US 21st in the world in science and math graduates

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

No.

Really? In a world where 2 million children starve to death every year you can't envision a scenario where 'children work and get money' is a net good? When the alternative is for them to be pushed into black market sex trade or to starve to death, you still object to them manufacturing textiles? Don't believe me, just ask UNICEF...

UNICEF Report wrote

An important initiative to protect child workers is unfolding in
Bangladesh. The country’s powerful garment industry is committing itself to some dramatic new measures by an agreement signed in 1995.

The country is one of the world’s major garment exporters, and the industry, which employs over a million workers, most of them women, also employed child labour. In 1992, between 50,000 and 75,000 of its workforce were children under 14, mainly girls.

The children were illegally employed according to national law, but the situation captured little attention, in Bangladesh or elsewhere, until the garment factories began to hide the children from United States buyers or lay off the children, following the introduction of the Child Labor Deterrence Act in 1992 by US Senator Tom Harkin. The Bill would have prohibited the importation into the US of goods made using child labour. Then, when Senator Harkin reintroduced the Bill the following year, the impact was far more devastating: garment employers dismissed an estimated 50,000 children from their factories, approximately 75 per cent of all children in the industry.

The consequences for the dismissed children and their parents were not anticipated. The children may have been freed, but at the same time they were trapped in a harsh environment with no skills, little or no education, and precious few alternatives. Schools were either inaccessible, useless or costly. A series of follow-up visits by UNICEF, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) discovered that children went looking for new sources of income, and found them in work such as stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution — all of them more hazardous and exploitative than garment production. In several cases, the mothers of dismissed children had to leave their jobs in order to look after their children.

Star wrote

No, not the same. Children are real. Jesus is not.

In either case, both are simply emotional pleas - "when you experience the same emotions I do, you'll share my position!" Hardly the argument of someone who advocates critical thinking.

Star wrote

People are not office supplies

No, but both office supplies and labor are business expenses.

Star wrote

and if you only pay them just enough so that they won't quit, yet they make a very valuable contribution to your business (or profits if that makes more sense to you), then you don't truly understand motivation, or people.

And I don't need to, since they're doing what I want them to for the lowest price possible. Why would a rational, self-interested person want to pay more than that?

Star wrote

What's wrong with increasing your employees' profits along with yours? Sure, yours may be a little less than it otherwise might have, but your business' potential for future growth will have been exponentially increased.

Hardly. If that were true, every business owner would do that - they would have to just to remain in business. The fact that they don't should quickly dispel the notion that arbitrarily giving employees money is some kind of investment for the future (how would that even work, business-model wise?).

And this still doesn't explain why your employer should over-pay for labor but not for office supplies. After all, those office supplies are manufactured by people (or people control the machines that do so), so why the distinction?

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

Really? In a world where 2 million children starve to death every year you can't envision a scenario where 'children work and get money' is a net good? When the alternative is for them to be pushed into black market sex trade or to starve to death, you still object to them manufacturing textiles? Don't believe me, just ask UNICEF...

The problems you describe are real, but solutions are being offered for them, as well:

http://www.aipe-cci.org/en/child-lab...-solutions.htm

Of most interest:

The article wrote

Children need to learn how to read and write. They need social and professional skills that only school and a nurturing environment can provide.

Some countries have compulsory schooling and some provide free public schooling. However, in many countries, particularly for those where structural adjustment lending has led to the privatization of schools-the cost of teaching, books, and uniforms makes it impossible for children to get an education. Furthermore, for education to become a solution to child labour, schools must be located close to where these children live.

Education must be free and compulsory up until the minimum legal age for employment.

The article also wrote

There are 800 million unemployed adults in the world; and yet, the number of working children is estimated to be at over 300 million.

Replacing these working children with their mostly unemployed parents would result in higher family incomes (since adults are generally paid better), and the resulting rise in production costs would have little impact on exports sales.

The website also reiterated the sad conditions you related above about working children.

Just because something is happening, doesn't make it right. And, if by not letting children work, the other conditions described above happen (because no one does anything about them), then other, better solutions must be found. And even if there are some profit-minded people who turn a blind eye to these problems, there are also people in this world who make it their business not just to improve their own lots, but those of others as well. Thank goodness! The world is not just about profit.

Vic wrote

In either case, both are simply emotional pleas - "when you experience the same emotions I do, you'll share my position!" Hardly the argument of someone who advocates critical thinking.

I submit to you that emotion is part of the human condition, and critical thinking is not done in a vacuum of emotion.

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

Vic wrote

No, but both office supplies and labor are business expenses.



And I don't need to, since they're doing what I want them to for the lowest price possible. Why would a rational, self-interested person want to pay more than that?

Then you will always have them do the bare minimum to get their paychecks, instead of being creative and innovative, and increasing your business. And each employee you train will work for you a while, then leave for a more rewarding position, and you will have to bear the expense of training another employee. Low pay and lack of encouragement does not contribute to employee retention.

Vic wrote

Hardly. If that were true, every business owner would do that - they would have to just to remain in business. The fact that they don't should quickly dispel the notion that arbitrarily giving employees money is some kind of investment for the future (how would that even work, business-model wise?).

