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

[Axulus]

Government meddling once again leading to worse outcomes, this time at the expense of children and their extremely poor families:

While bans against child labor are a common policy tool, there is very little empirical evidence validating their effectiveness. In this paper, we examine the consequences of India’s landmark legislation against child labor, the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. Using data from employment surveys conducted before and after the ban, and using age restrictions that determined who the ban applied to, we show that child wages decrease and child labor increases after the ban. These results are consistent with a theoretical model building on the seminal work of Basu and Van (1998) and Basu (2005), where families use child labor to reach subsistence constraints and where child wages decrease in response to bans, leading poor families to utilize more child labor. The increase in child labor comes at the expense of reduced school enrollment. We also examine the effects of the ban at the household level. Using linked consumption and expenditure data, we find that along various margins of household expenditure, consumption, calorie intake and asset holdings, households are worse off after the ban.

https://t.co/VMQxtL0Icv?amp=1

 

[sharon45]

If the U.S. was consistent on banning child labor, then we would not have Congress.

 

[LordKiran]

Government meddling once again leading to worse outcomes, this time at the expense of children and their extremely poor families:

While bans against child labor are a common policy tool, there is very little empirical evidence validating their effectiveness. In this paper, we examine the consequences of India’s landmark legislation against child labor, the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. Using data from employment surveys conducted before and after the ban, and using age restrictions that determined who the ban applied to, we show that child wages decrease and child labor increases after the ban. These results are consistent with a theoretical model building on the seminal work of Basu and Van (1998) and Basu (2005), where families use child labor to reach subsistence constraints and where child wages decrease in response to bans, leading poor families to utilize more child labor. The increase in child labor comes at the expense of reduced school enrollment. We also examine the effects of the ban at the household level. Using linked consumption and expenditure data, we find that along various margins of household expenditure, consumption, calorie intake and asset holdings, households are worse off after the ban.

https://t.co/VMQxtL0Icv?amp=1

Sounds like a failed social net.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Government meddling once again leading to worse outcomes, this time at the expense of children and their extremely poor families:

While bans against child labor are a common policy tool, there is very little empirical evidence validating their effectiveness. In this paper, we examine the consequences of India’s landmark legislation against child labor, the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. Using data from employment surveys conducted before and after the ban, and using age restrictions that determined who the ban applied to, we show that child wages decrease and child labor increases after the ban. These results are consistent with a theoretical model building on the seminal work of Basu and Van (1998) and Basu (2005), where families use child labor to reach subsistence constraints and where child wages decrease in response to bans, leading poor families to utilize more child labor. The increase in child labor comes at the expense of reduced school enrollment. We also examine the effects of the ban at the household level. Using linked consumption and expenditure data, we find that along various margins of household expenditure, consumption, calorie intake and asset holdings, households are worse off after the ban.

https://t.co/VMQxtL0Icv?amp=1

With the level of corruption, lack of law enforcement, and undeveloped thinking of government and rotten officials laws are pretty much meaningless when it comes to the welfare of lower castes and the poor.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If the U.S. was consistent on banning child labor, then we would not have Congress.

Congress of course passes legislation in conjunction with or as assisted by case law. While I'm not sure as to how many child labourers there are in the USA there seems to be a lucrative market for exploited migrant labour as more are driven into the USA. Other media suggests this.

https://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/researchdigest/slavery/us.pdf

Victims of forced labor are trafficked into the United States from a variety of foreign countries,
although the majority originates in India, China, Mexico and Vietnam. U.S. citizens have also been
targeted for forced labor operations; however, most victims are young runaways and children of
foreigners. Victims of forced labor are brought to the United States because there is a market for
their services, coupled with poor legislation and inefficient laws that allow the problem to persist.
Forced labor operations tend to thrive in industries that offer low wages, where U.S. law requires
little or no regulation or monitoring of working conditions, and where a high demand for cheap
labor exists. The sectors in which forced labor is most prevalent are sex services, domestic servitude,
agriculture, sweatshop, and factory work. Forced labor in these industries is perpetuated by the large
potential for profit, and by the small risk of being prosecuted for the crime.
The sector where forced labor is most likely to occur in the United States is sex services. This
profitable industry is driven by a demand for cheap sex services and for child sex. Victims are
oftentimes trafficked into sexual slavery by migrant smuggling enterprises and organized crime
networks. They are brought into the United States under false pretenses of gainful employment, yet
once they arrive at their destination, victims are forced to work as strippers and prostitutes for little
or no compensation. The lack of safe and legal means of migration to the United States perpetuates
this problem, causing people to rely on these networks as a mode for entering the country.

Controlling or regulating migration which limits such things is of course 'racist.' as bleated by the Politically correct.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

yeah, how about no?

 

[untermensche]

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.

yeah, how about no?

Why? People who steal from children are the worst of the worst.

 

[Axulus]

yeah, how about no?

Why? People who steal from children are the worst of the worst.

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.

 

[LordKiran]

Why? People who steal from children are the worst of the worst.

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.

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

 

[Axulus]

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.

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?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Or hard labour in prison for a suitably long period time. The problem is greed; where the exploiters bribe their way into continuing their exploitation.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Canard DuJour]

While bans against child labor are a common policy tool, there is very little empirical evidence validating their effectiveness.

There's a ton of evidence. Industrial Revolution, Factory Acts..

In this paper, we examine the consequences of India’s landmark legislation against child labor, the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. Using data from employment surveys conducted before and after the ban, and using age restrictions that determined who the ban applied to, we show that child wages decrease and child labor increases after the ban.

WTF? If it can be ascertained from "employment surveys conducted before and after the ban" that there is more child labour, then the alleged "ban" is plainly nothing of the kind.

These results are consistent with a theoretical model building on the seminal work of Basu and Van (1998) and Basu (2005), where families use child labor to reach subsistence constraints and where child wages decrease in response to bans, leading poor families to utilize more child labor.

But not consistent with models in which "ban" isn't redefined to mean "not ban".

 

[whichphilosophy]

If child labour banned without taking consideration of the welfare of the child and family, then it will still lead to children working, but illegally. To comply on their part would in most cases mean starvation. Exploitative employers will continue to reap high profits from those who children who continue to working.

Some children may use for other people’s documents where in the report dead people’s papers. Loopholes include workers being allowed to take tasks home. In this way children can be given tasks for working from home is legal.

Enforcing Compulsory education plus Child benefit payments could reduce much of the child labour force but to start affording this.

Education in India from 6 to 14 is mandatory in law but not fully enforced.

 

[untermensche]

Why? People who steal from children are the worst of the worst.

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.

 

[Canard DuJour]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With the level of corruption, lack of law enforcement, and undeveloped thinking of government and rotten officials laws are pretty much meaningless when it comes to the welfare of lower castes and the poor.

Yup. It's pretty hard to effectively deal with consensual crime in a system with that level of corruption. If anything, the laws make it worse because you add payoffs to the cost.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

In order for wages to go down if child labor was restricted means that it is under the table, which means it clearly isn't being enforced. Don't even need to go into the paper to come to that conclusion... otherwise.... child labor would have gone down when it was banned!

 

[whichphilosophy]

With the level of corruption, lack of law enforcement, and undeveloped thinking of government and rotten officials laws are pretty much meaningless when it comes to the welfare of lower castes and the poor.

Yup. It's pretty hard to effectively deal with consensual crime in a system with that level of corruption. If anything, the laws make it worse because you add payoffs to the cost.

If child labour bans are enforced the children lose their pittance. This is why crooks can still operate freely. If the government instead gives the parents child allowance and enforce its recent education legislation this will reduce child labourers.