US Child Labor laws rolled back in the name of business

[Alyeska]

Time.com

(excerpt)
Maine's rollback was relatively modest. Its child-labor laws are still stricter than in many states, including some of its neighbors. But the legislature considered going further. Another bill would have allowed employers to pay workers under 20 a "training wage" of $5.25, instead of the standard Maine state minimum wage of $7.50. It would also have eliminated the limit on how many hours a minor over 16 can work on a school night.
(excerpt)

I find this apalling. Children need to learn, not work. As Time put it,

When they argue for the changes, they talk about the great advantages that looser rules would have for young people — giving them "greater flexibility" in their work lives and valuable work experience. Of course, it is not clear how valuable the experience of handing burgers out of a drive-through window after 10 p.m. on a school night actually is.

This is nothing more then an attempt to make money at the expense of children and their education. Its time we strengthen the Federal Laws to prevent states from destroying children's futures.

[erik_t]

So when you say "US Child Labor laws rolled back in the name of business", you actually mean "Maine Child Labor laws rolled back in the name of business".

Seeing as no federal law is involved.

[Metahive]

So, there's a 7,6% rate of unemployment in Maine already and their idea is to expand the workforce, with children to boot just because they come cheaper? I'm really curious how much further they are willing to go to bring back that vaunted "Gilded Age" or robber barons.

[Alyeska]

So when you say "US Child Labor laws rolled back in the name of business", you actually mean "Maine Child Labor laws rolled back in the name of business".

Seeing as no federal law is involved.

Did you read the article? Other states are in various stages of rolling theirs back as well.

[JME2]

So when you say "US Child Labor laws rolled back in the name of business", you actually mean "Maine Child Labor laws rolled back in the name of business".

Seeing as no federal law is involved.

Did you read the article? Other states are in various stages of rolling theirs back as well.

A development that alarms me to no end.

[Zaune]

The part of that bill in Maine that really bothers me isn't removing the limit on working hours for those old enough to not be in compulsory education, because I can see how a teenager who's dropped out for whatever reason would find this more hindrance than help. (Kids who are still in school are of course a different matter.)
No, the really insulting part is this "training wage" for anyone under 20. Do they think rent, utilities and food cost less when you're a teenager or something?

[Teebs]

The part of that bill in Maine that really bothers me isn't removing the limit on working hours for those old enough to not be in compulsory education, because I can see how a teenager who's dropped out for whatever reason would find this more hindrance than help. (Kids who are still in school are of course a different matter.)
No, the really insulting part is this "training wage" for anyone under 20. Do they think rent, utilities and food cost less when you're a teenager or something?

The idea behind it is presumably to deal with youth unemployment. Young people tend to be less valuable workers and you get much higher unemployment in those groups, so lowering the minimum wage for them gives employers an incentive to employ them over older more experienced workers. A low paid job is probably better than no job at all.

Whether it's an appropriate move does of course depend on the specifics of Maine's labour market and living costs in the state. I don't know enough about it to come down on either side, but having a lower minimum wage for younger people is not inherently bad.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, in a time of high general unemployment, putting thirty-year-olds out of work because it's cheaper to hire teenagers doesn't necessarily solve the problem. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul, and Peter's more likely to have a family to feed than Paul is.

[Stark]

In America, where does the pressure towards labour law come from? Shouldn't the unions be looking after the entry-level wages and there be political pressure to protect children?

Young people being paid smaller wages than older people is pretty usual; I guess it only seems bad because American minimum wages are so low already. Is it hard for kids to get jobs?

[Rogue 9]

In America, where does the pressure towards labour law come from? Shouldn't the unions be looking after the entry-level wages and there be political pressure to protect children?

The organized labor movement has been successfully demonized in a very large part of American political society; union membership in the private sector is extremely low, 7% or something like that (I'm not certain, but that number seems to stick out at me for some reason). The pressure toward labor law at this point comes purely from the fact that the labor laws have been on the books for decades; inertia is the only thing keeping them going. Given the chance, they'll be rolled back and kept there until there's another labor backlash, which could take years or decades.

[Simon_Jester]

In America, where does the pressure towards labour law come from? Shouldn't the unions be looking after the entry-level wages and there be political pressure to protect children?

Young people being paid smaller wages than older people is pretty usual; I guess it only seems bad because American minimum wages are so low already. Is it hard for kids to get jobs?

Almost everyone will, all else being equal, prefer to hire more experienced people over less experienced people. At the moment, unemployment is very high; I'd think that the market for unskilled and semi-skilled labor in the US would be saturated because of that. Since you have so many people desperate to find any job, the labor market is even more of a buyer's market than usual- employers have a larger pool of candidates, including people who would never normally apply for such jobs if times weren't desperate.

Since teenagers are in the lowest desirability bracket, the people you hire last for most jobs (aside from a few other groups like convicted felons), that's going to drive the youth unemployment rate through the ceiling.

If it were actually a logical goal to lower youth unemployment (at the expense of adult unemployment, realistically), then a lower minimum wage for teenagers would make some sense, because it would create an incentive to hire teenagers rather than adults where possible. But that's stupid in the current context.

[Norade]

In America, where does the pressure towards labour law come from? Shouldn't the unions be looking after the entry-level wages and there be political pressure to protect children?

Young people being paid smaller wages than older people is pretty usual; I guess it only seems bad because American minimum wages are so low already. Is it hard for kids to get jobs?

Almost everyone will, all else being equal, prefer to hire more experienced people over less experienced people. At the moment, unemployment is very high; I'd think that the market for unskilled and semi-skilled labor in the US would be saturated because of that. Since you have so many people desperate to find any job, the labor market is even more of a buyer's market than usual- employers have a larger pool of candidates, including people who would never normally apply for such jobs if times weren't desperate.

Since teenagers are in the lowest desirability bracket, the people you hire last for most jobs (aside from a few other groups like convicted felons), that's going to drive the youth unemployment rate through the ceiling.

If it were actually a logical goal to lower youth unemployment (at the expense of adult unemployment, realistically), then a lower minimum wage for teenagers would make some sense, because it would create an incentive to hire teenagers rather than adults where possible. But that's stupid in the current context.

How much of a help is getting $5.25 an hour twenty or so hours a week going to be though? Before tax that's only $105 a week, not even enough to rent a room where I'm at. So you're going to have a bunch of teenage working homeless among the drop out crowd, and teens with no incentive to work among the still going to school and/or living with the parents crowd. In reality this is a way to pay existing workers less and work them longer. it's a cheap sham and a damned shame.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, I figured that was the part obvious enough that it didn't need to be said. Lowering youth unemployment in and of itself is not a particularly important goal compared to lowering overall unemployment, or to ensuring that anyone who really needs a job can find one that pays a living wage for some reasonable number of hours.

[Knife]

How much of a help is getting $5.25 an hour twenty or so hours a week going to be though? Before tax that's only $105 a week, not even enough to rent a room where I'm at. So you're going to have a bunch of teenage working homeless among the drop out crowd, and teens with no incentive to work among the still going to school and/or living with the parents crowd. In reality this is a way to pay existing workers less and work them longer. it's a cheap sham and a damned shame.

Even worse, it makes them a disposable workforce. Hire one kid at $5 an hour and when he gets mad because he ain't making enough to pay rent and says 'screw you old man' you fire him and get another. What really makes me mad is the actual amount this move affects labor costs is ridiculously small, but it all goes to profit so it's ok.

[Master_Baerne]

I'd be interested to see what the internal justification for this is - any idea what the Maine Congress tells itself the reasoning is? As we see, the external justification isn't particularly reasonable.