gymnastics to believe that acting entitled to what you call "choice" is fair and good for everyone.
+hybridmcgee It sounded like you were advocating protectionism, which is the opposite of free trade. I don't believe I put up a strawman at all. I argued against a point that you clearly appeared to be making. If that's not the case, we can move on. I don't want slave labor at all. I don't believe in anyone forcing themselves on others. I believe in free people making free choices. As far as I know, I'm not supporting any such regime. I've challenged my beliefs quite a lot, I'd say. I used to be for minimum wage laws, welfare safety nets, child labor laws and OSHA regulations. It wasn't until I listened to persuasive contrary arguments that I changed my mind. But I don't see how my personal journey has any bearing on the arguments we're making. I think that's called an ad hominem argument. I don't know exactly what you mean by meddling unless you explain it because what you said before sounded like you were advocating protectionism. If what you're arguing against is cronyism, I'm happy to lend my support. We're talking in different time horizons. America was minimally protectionist for the great majority of its history. The modern "big government" era began in the 20th century. The vast improvement to living conditions in America prior to that era occurred largely in the absence of protectionism. Again, it sounds like you're advocating protectionism. By definition, trade benefits both parties. Just because I don't want to live at a standard below my present one (a statement that's true of everyone, mind) is no reason to stop trading with people less fortunate. If you want to help the poor, trade with them. You'll do a great deal more good that way than by deliberately attempting to help.
Not only does child labor help with immediate poverty, it also teaches responsibility and self-reliance much better than schooling. By the time child laborers reach adulthood, they have way more work experience than anyone who stuck through the school system until then.
Please tell me that you're joking... Their adulthood will be just slavery, can't you see it? They don't have chance to have a better life without education..
There is some truth to that but the problem is that the market takes to long to cut it out. If we wait for the market in the US or UK we could of been waiting for another 10 years.
Its not that the free market is slow, its that they are enslaving them by proxy. If the company went out of its way to burn down agriculture so the only jobs available were in their factories, it would be obvious slavery. But if the government there oppresses and steals from their population, then its the same affect but you dont have to dirty your hands. Also note that in order to open these factories, you have to be friendly with this slavemaster government, and probably give them tribute for their wonderful work. Its these "businessmen" who are the wealthiest in their home countries, the friends of slavemasters
Did the USA not bring in labour laws, including minimum age products crossing state lines and other laws to end such exploitation? Surely compaines in America sending goods to other counties that break these laws is scandalous? If Bangladesh had their own company/products and then shipped the goods to USA I would get your point, but USA compaines exploiting lax labour laws of forigen counties to sell their goods cheaper and make more profit, u are seriously defending that????
+Brian Harrison Why does it matter if the companies are American, or Bangladeshi? They're both providing wages to these workers. The thing is American companies have a lot of advantages local Bangladeshi companies just don't have. American companies aren't as subject to local abuse and corruption as local companies are. Also they bring in a lot of much needed investment and capital that doesn't already exist in the country. Building that from scratch takes much much longer. Another thing is a lot of these factories are locally owned. They usually sell to American distributors who can get products to market. This isn't exploitation this simply a agreed upon trade by various actors. The Bangladeshi's have more job options and higher wages than what is already available and American companies get cheaper labor and American consumers get cheaper goods. First of all these laws? Do they apply to operations outside the United States? Even if they did not all laws are inherently right. Jim Crow laws are proof enough of that.
The problem with your theory is that the jobs have been placed in these countries due to slave sorry cheap labour, thus the wages will still artificially low or the compaines will just move the jobs else where.
Brian Harrison How are they artificially low? The only way these companies are going to get these people to work in their factories and not the existing local jobs is unless they're providing better wages and/or working conditions. It may not be ideal, bu these foreign companies bring in a lot of investment and can provide larger wages than many of the jobs the local economies can.
Brian Harrison How are they keeping them from specializing and creating their own ideas? These companies are simply paying them an agreed upon wage for their work.
agrees with rule of law. but that is something rarely happen in somewhere like bangladesh etc. so wish it is that easy. even somewhere nearer eg russia and mexico, a place should be easier to abolish still have plenty because no rule of law
Man studied for 5 years just to stand in front of us and justify child labour. What a waste. In the medieval period when child labour was a fact of life people lived more dignified lives than this. At the very least they didn't have to beg for food and clothes, they were self sufficient. The system which you claim could uplift these people from poverty, is the very same system which has transformed them into landless drifters, forced to work for a slavish wage. On the other hand, the societal changes which led to the abolition of child labour were not a mere byproduct of market dynamism, but the result of numerous strikes and riots led by impoverished workers, which the "free market" you envision fought hard to suppress. It is not the market that you have to thank for ending child labour, it is the blood of the workers who lost their lives fighting for better living conditions for the future generations.
@kalatapie Why don't you actually watch at least a documentary about child labor in a remote area in a third-world country? I'm getting mad because you guys don't understand, this guy is speaking reality, and I am mad because I live in a third-world country and have likewise cared for my people only to have random foreigners misdiagnose problems with make-believe villains instead of confronting the cold, harsh, reality. Poverty is the default and we need to fight poverty, and poverty is not imposed but is natural - just think of maternal mortality, dengue, malaria, sources of food, infections, lack of potable water, etc. The people in medieval times worked hard to develop their standards of living, it wasn't through some miraculous knowledge handed down by intelligent people that solves all problems. You're too sentimental to even recognize the reality of the problem, much less figure out ways of solving that problem.
Do not give me this bull shit . Like this Chanel but let's be real. The only reason these company's are operating in these nations is the low wage and lack of regulation . My issue is not kids working my issue is with the working conditions of these factory's. Come on I ask you show me a factory in the us that has suiside nets.
+michael Sanseverino I'm going to agree that the standards in factories abroad are not equivalent to the standards of factories here, but I'm not sure what you think about this video is bullshit. Bear in mind that even such "terrible" factories are leaps and bounds better than the local alternatives. Companies going abroad because of "low wages and lack of regulation" are providing an alternative to even worse jobs, thereby improving the conditions of locals at an albeit slow rate. Improve the protection of property rights in such countries, and the business models will become decreasingly take-and-run in mode since it's safer to put better machinery on the ground, given that it won't be nationalized. Do this and the factories will not only increase vastly in productivity, but so will the pay and work conditions.
+YamiShadow Kitty here what I think is bull shit . You do not present to negative situations and clam one is better and good. when you have the power to turn it in to a good situation. It's kind of immoral when you clam somethings good for some one when you your self would never put up with the working stander you are asking when you have the power to safe and fair .
michael Sanseverino Two points of contention here: - Can I actually make it better? Bear in mind that the West had to go through a similar period of development before it attained the extraordinary wealth it has today. It sounds like you're assuming we can skip the process of production and get the benefits of it anyway. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Remember that once you start redistributing wealth based upon need alone that you not only could but certainly will destroy production. It didn't work for the USSR. It didn't work for Cuba. It's not working for South America. Like Cuba, China is slowly shifting away from such policies because it didn't work there either. Your proposal that we can "help" simply on the grounds that we have a lot of resources is naive and empirically false, which would be forgivable if that ideology hand't killed more people than even the Nazis. 40 million from the USSR alone, to say nothing of other countries, compared to 11 million that were certainly killed by the Nazis. - You assume I would not work in their conditions if I had to. I would, if my life depended upon it, and it was better than everything else available. I cannot begin to describe how infinitely grateful I am that in North America we've gone through the Industrial Revolution already and, hence, no longer have to live in such squalor. I cannot begin to describe how much I'd like it if this were passed in other parts of the world too, considering how much better off they would be for it too.
