Whats wrong with this picture?

Could that be because no one wants to be held responsible for the abusive treatment those children have to endure? What do you think John?

After all, who would want to think about child slaves as we go about our day to day business, consuming the goods child slaves had been forced to create? We are quick to point the finger at countries like Brazil, who have death squads patrolling the streets, killing children. But we are equally quick to absolve ourselves of all responsibility because to do so would mean we would have to pay more for certain items or have to do without.

No BELLS. People reall ARE responsible, as for child labor how can you possibly hold a company responsible when the believe the country they are dealing with is honest.
 
Hmm, now there's a perfect reason/excuse to invade those backward fuckin' nations and force them to do things our way! Good on ya', Bells. "Those" people shouldn't be allowed to do such things to their dozens of kids!

Your views are so simplistic, the only thing I can do is pity you. How about instead of invading them, we force the corporations operating in the West, who employ or contract other companies to use child labour, to actually pay those children a fair and decent wage and to provide them with an education. It would be a start, don't you think? How about our governments stop sponsoring and aiding governments who kidnap and force children into the army. I don't know Baron, 'wadda ya think'?

Geez, Bells, if we quit buying those goods, then the little bastards would surely starve to death! What little they earn from our purchases is the only thing that keeps them alive ......and you want us to stop buying from them??
Do you deliberately try to be dim? Or does being a simpleton come naturally to you?

I am asking so that I know how to deal with you in the future.

Where did I say to let them starve Baron? Please show me because from where I am sitting, you are pulling it out of your wrinkled backside.

What I am saying is that those children who, by circumstances beyond their control, have to work to help support the family, that they be paid a fair and just wage. Not to force them into slave labour or pay them a pittance simply because they are children. Give them an education as well. Give them rights. What I am saying is to treat them fairly. Sure we may have to pay more, but it is better than to have children worked to death for nothing or next to nothing so we can keep a few more dollars in our pockets. That might, and I say might, be a start. Improve their working conditions and pay them more... Provide them with an education.. health care.. give them a choice in life. 'Ya know'? What I am saying is for us to take responsibility for our actions and our choices. Or better yet, pay the parents enough so they can support and educate their children, without their being forced to send their children out to work to support them. Now which do you think would be the better option Baron?

Wow, you're even fuckin' meaner and nastier than I am. I'd at least shoot 'em quickly, you'd stand by and watch 'em starve to death. Damn, woman, you're a cruel one.
Oh you have no idea how mean and nasty I can be Baron.
 
Last edited:
No BELLS. People reall ARE responsible, as for child labor how can you possibly hold a company responsible when the believe the country they are dealing with is honest.

Do you honestly believe that companies do not know who they hire or their contractors 'hire' to produce their wares? Don't you think Nike or Gap knew their low priced labour in overseas factories and sweatshops were so low because the people employed to make their goods were in fact children? Surely you aren't so naive John.
 
It's known that poorer families do tend to have larger numbers of children, the reason for this is usually down to knowing that having more able bodies at the food table should mean that the food table has food provided for it. This stereotype is held true in agrarian/rural areas where farming is the only way to live and the farming doesn't pay but feeds and clothes the family.

The families of course then have their children look for secondary work, away from the family itself and since they probably haven't had a educated upbringing the only jobs open to them are the ones that will train them to do that particular job. Those jobs are usually factories and the factories are usually supplying named manufacturers. The children can of course suggest what ever age they are, since after all being born miles from city hospitals is likely to not grant things like Birth certificates or any forms of social security, How do you check a persons not lieing about their age in a country without such bureaucratic practices?

Companies are pressurised by consumers now to employ people to check potential employee's ages, as for the result of this... well your a consumer... do you know?
 
It's less than 200 years since children across the Westerm world were working 18-hour days for barely enough money to keep them alive. Poverty was so widespread that people thought nothing of sending their children up chimneys and into factories from dawn til dusk and beyond.

http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Baker_00/2002_p7/ak_p7/childlabor.html

IF... we were somehow able to do what Fraggle says and make sure that what the children earn stays with the children, so that they can have a decent standard of living and play their part in igniting a stagnant economy, that would be fantastic - surely? Britain did it. America did it. Now it's their turn.

