51–60 of 127 posts
I wonder if those who oppose letting 15 year olds choose to work also oppose letting 15 year olds undergo certain cosmetic medical procedures, or letting 15 year olds vote. Typical “adult when it’s convenient” hypocrisy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let children be children.
It's not that simple though. For example, my son is 11 and wants to work. He wants to earn more money than I can find house chores to pay him for. He could absolutely help in an office or retail situation. Neither my wife nor myself have encouraged this. He came up with it all on his own. I went to school with several kids who were gifted mechanically. They suffered in school. It wasn't just not beneficial. School wa…
Many people on this site seem in favor of these age-based government restrictions on working. But at the same time, it seems they also opposed age-based government restrictions in many other areas like access to particular kinds of online content. These positions seem like a contradiction to me. Why do they think that it is reasonable for the state to restrict a child's ability to work but not their access to online…
As I was reading TFA, I tried not to let my cynicism dictate my theory on why these looser child labor restrictions are being pushed so hard lately. But then we get this gem: Supporters, meanwhile, have cheered the legislation as a potential solution to workforce shortages and rising labor costs. Yup, all that talk about "work ethic" is just bullshit. Plus their little hands make it easier to get the coal out.
Iowan here, this is actually a long-running talking point. Prior to the pandemic, Iowa was experiencing "full employment" with a 2.5% unemployment rate, which was among the lowest in the country prior to the pandemic spike. Some amount of churn is actually desirable as it means that employers can grow their operations and employees are finding opportunities. However, businesses in the manufacturing, agricultural, and…
As for letting children(teenagers in this case) work earlier(and longer) I feel conflicted. In some sense the mantra that has been pushed on the past 2-3 generations has been everyone has to get a college degree or you will be considered a failure to society. That statement has been categorically wrong and has lead to a glut of people with college degrees and mountains of student loan debt from an imbalance in the workforce of too many college educated workers. The reality is the economy needs blue collar jobs and some do pay very well. Also some people are not cut out for college and pushing them into a institution they do not want to attend is bad for both the college and the individual. I feel like Germany has this problem figured out well with solid paths to high paying blue collar professions via apprenticeships and such. I wish the US had something similar and Obama's push for community colleges was a step in the right direction. Getting teenagers into blue collar apprenticeships gives them a head start in their careers and they still need parental approval for starting these jobs.
That being said there is also a trap that having a 14-16 year make pretty good money in high school (via trades or apprenticeships) can dissuade them from ever getting into college, which they may excel at but never go that route due to financial loss of lost wages by attending college(and not working). Unsure what the solution is here but could see this change of law being abused by some and helpful for others(those who are headed for a blue collar profession).
Many people on this site seem in favor of these age-based government restrictions on working. But at the same time, it seems they also opposed age-based government restrictions in many other areas like access to particular kinds of online content. These positions seem like a contradiction to me. Why do they think that it is reasonable for the state to restrict a child's ability to work but not their access to online…
Any demographers in here? I wonder if this has anything to do with the baby boomer generation all hitting retirement around now, and the incoming cohort being smaller than the retiring cohort.
Here's another take: > The Iowa bill would expand the number of hours that children under 16 can work from four to six a day, allow minors to work in previously prohibited industries if they are part of a training program, and allow 16- and 17-year–olds to serve alcohol with a parent’s permission. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/18/iowa-senate-... This doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as the Washington…
But not drink or purchase it? That's the dead giveaway that this isn't for _their_ benefit.
“Do I want my 16-year-old operating a power saw as a job? No, I don’t“ - then don’t let them? Why do you need to make it illegal for everyone else? Iowa is mostly a rural state, and growing up on a farm you learn to operate power tools when you’re 10, and there are plenty of 16 year olds in Iowa that are more than capable of running a power saw and working on roofs and are proud to do it. Better than sitting around a…
I'm sure my abusive step dad would have liked to make me go get a better paying job then the one he forced me to take at the bar where he gambled illegally so he could steal the money I earned and gamble some more when his ran out. I mean that bar wasn't even full time and it paid hardly anything, if I was operating power tools whooaah. Hell he could have probably had me go work for my uncle with him learning to weld! yay.
>Better than sitting around and playing video games,
and gosh darn it much better than reading books which I did all the time to piss him off.
>IMO more likely to get injured in sports like football than operating a power saw.
Or getting shit thrown at you for reading. Probably better to let those kids go out and get a good paying worker job to help support their struggling families that can barely afford beer and drugs!
Here's another take: > The Iowa bill would expand the number of hours that children under 16 can work from four to six a day, allow minors to work in previously prohibited industries if they are part of a training program, and allow 16- and 17-year–olds to serve alcohol with a parent’s permission. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/18/iowa-senate-... This doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as the Washington…
Here is the bill the Senate passed on April 18: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=sf5... It contains a lot of stuff that allows (relatively young) children to work in factories, industrial laundries and meat-packing plants. It also has some stuff that isn't really a big deal, which you've picked out. If I give you a sandwich that contains nails, but also some wonderful organic cheese and bread.…
I worked in heavy construction and roofing from 14 until I went to college - helped paid for quite a bit of it - I don't see a problem here. Nobody is forced to work, and you need to parents permission. Washington post thinks it is OK that 12 year olds, are old enough to consent to sex change operations, without their parents permission, but a 17 year old doing hard work with their parents permission is not OK?
This doesn't happen and the news sources which say it does are lying to you.