+YamiShadow Kitty no no you miss understand me . I not talking about pay the market should set that naturally. What I saying is give them the safety that you your self would expect. The all depends on what kind of factory it is of course. For example if they making studs for construction to build walls with. Then they should get the same eye protection they should have the air filtration that a us wood machining shop would have. This is just a example . Personally I my self hope a lot of these jobs factory work will be done by robots because they just do it better . I used to work in a machine shop and the cnc we had back then in few passes could do what would take 4 people with traditional industrial power tools . Even with these basic human rights it still would be cheaper then most of the west witch has went the opposite and has to many rules most of witch are just crazy.
michael Sanseverino Oh! I see. If that's all you're concerned with, then there's actually a simple solution. A big reason businesses don't put those resources on the ground in the first place is because in most nations outside of North America and Western Europe, property rights have atrociously minimal if any protection. Any business that starts to look resource lush is likely to be seized by the state in these third world countries. Because of this, businesses are afraid of putting things like the aforementioned eye protection in factories. Many safety based wear is pretty much essential for using more complex machinery without dying on the job, and since death is pretty costly for productivity (a dead man cannot work), such safety protocols would be met if property rights were actually protected. I personally only expect the minimum necessary for a given job, so perhaps I'm not really the best person for your example, but I'm not so sure I need regulation to increase protections beyond what employers discover to be necessary. But yeah, were we to advocate strict property rights protection in these countries in question, it would be a lot easier to get such safety and protection to them naturally. Luckily this is an issue that won't take fifty plus years to solve, and actually could be solved over three or four years if the governments of these countries are willing to cooperate.
Its probably okay if your mowing the loan or something but with a lot of these jobs they are very dangerous and a kid can't really make an informed decision about weather or not he wants to take the risk of doing something dangerous,. It just isn't fair to the kid and I honestly do believe it should be banned, also if children do not at least complete high school then their protects for social advancement will be severely limited perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Kyle Hankins you are so out of touch and privileged yourself that you can’t see the truth. You are advocating a worse fate for the children in these countries
Y'know what, I made a mistake bothering to comment in response to other comments below. Everything I could offer is already in the video. It's right there, kids. Just let in in...
Logo for you still coming soon ...however...usmint.gov and world fact books currency for your populations ...study money history ...and order with Treasurys
A business that finds it impossible to pay an adult a living wage is actually bankrupt. Allowing it to resort to income from crime, no matter where in the world, only postpones the sentence of the market. It is a just sentence. Contracting foreign manufacturers that pay less than the living wage in their own country is properly understood as a form of financing crimes such as slavery (or the exploitation of dependents, including children). A maniac could argue that his sponsors are actually saving the kidnapped slaves from starvation, but that is because he/she has neither shame or reason.
I hated every second of this video. EDUCATION IS THE RIGHT OF EVERY CHILD. PERIOD. NOT A SINGLE CHILD MUST WORK IN THE WORLD, NO MATTER WHERE HE/SHE LIVES. So, this how you are comforting your conscience? Why don't we discuss why those countries are so poor that their children have to work? This is just so American. This is not liberty. This is not humane.
All countries and individuals start out poor. Where do children get the money to go to school? In order for families to gain more money, they need to work. As their financial condition improves, they will be able to go to school. That's how basic economics work. Sorry if it hurts your feelings. You have a case of 1st world privilege and you need to put your feet in the shoes of people from developing nations.
Child labor is actually good because child need to learn discipline and stop mooching off their parents. I think 5 Is the best age to get your children into a labor program like snow shoveling and age should determine the daily pay so a 5 year old can make $5 a day after school working 1 hour but a 14 year old can make $20 working 3 hours. Eventually your child will become a CEO making $5000 a day😃
Libertarian opinions are unpopular to the right and left. I've talked about libertarian views to people and many times that generated a very heated debate. Left and Right wings are about ideology. Libertarians are about logic, regardeless of what your sensitive heart says.
Ugggghhh I think the age for working should be a lower age because I think not to young cause I want it to be consensual maybe like 10 to 12 you can start working instead of 15
If we pay kids to go to school could it be possible that it would encourage other kids to work instead of go to school so that they're paid to go to school? Same like putting single moms on welfare increased single moms in the USA?
@@ExPwner It is slavery locking children into slavery. The slave system locks people in. Are we talking about Paperboys under democracy? Slave labour locks people.
@@cathystevens9826 Because they'll die of poverty otherwise, and their grandparents and aunts and uncles and parents and several siblings already die regularly from poverty. Look up a documentary about child labor in the context of remote areas in third-world countries. I say this because I live in a third-world country and this is common sense to us. You speak as if the value of education is not seen, but don't realize the real costs of long-term education and development which need to be met - otherwise child labor will continue, because poverty naturally continues. Poverty isn't imposed, it's practically a natural state which we want to fight. Logic is needed in survival more than sentimentality.
This channel promotes child labour than scholarship through education. Child labour creates a huge supply of cheap labour which fills the pockets of the capitalists. This channel isn't "learn liberty" it's "learn slavery".
,,Adopting institutions that suport economic freedom, private property rights and the rule of law."....How about those economicaly free private corporations stop exploiting third world countries in the persuit of profit. ,,The 2016 results show that child labour has again declined worldwide, but that the pace of progress has slowed significantly.A closer look at the patterns during 2012 to 2016 also indicates almost no progress among children under the age of 12."-ILO: Child Labour: Global Estimates and Trends, 2012-2016, (Geneva, International Labour Office, 2017) The system, that you're saying is helping these children survive, is the very system that put these children in this situation to begin with. When in history did making the market freer ever help the workers?
@kamile530 My girl, poverty isn't imposed by companies, poverty is a fact of life in remote areas of third-world countries. We don't live in the Garden of Eden.
This is a great example of unintended consequences. Child labor, and/or sweatshops to make cheap products might be bad, but it is currently their best alternative, so getting rid of it makes their lives worse off. If only people would understand this principle more often. It relates to so many things, where the government does something out of good intentions but has disastrous results.
If nobody is forcing these poor people to work in horrible conditions, then why would they be voluntarily choosing to work in them if working didn’t have some benefit for them? By taking these opportunities away, they’d be even poorer than if they worked in a sweatshop. Making $1 an hour is better than making $0 an hour.
@@brettolson9544 The focus on voluntary exchanged is always toxic..this is why we need a Min wage law, or as I call it "calling the bluff on the market's magic hand"...if we do not have a min wage then the best possible "voluntary exchange" could be catastrophically abyssmal.
Also we are talking children..who should be busy playing and learning...maybe get your head out of the free market anarcho capitalist sand.
What about about Universal Basic Income and Negative Income Tax?
@@DarkMustard1337 JODIDO SOCIALISTA COMUNISTASª!!!
I cannot believe he was able to say "according to an article by Paul Krugman" with a straight face.
ikr
even a broken clock is right twice a day.