Or are the naysayers and doom-merchants even going to whinge and moan about that?

What's wrong with kids earning a bit of pocket money (erm... paper-rounds?), as long as mum and dad don't take it off 'em? :confused:
 
Do you honestly believe that companies do not know who they hire or their contractors 'hire' to produce their wares? Don't you think Nike or Gap knew their low priced labour in overseas factories and sweatshops were so low because the people employed to make their goods were in fact children? Surely you aren't so naive John.

I would say most of the time (maybe all of the time)it is sub contracted to the country providing the labor, and there is no way to know how the money is allocated. Do you think these comapnies get free reign and just set up in another country?
 
fraggle said:
In much of the Third World, child labor is a force for increased prosperity.
Child labor forms what game theorists call a stable strategy - like imported serf labor, it lowers wages to the point that it becomes necessary, and locks the system into that state.

It is possible for an economic system to find a stable strategy point that forbids child labor - as the US has. But the "market", governed by game theoretic concerns and stuck on a stable strategy point, will not move to the new state by itself. Governmental force would be required.

As industrial and corporate pressures intrude into the family, their concerns usurp the roles of familial behaviors - the child who cooperated with their parents doing chores on the family farm becomes the child who competes with their parents for wages in the local brick factory. The family loses, over all. The factory gains.
 
India?

Baron Max

yes, that is also perfectly good example. The Catholic Church cannot be said to be a major factor in the very large population of India. I am glad I did not have to write out a whole sentence for you to get my point. KUdos.

As to the post, if the people can't afford to care for their children, they shouldn't be permitted to have any children. Plain and simple, no shades of gray, no liberal bullshit.

I did notice however that you opted not to respond to my pointing out the above quote is ludicrous. Conservatives would hate this line of thinking much more that liberals. Try to pass a law like that and all the people who voted for BUSH will be on your ass.
 
Last edited:
Why not post the WHOLE sentence instead of cutting it off?

I thought it would be obvious. Overpopulation is possible in a country which is only slightly influenced by the Catholic church and where the government actively tries to reduce the size of families (and the Catholic Church for that matter). I was saying that perhaps you theory was limited.
 
This sort of thing has always been going on but has only recently been noticed. Our only chance is to lift the children from poverty. I've been going to Thailand for almost 22 years and while there are still many poor there have seen it happen to the Thai people over all that they now have a better standard of living than they had then. Prostitutes are aged 18 and above (there are paedophiles in every country so Thailand cannot be blamed for that).

Sure the catholic church are guilty. Go to a religious forum and mention condoms, abortion and such and the bible-for-brains bunch will be up on their hind legs and ranting at you. I would like a new car every year but can't afford it. If someone is dirt poor, how do they think they can afford to have lots of children? It could be claimed that they believe they will look after them in later life but look around there and that is hardly ever true. The old are not wanted anywhere.

Education is our best tool. We must educate people and teach them responsibility, while giving them hope for a better future.
 
How about instead of invading them, we force the corporations operating in the West, who employ or contract other companies to use child labour, to actually pay those children a fair and decent wage and to provide them with an education. It would be a start, don't you think?

Bells, you're advocating not only infringing on the rights of free enterprise of western corporations, but you're also advocating that those same western nations interfere with the culture of other nations. I don't know why, but that doesn't sound too friendly or neighborly to me.

