The Instigator
ockcatdaddy
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Contra
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

should child labor be allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,863 times Debate No: 26397
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

ockcatdaddy

Con

the rules of the game
1: Explain why you agree child labor should be allowed
2: Post websites/ your information source
3: Debate well and I wish you luck

I am strongly against child labor. so is most of the US Federal Gov't hence why they made child labor laws. these child labor laws states that Teens hired for nonagricultural employment (which is just about everything other than farm work) must be at least fourteen. Other child labor law restrictions, regulating the type of positions young workers can hold and the type of work they can do are also in effect.

18 Years of Age
Once a youth reaches 18 years of age, he or she is no longer subject to the federal youth employment and child labor law provisions.

16 and 17 Years of Age
Sixteen- and 17-year-olds may be employed for unlimited hours in any occupation other than those declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. Examples of equipment declared hazardous in food service establishments include power-driven meat processing machines (meat slicers, saws, patty forming machines, grinders, or choppers), commercial mixers and certain power-driven bakery machines.

14 and 15 Years of Age
During the school year, hours are limited to 3 hours a day and 18 hours a week. On days when there's no school and in the summer, working hours increase to 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. There are limits on when children can work, too - no later than 7 p.m. during the school year and no later than 9 p.m. between June 1 and Labor Day. Fourteen- and 15- year-olds may be employed in restaurants and quick-service establishments outside school hours in a variety of jobs for limited periods of time and under specified conditions.

Jobs Exempt from Child Labor Law Regulations

In general, children of any age are permitted to work for businesses entirely owned by their parents, except those under 16 may not be employed in mining or manufacturing and no one under 18 may be employed in any occupation the Secretary of Labor has declared to be hazardous.

Minors employed in the delivery of newspapers to consumers are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) child labor provisions, as well as the wage and hours provisions.

Children employed as actors or performers in motion pictures or theatrical productions, or in radio or television productions are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) coverage. Therefore, FLSA rules regarding total allowable number of work hours in one day and allowable times of day to work do not apply. There are other exemptions, including making evergreen wreaths at home, so, check the DOL Exemptions from Child Labor Law Rules for the full list.

Child Labor Regulation Changes

Youth Minimum Wage
The law allows employers to pay employees under 20 years of age a lower wage for a limited period (90 calendar days, not work days) after they are first employed. Any wage rate above the $4.25 minimum wage for youth an hour may be paid to eligible workers during this 90-day period.

http://jobsearch.about.com...
Contra

Pro

Let's do this.

I'm for child labor being legal.

Present your case!
Debate Round No. 1
ockcatdaddy

Con

first off child labor I believe is simply just all around immoral and means that we as adults are incompetent or just plain lazy to do the work ourselves. secondly I believe that the working conditions are terrible...also I am referring to actual child labor meaning in china and children meaning kids under the age of 14...with no rights and low pay below minimum wage.
Contra

Pro

As R1 is traditionally for introductions, I will assume that your R1 is for your intro and R2 is for your main arguments.

Rebuttals

I. Freedom to Choose

"first off child labor I believe is simply just all around immoral and means that we as adults are incompetent or just plain lazy to do the work ourselves.
"

First, this is a generalization.

Child labor was almost eliminated before it was outright banned by the federal government. How so? Economic growth increased the size of the economic pie, which made all the slices larger too. This means faster growth brought higher wages, and ended the need for child labor.

I am talking about voluntary child labor. If there is a child that wants to work, why should we deny them the opportunity? After all, they are free to quit if they wish (unless bounded by contract), but ultimately they are the one who decides whether they should get a job or not. And banning this opportunity just violates the liberties of many children, and families that rely on their children to work so that their family gets enough to eat. And by working early, many children can accumulate on the job skills which will lead to increased pay in the future.

In fact, many children in the early 1700s didn't work, and when they were able to work, "their only refuge was the factory, which saved them from death by starvation".

By 1830, the life expectancy of children had greatly increased, due to the most largest growth in living standards in history, a result of Capitalism. This gradually eliminated child labor, their parents had enough money that the kids didn't need to help.