+Chaaos2 Krugman isn't always wrong. Just almost always. You have to give him credit when he's right, or he'll stop all together.
+Chaaos2 one of the toughest things to do, even for Liberty minded individuals, is to look at people's ideas on an individual basis. It is completely alright to disagree with 99% of what someone says and agree with 1% of what they say. Even though Krugman is a Keynesian it doesn't mean that an Austrian is unable to agree with a single thing that comes out of his mouth. Information and ideas are what they are, regardless of whose mouth they come out of. Another example of someone I generally agree with saying something that I agree with is Obama with his recent speech at Howard. Here is the link fee.org/articles/president-obama-tells-college-students-the-cold-truth/ Try reading that article and ignore the fact that Obama is saying it. Do you agree with the excerpt from the speech? To finally hammer this point home - in the realm of ideas it doesn't matter who said what. All that matters is the quality and reason in what was said. So if the information that many of those children who were laid off became child prostitutes or starved is indeed factual it doesn't matter if Hitler came back from the grave to say it. All that matters is the words themselves.
Believe it or not, but Krugman wrote some good stuff, back in the days
Well that's one way to defend child factory labor.
Child Labor in the underdeveloped world has been occurring for over 50 years, how long do they need to wait for their economies to develop?
It's certainly not accelerated by attempts to ban it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act
>> UNICEF sent a team of investigators into Bangladesh to learn what came of the children who were dismissed from their factory jobs. UNICEF's 1997 State of the World's Children report confirmed that most of the children found themselves in much more deplorable situations, such as crushing stones, scavenging through trash dumps, and begging on the streets. Many of the girls eventually ended up in prostitution.
How fast such countries can develop will probably be tied to their economic freedom. Right now Bangladesh, for example, is still a repressed country, although steadily becoming freer:
www.heritage.org/index/images/scoresovertime/2020/bangladesh.jpg
CUANDO SE TERMINEN LOS GOBIERNOS SOCIALISTAS, COMO EL PERONISMO O KIRCHNERISMO EN ARGENTINA POR EJEMPLO
Development takes time
@@rajashashankgutta4334 How long? What does economic theory say about the temporal aspects of economic development? Why is it faster is some nations than in others and at different historical periods?
took a hell of a lot longer in the now first world
I won't lie, I had a thought about this before. Not to this extent of detail, but after thinking I realized if these shithead companies didn't exist, these kids'd just starve.
+Dallas Mann Yea, the unfortunate reality of these peoples' situation is bad, but the alternative is even worse.
+Dallas Mann Also, before globalization was prominent; billions and billions of foreign aid or food aid was donated to these third world countries and didn't work. I can safely assume after 10-20 years from now, these world countries' standard of living will increase due to globalization.
+dman john Yeah, but that's because a lot of those countries A:Abandon what they do and B:Governments refuse help for some reason or another.
A third would country having guns and the internet forced down its throat is gonna flop, just look at Africa :/
More people die from abundance of food than starvation. Humans produce more than enough food to feed all humans. Western lifestyle is extremely wasteful compared to developing countries. These kids don't HAVE to starve. It's just that nobody gives a flying f...
How do more people die from an abundance of food than a lack of food?
in Thailand child abandonment is a huge issue, there's a muay Thai master who adopts these children, gives them food, shelter, water, a bed, as long as they help him with his farm...he trains all the children how to read and the art of muay Thai, when they are grown up they must leave and make their own way, most of these kids come out masters and go all around the world opening schools, one of those kids was my master who is well known and runs a very profitable gym in southern California, would humanitarians feel better if there are laws against this?
+Deathprf88 Well, as long as the master don't actually pay these kids in actual money, he won't be charged against these child labor laws.
+廖浩 Yet are own government (USA)now prevents young family members (under 16) from working the family farm. What is to stop the "Do Gooders" from banning what the muay Thai master is doing?
What are you talking about? Family members can help out on farms. They just aren't as useful as they used to be, as most farms these days are much larger and require the knowledge and ability to use heavy machinery. I spent my summers working with my uncle on his farm by doing the off jobs he needed doing while he worked the fields.
The only reason a family farm would require someone be over sixteen is if heavy machinery is involved.
+Nicole Gentry look under federal government regulations. You will find that it is illegal to use family members under 16 (this is where I am not sure) to work a farm.
"Exemptions from the Child Labor
Provisions of the FLSA
The federal child labor provisions do not apply to:
• Children 16- and 17 years of age employed by their parents in occupations other than those declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor.
• Children under 16 years of age employed by their parents in occupations other than manufacturing or mining, or occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor."
This is the PDF of federal child labor laws that took me ten seconds to find. You can be employed by your parents under 16, so long as said employment does not conflict with schooling hours.
I am totally against sweatshop labor because I think prostitution is a better career choice (sarcasm alert).
So i come from a country that has child labour (Pakistan) and I've seen child labour up close and personal. And here's some thing the video missed out, child labour only occurs because people in poorer countries have little access to family planning therefore often have a large families and are unable to feed their children furthermore since poorer countries have no safety nets or welfare if the house holds income earners dyes or falls ill the children often have to work.
sweatshops do offer better pay and working conditions compared to alternative such as farm work or recycling rubbish where kids are often over worked and sexually assaulted.
+B1gHagar Jesus... Way to make a gigantic red herring out of his comment. His post has nothing to do with abortion, Sharia Law, or Pakistan's political system. Go troll elsewhere.
+Ultimate3036 What a load of bull! You said child labor only happens because poor countries don't have access to family planning. What do you think they do at planned parenthood clinics? By the time people go to planned parenthood, they've either screwed up their plan and are now pregnant. The rest of my comments are just as valid as the abortion comment. Grow up kid.
B1gHagar His original comment was regarding how many families are forced to participate in child labor due to inability to care for children due to large family size. This does not involve Sharia Law nor abortion, and you could only very loosely link it to Pakistan's government because of lack of services.
Merriam-Webster definition of family planning.
[quote]family planning
noun \-ˈplan-iŋ\
Medical Definition of family planning
: planning intended to determine the number and spacing of one's children through effective methods of birth control[/quote]
Family planning is done before the child is conceived, not after. A family's inability to care for their children is because they can't care for themselves. Further, if neither of you understand what being posted, maybe you should quit commenting.
B1gHagar If you're a troll you're a pretty good one. If you're not, it's just kinda sad.I honestly can't tell.
Not every child does it voluntarily or because they have to for their living a huge ammount of kids are being kidnapped and forced to work (example cocoa industrie chocolate all over the world) what your opinion about that?
Paary Bala simple, kidnapping is illegal and we should prosecute kidnappers
I always knew something was wrong with my teacher when i was in year 6, she told us never to buy products without the fair trade label on them. Whenever i told her that the sweat shop workers needed the money more, she either scolded me or changed the topic
Rule of law? What rule of law? Child protection law? How do you improve the standard of living for workers when there isn’t even a labor law? Seems to me it’s this video that jumped to the conclusion
Often, laws on the labor market make the situation worse, similar to this case. The solution is not to have rules that regulate and prohibit something. Better is to find a way to improve the situation.
@@LearnLiberty well by that standard, China has the best labor market in the world
@@LearnLibertypssst... your bias toward your personal gain is showing...
