• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Merged Where the Women Are Strong, the Men Are Good-looking, And All of the Children Are Working Second Shift at the Plant.

To denote when two or more threads have been merged
I've seen a lot of posts so far about the obvious negative aspects of this bill but so far no other advantages remarked. So I will at least volunteer my opinion there is another side to look at.

No one will ever verbalize this but the truth is that a lot of people do not have kids today because they are extremely expensive and (unlike years past when we had a farm economy) do not provide any economic advantage to families. In today's society kids are viewed as being nothing but expensive pets. That is why most western economies are in a declining population trend. That is not sustainable either because sooner or later these declining western societies will not even have the option to import population from other poorer countries.

And with today's automation and primitive robots, was is so wrong about early apprenticeship programs training younger workforces into skilled trades in conjunction with liberal arts?
Because skilled trades education has been a thing for decades. Metal work, plumbing, automotive, carpentry, restauranteering (this was all available at my high school in the 90s). This isn't about skill trade, it is about getting teens into the mills.
The jobs offered to children would not have to be dangerous either while offering free training and skills, producing highly productive lives for kids who would otherwise be gaming in the basement.
Would not have to be dangerous, but require changing the law and the liability involved... got it.
For some younger people working (in a good job) might actually be a blessing for them.
Yes, "kids these days". Oldest fucking complaint dating back to the caveman days.
 
If the only reason you can think of to have a kid is to either work them for profit or keep them as "pets", please do not have children.
Seems like there is another underlying presumption, that economic growth or stability requires a continuously growing population. That is obviously not sustainable, even though it has been the economic engine of the past, at least in ‘Merka.
 
That is not sustainable either because sooner or later these declining western societies will not even have the option to import population from other poorer countries.
Why is this? Do you think that the 3rd world might run out of poor people?
Tom
We’ve been working really hard to prevent that.
 
That is not sustainable either because sooner or later these declining western societies will not even have the option to import population from other poorer countries.
Why is this? Do you think that the 3rd world might run out of poor people?
Tom
If they follow the route of China, yes. Furthermore, when the poor countries are no longer poor, they will no longer have enough young population of their own to export.
 
If they follow the route of China, yes. Furthermore, when the poor countries are no longer poor, they will no longer have enough young population of their own to export.
Wake me up when the human race runs out of exploitable poor people.
Tom
 
I've seen a lot of posts so far about the obvious negative aspects of this bill but so far no other advantages remarked. So I will at least volunteer my opinion there is another side to look at.

No one will ever verbalize this but the truth is that a lot of people do not have kids today because they are extremely expensive and (unlike years past when we had a farm economy) do not provide any economic advantage to families. In today's society kids are viewed as being nothing but expensive pets. That is why most western economies are in a declining population trend. That is not sustainable either because sooner or later these declining western societies will not even have the option to import population from other poorer countries.

And with today's automation and primitive robots, was is so wrong about early apprenticeship programs training younger workforces into skilled trades in conjunction with liberal arts? The jobs offered to children would not have to be dangerous either while offering free training and skills, producing highly productive lives for kids who would otherwise be gaming in the basement.

For some younger people working (in a good job) might actually be a blessing for them.
It is very true that many young people are forgoing having children with or without having pets. People are delaying or forgoing marriage altogether. The same with having children.

What is different about the younger generations compared with mine is that women expect and are expected to be as fully invested in their careers as men. There is an enormous shortage of good quality child care and what is available is extremely expensive. At the same time, children are….little germ factories. At daycare and at school, they trade germs. A lot.

Children cannot be in school or in daycare when they are sick—running a fever, or for 24 hrs. after vomiting or diarrhea. Now, imagine you have multiple children, who will definitely share whatever they catch with each other. It is not unusual for families with an infant, a toddler, and a pre-schooler to have to use more than one daycare center. And of course there could be school aged siblings in the mix. That’s a lot of germs being shared among all the children —and their parents.

