Child labor increased and child wages decreased after India's 1986 child labor ban

[whichphilosophy]

You increase the penalty for using child labor, you reduce the wages even further: those willing to employ illegal child labor will determine that the profit must be particularly high if the penalty for doing so is also very high (if caught and a good old fashioned bribe doesn't get them off the hook), which means that the wage they will pay will be even lower to make it worth their while. These poor families on a near starvation diet will accept if it means that their family will survive another day, and may now have to send even younger children to work to survive on the lower wages that they otherwise could've kept in school.

Not true at all.

Hang a few and all the rest will stop.

They like to steal from children but not if it is suicide.

I don't favour the death penalty but cannot but help like the old Chinese way better. Shoot the convicted criminal and charge the relatives 50 Yuan (RMB) for the bullet (Bullet fee).

 

[sharon45]

If the government instead gives the parents child allowance and enforce its recent education legislation this will reduce child labourers.

Big government swoops in to save the day.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the wages of children were reduced?

And the problem is not the absolute scum reducing them?

Solution.

Any piece of shit caught reducing the wages of a child is hung.

How about not letting your obsession with perfect get in the way of trying to make things better?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't even think of that. My mind was more occupied by the social unrest this kind of policy would create.

The better policy is to tackle the core problem: why do desparately poor families send their children to work, and what can be done to reduce and hopefully eventually eliminate their need/willingness to do so?

Exactly. Widespread child labor is a reflection of poverty. Attempts to stomp on the labor add the costs of it's criminal nature, they don't remove the fundamental driving force and thus don't get rid of the problem.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If the government instead gives the parents child allowance and enforce its recent education legislation this will reduce child labourers.

Big government swoops in to save the day.

It's the government's job to swoop in as necessary.
The government legislation take away the child's pittance, sometimes essential to keep the child alive. The most workable solution is to provide child allowance which we have had in the UK for years and enforce laws on mandatory education. This than reduces unfair competition against employers who follow the law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I started to read the paper, but within the first two pages, two statements made it clear that it was not going to be interesting. First it claimed child labor laws were generally not effective which made me wonder how all working children in Canada, the US and most of Europe stay so hidden. Second, the paper said that the studied law was poorly enforced. Any law that is enacted to alter behavior that is poorly enforced is going to be ineffective in its goals.

What you actually showed is that you don't understand the big picture.

It works in places like the US where kids don't have to work to eat. It doesn't work in the absence of a safety net.

And of course they are poorly enforced. Name a country that has effective enforcement against working under the table.

- - - Updated - - -

The better policy is to tackle the core problem: why do desparately poor families send their children to work, and what can be done to reduce and hopefully eventually eliminate their need/willingness to do so?

Because their parents can't find work because employers can employ children so the economy is stuck in a low wage, low productivity equilibrium. You need to stamp out child labour and the market doesn't do that on its own.

You need to stamp out your leftist rot.

You think the parents are sitting home while the child works?!?!

 

[laughing dog]

What you actually showed is that you don't understand the big picture.

No, it showed I understand the written word. The article made a factual claim about child labor laws in general. Which means the entire world, not some sections of the world. Perhaps you should bother to read the article instead of assuming facts not in evidence.

And of course they are poorly enforced. Name a country that has effective enforcement against working under the table.

Clearly you do not understand the big picture or the little picture. The big picture is that you are agreeing that poorly enforced law are ineffective.
The little picture is the discussion is about poorly enforced laws against child labor. On what factual basis are you claiming that child labor laws in the USA or Canada or Germany, or Denmark are ineffective?

You think the parents are sitting home while the child works?!?!

One would think it was obvious from the context is that it meant that the parents cannot find work with decent pay, not that they were not working at all.

 

[sharon45]

Big government swoops in to save the day.

It's the government's job to swoop in as necessary.
The government legislation take away the child's pittance, sometimes essential to keep the child alive. The most workable solution is to provide child allowance which we have had in the UK for years and enforce laws on mandatory education. This than reduces unfair competition against employers who follow the law.

It's big government charity, which helps people remain as, and more become victims.

 

[Axulus]

I started to read the paper, but within the first two pages, two statements made it clear that it was not going to be interesting. First it claimed child labor laws were generally not effective which made me wonder how all working children in Canada, the US and most of Europe stay so hidden. Second, the paper said that the studied law was poorly enforced. Any law that is enacted to alter behavior that is poorly enforced is going to be ineffective in its goals.