Soon as it was ‘Texas free market institute’ it all started to make sense
free market is good. commies think their legislation fixes stuff.
What do you think? Should we boycott products made with child labor?
+Anthony VP Safe working conditions costs more money, thus some laborers may be laid off.
***** You're a strange man. The argument you apparently agree with is the same for sweatshops and child labor as it is for safe working conditions.
+Learn Liberty I think we should buy what we need and let the country with its problems sort out the economics of it all. Mostly, we should be consistent. If you boycott child labour products, make sure you also also boycott anything that is from the middle east like petroleum products like gas, petrol, plastics etc bcs they mistreat their women. Avoid chinese products bcs they limit children to one child and make them work in 'sweat shops' etc.
Either do it all and boycott everything while you are searching for Koni 2012 or just live your life and be as charitable as possible when you can.
poverty is a function of government being in the way, not allowing natural profit seeking behavior of people to do those things.
Learn Liberty: Yeah, we should boycott those because prostitution is a great career choice. If Washington (and various states) didn't have prevailing wage laws & minimum wage laws, as well as a high corporate income tax rate--maybe less "cheap crap" from poor countries would be purchased in America. It's simply competition & the consumer wins.
Why can't the parents provide their kids with schooling and food? And don't these companies make huge profits off of these kids, why don't they send them to school in return or give the parents higher wages? Oh yeah... they don't cause if they do that, they'll lose their only incentive of setting up a factory there...... extremely cheap labour, that btw, is available out of the desperation of these people to survive. Their means of survival is all gone when the corporations and the powerful privatize and control the land and resources that the majority need to live on.
anyone know if the companies that buy products that involve child labor donate to those children for their education?
+likahmac Why donate when you can just pay them well?
+Hat21 if I was in charge I would, more financial freedom equals a better future in this world.
+likahmac It's fine to expect more from the companies you deal with, but it's also important to think carefully about what you expect. Most companies would prefer to have a more experienced employee than not, so children are at a disadvantage from the outset. It's only the lower cost of child labor that entices companies (and consumers). If you expect a company to pay more for child labor, you're effectively pricing children out of employment.
Let's say you have a 15 year-old and a 17 year-old applying for the same position. If hiring the 15 year-old means the company also has to build a school, it's much simpler just to hire the 17 year-old. Of course, the company can also just throw some money at a sham charity and satisfy your requirement. But then the money that would otherwise go to the child ends up with the charity, instead.
+grantcivyt in places where children earn less then our minium wage here in America and those products are brought over here, I think the company's profiting should invest in those places school's and water sources. working as a kid myself in the fields during summer when I was in Jr high and up I would save my money for the rest of the upcoming school year so I can have what I needed or wanted because my parents didn't have financial freedom and wanted me to learn what it takes to make a dollar. for those kids that are working in sweat shops I feel bad for them, they probably are spending their money just on food and water to just survive. that's why things like this hit a soft spot for me because I know it isn't easy and if that kid have enough to spend on school and wants. then it's a sad thing on how those children's minds are gonna develop.
+likahmac I sympathize with your view, but I really don't want businesses operating charities. It's difficult enough to make one decent product. There's no reason at all to expect they'll do a good job investing in schools or water sources. Our government can't manage our own schools or water resources! It's much, much better for the business to operate as efficiently as it can, so that you, the owners and me can each of us donate carefully to the charities we think are most effective. I have no faith in a businessman's ability to (as a side job) manage a school, establish a water supply or direct charitable funding. I can point you to dozens of failed charitable efforts where the charity was actually the sole focus!
If you care about doing good rather than *appearing to do good*, you shouldn't want businesses doing charity for good public relations.
I expressed a similar opinion before and got the question: 'Would you want your kids to work in a sweat shop?' I said yes. I would rather my children work and eat than starve.
बाल मजदूरी : सिसकता बचपन टूटते सपने
th-cam.com/video/3aQT8g8FCsE/w-d-xo.html
Okay but here's the thing though: because they can hire children for less, companies are less inclined to hire the adults. Or are these jobs not wanted by adults even when they're starving? Or do they pay children the same?And what about the incentive for parents to birth as much children as possible in order to have as much income as possible?
Anouk Fleur the answer is simple - the companies pay for the best labor they can get for the price regardless of age. The adults would generally be hired in higher skilled and higher paying jobs than children, if they have any education at all. Alternatively, they are generally stronger so they may also be hired for jobs that require that and pay more. If the adult is both less educated and weaker than children, the adult would get paid less. And the marginal cost of having more children is definitely more expensive than the marginal income they bring in. That is not the reason why people in the third world have more children
Parents in poor countries have as many kids as possible to help them work already, its why the birth rate in poor countries is far greater than developed countries.
I think he missed the point on purpose. I do not care about children working. Kids work on farms, in their family's stores etc. The issue is the conditions that they work in and the fraction of pay that they receive for it. Yeah it's great to get my sneakers so cheap, but why do we think that the only way to make that happen is to exploit labor or raise prices? How about these beneficent companies take a hit in the P&L and skip on beating last year. Slavery, child labor, income equality all make perfect economic sense, but that doesn't make them right. This sounds like some of the same justifications for slavery. The slaves would starve without us giving them work and keeping them fed. You can suggest good effects in any negative situation. The Mongols killed 60 million people, because of them the forests absorbed 700 million tons of carbon dioxide, and they saved future generations (of the dead 60 million offspring) from overpopulating regions of the earth. YAY Mongols?!?!?!?! GTFOH
You nailed it on the head. This video disgusted me
@@MaxShoham yes instead they should starve to death
Child labor regulations can be a double-edged sword at times. While it can help adults get better paying jobs, it can prevent a young adolescent from getting convenient part-time work to help the family.
Plus in the US, we now have a huge portion of the younger generation who are quite self-entitled as if everyone else owes them something just for existing and who get extremely whiny when they learn they have to deal with the realities of working smarter as well as harder not to mention emotionally "triggered" when they hear something they think is hateful even if it is scientific and factual.
***** The entitlement is when someone demands that the state get used to seize healthcare from one person and then distribute it through a bureaucracy or ten to give that person an easier ride in exchange for votes.
Marxism is self-destructive. Healthcare is a product and not an unalienable right. I have seen what happens when people claim that everyone has a right to a product like when they said "everyone has a right to own a house" which then led to a series of governmental interventions that led to the subprime mortgage incident.
+MilitiaInfantry Im tired of this "entitled generation" myth.
How the fuck can you even relate the two
it's not just adolescents.
Something that would definately help is to stop pulling down developing countries. To see what I mean, go watch the documentary "Neocolonialism in Africa".
बाल मजदूरी : सिसकता बचपन टूटते सपने
th-cam.com/video/3aQT8g8FCsE/w-d-xo.html
Well would you look at that, I learned something.
Child Labour laws are dumb, anyway. The premise is that children can only be forced to work, and therefore any company hiring children has to somehow be forcing them into it aka Child Abuse.
Children can work if they want to work. Most of them may not want to. That's fine, too. Cases of Child Abuse need to be handled on an individual basis, not with a blanket law like this.
Hot take!
How about we don’t exploit the countries where child exists, to the point where child labor is a necessity for basic needs to be met? This video just advocates a band aid solution in order to maintain economic hegemony over developing nations.