Baron Max
 
* in the garbage dumps of Mexico City, Manila, or Lagos they hunt glass, cans, and paper and fight the vultures for scraps
* in the Java Sea they dive for pearls
* they hunt diamonds in the mines of Congo
* they work as moles in the mine shafts of Peru, where their size makes them indispensable, and when their lungs give out they end up in unmarked graves
* in Colombia and Tanzania they harvest coffee and get poisoned by pesticides
* in Guatemala they harvest cotton and get poisoned by pesticides
* in Honduras they harvest bananas and get poisoned by pesticides
* they collect sap from rubber trees in Malaysia, working days that last from dark to dark * they work the railroads in Burma
* in India they melt in glass ovens in the north and brick ovens in the south
* in Bangladesh they work at over three hundred occupations, earning salaries that range from nothing to nearly nothing for each endless day
* they ride in camel races for Arab sheiks and round up sheep and cattle on the ranches of the Rio de la Plata
* they serve the master's table in Port-au-Prince, Colombo, Jakarta, or Recife in return for the right to eat whatever falls from it
* they sell fruit in the markets of Bogota and gum on the buses of Sao Paulo
* they wash windshields on corners in Lima, Quito, or San Salvador
* they shine shoes on the streets of Caracas or Guanajuato
* they stitch clothes in Thailand and soccer shoes in Vietnam
* they stitch soccer balls in Pakistan and baseballs in Honduras and Haiti to pay their parents' debts
* they pick tea or tobacco on the plantations of Sri Lanka and harvest jasmine in Egypt for French perfume
* rented out by their parents in Iran, Nepal, and India they weave rugs from before dawn until past midnight, and when someone tries to rescue them they ask, "Are you my new master? "
* sold by their parents for a hundred dollars in Sudan, they are put to work in the sex trade or at any other labor.

Sounds like we should maintain the situation, it's useful to us...

If any of you care so much for them, why don't you go there and pay for their education. But no, you people sit here, talking about forcing other people to do it.

bells said:
How about instead of invading them, we force the corporations operating in the West, who employ or contract other companies to use child labour, to actually pay those children a fair and decent wage and to provide them with an education. It would be a start, don't you think?
As for you people *cough* idiots who suggest paying them fair wages, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the corporations going there to offer them jobs in the first place?
 
I was just thinking ...something I don't do much of around here.

But, ...if a western parent allowed a little kid to work in a sweat shop here, we'd be screaming at the parents. Why don't we blame the parents of those little kids in the Third World nations that allow their kids to work in "those" places? Why is all of the blame thrown up to western nations? Why must the west be responsible for what's done in the Third World nations?

Is this just one more of those issues where y'all just make excuses for those fucked up nations and people, and thus place all of the blame on the west?

Baron Max
 
As for you people *cough* idiots who suggest paying them fair wages, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the corporations going there to offer them jobs in the first place?

Yes..

Hence why the parents should be paid more for their labour so they are not forced into the position of having to force their children to work to help support the family.

Baron Max said:
But, ...if a western parent allowed a little kid to work in a sweat shop here, we'd be screaming at the parents. Why don't we blame the parents of those little kids in the Third World nations that allow their kids to work in "those" places?
How can you blame them when they are placed in a position where they have no choice? How can you blame them when their agricultural produce is locked out of the world market? How can you blame them when Western corporations refuse to pay the adults fairly or justly, resulting in those parents not being able to afford to feed their family and being placed in the position where they need to make their children work?
 
Yeah, and so their future is fucked, too, along with their present! Yeah, makes sense now. Thanks, Fraggle.
No, that's the whole point and you're doggedly missing it just to maintain your curmudgeonly alternate ego. By taking jobs those children are increasing their family's income as well as their whole country's GDP. That makes a brighter future for everybody. In another generation the country will be able to afford to build up its infrastructure, including educational, and the adults will have enough income to send their kids off to school. Of course the only thing missing from this picture is that their leaders have to be responsible in order for the country to actually build up that capital, rather than spending it on weapons, palaces and champagne.

But as I said earlier, that is the real answer to the question in the OP: What's wrong with this picture? Look around the world at the places where poverty is extreme and you'll find despotic governments. Don't complain about children working in factories to help support their families. Complain about assholes running countries. That shouldn't be too hard to relate to, we've got one right here.
Then it would only be fair for these children to be accorded rights which we, as adults, living in more prosperous nations, would expect and demand.
Well that's fair enough, within reason. No one has the power to grant them the right to safety that children have here because we can't send all of their parents these newfangled baby carriages that look like miniature Volvos. We can't grant the the right to a healthy environment because somebody's going to have to fix their economy first. All we can do is try to enlighten the adults so they'll give their children the best lives they can. And of course that starts with the adults who run those countries for their own personal gain.
We view children as being innocent and simply too little to have a say. Yet we exploit their labour to our own benefit and deny them a right to choose their own destiny. I say "we", because we are all guilty of it. Each time we purchase items or goods from companies who employ children, we are further endorsing the denial of rights and existence of these children. While those little slaves in factories might have it better than those working the land, to say they have it "better" is a tad cruel, since they don't have that much either.
So what do you propose as an alternative? Stop shopping at Wal-Mart and Costco and put those factories out of business so their family incomes will plummet? If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. Don't just sit on the sidelines and grumble. We've got Max to do that and one of him is enough.
The blame for the plight of those children rests solely and collectively on all our heads.
As a typical American with no respect for history, I'm getting fed up with being blamed for the world that somebody's ancestors created. The plight of the Third World is largely the responsibility of the British and other colonial powers, who didn't understand that tribal cultures cannot evolve into nations in one generation. But for the goddess's sake, a lot of those colonial administrators honestly thought they were helping to bring those people up out of the Stone Age precisely because they didn't know all those things.