And why would anyone ever expect effective enforcement in the societies in which exploitative child labor is a widespread issue?

Second, the reason it isn't an issue in the developed world is because it is wealthy, poor families don't face the choice of sending their 12 year old to work or facing literal starvation. In other words, there is little to no willing supply, unlike in third world countries, which has nothing to do with the law banning it, which addresses only the demand side. Furthermore, law enforcement is less corrupt and more resistent to bribes, and there is greater public support for the enforcement of such laws and greater societal outrage at the employment of young children at the expense of their schooling.

 

[laughing dog]

And why would anyone ever expect effective enforcement in the societies in which exploitative child labor is a widespread issue?

That misses the point. No one has to write an academic treatise to show that laws that are poorly enforced are ineffective. That is obvious. But why would anyone presume the law would not be effectively enforced?

Second, the reason it isn't an issue in the developed world is because it is wealthy, poor families don't face the choice of sending their 12 year old to work or facing literal starvation.

That misses the point because when the laws were enacted, working children were necessary to avoid starvation/deprivation.

It is no surprise that a law banning child labor reduces the wages of working children, since it has to reduce demand for child labor. IF the ban were effectively enforced, the wages of children who work would be zero since there would not be any child workers. Nor is it a surprise that a law banning child labor that is poorly enforce is ineffective.

 

[Axulus]

That misses the point. No one has to write an academic treatise to show that laws that are poorly enforced are ineffective. That is obvious. But why would anyone presume the law would not be effectively enforced?

I think it is useful to find out that such laws that aren't effectively enforced actually lead to worse outcomes for children and their families, increasing the number employed and reducing their wages, don't you?

You can presume the laws will not be effectively enforced in many cases because those societies in which such child labor is a widespread problem tend to be very poor, which also means they'll tend not to have much money available to increase policing resources, will be more corrupt, will tend to have law enforcement prone to bribes, and will generally have a public more accepting of child labor (which means the public will place relatively low priority on their enforcement).

That misses the point because when the laws were enacted, working children were necessary to avoid starvation/deprivation.

And what evidence do you have that those laws, at the time they were implememted, helped children and their families and lead to reductions in their employment?

It is no surprise that a law banning child labor reduces the wages of working children, since it has to reduce demand for child labor. IF the ban were effectively enforced, the wages of children who work would be zero since there would not be any child workers. Nor is it a surprise that a law banning child labor that is poorly enforce is ineffective.

And yet the actual quantity demanded appears to have increased because the supply of available child workers seems to have increased sufficiently as a result of the families now needing to send additional children to work to survive.

 

[laughing dog]

I think it is useful to find out that such laws that aren't effectively enforced actually lead to worse outcomes for children and their families, increasing the number employed and reducing their wages, don't you?

I would be surprised if poorly enforced laws did not lead to worse outcomes.

You can presume the laws will not be effectively enforced in many cases because those societies in which such child labor is a widespread problem tend to be very poor, which also means they'll tend not to have much money available to increase policing resources, will be more corrupt, will tend to have law enforcement prone to bribes, and will generally have a public more accepting of child labor (which means the public will place relatively low priority on their enforcement).

That is true for any law in a poor country. So, none of these results should be a surprise.

And what evidence do you have that those laws, at the time they were implememted, helped children and their families and lead to reductions in their employment?

We have the entire history of child labor in the US, Canada, etc...

And yet the actual quantity demanded appears to have increased because the supply of available child workers seems to have increased sufficiently as a result of the families now needing to send additional children to work to survive.

Because the law is not enforced and wages are lower.

A more interesting argument is that a reduction in child labor in India will require a multi-faceted approach - as any social change does.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's the government's job to swoop in as necessary.
The government legislation take away the child's pittance, sometimes essential to keep the child alive. The most workable solution is to provide child allowance which we have had in the UK for years and enforce laws on mandatory education. This than reduces unfair competition against employers who follow the law.

It's big government charity, which helps people remain as, and more become victims.

I think I mentioned the most effective ways to reduce this problem.
A child allowance will be paid to the family instead of the pittance. Education in India was made free to 14 years old. Enforcing education legislation for children who are now covered by family allowance reduces the problem.