@Oscarda016 Child labor isn't imposed by other countries, it's a necessity for the family's survival. The best example is agriculture and economics in rural and remote areas of the third-world. Families have their kids work on farms or whatever trade their parents are in (mining, fishing, logging, hunting, gathering other plants, raising livestock) and are involved in chores and handicrafts in a younger age than they would have been.
These are difficult jobs, yet the parents themselves have to teach their kids and the kids themselves want to help their parents because it's their survival on the line. Couple that with malnutrition, common tropical diseases like malaria and dengue, infections, high maternal mortality and infant mortality, there's something to what this guy's saying. The alternatives are worse, and these alternatives are not imposed but just a fact of life, that nature can be harsh.
@@tinyleopard6741there's a difference between growing your own food and being a factory drone...
Richard t Moneybags here! Paying poor brown and yellow kids 3 cents on the dollar and working them 18 hours a day 7 days a week, helps me cut costs
Kids should work if they want to, but make sure they are not abused or harmed.
One persons problems is another opportunities, to many (not me) employment is defacto abuse.
@@nustadamy child self would disagree with you, as would my current self.
Forcing children to be dependent on their parents is worse. People who can be employed are people who can leave their home situation.
@@amazinggrapes3045 I think you misunderstood what I said. I believe children should be able to divorce themselves from their parents, and given every resource for employment should they want it as it eliminates choices from them. Myths of workplace exploitation of minors, are in fact created to exploit minors at all times. The fact is most parents care for their kids, child over-employment is a function of poverty, not capitalism.
What if we could pool our money and assist by sending it to other countries to make sure that they provide education, food, and housing to children. Then the organization that provides these funds could use their collective power to enforce proper spending of these funds. We could call this "international aid", the enforcers could be called an "oversight committee" and we could call this pooling of fiscal resources "taxes". Strange that these terms sound familiar, but are fought so hard by those on the right.
बाल मजदूरी : सिसकता बचपन टूटते सपने
th-cam.com/video/3aQT8g8FCsE/w-d-xo.html
Goodness, we have CEO's paying themselves hundreds of millions (even if they fail and destroy their company) and here we are saying that child labor is where we should be cutting costs.
+Hat21 That's not what he's saying at all.
exactly
बाल मजदूरी : सिसकता बचपन टूटते सपने
th-cam.com/video/3aQT8g8FCsE/w-d-xo.html
Bizjets are expensive. Savings have got to be made somewhere, and it's always easier to kick the guy (or kid, in this case) who can't fight back.
If you think your life worse
Remember your ancestors: these children in the past had to work instead of go to school
Most of the poorest countries have the least free economies, so they should scale back economic regulation
Thanks for the video and the topic.
As seen in the comments many ppl just get upset.
Poor ppl and families will usually try to get to work much sooner than families with more wealth.
Getting an education is important since math and language studies will teach more logical and more efficient thinking.
I hated my school but some of the skills I do value.
Calculus and geometry etc.
Reading maps
Learning two languages to a certain level ( although with language I have to admit that I learned more outside of school than actually in school itself).
So the question is, school systems, are they really that good?
(Not the general topic of getting and education just schools itself).
IF a 14 yo is able to get a job to get additional money for him or herself and it would actually help them in investing in their future, why forbid it?
Intellectuals can talk about topics like this, this is the skill that makes them intellectuals.
@Learn Liberty I applaud you for doing this, you found someone who really studied and understood the realities of child labor. I live in a third-world country knowledgeable about the hardships of my people, many of these commenters don't understand because they have never seen the reality of poverty, only behind television screens, short exotic vacation tours, and at most temporary charity. Poverty is a fact of life, not imposed by some scary foreigner, they are lucky to have been born in better places but they are too sentimental to recognize reality.
By the 18th century, the colonies were probably the richest area of the world. By the late 19th century, the US economy was larger than the other major industrial countries combined. The US also has extraordinary advantages, unmatched anywhere. Sweatshops in the US in the early 20th century were a shocking scandal - and the least of it. US wealth and privilege is based to a very large extent on a century of hideous slave labor camps. And more. Known to scholarship, but not the popular culture.
There was no need to tolerate throughout US history, and there’s no need to tolerate elsewhere right now. It’s part of the general elite policy choices designed to enrich the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the defenseless.
+butterflycaught900 Did you even WATCH the video?
SaulOhio yep
butterflycaught900 So, then you weren't paying attention.
SaulOhio What makes you say that?
I literally typed "Child labor is ok" and this video showed up as the first result LMFAOOOO
Do you guys know what the fashion industry is doing to address the issues of child labor?
And when were we as poor as Bangladesh? FOS
19th century. Google the pictures of US cities in that era. There were slums, open sewage, unsafe working conditions, crowded public spaces and everything else.
I never understood what part of denying children the opportunity to have their own money and get a taste of adult life was supposed to help them. It kind if seems like people want children to be dependent at all costs
That being said, the notion that private property is going to help them is hilarious. Kids in America are not allowed to work... and young people in America have been foundering. There are other factors, but their childhood of education has completely failed to prepare them for an adulthood of employment, and they have no money to start out with except that which their parents feel like giving them, assuming they have any to give. And then they spend most of what little they can make on occupying space, because homes are all owned privately by somebody who never sets foot in them. That's what private property laws have done for us. People don't even buy homes to live in them; they buy homes to sell them, their children's future security be damned, so they can make even more money so they can roll in riches they only have access to because other countries go without. There aren't enough Earths to sustain any more Americas.
The actual solution is just to grant all kids and other workers employee protections and pay them in a way that supports them.
Are there organizations that pay students to go to school- as suggested in the video?
Yes
@@harshitmadan6449 like what
Bangladesh is one of the fastest growing economies in Asia
However, the growth this country has is low to become a developed country in the following decades.
Have you considered that without child labour, the demand for labour would increase, wages would increase and the standard of living would be higher. I think you want to make excuses for child labour because it is convenient for the capitalist story and to keep prices low.
Russian Bot actually you are not a counting for inflation and the fact that millions will die of starvation as the price for labour will be to expensive.
As you said yourself, making laws against child labour will make wages higher. But that will make the product also more expensive. As a result, people will not buy products from these countries anymore, this will lead to mass unemployment and eventually starvation.
@@ASOIAF-Henrik EXACTLY. THE OP IS A COMMUNIST!!!!
India had child labour ban since 50's. Result: it failed horribly.
@@ASOIAF-Henrikbecause foreign countries are completely incapable of feeding themselves without the USA taking over and hoarding all their resources 😂
The worst kind of appeal to promote global trade. Just look at the state of the human condition.
The places we're doing much of this trade isn't for things Americans necessarily "need" or cheaper products, and some of these labor conditions have terrible health consequences for their workers, including death(not necessarily health-related). This doesn't lift people out of any conditions that weren't already imposed on them..
Where are the incentives and disincentives for their politicians and business leaders to make good decisions? The way US business interests manipulate your government and tax dollars to do their "business" in some parts of the world is to encourage their dictator henchmen to intimidate their citizens, deprive workers of sleep, beat them at times, and sometimes murder and raze entire residential areas to keep the locals in line from fear. I guess it's a bit better than being attacked or detained mistakenly by American forces.