II. Working Conditions

Second, Con also contends that " I believe that the working conditions are terrible". This must be looked at closely though. Yes working conditions may be poor, but first remember the economic growth resulting from child labor eliminates child labor naturally, secondly if the working conditions are bad many people will simply not take that job.

The market naturally needs to pay people who do jobs with poor working conditions higher wages. The market pays these people higher, and empirical evidence shows that these market incentives dwarf the regulations such as workers comp that are meant to protect workers. Thus, we can assume that safety in the workplace today is at about the same level as it would be if gov't was't involved. [2]

If children get jobs in factories, it is because the parents find that this job would be better than any other available alternative. So simply, banning child labor harms families. It is simple psychological and economic thought.

Conclusion

Child labor is an unfortunate but necessary human condition. Banning it will just cause many children to starve and families to suffer. Legalizing this practice will allow economic growth which will naturally child labor in the traditional sense. Market signals provide higher wages to those with poor working conditions. Children can get on the job skills which will give them higher wages. Legalizing child labor will ultimately help people.

[1] http://eleutherian.blogspot.com...

[2] http://econlog.econlib.org...

Debate Round No. 2
ockcatdaddy

Con

assuming that by voluntary you are refering..
Adjective:
Done, given, or acting of one's own free will: "voluntary contributions".
Noun:
An organ solo played before, during, or after a church service.
Synonyms:
adjective. volunteer - spontaneous - wilful - willing - deliberate

noun. volunteer
.i am all for voluntary child labor as a matter of fact i have 212 volunteer hours and i am already a senior in high school. so again i shall say i am for voluntary child labor but against sweat shop child labor to bring home money in third world countries and also including china in factories
Contra

Pro

I think it's safe to say that my arguments stand.

My opponent agrees with me that voluntary child labor should be allowed. But the resolution is: "Should child labor be allowed". If a child (person under 18) wants to work, that's child labor. Essentially, my opponent has conceded.

Child labor has been painted at the forefront of what Laissez Faire Capitalism is supposed to look life. But it's a fallacy, and one that is absurd and falls flat on its face. Basic economics shows this, if more money is put in the hands of people, they will spend it, creating consumption and demand, and investment will be stimulated as well, which will increase wages and improve economic growth, and ultimately helping people become better off with higher living standards.

"[I am] ... against sweat shop child labor to bring home money in third world countries and also including china in factories"

My opponent says that he is against families basically making their kids work in a factory to bring home more take home pay for the family.

First, my opponent has basically conceded my arguments. Many parents are compassionate and care deeply about their children. If they make their kids work in a factory, it's because they see it as the best option on the table, more valuable than working on the fields at home.

Many children and families would of starved without the availability of child labor. Child labor was gradually eliminated itself by the evolutionary force of Capitalism which provides us humans with higher living standards and progress. If you ban child labor, you will cause many families, who WANT these jobs so that they can get enough money to eat, you will cause them to starve. This is horribly immoral. Who gives the gov't the right to say that you can't do something if you NEED to do it to live? Government should only protect people's rights to life, liberty, and property. Should gov't dicatate that if you are under 18 and need to/ want to work, you cannot? That is outside of government's power.

My arguments are left unrefuted, and thus I have affirmed the resolution. Vote PRO

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
ockcatdaddyContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was disorganized, hardly present, ill-supported, and only semi-literate. Pro presented his case well, with better (though not stellar) documentation, and certainly better English. I may not agree with the Pro, but he is the clear winner. The point for Conduct goes to the Con on one reason: The Pro included a 'vote Pro' line, which in my book, get an automatic contrary vote, and are only superseded by forfeitures, total unintelligibility, and brazen attitude.
Vote Placed by Like_a_Boss 4 years ago
Like_a_Boss
ockcatdaddyContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Read the debate. End of story.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
ockcatdaddyContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The prompt does immediately have one think of sweat shops. As pro pointed out, however, child labor is any job for a person under 18. Very well argued. So much, in fact, that con did indeed essentially concede the argument in his closing round.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
ockcatdaddyContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This doesn't really need an RFD, but horrible S&G by con, no relevant sources from con, and little effort exerted by con. Full pro win.