Japan plans to lower age of adulthood to 18 (2018) | Hacker News Reader

Japan plans to lower age of adulthood to 18 (2018)

bbc.com

122 pointsgscott108 comments

This article is a year old; the law it discusses was approved last June.

> But teenagers will still be banned from smoking, drinking alcohol and gambling until they are 20.

The logic of this escapes me. Although the article does not seem to mention it, it seems probable that the voting age will likely also be lowered to 18. This means teenagers will be considered old enough to make decisions that will affect the entire country, all the while being considered too immature to make decisions that will really only affect them individually.

Vote for a lower drinking age.

What's the benefit though? a larger group of people getting stomach cancer, in the country that has already the top stomach cancer rate in the world?

Other than the allure of forbidden fruit I don't see what you actually lose by not drinking, smoking or gambling for those 2 formative years.

Why not make it a hundred years?

Why prevent sexually mature humans from engaging in sex?

This is Japan.

Nobody is likely to have sex at all, or to do anything that is banned. If "allure of forbidden fruit" would actually work though, setting the age of consent to 120 might just be what Japan needs.

>This is Japan. >Nobody is likely to have sex at all, or to do anything that is banned.

You know you're talking about the country with the love hotels and the yakuza, right?

I think that makes sense in the context of a collectivist culture. Well, more sense than in a fiercely individualistic culture like USA.

>old enough to make decisions that will affect the entire country,

will have no effect in Japan since a large corpus of voters are senior citizens. In practice younger generations have no say in politics.

That’s no more true than that Asian-Americans have no say in politics. Demographic groups aren’t absolute voting blocks.

If the 18-20 yo population represents 2% of voters (just making it up) and 70% of them don't vote, you will understand their power is absolutely marginal.

Your argument makes no sense, because you're assuming the 18-20yo demographic is voting entirely differently than the 20-25yo demographic, which is obviously a stupid way of thinking when it's stated like that. Those groups are likely going to vote almost exactly the same, so extending the voting age downwards simply gives the younger voting block more power because it gives them more numbers. Also, the idea that 70% of them don't vote is just something you pulled out of your ass, probably based on American voting patterns. Japan isn't America, and assumptions like that are invalid in any argument.

These ages really should be legally aligned. If you're not responsible enough to live your own life, you've no business telling someone else how to live.

Nothing prevents you in Japan from drinking and smoking before 20. You just can't buy such goods directly, but it's well known that people get it thru other means (via a third party, friends, parents, etc...).

I lived in Japan when I was 19, and I never once was asked for ID when buying alcohol, neither at a store nor a bar. It seemed to be largely the honor system, since you could buy alcohol from vending machines. Although when one bartender found out my age, he said it wasn't a problem since I wasn't Japanese. Go figure.

A big club in Tokyo was the only place I was ever asked, and even there I was waved right through. Apparently, they were just checking for "gang affiliation".

Why not avoid artificially grouping those age restrictions out of an artificial sense of "fairness"? I was one of the previously rabid "if you can be sent to war you should be able to have a drink" back in my teens. The two topics aren't related. I insisted that they were to the ends of the earth before, but they aren't. Alcohol is a dangerous trap. Having the age be 21, even with some sneaking it early, is smart. 18 year olds don't need to try to deal with alcohol when 50 year olds can have a hard time with it. Your time will come.

When I was in my teens and 20s, I felt like older people were just rigging the rules for their benefit. As I approach 40, let me tell you younger folks something (even if it's useless), we are all on the same team and we're trying to make things the best we can (for you too). And when you get to this age, you'll do the same and younger people will rail at you the same way.

Yeah, now tell that to the adults that have had to pay fines and their license revoked because of drinking.

>When I was in my teens and 20s, I felt like older people were just rigging the rules for their benefit. As I approach 40, let me tell you younger folks something (even if it's useless), we are all on the same team and we're trying to make things the best we can (for you too).

This isn't true at all, at least in America. The Boomers are absolutely pushing for policies that will benefit them at the expense of younger generations. The refusal to reduce carbon emissions and their desire to increase coal mining and usage is a big example of this.

Consider the possibility that they are wiser, having been through some hard times, and might like to leave a functioning economy for the younger generations.

You're not going to have a functioning economy with the massive climate problems that are coming, along with the Boomer's refusal to invest in infrastructure. If you look at how the Boomers vote, all they care about is the "invading" "Mexicans", abortion, and lower taxes for rich people. Basically, they're a bunch of greedy racists who vote to shoot down any attempt to improve the economy through things like better taxation of the class that can afford to pay more taxes, and better infrastructure for all of us.

