The discussion centers around Newt Gingrich's controversial remarks regarding child labor laws, particularly in impoverished areas. Participants explore the implications of his statements, debate the appropriateness of child labor in certain contexts, and consider the potential changes to existing laws.
Participants do not reach a consensus. While some agree with Gingrich's critique of current laws, others strongly oppose the idea of repealing child labor protections, leading to a range of competing views on the topic.
Participants highlight various assumptions about the nature of work that children might perform and the legal framework surrounding child labor. The discussion reflects differing interpretations of what constitutes acceptable work for minors and the potential consequences of changing existing laws.
This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the intersections of labor laws, child welfare, and economic policy, as well as individuals concerned with the implications of political rhetoric on social issues.
MarcoD said:This has little to do with the US situation, but I've been watching how the previous financial crisis was handled in the Netherlands, and one conclusion is that we're partly governed by academic idiots; i.e., most people were handling the situation right, except for the academics. So, yeah, having a degree doesn't seem to imply that you cannot do billions of damage to an economy.
Office_Shredder said:Your anecdotal opinion is persuasive evidence that cannot be countered. Well done sir
mheslep said:Because somewhere employers that employ at least some folks at the current minimum wage are making the calculation that they can *just* make money by selling a given product with a given payroll. A minimum wage increase necessarily increases that payroll, so someone has to go. There are caveats to the simple story I share here, I know, but it basically holds.
In a booming economy one might argue that the employer is already scrambling to meet demand and so can afford a higher payroll to keep already hard to find help. I don't buy that argument even under those conditions, but certainly not now in a weak economy.
JonDE said:This is essentially wrong for several reasons. First you seem to be implying that employers employ how many ever people they want regardless of outside forces, they don't.
... to operate the business profitably.Employers employ how many people they need to operate the business.
Businesses can and do shrink in size (i.e let people go) due to shrinking demand or an increase in supply costs that the market will not allow them to pass on. However, they can not run at at net loss (for long).If demand stays the same, they cannot afford to let people go, because they would produce or sell less.
So some say, though I'm not convinced.What increasing the minimum wage does, is stimulates demand.
People that make minimum wage? Do you have a source for that? I believe that many minimum wage earners are youth working part time, if they were lucky enough to find a job in this economy, and as such often do not use wages for daily needs, but instead save for a car and the like.People that make minimum wage have very bad savings rates.
? Not me.I'm not arguing that it should be massively jumped up to $12, as that could cause severe inflation.
Second you seem to be insinuating that businesses aren't increasing their prices.
Price increases in sales might also reflect price increases in supply, leaving (possibly) no difference. In any case, wages do no increase only by means of the government forcing them up....Inflation came in last year at over 5%. If per person pay did not increase at a similar rate, the difference would be pocketed as profits.