Does trade do well in some places? Yes, but I would say it's much less than even a quarter of the trade we engage in that is actually going towards doing anything for ordinary people. And don't get me wrong: We all love affordable goods. But there is nothing to say that any of these factors somehow create more innovation or really make the world a better place. What we're really talking about is aristocratic leverage of power and you're part of it no matter who you are. Sometimes it might be better to know about everything that happened in every transaction, hear the stories of those that did the actual work, and how manipulating numbers for someone else's benefit is mostly all there is behind many of these business practices and the provisions in trade pacts.
If you truly consider yourself a libertarian, you have to ask yourself at some point where actual individual rights fit in outside of guns, property, trade, and screwing your neighbor. There never seems to be a question of necessity or common interest. And just recognizing that that exists is not any more socialism than saying you have to protect your border. I'm talking about legitimate awareness. This is about being the creatures at the beginning of '2001: A space Odyssey' and Roman spectators. Both sound poor but humans need to evolve further than just being mind and body slaves to a pecking order as well. Most of the time we don't seem much different than those primate creatures depicted, which is quite pathetic considering how arrogant the "human" race is..
+hybridmcgee The people in the developed world were poor before they were rich. They went through the very same economic conditions occurring in the third world, today. There's no skipping. By arguing against trade with the poor, you're only arguing to delay their progress and prolong their conditions.
What good does it do the worker in those countries if we stop buying what he makes? What good does it do him if you impose a minimum wage that shifts his job to someone else with better skills?
grantcivyt Again, you're misunderstanding my whole point about how trade is designed to work in the modern world, which is far from what is being portrayed in this propaganda piece. There is no interest in practice that is intended above all else to improve anyone's lives other than those who don't really need the improvement. And with that being the prime directive, the result is actually the opposite of improving class division or reducing poverty. You think if China didn't control("manipulate") its own currency, that their middle class would actually be growing? Not even close.
Above all else, you seem to be under the impression that America was not protectionist before. That essentially meant that even though we were not a wealthy nation, we had the dignity to not be subjected to foreign meddling and make allies with those who suffered in the same way that forced those before to colonize the western world. Importing and foreign investment were very unappealing for over 150 years because people were aware of how it left them beholden to powerful, imperial, foreign interests(especially European).
And so our very independence had so much to do with our own innovation, elbow grease, and sending a clear message that we don't need a more powerful group or entity to subjugate us under the impression that eventually our lives will somehow be improved if we just do more for less. And, unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of BS that many Americans in modern times have bought into with absolutely no historical evidence to support that as a reliable formula. Minute men and state militias were basically unions that were fighting imperial power over local control. That is completely contrary to how property rights seem to only matter for those with the most power or property rights. This is what makes the US the first modern, working, constitutional democratic-republic. But it is under threat by the very mentality that people need aristocratic power or permission to enable ANY improvement over the state of their own lives. People deserve what they get for believing such obvious lies. Because once someone cedes that leverage away, they encourage losing even more in the future.
+hybridmcgee "Again"? I don't think we've spoken before.
There's plenty of interest in improving the lives of those less fortunate, but much of the charity that results is gone to waste.
What you call meddling I call choice. I'm not advocating for domestic products to be somehow excluded from the marketplace. It's you who's advocating for people to have less choice. If you think buying domestic is the way to go, have a conversation with people and try to persuade them. It's difficult, isn't it? It's much easier to force them through protectionist laws.
America was very minimally protectionist, but there was little need for it in most industries. We were simply better at producing lower-cost products in a competitive environment.
I'm really baffled by your calling trade with someone from a different country "meddling." How about I trade with whomever I want, and you don't meddle in my affairs by restricting my market?
grantcivyt Yes, "again" because it's like you didn't even understand what I originally wrote. I'm confronting the usual program and I have to repeat my point in depth while it still has difficulty penetrating the line of code you're used to following.
I never said that trade was all bad. You're just trying to set up a straw man suggesting I stated or implied that it was. But you know that's a lie because there is no evidence to show that. It's simply a product of your own reactionary programming. If we play that game then I can say that you ARE pro-slavery, but I don't think you would appreciate that when you didn't say that either.
Essentially, all I am arguing against is for human rights and a fair standard of living. But you're probably one of those people who believes that as long as you have choices in the marketplace that slave labor is absolutely fine. Well, perhaps you want to go enjoy that lifestyle because the future is so bright living in those conditions. It's so kind of you to support that kind of regime and not subject yourself to it.
Do you really have a choice in what you believe? Yes. Do you want that choice? That's probably an easier question for me to answer than for you but I'm also certain that a great deal has gone into instilling your beliefs into you. How much of that have you challenged? Does your conscience go dormant when you are rewarded for ignoring it?
You know exactly what I am talking about when I refer to meddling. It's about powerful interests(especially foreign) creating dependency through monopolies deliberately designed to have more influence over economics and politics than civic engagement. When that takes precedence over sovereignty then that is not choice at all. But you don't understand that because you just see the carrot in front of you and are never able to reach it. You keep following it anyway.
And America was not minimally protectionist until what progressed in the last 21 years with the WTO, which roots lie in 1947 after WWII with the UN and GATT. I encourage you to check into it.
The bottom line is that trade can influence human rights by creating the right incentives instead of simply seeking instant gratification at the cost of someone else's standard of living. And that is regardless of what you think someone else should appreciate that you know damn well you couldn't handle in contrast to how you live. It's called being spoiled and all it takes is being trained to use certain mental gymnastics to believe that acting entitled to what you call "choice" is fair and good for everyone.
+hybridmcgee It sounded like you were advocating protectionism, which is the opposite of free trade. I don't believe I put up a strawman at all. I argued against a point that you clearly appeared to be making. If that's not the case, we can move on.
I don't want slave labor at all. I don't believe in anyone forcing themselves on others. I believe in free people making free choices. As far as I know, I'm not supporting any such regime.
I've challenged my beliefs quite a lot, I'd say. I used to be for minimum wage laws, welfare safety nets, child labor laws and OSHA regulations. It wasn't until I listened to persuasive contrary arguments that I changed my mind. But I don't see how my personal journey has any bearing on the arguments we're making. I think that's called an ad hominem argument.
I don't know exactly what you mean by meddling unless you explain it because what you said before sounded like you were advocating protectionism. If what you're arguing against is cronyism, I'm happy to lend my support.
We're talking in different time horizons. America was minimally protectionist for the great majority of its history. The modern "big government" era began in the 20th century. The vast improvement to living conditions in America prior to that era occurred largely in the absence of protectionism. Again, it sounds like you're advocating protectionism.
By definition, trade benefits both parties. Just because I don't want to live at a standard below my present one (a statement that's true of everyone, mind) is no reason to stop trading with people less fortunate. If you want to help the poor, trade with them. You'll do a great deal more good that way than by deliberately attempting to help.
Please Can you tell me which app did you use to create this video and draw these personalities?
Child labour is banned, not child labour products. Still child labour exists because wide income inequality exists.
Hardik Muley so if everyone was poor, child labour would not exist, if I am understanding you correctly.
@@dewaldt8104income inequality is caused by greedy CEOs
Without the greedy CEOs the people wouldn't be poor
Not only does child labor help with immediate poverty, it also teaches responsibility and self-reliance much better than schooling. By the time child laborers reach adulthood, they have way more work experience than anyone who stuck through the school system until then.