Max, the chameleon, on another thread is busy blaming the citizens of the Third World for their own plight. He says their intelligence is lower than ours and so they could never develop a civilization. What they've got is the best they can hope for. If their cultures can't survive in the modern world, then we'll just have to let destiny take its course, sit back, and watch them die off. (Am I quoting you fairly accurately, Baron?)

I think there's a middle ground between those two positions. We all just have to find it.
Would you be willing to pay more for your items if it meant some of these children be accorded labour rights and be paid a proper wage?
You need a refresher course in Econ 101A. Sure some people will be willing to pay more, but the law of supply and demand says that for many reasons a lot of people will stop buying those products if the prices are raised. One very common reason is that they can't afford it. Offshore labor has increased the prosperity of both the consuming nations, because they have more goods, and of the producing nations, because they have more income. Try messing with that universal truth and you're basically trying to reinvent another form of communism. It didn't work the first time and it will never work because an economy simply cannot run that way.
 
How can you blame them when they are placed in a position where they have no choice?

Who placed them there? And if it's so bad, why don't they get out of it instead of having more kids? No, Bells, you're just making excuses for them ...and playing the all-mighty, superior being.

How can you blame them when their agricultural produce is locked out of the world market?

Who locked them out of the world markets? And what are they doing selling things when they ain't got a pot to piss in?

How can you blame them when Western corporations refuse to pay the adults fairly or justly, resulting in those parents not being able to afford to feed their family and being placed in the position where they need to make their children work?

Well, in the western nations, they go on strike for higher wages. If they didn't voluntarily work for such low pay, then supply and demand would force those nasty western corps to pay more.

Or would you rather continue to make excuses for them? ...while they continue to fuck and turn out more kids that they can't feed?

Baron Max
 
Everywhere on earth, these kids, the children of people who work hard or who have neither work nor home, must from an early age spend their waking hours at whatever breadwinning activity they can find, breaking their backs in return for food and little else. Once they can walk, they learn the rewards of behaving themselves-boys and girls who are free labor in workshops, stores, and makeshift bars or cheap labor in export industries, stitching sports clothes for multinational corporations. They are manual labor on farms and in cities or domestic labor at home, serving whoever gives the orders.


It just demonstrates how spoilt Western children are.

No one born with a mouth to feed is innocent.
 
fraggle said:
No, that's the whole point and you're doggedly missing it just to maintain your curmudgeonly alternate ego. By taking jobs those children are increasing their family's income as well as their whole country's GDP. That makes a brighter future for everybody. In another generation the country will be able to afford to build up its infrastructure, including educational, and the adults will have enough income to send their kids off to school
Unfortunately, that is unlikely. Child labor, like serf labor, usually locks the economy into a condition where it remains necessary. The child labor increases the family's income to survival level - the kids can never quit and go to school, because their income is always necessary for their own support. That will be just as true of the next generation of kids.

As long as child labor is available, the income of the adults will be dragged down by it - capital doesn't pay labor any more than it must, to keep a supply of labor available.

You seem to be imagining a situation where the laboring child is accumulating some kind of surplus, that the next generation can use.

As far as who is to blame: The first world is to blame for its own actions and behaviors in third world countries. Beyond that, it's a local problem. That is severe blame, btw, incurred by First World countries. They are and have been behaving abominably.
 
Back
Top