Despite family planning attempts by the Indian government, the population is still growing. The following report says 1.8% per year which reflects a lot of cultural problems:

http://www.d.umn.edu/~lars1521/India&birthcontrol.htm

 

[bilby]

The easy solution is for the Government to employ these children - by paying them to go to school. Children are not very effective labour to start with, and tend to be employed because they are so cheap that their low productivity is unimportant. So it wouldn't cost much to pay them more to go to school than they would earn at other jobs.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The easy solution is for the Government to employ these children - by paying them to go to school. Children are not very effective labour to start with, and tend to be employed because they are so cheap that their low productivity is unimportant. So it wouldn't cost much to pay them more to go to school than they would earn at other jobs.

This is an excellent concept where child allowance would be at risk for continual non-attendance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The better policy is to tackle the core problem: why do desparately poor families send their children to work, and what can be done to reduce and hopefully eventually eliminate their need/willingness to do so?

Exactly. Widespread child labor is a reflection of poverty. Attempts to stomp on the labor add the costs of it's criminal nature, they don't remove the fundamental driving force and thus don't get rid of the problem.

The fundamental driving force is greed of businesses and desperation of the poor. The solution is enforcing the damn law.

- - - Updated - - -

I started to read the paper, but within the first two pages, two statements made it clear that it was not going to be interesting. First it claimed child labor laws were generally not effective which made me wonder how all working children in Canada, the US and most of Europe stay so hidden. Second, the paper said that the studied law was poorly enforced. Any law that is enacted to alter behavior that is poorly enforced is going to be ineffective in its goals.

And why would anyone ever expect effective enforcement in the societies in which exploitative child labor is a widespread issue?

Second, the reason it isn't an issue in the developed world is because it is wealthy, poor families don't face the choice of sending their 12 year old to work or facing literal starvation.

Oh... and the law enforcement.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What you actually showed is that you don't understand the big picture.

It works in places like the US where kids don't have to work to eat. It doesn't work in the absence of a safety net.

And of course they are poorly enforced. Name a country that has effective enforcement against working under the table.

The United States
Canada
The United Kingdom
Japan
New Zealand
Australia

Just to name a few.

Countries that DON'T have effective enforcement:
Mexico
Nicaragua
Columbia
Somalia
Iraq
Tibet
Malaysia
And yes, India

So yeah, enforcement is the big picture here. You can't claim that "child labor laws are generally ineffective" because that's just counterfactual. You CAN say that "Child labor laws that are poorly enforced are generally ineffective" but that's a stupid thing to write a whole paper about.

You think the parents are sitting home while the child works?!?!

At the time this article was written, 21.2 million Indians were unemployed.

So... yes. Probably.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it showed I understand the written word. The article made a factual claim about child labor laws in general. Which means the entire world, not some sections of the world. Perhaps you should bother to read the article instead of assuming facts not in evidence.

And of course they are poorly enforced. Name a country that has effective enforcement against working under the table.

Clearly you do not understand the big picture or the little picture. The big picture is that you are agreeing that poorly enforced law are ineffective.
The little picture is the discussion is about poorly enforced laws against child labor. On what factual basis are you claiming that child labor laws in the USA or Canada or Germany, or Denmark are ineffective?

You're missing the point once again.

Child labor laws in first world countries work because there's no substantial demand for child labor.

You think the parents are sitting home while the child works?!?!

One would think it was obvious from the context is that it meant that the parents cannot find work with decent pay, not that they were not working at all.

And, as always, you think destroying bad jobs will magically make good ones appear. Infinite pool of profits in another guise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I started to read the paper, but within the first two pages, two statements made it clear that it was not going to be interesting. First it claimed child labor laws were generally not effective which made me wonder how all working children in Canada, the US and most of Europe stay so hidden. Second, the paper said that the studied law was poorly enforced. Any law that is enacted to alter behavior that is poorly enforced is going to be ineffective in its goals.

And why would anyone ever expect effective enforcement in the societies in which exploitative child labor is a widespread issue?

Leftist logic: Find the party with the most power. Stomp on them. Problem solved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That misses the point. No one has to write an academic treatise to show that laws that are poorly enforced are ineffective. That is obvious. But why would anyone presume the law would not be effectively enforced?

History 101. Consensual-victim laws are never effectively enforced.