Please tell me that you're joking...
Their adulthood will be just slavery, can't you see it?
They don't have chance to have a better life without education..
@@ZuleyhaVarzi COMMUNIST!!!!
@@ZuleyhaVarziconsidering the "better life" is just more wage slavery, but this time without any experience or adjustment...
There is some truth to that but the problem is that the market takes to long to cut it out. If we wait for the market in the US or UK we could of been waiting for another 10 years.
Its not that the free market is slow, its that they are enslaving them by proxy. If the company went out of its way to burn down agriculture so the only jobs available were in their factories, it would be obvious slavery. But if the government there oppresses and steals from their population, then its the same affect but you dont have to dirty your hands. Also note that in order to open these factories, you have to be friendly with this slavemaster government, and probably give them tribute for their wonderful work. Its these "businessmen" who are the wealthiest in their home countries, the friends of slavemasters
Did the USA not bring in labour laws, including minimum age products crossing state lines and other laws to end such exploitation? Surely compaines in America sending goods to other counties that break these laws is scandalous? If Bangladesh had their own company/products and then shipped the goods to USA I would get your point, but USA compaines exploiting lax labour laws of forigen counties to sell their goods cheaper and make more profit, u are seriously defending that????
+Brian Harrison Why does it matter if the companies are American, or Bangladeshi? They're both providing wages to these workers. The thing is American companies have a lot of advantages local Bangladeshi companies just don't have. American companies aren't as subject to local abuse and corruption as local companies are. Also they bring in a lot of much needed investment and capital that doesn't already exist in the country. Building that from scratch takes much much longer. Another thing is a lot of these factories are locally owned. They usually sell to American distributors who can get products to market. This isn't exploitation this simply a agreed upon trade by various actors. The Bangladeshi's have more job options and higher wages than what is already available and American companies get cheaper labor and American consumers get cheaper goods.
First of all these laws? Do they apply to operations outside the United States? Even if they did not all laws are inherently right. Jim Crow laws are proof enough of that.
The problem with your theory is that the jobs have been placed in these countries due to slave sorry cheap labour, thus the wages will still artificially low or the compaines will just move the jobs else where.
Brian Harrison
How are they artificially low? The only way these companies are going to get these people to work in their factories and not the existing local jobs is unless they're providing better wages and/or working conditions. It may not be ideal, bu these foreign companies bring in a lot of investment and can provide larger wages than many of the jobs the local economies can.
+ShamanMcLamie They keep them low by not letting them specialise and create their own ideas.
Brian Harrison
How are they keeping them from specializing and creating their own ideas? These companies are simply paying them an agreed upon wage for their work.
Hardworking children shouldn't be pitied. Their work ethic is commendable and they produce useful services as opposed to college indoctrinated idiots.
YEAH, A PHILOSEPHE POR EXAMPLE
agrees with rule of law. but that is something rarely happen in somewhere like bangladesh etc. so wish it is that easy. even somewhere nearer eg russia and mexico, a place should be easier to abolish still have plenty because no rule of law
Man studied for 5 years just to stand in front of us and justify child labour. What a waste. In the medieval period when child labour was a fact of life people lived more dignified lives than this. At the very least they didn't have to beg for food and clothes, they were self sufficient. The system which you claim could uplift these people from poverty, is the very same system which has transformed them into landless drifters, forced to work for a slavish wage. On the other hand, the societal changes which led to the abolition of child labour were not a mere byproduct of market dynamism, but the result of numerous strikes and riots led by impoverished workers, which the "free market" you envision fought hard to suppress. It is not the market that you have to thank for ending child labour, it is the blood of the workers who lost their lives fighting for better living conditions for the future generations.
@kalatapie Why don't you actually watch at least a documentary about child labor in a remote area in a third-world country? I'm getting mad because you guys don't understand, this guy is speaking reality, and I am mad because I live in a third-world country and have likewise cared for my people only to have random foreigners misdiagnose problems with make-believe villains instead of confronting the cold, harsh, reality.
Poverty is the default and we need to fight poverty, and poverty is not imposed but is natural - just think of maternal mortality, dengue, malaria, sources of food, infections, lack of potable water, etc.
The people in medieval times worked hard to develop their standards of living, it wasn't through some miraculous knowledge handed down by intelligent people that solves all problems. You're too sentimental to even recognize the reality of the problem, much less figure out ways of solving that problem.
He conveniently left that part out, I noticed...
Thought provoking stuff
Wrong
Interesting
Do not give me this bull shit . Like this Chanel but let's be real. The only reason these company's are operating in these nations is the low wage and lack of regulation . My issue is not kids working my issue is with the working conditions of these factory's. Come on I ask you show me a factory in the us that has suiside nets.
+michael Sanseverino I'm going to agree that the standards in factories abroad are not equivalent to the standards of factories here, but I'm not sure what you think about this video is bullshit. Bear in mind that even such "terrible" factories are leaps and bounds better than the local alternatives. Companies going abroad because of "low wages and lack of regulation" are providing an alternative to even worse jobs, thereby improving the conditions of locals at an albeit slow rate. Improve the protection of property rights in such countries, and the business models will become decreasingly take-and-run in mode since it's safer to put better machinery on the ground, given that it won't be nationalized. Do this and the factories will not only increase vastly in productivity, but so will the pay and work conditions.
+YamiShadow Kitty here what I think is bull shit . You do not present to negative situations and clam one is better and good. when you have the power to turn it in to a good situation. It's kind of immoral when you clam somethings good for some one when you your self would never put up with the working stander you are asking when you have the power to safe and fair .
michael Sanseverino Two points of contention here:
- Can I actually make it better? Bear in mind that the West had to go through a similar period of development before it attained the extraordinary wealth it has today. It sounds like you're assuming we can skip the process of production and get the benefits of it anyway. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Remember that once you start redistributing wealth based upon need alone that you not only could but certainly will destroy production. It didn't work for the USSR. It didn't work for Cuba. It's not working for South America. Like Cuba, China is slowly shifting away from such policies because it didn't work there either. Your proposal that we can "help" simply on the grounds that we have a lot of resources is naive and empirically false, which would be forgivable if that ideology hand't killed more people than even the Nazis. 40 million from the USSR alone, to say nothing of other countries, compared to 11 million that were certainly killed by the Nazis.
- You assume I would not work in their conditions if I had to. I would, if my life depended upon it, and it was better than everything else available. I cannot begin to describe how infinitely grateful I am that in North America we've gone through the Industrial Revolution already and, hence, no longer have to live in such squalor. I cannot begin to describe how much I'd like it if this were passed in other parts of the world too, considering how much better off they would be for it too.