This can make staying employed difficult for parents. Easily, every single day of PTO for both parents can be eaten up by routine childhood illnesses of their one or two kids.

The paradigm used to be that the mother stayed home with the children. She was the one who delayed or simply never had a career. Perhaps she would get some kind of job when the kids were well into school.

A little later, one parent, usually the mother, had a low paying job with greater flexibility while the kids were young and hoped for something better when the kids were old enough to be home on their own after school.

Now, even if a couple wants to have children, they almost certainly must work full time in order to pay off their student loans. Or the women will delay having children to establish their career and then face fertility issues in their mid to late 30’s or later.

Work places have NOT adjusted to provide adequately flexible work hours, more PTO, etc. that allow employees to have families.

Now, I’m obviously talking mostly about middle to upper middle class families who can afford or ‘afford’ childcare and have professional jobs with decent pay abd benefits. Obviously there are many people who work lower paying jobs, often multiple jobs and who must rely on family members, or neighbors or older children or just trust their kids will be ok at home alone. Or parents work opposite shifts which does absolute wonders for the marriage. Some, maybe most schools provide before and after school care for a decent price. Whatever educational reasons are cited, the true push for all day kindergarten is from parents who do not have to scramble for day care for thst year as they have had to for five years or more, if there are are multiple children.

A LOT of things MUST change. Education must be affordable and student loans must be forgiven. Employers must start to provide better benefits including PTO. A four day work week would be tremendously beneficial—I worked 4-10 hr days and later 4-8 hr. days and tremendously helped.
 
Honestly, you guys should read the bill itself. It's not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be. It tightens restrictions on children in some age ranges, and it allows for very specific exceptions to the existing prohibitions in cases where the work is explicitly related to education and training. There are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through in order for a position to be recognized as such.

It really is worth reading the actual proposed legislation before forming a conclusion based on a narrative presented to you with an obvious intention to provoke an emotional reaction.

It was linked in the original post, but I'll relink it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF167
 
What is different about the younger generations compared with mine is that women expect and are expected to be as fully invested in their careers as men.
Nah. Men don't really care about a woman's career. But women really care about what the man does. Hypergamy. And women college graduates simply outnumber men. Few women with college degrees would consider dating a guy without a degree or high status job.
 
Honestly, you guys should read the bill itself. It's not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be. It tightens restrictions on children in some age ranges, and it allows for very specific exceptions to the existing prohibitions in cases where the work is explicitly related to education and training. There are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through in order for a position to be recognized as such.

It really is worth reading the actual proposed legislation before forming a conclusion based on a narrative presented to you with an obvious intention to provoke an emotional reaction.

It was linked in the original post, but I'll relink it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF167
Whatever the flaws, it's a good idea. Most high school students don't want to be there. It's teen daycare. Why not let them get practical knowledge and skills?
 
If the only reason you can think of to have a kid is to either work them for profit or keep them as "pets", please do not have children.
Mrs. Hepburn: We don't care about money here
Howard Hughes: That's because you have it.

But for everyone else besides you and Mrs. Hepburn....economic reality does indeed play an important factor for deciding family size.
 
It's honestly hard to take Emily seriously right now. She's in here claiming a repeal of child labor and safety laws is a good thing, and in another thread claiming that they deserve no right to make counseled medical decisions to receive medications they have been fully appraised of the effect of!

ThInK Of ThE ChIlDrEn (except when it actually means keeping people from taking advantage of them)
 
Honestly, you guys should read the bill itself. It's not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be. It tightens restrictions on children in some age ranges, and it allows for very specific exceptions to the existing prohibitions in cases where the work is explicitly related to education and training. There are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through in order for a position to be recognized as such.

It really is worth reading the actual proposed legislation before forming a conclusion based on a narrative presented to you with an obvious intention to provoke an emotional reaction.

It was linked in the original post, but I'll relink it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF167
Whatever the flaws, it's a good idea. Most high school students don't want to be there. It's teen daycare. Why not let them get practical knowledge and skills?
They can wait until after graduation to learn the skills of otherwise banned workplaces.
 
