Should Child labour be tolerated in third world nations?

[ray245]

I was discussing this issue with a friend recently, with one of my friend being in favour of child labour in various third world nations. In his view, he feels that child labour is a necessary evil in developing nations, as the family required additional income from their children to survive. He also mentioned that in certain cases, boycotting factories that make use of child labour resulted in forcing those children to turn to jobs that is even more harmful to them, such as prostitution.

So, what is your take on this issue? Would you agree with the idea that child labour in third world nations are a necessary evil?

[Norseman]

It probably is a necessary evil like so many other things, but try telling that to a fat, rich, western activist.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

It probably is a necessary evil like so many other things, but try telling that to a fat, rich, western activist.

Yes, truly, without intricately weaved Indonesian carpets whose construction leaves most child workers blind by adolescence, society would fall like a house of cards.

[Elaro]

Well, no. But the actual solution to child labour is probably not private boycotting, but institution by whatever national government of mandatory schooling laws (and associated financial aid) and an sustainable educational system providing an economically useful education. This way, the nation gains an educated (and skilled) workforce, and children don't have to work so much.

I mean, until less than a paltry century ago, the West had massive child labour, and we were able to change that. So by no means is child labour "necessary".

[PainRack]

Yes, truly, without intricately weaved Indonesian carpets whose construction leaves most child workers blind by adolescence, society would fall like a house of cards.

The problem is that of relative evil. In Third world countries, families without increased income fall into poverty, and said children will be malnourished and forced to do other worse jobs such as garbage salvaging or prostitution.

The alternative is to provide well paying jobs to adults, provide families with state aid so that children can have a sustainable lifestyle without having to work jobs that will hurt them or their future chances in life and etc. These resources are barely available to First World Countries, as for jobs.. those aren't even available to FIRST world countries.

[tim31]

...and then there's the case of the Egyptian girl who was sold as a maid by her family to a wealthy Cairo family. Which then moved to California and took her with them

Two sets of rules, indeed.

[weemadando]

But seriously.

Child labour is just another way of saying: Slavery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually people have some choice words to say about slavery.

[ray245]

But seriously.

Child labour is just another way of saying: Slavery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually people have some choice words to say about slavery.

It's not like those children could afford to have a decent standard of living if they are not working.

[Sarevok]

Even if you ban child labor these kids wont be attending school. They work in factories and sweatshops precisely because they come from dirt poor families. Child labor is the SYMPTOM of the problem not the cause. You cant eliminate child labor in third world countries. You have to bring countries out of the third world instead.

[Serafina]

Well, lets look at our choices.

Either the child grows up in poverty and starves, with an increased risk of death due to various factors.
Or it works, and may take severe damage from it.

Both options are bad. And i would love to see no child labour anywhere in this world.
But as long as child labour is not a dangerous, unhealty activity, it is clearly the lesser of two evils.
Unfortunately, these countries rarely have laws controlling normal work conditions, much less those for children.

In my opinion, this is the most important thing that can be done about child labour.
While there is stuff like "lost childhood" etc. that makes the absence of all child labour preferable, such a goal is unrealistic as long as the standards of living are so low in these countries.

[Ford Prefect]

It's not like those children could afford to have a decent standard of living if they are not working.

Do you seriously think that the majority of child labourers have what you could a decent living, even by the standards of a third world country?

[weemadando]

It's not like those children could afford to have a decent standard of living if they are not working.

Do you seriously think that the majority of child labourers have what you could a decent living, even by the standards of a third world country?

Thanks for replying, my initial reaction was incredulous shock to the point where I couldn't even form a reaction.

Seriously - child labour allows people to have a decent standard of living? As compared to what? Amoeba?

[Sarevok]

The keyword here is relative. You work you get to eat, you get a room to live and money to send back to family. You dont work you starve to death in the streets. Besides by third world standards having a bed, a roof overhead with a ceiling fan and three meals a day is quite good for the poor. It sure beats the alternatives.

[Ford Prefect]

The keyword here is relative. You work you get to eat, you get a room to live and money to send back to family. You dont work you starve to death in the streets. Besides by third world standards having a bed, a roof overhead with a ceiling fan and three meals a day is quite good for the poor. It sure beats the alternatives.

Note the part where I said 'even by the standards of a third world country'. I'm no expert on this, but don't a lot of child labourers in South East Asia and so on work ridiculously long days and are barely subsisting?

[Captain Seafort]

Note the part where I said 'even by the standards of a third world country'. I'm no expert on this, but don't a lot of child labourers in South East Asia and so on work ridiculously long days and are barely subsisting?

Indeed, and as Sarevok said, the key word is "relative" - "barely" is an improvement on "not".

[salm]

The keyword here is relative. You work you get to eat, you get a room to live and money to send back to family. You dont work you starve to death in the streets. Besides by third world standards having a bed, a roof overhead with a ceiling fan and three meals a day is quite good for the poor. It sure beats the alternatives.

I don´t think that´s the question. Of course it´s better for a kid to slave away than simply dying in the streets.
The real question is, is it necessary for a society to use part of it´s underaged population as working force in order to advance into a stage in which this society doesn´t have to ensalve it´s children. The answer to this question also gives the answer to the question whether it´s moral for other societies to support this child labour by buying soccer balls produced by 7 year olds.

[K. A. Pital]

You CAN ban child labour if the nation is already moving into industrialization. That is a legal issue.

