The prohibition on “child labor” (or low-wage labor more generally) should be understood not as a prohibition on child labor as such but as a prohibition on certain types of child labor. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/10372/paid-and-unpaid-labor/
Paid and Unpaid Labor
Previous post: Can Bubbles Also Be Made in China?
Next post: Garrett Classic: How Now Shall We Behave?
{ 9 comments }
Art Carden :
You use a lot of data with out any citations from where you get these “facts” from.
“Extracurricular activities build character. That much is for certain. A 2006 study showed, for example, that college students who participate in college athletics tend to earn more in team-oriented occupations than their counterparts who do not participate in sports. However, the same skills — punctuality, teamwork, discipline — that can be learned on the athletic field, the sidelines, or in the marching band can also be learned “on the job.” Indeed, as labor economist David Neumark has argued, one effect of the “minimum wage” (or any mandatory wage above equilibrium) has been to reduce labor force participation and employment among unskilled workers and, therefore, to reduce their lifetime earnings.”
You talk about this 2006 study without referencing the study itself, and it leaves the reader without an opportunity to see what exactly is the objective of said study, and you quote an economist without even referring to its reference material.
Finally, you mention OSHA regulations out of nowhere; I understand you are trying to make a point about regulating work force but its coming from left field.
Fundraisers tend to be short—a weekend, a few weekends, say. If the hot-dog sellers had to stand out in the WalMart parking lot all day, day after day, week after week, they wouldn’t tolerate getting paid $1 (or even $2) an hour. Comparing their situation with that of the workers inside the WalMart is at best inaccurate and, in my opinion, dishonest.
American society is bent on prolonging childhood for as long as possible. If children were allowed to work, they would become independent sooner, and be able to tell their parents and teachers to take a long walk off a short pier; and they would compete against older people for jobs, putting some of them out of business and reducing wages for others.
“If children were allowed to work, they would become independent sooner, and be able to tell their parents and teachers to take a long walk off a short pier”
If you were an employer of slave labor, wouldn’t you be angry if someone threatened to liberate your slaves at a younger age?
Art’s a Reds fan? Even through all the losing? I like him already.
My first job was distributing primary-election material to the polls(they came to pick it up – I was too young to drive); I enjoyed it most when the cars were backed up and it was a race to get them loaded up and moving out. One day for Democrats, one for Republicans. A while later, I helped take in the stuff in the evening – again, I enjoyed the hurried parts the most. Sure, the pay($7.25 an hour, I think) was the reason I took the job, but I didn’t do very much with the money(the fact that we were living in a motel dampened my already low inclination to spend). These days the job I do is even more physical, the pay even worse, but I continue to enjoy the exertion. I don’t find the comparison at all dishonest, except that bagboys rarely enjoy their work.
michael wilson says:
“If the hot-dog sellers had to stand out in the WalMart parking lot all day, day after day, week after week, they wouldn’t tolerate getting paid $1 (or even $2) an hour.”
isn’t that just the point? people, even little people, can perfectly well decide whether they’ll work or not under particular circumstances.
Apparently Libertarians believe that when they’re through with government there’ll umpteen people lining up for $1 an hour jobs and like it (and that’s assuming no deflation from today’s prices).
Gil said
‘Apparently Libertarians believe that when they’re through with government there’ll umpteen people lining up for $1 an hour jobs and like it (and that’s assuming no deflation from today’s prices).’
Not quite, but close. Not umpteen, but at least some, for as long as there are people out of work who would prefer to do something for one dollar rather than nothing for nothing. If there are no people choosing to stand in that queue and employers still want labour, the offered wage rate will have to rise.
The only person in th euniverse qualified to decide what constitutes an acceptable wage offer is th eperson considering it, and he is only qualified to decide for himself. If he prefers not to accept it, it is indeed too low. If someone else prefers to accept it, the guy who refused the job has no right to interfere with the agreement of the guy who chose it. this highlights what I call the Trade Union paradox. All trade unions of my experience ( at least in South Africa) declare that their foremost goals are to assure a minimum ‘living wage’ for all their members (how they define what that should be is less clear) , and to reduce unemployment.
the bald, iron fact is that you cant achieve both simultaneously. INcreased wage demands and legislative underpin of minimum wage rates have the effect of keeping the unemployed, unemployed. thus it is that unions have the effect of keeping th e unemployed out of work. And giving the lie to the alleged concern about unemployment.
the economic effect of industry-wide mimimum wage laws is identical to price-fixing in any goods market: higher prices, lower production and higher wages, lower employment. The fact that the former is illegal on antitrust grounds while the latter is not only legal but enforced makes the law utterly inconsistent.
Comments on this entry are closed.