Honestly, you guys should read the bill itself. It's not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be. It tightens restrictions on children in some age ranges, and it allows for very specific exceptions to the existing prohibitions in cases where the work is explicitly related to education and training. There are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through in order for a position to be recognized as such.

It really is worth reading the actual proposed legislation before forming a conclusion based on a narrative presented to you with an obvious intention to provoke an emotional reaction.

It was linked in the original post, but I'll relink it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF167
I've read it. If it was such a good deal, there'd be no need to loosen legal remedies for negligence.
 
Honestly, you guys should read the bill itself. It's not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be. It tightens restrictions on children in some age ranges, and it allows for very specific exceptions to the existing prohibitions in cases where the work is explicitly related to education and training. There are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through in order for a position to be recognized as such.

It really is worth reading the actual proposed legislation before forming a conclusion based on a narrative presented to you with an obvious intention to provoke an emotional reaction.

It was linked in the original post, but I'll relink it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF167
Whatever the flaws, it's a good idea. Most high school students don't want to be there. It's teen daycare. Why not let them get practical knowledge and skills?
They can wait until after graduation to learn the skills of otherwise banned workplaces.
It shocks me that someone would be so vehement against bodily self determination because "ThInK Of ThE ChiLDrEn!" and yet so blaise about putting them in jobs where their ignorance will get them killed or maimed without anyone to hold liable for tricking them into it.

Smells like bad faith, to me.
 
Honestly, you guys should read the bill itself. It's not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be. It tightens restrictions on children in some age ranges, and it allows for very specific exceptions to the existing prohibitions in cases where the work is explicitly related to education and training. There are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through in order for a position to be recognized as such.

It really is worth reading the actual proposed legislation before forming a conclusion based on a narrative presented to you with an obvious intention to provoke an emotional reaction.

It was linked in the original post, but I'll relink it here:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF167
Well, McDonalds would be well pleased with this bill.

I cannot see any benefit for persons of school age in this bill. The types of work experience most are likely to gain would only allow them to continue to work low wage jobs where workers are treated as disposable. This comes at a cost to their education and future. Provisions which have been stricken were there for good reason.

I've actually worked in some of the types of jobs described as suitable for workers aged 14-16, albeit when I was much older than that: 19-21. Teenage workers and those who work in jobs which are mostly held by teenagers are treated extremely poorly. They are paid low wages, and are not actually allowed to make use of worker protection laws that an actual adult would be apprised of and have an idea of who to contact for violations of their rights. It is very easy to see how children can and will be physically exploited but also sexually exploited.

These jobs do not provide an opportunity to gain valuable work experience. They provide employers a source of cheap labor that is too young and unsophisticated to complain about exploitive work conditions.
 
I've seen a lot of posts so far about the obvious negative aspects of this bill but so far no other advantages remarked. So I will at least volunteer my opinion there is another side to look at.

No one will ever verbalize this but the truth is that a lot of people do not have kids today because they are extremely expensive and (unlike years past when we had a farm economy) do not provide any economic advantage to families. In today's society kids are viewed as being nothing but expensive pets. That is why most western economies are in a declining population trend. That is not sustainable either because sooner or later these declining western societies will not even have the option to import population from other poorer countries.

And with today's automation and primitive robots, was is so wrong about early apprenticeship programs training younger workforces into skilled trades in conjunction with liberal arts?
Because skilled trades education has been a thing for decades. Metal work, plumbing, automotive, carpentry, restauranteering (this was all available at my high school in the 90s). This isn't about skill trade, it is about getting teens into the mills.
The jobs offered to children would not have to be dangerous either while offering free training and skills, producing highly productive lives for kids who would otherwise be gaming in the basement.
Would not have to be dangerous, but require changing the law and the liability involved... got it.
For some younger people working (in a good job) might actually be a blessing for them.
Yes, "kids these days". Oldest fucking complaint dating back to the caveman days.
Those opportunities were available in the 70's as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom