Child Labor In America

[Beriallord]

I heard his comments about that and I was pretty shocked to hear him single out poor children as being the ones who should have to work. That would mean the poor children would be working instead of getting an education, therefore they would have no opportunity at all to pick themselves up and get in the middle of the pack somewhere. I think everyone should get a chance, but also don't believe it should be handed to them.

 

Newt definitely stuck his foot in his mouth with that comment. And where did this guy come from anyway? Suddenly he wasn't even in the race and now according to Fox he is the front runner? I don't believe that many people just suddenly got behind this guy.

[HeyYou]

I heard his comments about that and I was pretty shocked to hear him single out poor children as being the ones who should have to work. That would mean the poor children would be working instead of getting an education, therefore they would have no opportunity at all to pick themselves up and get in the middle of the pack somewhere. I think everyone should get a chance, but also don't believe it should be handed to them.

 

Newt definitely stuck his foot in his mouth with that comment. And where did this guy come from anyway? Suddenly he wasn't even in the race and now according to Fox he is the front runner? I don't believe that many people just suddenly got behind this guy.

 

The other guys have been sticking their feet (and other portions of their anatomy) even further down their throat. (or other places they shouldn't be.)It's not that Newt has suddenly become more popular, the other guys have suddenly become a lot LESS popular.

Edited December 11, 2011 by HeyYou

[Beriallord]

I heard his comments about that and I was pretty shocked to hear him single out poor children as being the ones who should have to work. That would mean the poor children would be working instead of getting an education, therefore they would have no opportunity at all to pick themselves up and get in the middle of the pack somewhere. I think everyone should get a chance, but also don't believe it should be handed to them.

 

Newt definitely stuck his foot in his mouth with that comment. And where did this guy come from anyway? Suddenly he wasn't even in the race and now according to Fox he is the front runner? I don't believe that many people just suddenly got behind this guy.

 

The other guys have been sticking their feet (and other portions of their anatomy) even further down their throat. (or other places they shouldn't be.)It's not that Newt has suddenly become more popular, the other guys have suddenly become a lot LESS popular.

 

I know quite a few conservatives, and not a one of them likes this Newt character. I believe its Fox News talking out their *** trying to prop this guy up as the front runner, when he in fact isn't. Its pretty well known he has been a Fox News contributor over the years, Hannity likes him and so does Huckabee. Obama is definitely going to win if they run Newt.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Beriallord

[Vagrant0]

For the sake of argument, some countries allow children to do jobs related to their school. Biggest example I can find is the differences between student governments in the US verses those in Japan. In the US, these positions have pretty much no ability to do anything meaningful, they are merely popularity contests with no responsibility afforded to the role. In Japan, student governments work directly as a medium between students and the school administration in many aspects of the school. And that's both Middleschool as well as Highschool. People who get elected to these positions can list them as work experience that counts towards their employment in companies. Even class representatives are given responsibilities and jobs to perform for managing their class.

 

Putting children in jobs does have some merit for teaching them the importance of respect, and responsibility. But, it is far too easy to exploit for the sake of business. Given that we already have enough trouble getting ADULTS employed, this seems too much like a way to make children pay off the debt of their parents, getting a cheaper workforce, and another ploy at destroying any chance children have at a gainful future.

[Keanumoreira]

Hmmm....Granny does make a valid point, but Vagrant does too. It would be nice if children could get some type of job that wasn't abusive, physically or mentally exhausting (or dangerous for that matter), and could overall, benefit everyone. However, education, as many have stated here, is at a risk of termination for these young kids, and that says nothing about the strain that would put on the American working system now that not just the country is pulling at the Reins of Recession. I believe that some alternatives should be taken instead. Child Labor was a terrible stain on American History (and wherever else it remained and still remains unsnuffed), and I do not believe it should be repeated, no matter how much Mr. Gingrich may sugarcoat it.

[greywaste]

 

Fox News talking out their *** trying to prop this guy up as the front runner, when he in fact isn't.

Relax, they're just quoting poll results, which obviously aren't going to mean squat come vote time.

 

Back on topic, but off on a tangent, Newspaper routes. It's a job that a lot of immigrants get stuck with in Denmark - like me for instance.

It involves in my case cycling 2 routes totalling about 16km with anywhere between 10-20 kilo's of crap to shove in mailboxes.

I recently got about another 100 magazines to get through per week too, mostly courtesy of Denmarks labour unions - obviously they found out getting us to deliver this crap was cheaper (we are paid per item rather than per hour) than the union represented post office ^^

Since I can't afford the near constant punctures and wheel repairs, I lug them around in 2 shoulder bags to shift some of the weight off the back wheel.

Oh and you have to be finished by 7am, so that means a 4:30am wakeup for me.

 

It gets better - Once winter hits, which lasts about 3 solid months here, I've got compacted snow - which renders the near bike useless and adds another hour and a half of time needed which I'm not paid for, black ice - which I can thank for 3 fractures and a lost tooth over the years, and sub zero temperatures to contend with and thats before wind chill factors in.

 

To rub it in even further, I've worked lots of manual labour jobs back in the UK when I was younger and this is the only one where I've been treated and spoken to like I'm a completely worthless piece of crap by a shamefully large portion of my lovely 'customers'.

 

The very best bit : I get piss poor pay for this, but kids doing this get about half of what I earn.

Thankfully I don't even see any kids doing this apart from a very occasional one that has got a parent driving them around and helping.

 

In short, kids and real employment (as opposed to pocket money for chores) is a bad idea.

[Lisnpuppy]

For the sake of argument, some countries allow children to do jobs related to their school. Biggest example I can find is the differences between student governments in the US verses those in Japan. In the US, these positions have pretty much no ability to do anything meaningful, they are merely popularity contests with no responsibility afforded to the role. In Japan, student governments work directly as a medium between students and the school administration in many aspects of the school. And that's both Middleschool as well as Highschool. People who get elected to these positions can list them as work experience that counts towards their employment in companies. Even class representatives are given responsibilities and jobs to perform for managing their class.

 

Putting children in jobs does have some merit for teaching them the importance of respect, and responsibility. But, it is far too easy to exploit for the sake of business. Given that we already have enough trouble getting ADULTS employed, this seems too much like a way to make children pay off the debt of their parents, getting a cheaper workforce, and another ploy at destroying any chance children have at a gainful future.

 

I agree about the student government thing. Sad as it seemed it was not always so. My Mother told me about the very prestigious Student Councils and then the fact they were also voted to go (at the time in the 1950s) to go to Girl's State and Boy's State then onto a National Student Council Organization where they actually learned about government and made connections that often got them interns in Washington (which they also just got rid of.)

 

I still don't believe children should be put to work (their job is school IMO)and respect and things SHOULD be taught by parents and they schools. Unfortunately society's changes have made even the most minor of disciplinary action on school kids all but impossible. Even things we had like Junior achievement (which was once a very good way of getting work experience in school) has turned into a joke.

[ffa1mf]

Before reading this - understand I have absolutely no specific interest in the politics in the US except how it would effect my country. I am also not defending NG, all I’m trying to present here is a different perspective on what I hear NG saying.

 

Anyway, NG was discussing his philosophy of radical ideas and measures to end the culture of poverty in the USA. Again, whether I agree or disagree with his ideas is not the issue here but what NG said.

In the meeting at Harvard, the discussion was on poverty in the US. He said "You're going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly." In explaining or providing an example of what he felt would be a “radical” idea to answer a question asked by one of the students, he said,

“Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy. It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.

You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine. You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I've tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising.”

 

So, what is more important; protecting unions and the bureaucracy at the expense of people suffering from poverty or implementing programs, even though they may be radical, to address poverty?

 

Is forcing children to be in school, that isn’t giving them an education because the child’s thoughts are not on school but on the hunger in their stomach, the best way to deal with the problem?

 

Is it right to have legislation that restricts people from doing things they feel is their hope to break free of poverty?

 

Are building a work ethic, an understanding of money from labor, developing pride in oneself and school and perhaps neighbourhood, as well as the understanding that it is possible to break free of poverty bad ideas?

 

While I don’t think NG explained very well or expressed his thoughts very clearly, and certainly didn’t have a very good program outline, I don’t specifically find fault in the concepts he suggested through his answer.

 

My biggest issue with all this is the media anyway as, at least in North America, they no longer report the facts or the news, they twist, distort or slant the facts and too often make up the news to fit their own agendas. And if you believe the media is fair and impartial, well, I have a treed, seaside lot with a cabin and yacht for sale in Kansas – cheap.

[ginnyfizz]

Not being from the USA myself, it is difficult to comment directly on the situation there, but I have to say that I come down on the side of a child's job being school. Of course I know that children have often helped out on family farms, I've done it myself. But at one time it used to be common for whole families from my area to decamp to the Lincolnshire fields for the potato picking, and the line was well and truly crossed into child labour/exploitation. There was something of a fuss about it and rightly so, unfortunately the gangmasters are now exploiting Eastern European immigrants instead.

 

But no. I don't want to see children in the United States or anywhere else in the same position as one of my Grandfathers. He was by all accounts the brightest pupil the village school had seen, and these days would be considered Oxbridge material. But he had to leave school and start earning a living at TWELVE YEARS OLD, as a drover and then apprentice butcher, because of his poverty stricken background, before heading off for Flanders field seven years later. That was how it was in those days, and we don't want to go back there. Certainly Grandad, having made his way upwards in life between the wars, made sure it didn't happen to his three daughters and they all went to either university or secretarial college. (That's what girls did then. The eldest of them being the only one old enough did do her stint as a Land Girl in WWII as well).

 

So yep. Let's not go backwards.

[grannywils]

@ffa 1 mf, I have to leave to get some work done, but just want to make a quick comment on just one of the things you mentioned. Here is a quote from your post, which in fact was referring to a quote from Mr. Gingrich's speech:

 

"Is forcing children to be in school, that isn’t giving them an education because the child’s thoughts are not on school but on the hunger in their stomach, the best way to deal with the problem?"

My strong belief is that in the United State there should be NO school that is not giving any child an education. Rich, or poor our resources should be utilized in such a way as to provide for the future of our nation (our young people). In my opinion, if Newt Gingrich were as concerned as he says he is, he would be talking about ways to solve the problems of properly educating our children; not finding ways to get our children out working.

 

I have already said my piece in an earlier post regarding how I feel in general about children working; but it had nothing to do with Mr. Gingrich's speech. I should have made that more clear.