+YamiShadow Kitty no no you miss understand me . I not talking about pay the market should set that naturally. What I saying is give them the safety that you your self would expect. The all depends on what kind of factory it is of course. For example if they making studs for construction to build walls with. Then they should get the same eye protection they should have the air filtration that a us wood machining shop would have. This is just a example . Personally I my self hope a lot of these jobs factory work will be done by robots because they just do it better . I used to work in a machine shop and the cnc we had back then in few passes could do what would take 4 people with traditional industrial power tools . Even with these basic human rights it still would be cheaper then most of the west witch has went the opposite and has to many rules most of witch are just crazy.
michael Sanseverino Oh! I see. If that's all you're concerned with, then there's actually a simple solution. A big reason businesses don't put those resources on the ground in the first place is because in most nations outside of North America and Western Europe, property rights have atrociously minimal if any protection. Any business that starts to look resource lush is likely to be seized by the state in these third world countries. Because of this, businesses are afraid of putting things like the aforementioned eye protection in factories. Many safety based wear is pretty much essential for using more complex machinery without dying on the job, and since death is pretty costly for productivity (a dead man cannot work), such safety protocols would be met if property rights were actually protected. I personally only expect the minimum necessary for a given job, so perhaps I'm not really the best person for your example, but I'm not so sure I need regulation to increase protections beyond what employers discover to be necessary.
But yeah, were we to advocate strict property rights protection in these countries in question, it would be a lot easier to get such safety and protection to them naturally. Luckily this is an issue that won't take fifty plus years to solve, and actually could be solved over three or four years if the governments of these countries are willing to cooperate.
So capitalism DOES need the government to keep it in check in the forms of regulations. Laissez-faire cannot run in perpetuity.
Its probably okay if your mowing the loan or something but with a lot of these jobs they are very dangerous and a kid can't really make an informed decision about weather or not he wants to take the risk of doing something dangerous,. It just isn't fair to the kid and I honestly do believe it should be banned, also if children do not at least complete high school then their protects for social advancement will be severely limited perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Kyle Hankins you are so out of touch and privileged yourself that you can’t see the truth. You are advocating a worse fate for the children in these countries
Y'know what, I made a mistake bothering to comment in response to other comments below. Everything I could offer is already in the video. It's right there, kids. Just let in in...
CHILD LABOUR LAW
Everything in this video is wrong in a creepy, evil way.
child labour is good. school wastes time.
@snorttroll4379 No, it's that child labor is a necessity in remote areas of third-world countries. Look at documentaries.
This is such a ridiculous video
Logo for you still coming soon ...however...usmint.gov and world fact books currency for your populations ...study money history ...and order with Treasurys
And to think I didn't want to watch Learn Liberty because I thought they were liberals. But now I love them
Wtf is wrong with people???
Hi chally kids! 😂
A business that finds it impossible to pay an adult a living wage is actually bankrupt. Allowing it to resort to income from crime, no matter where in the world, only postpones the sentence of the market. It is a just sentence. Contracting foreign manufacturers that pay less than the living wage in their own country is properly understood as a form of financing crimes such as slavery (or the exploitation of dependents, including children). A maniac could argue that his sponsors are actually saving the kidnapped slaves from starvation, but that is because he/she has neither shame or reason.
I hated every second of this video.
EDUCATION IS THE RIGHT OF EVERY CHILD. PERIOD.
NOT A SINGLE CHILD MUST WORK IN THE WORLD, NO MATTER WHERE HE/SHE LIVES.
So, this how you are comforting your conscience? Why don't we discuss why those countries are so poor that their children have to work? This is just so American.
This is not liberty. This is not humane.
All countries and individuals start out poor. Where do children get the money to go to school? In order for families to gain more money, they need to work. As their financial condition improves, they will be able to go to school. That's how basic economics work. Sorry if it hurts your feelings. You have a case of 1st world privilege and you need to put your feet in the shoes of people from developing nations.
Who are you to stop children from being allowed to work? Screw you.
Education to what? Being flipped off by practically every employer due to not having prior work experience to 18 years old? Lmao
Child labor is actually good because child need to learn discipline and stop mooching off their parents. I think 5 Is the best age to get your children into a labor program like snow shoveling and age should determine the daily pay so a 5 year old can make $5 a day after school working 1 hour but a 14 year old can make $20 working 3 hours. Eventually your child will become a CEO making $5000 a day😃
You are stupid
Libertarian opinions are unpopular to the right and left. I've talked about libertarian views to people and many times that generated a very heated debate. Left and Right wings are about ideology. Libertarians are about logic, regardeless of what your sensitive heart says.
EXACTLY: LIBERTY>>>> REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS
It seems like they're just about narcissistically exploiting others and manipulating the data to serve their personal greed...
Ugggghhh I think the age for working should be a lower age because I think not to young cause I want it to be consensual maybe like 10 to 12 you can start working instead of 15
If we pay kids to go to school could it be possible that it would encourage other kids to work instead of go to school so that they're paid to go to school? Same like putting single moms on welfare increased single moms in the USA?
"putting single moms on welfare increased single moms in the US"
That's obviously false, for very obvious reasons
@@حَسن-م3ه9ظ you've never heard of this before? th-cam.com/video/FszQelEQ2KY/w-d-xo.html
@@حَسن-م3ه9ظ also this th-cam.com/video/lm-FqtAOSB8/w-d-xo.html
@@rinopw4262 your sources are
1-literal think tank supported by big oil Koch Brothers
2-some guy.
Lol, ok no.
@@حَسن-م3ه9ظ so you don't have any problems with welfare at all?
Eliminate the need to work in order to survive.
Lennon Richardson how?
There will always be need for work, but work will get a lot less physical and lot more mental.
bible: "GOD: ADAN YOU MUST WORK, "
Brrr
No. It locks them into poverty. A trend that locks them in for life.
Wrong
@@ExPwner It is slavery locking children into slavery. The slave system locks people in. Are we talking about Paperboys under democracy? Slave labour locks people.
@@cathystevens9826 this video is not talking about slavery. Factory work is not equivalent to slavery.
@@cathystevens9826 Because they'll die of poverty otherwise, and their grandparents and aunts and uncles and parents and several siblings already die regularly from poverty. Look up a documentary about child labor in the context of remote areas in third-world countries. I say this because I live in a third-world country and this is common sense to us. You speak as if the value of education is not seen, but don't realize the real costs of long-term education and development which need to be met - otherwise child labor will continue, because poverty naturally continues. Poverty isn't imposed, it's practically a natural state which we want to fight. Logic is needed in survival more than sentimentality.
She should get paid 2 dollars a day
This channel promotes child labour than scholarship through education. Child labour creates a huge supply of cheap labour which fills the pockets of the capitalists. This channel isn't "learn liberty" it's "learn slavery".
It's isn't promoting child labour. It's telling you the reality
@@rajashashankgutta4334 it is promoting child labour. get your head out of your @@s
@@rajashashankgutta4334and it's wrong about that...
Private charities’ll help
,,Adopting institutions that suport economic freedom, private property rights and the rule of law."....How about those economicaly free private corporations stop exploiting third world countries in the persuit of profit.
,,The 2016 results show that child labour has again declined worldwide, but that the pace of progress has slowed significantly.A closer look
at the patterns during 2012 to 2016 also indicates almost no progress among children under the age of 12."-ILO: Child Labour: Global Estimates and Trends, 2012-2016, (Geneva, International Labour Office, 2017)
The system, that you're saying is helping these children survive, is the very system that put these children in this situation to begin with. When in history did making the market freer ever help the workers?
“Hurr durr muh exploitation!”
Marxist opinion discarded
@kamile530 My girl, poverty isn't imposed by companies, poverty is a fact of life in remote areas of third-world countries. We don't live in the Garden of Eden.
genius