In agrarian, really undeveloped and lacking even a semblance of industry nations (Bangladesh or parts of Africa and Latin America?)... I think even banning it would mean little.

[AniThyng]

It's not like those children could afford to have a decent standard of living if they are not working.

Do you seriously think that the majority of child labourers have what you could a decent living, even by the standards of a third world country?

I think it's more likely he's pointing out they're pretty much damned if they do and twice damned if they don't. And how exactly would we give them a "decent standard of living"? Redistribution of wealth? Shoot all the corrupt politicians and the rich businessmen?

[AniThyng]

You CAN ban child labour if the nation is already moving into industrialization. That is a legal issue.

In agrarian, really undeveloped and lacking even a semblance of industry nations (Bangladesh or parts of Africa and Latin America?)... I think even banning it would mean little.

I wonder if America went to war not to "bring democracy" and "capitalism" but "social justice" and "equal wealth", would they be more popular in the world? Most of these countries acused of outright child labour of the "7 year old slaving away to make a reebok" are actually "capitalist" in economy, if not in government after all...

[ray245]

You CAN ban child labour if the nation is already moving into industrialization. That is a legal issue.

In agrarian, really undeveloped and lacking even a semblance of industry nations (Bangladesh or parts of Africa and Latin America?)... I think even banning it would mean little.

I wonder if America went to war not to "bring democracy" and "capitalism" but "social justice" and "equal wealth", would they be more popular in the world? Most of these countries acused of outright child labour of the "7 year old slaving away to make a reebok" are actually "capitalist" in economy, if not in government after all...

Isn't that one of the few reason why the USSR is considered as a better alternative than the US for a number of third world nations during the cold war?

You CAN ban child labour if the nation is already moving into industrialization. That is a legal issue.

Clarification? I thought that it is still pretty much impossible for India and various SEA nations to eliminate child labour?

In agrarian, really undeveloped and lacking even a semblance of industry nations (Bangladesh or parts of Africa and Latin America?)... I think even banning it would mean little.

Although I would think that most people from various first world nation are more concerned about children working in factories as opposed to working in the agriculture sector.

[Thanas]

The problem with child labor is that it easily leads into a vicious circle, wherein child labour takes away jobs from adults. Results: More child labour, country is stuck.

[ray245]

The problem with child labor is that it easily leads into a vicious circle, wherein child labour takes away jobs from adults. Results: More child labour, country is stuck.

True, but I have yet to see any real solution(other than bringing those nation out of proverty) that would be able to ensure those children have a better standard of living if they are not working.

[Darth Wong]

Let's be honest here: the reason we don't allow child labour is twofold:

1) Worker safety.
2) Education.

We don't trust children to observe safe work practices and we think they should be in school, not at work. That doesn't mean we have some intrinsic moral objection to child labour. In fact, it has been customary for centuries for the children of farmers to help out on the farm: this qualifies as "child labour" in every sense of the word, and it is not thought of as heinous or evil. If anything, people think it's charming.

The idea of banning child labour in societies which are so dirt-poor that they have no public education system is, I think, misguided. They need a certain level of economic prosperity before they could even afford to have public schools at all, and perhaps child labour will help them reach that level. The real problem is working standards, and the need to smoothly transition out of an economic dependence on child labour in order to make the transition to a more modern industrialized society with universal public education. The reason we call them "sweat shops" is because the working conditions are terrible, and inhumane working conditions should be outlawed for third world nations regardless of the age of the workers.

[Gil Hamilton]

I find the argument that sweatshops are the best bet for such children a weak one at best. These people are slaves. While not all of them are forced and beaten into working (though some are), they are very carefully given enough of a pittance that they'll starve if they attempt to leave or if they make waves at all about the conditions they are forced to work in, and brutalized because their owners know they have no other options. How is that no slavery?

I do want to poses a question though. For example, Norseman, you and I both come from countries where child labor is emphatically banned, not only illegal but immoral. Do you agree with your countries stance? After all, if child labor is a necessary evil, you shouldn't have any problem with it happening to your own country's children,so long as it produces cheap consumer goods that keeps prices down in Western markets, right? However, if you DO think child slavery is wrong in your country, what changes when you cross your border that makes it OK? Are Cambodian or Indian poor children inherently worth less than your own country's poor kids?

[Darth Wong]

I find the argument that sweatshops are the best bet for such children a weak one at best. These people are slaves. While not all of them are forced and beaten into working (though some are), they are very carefully given enough of a pittance that they'll starve if they attempt to leave or if they make waves at all about the conditions they are forced to work in, and brutalized because their owners know they have no other options. How is that no slavery?

It's a form of slavery, for sure. However, it should be outlawed for workers of any age, not just children. If the objective is to end inhumane worker treatment, we should do that directly, instead of outlawing child labour as an indirect way of attacking the problem.

I do want to poses a question though. For example, Norseman, you and I both come from countries where child labor is emphatically banned, not only illegal but immoral. Do you agree with your countries stance? After all, if child labor is a necessary evil, you shouldn't have any problem with it happening to your own country's children,so long as it produces cheap consumer goods that keeps prices down in Western markets, right? However, if you DO think child slavery is wrong in your country, what changes when you cross your border that makes it OK? Are Cambodian or Indian poor children inherently worth less than your own country's poor kids?

We all come from countries where child labour laws make exceptions for farming. Few people are outraged about that.