Penny wise, pound foolish. If you don't invest in your people, you are already behind the new business model.

http://successnetworkalliance.com/em...first-century/

Of particular note from this article:

The article wrote

Employee retention and how we approach the concept of keeping employees over many years is an area where certain assumptions must be challenged if we are going to stay competitive. Some assumptions concerning employee retention that are rapidly becoming obsolete include?
§ That there is an unlimited resource of eager employees out there to fill my staffing needs.
§ That it's a good idea to cycle employees in and out of the company because that keeps benefits costs down.
§ That the "my way or the highway" approach to management is the right way to go to enforce your vision for how work will get done.
§ That employees are commodities. There are always more where they came from.
§ That employees should be grateful just to get a paycheck.
§ It is better to keep a youthful staff and to move older employees out of the work place.

Vic wrote

And this still doesn't explain why your employer should over-pay for labor but not for office supplies. After all, those office supplies are manufactured by people (or people control the machines that do so), so why the distinction?

This statement shows you are not ready for the new business model. Good luck with your high turnover rate and lackluster employee performance. Hope your company survives it.

[Sol]

That last post of Victor Immature, nearly had me break the habit of a lifetime and give a serious response. (Nearly.)

Nicely handled SG.

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

The problems you describe are real, but solutions are being offered for them, as well:

http://www.aipe-cci.org/en/child-lab...-solutions.htm

Of most interest:

"Children need to learn how to read and write. They need social and professional skills that only school and a nurturing environment can provide."

That's nice, except that...

1) School costs money, which neither the parents of labored children nor the nation in which they reside have.

2) To the extent that education is available in countries with extensive child labor, its quality approaches zero.

3) Even if, by magic pixie, education were available and "free", not-working entails an opportunity cost for children and their families - it's needed money that doesn't come in the door.

In short, you're just not grasping how poor these individuals are, and what it means for their kids not-to-work. It means starvation looms.

Star wrote

"Some countries have compulsory schooling and some provide free public schooling. However, in many countries, particularly for those where structural adjustment lending has led to the privatization of schools-the cost of teaching, books, and uniforms makes it impossible for children to get an education. Furthermore, for education to become a solution to child labour, schools must be located close to where these children live.

Education must be free and compulsory up until the minimum legal age for employment.

Nothing is every "free", and this doesn't solve the underlying problem the children and their families face: they're poor.

Star wrote

"There are 800 million unemployed adults in the world; and yet, the number of working children is estimated to be at over 300 million."

If they could do the jobs any better than the children, they would already have the job.

Star wrote

"Replacing these working children with their mostly unemployed parents would result in higher family incomes (since adults are generally paid better)"

Maybe that's why they can't compete for the same jobs. They want a higher price than the market will pay.

Star wrote

"and the resulting rise in production costs would have little impact on exports sales."

That would run counter to basic economics. Raising the price of a commodity without a proportional rise in its value lessens demand.

Star wrote

The website also reiterated the sad conditions you related above about working children.

But it doesn't seem to offer any economically literate solutions. In fact, I think most of the things they propose would make them worse off.

Star wrote

Just because something is happening, doesn't make it right.

No, but it does make it the reality that must be confronted, rather than some fantasy evil that can be banished by happy-thinking.

Star wrote

And, if by not letting children work, the other conditions described above happen (because no one does anything about them), then other, better solutions must be found.

Do you have any such solutions to offer? Because right now you're just offering up pathways to increased starvation.

Star wrote

And even if there are some profit-minded people who turn a blind eye to these problems, there are also people in this world who make it their business not just to improve their own lots, but those of others as well. Thank goodness! The world is not just about profit.

Children working in teh evils for-profit jobs get money. Children without that option are simply forced into riskier black market jobs, or worse, no jobs at all (putting them and their families at risk of starvation). Tell me again how you're helping.

To paraphrase myself from earlier threads; when you take away someone's best option, you're not doing them any favors - you're just being a self-righteous asshole. In this case, you're advocating for the starvation and prostitution of children because you don't want them to manufacture textiles.

Star wrote

I submit to you that emotion is part of the human condition, and critical thinking is not done in a vacuum of emotion.

But you haven't offered any critical thinking or logic - your whole position is emotional. The rational content of, "when you experience the same emotions I do, you'll share my position!" is zero.

You might as well say, "Children working? EEEWWWW!!!!" And you want me to take that seriously as an intellectual argument?

Star wrote

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

I disagree.

Star wrote

Then you will always have them do the bare minimum to get their paychecks, instead of being creative and innovative, and increasing your business.

This refers to what's called an efficiency wage, wherein employers pay an additional premium (beyond supply and demand) as the compensation itself raises the marginal product of the employee receiving it, at least up to a point. But if that's your position, you're just arguing that up to a point more pay raises marginal product, not that pay should be divorced from marginal product, which means you've already ceded the point.

Star wrote

And each employee you train will work for you a while, then leave for a more rewarding position, and you will have to bear the expense of training another employee. Low pay and lack of encouragement does not contribute to employee retention.

See previous.

Star wrote

Penny wise, pound foolish. If you don't invest in your people, you are already behind the new business model.

http://successnetworkalliance.com/em...first-century/

If you're right, though, then it shouldn't be a 'new' business model, it should be the pre-existing model. Businesses that only paid the marginal product of employees should have died out decades (centuries?) ago under the strain of increased operating costs. So why didn't they?

Star wrote

This statement shows you are not ready for the new business model. Good luck with your high turnover rate and lackluster employee performance. Hope your company survives it.

See previous. Your theory doesn't explain observed reality.

[Stargazer]

Sol wrote

That last post of Victor Immature, nearly had me break the habit of a lifetime and give a serious response. (Nearly.)

Nicely handled SG.

Why thank you. You know, your input is always welcome!