No, they're not wiser at all, and they haven't been through any hard times. You're thinking of their parents who went to war in WWII. Those people are mostly dead now. The Boomers are their spoiled, greedy children, who are mostly to blame for the state of this nation now.

I think the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 oil crisis both count as hard times. You seem to wish that the Boomers would vote for a self-inflicted oil crisis.

It's also hard to keep the lower class employed with a living wage if low-cost migrants keep underbidding them for employment.

While the Boomers haven't always made great decisions, this us-vs-them thinking neglects that the Boomers generally care about their descendants. Boomers do not wish to see their grandchildren suffering.

>It's also hard to keep the lower class employed with a living wage if low-cost migrants keep underbidding them for employment.

Then maybe the Boomers should vote for higher taxes and better social services. That's what advanced nations do, after all, and they don't have these problems.

Voting age was lowered to 18 three years ago. https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/18%E6%AD%B3%E9%81%B8%E6%8C%9...

> decisions that will really only affect them individually

This seems to be the mainstream view of addiction in many parts of the West, particularly in the US, but is it so hard to believe it's not universal?

If smoking, alcohol, and gambling had the same affects on all fully grown adults as it did on people with developing minds we probably wouldn’t have them.

They’re at a much higher risk for addiction, much higher risk for permanent brain impairment from alcohol, imagine if those risks and effects were instead just the baseline for everyone. For example, somehow even moderate drinking at 30 would permanently damage your brain as much as it can damage a growing brain (it can already be bad enough for the 30 year old brain but it’d be even worse) it’s hard to imagine drinking would be the viewed the same way

Ok, let’s ban drinking for under 30s. Alcohol is clearly far more harmful than cannabis and I sincerely doubt it’s more harmful than speed or medicinal heroin, all of which we ban. If we’re going to ban things for adults why 21 and not 30?

I shouldn’t have to write this out but...

It’s a sliding scale. Not an on and off switch. “Why allow drinking at all?!” Society has deemed that people at 21 can handle it. The longer you wait the better so it’s not like there’s a detriment.

Do you remember the person you were at 21 vs 18?

But sure, if you think the drinking age should be 30 go ahead and call your congressperson.

In the US at least, the 21 yo drinking age is mostly a wholly pragmatic law [EDIT: laws. It's state by state but there was a big federal stick attached to highway funding.] to reduce teenage drunk driving (which affects more than the individual). Tobacco sales is mostly 18 in the US (although a few states are 21). Casinos also vary although the drinking age restricts <21 yo in a lot of casinos.

It's hard to make an intellectual case for disparities between things like voting age, military service (which is why the US voting age was reduced to 18 in the first place), drinking/gambling/smoking, age of consent, etc. but pragmatism still sometimes wins out.

I would argue that it actually ends up having the opposite effect. The culture towards drinking that the US has, means that young people either have to hide really hard that they are in fact drinking, or that they never learn control before much later in life, because they go all in when they are 21. This, funnily enough is after they have had their drivers license for some years, and those two mix bad together (lack of experience drinking, and a drivers license).

I contrast this to my own country, Denmark, where we are much more lax about drinking. You can buy alcohol lower than 16% at age 16, and you can get your drivers license at 18. Parents accept that people will probably slowly start out drinking before this though, and are therefore more involved with this aspect of young people’s lives. This means they also has a chance to supervisor, guide and help their children manage this new experience of being drunk, and educate them on how it works.

At least that’s my armchair take on it :)

I'd like to agree but the evidence suggests differently, e.g. [1] Arguably, there was an increased awareness in the US of drunk driving as a problem during that period but the effect still seems to be real even correcting for that.

Of course, if we assume a completely different culture around alcohol, the results might well be different.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497803

Ah, I should maybe have been more clear. My point was that it would have better effects to change the culture around drinking, rather than increasing the age limit of when you can drink.

I’m not suggesting that it’s an easy thing to do though.

Another approach is to change technology.

Volvo has keys with a built-in breathalyzer: https://accessories.volvocars.com/en-us/C30/Accessories/Docu...

And of course, autonomous vehicles could make drinking a non-issue for getting around, just like trains and buses do today.

If this were a universal thing, I could see it helping, but unfortunately I'd be surprised if only people who opt in having this feature makes a significant dent in the issue.

Well people do exercise this option if they are obliged to by a court ruling, or if it gets them a lower insurance premium.

Fair enough!

Most US states do allow some measure of underage drinking with parental permission, IIRC. But it's true that that's not really a strong/common part of the culture.

As a practical if not legal matter, people can do more or less as they please in their own homes. But I'm personally glad I went to college at a time when drinking alcohol was pretty much all above board. (At least at the time, the fact that the drinking age was legally 18 meant that drinking as a college student was pretty much OK even if you weren't actually 18 yet. The local bar we frequented was fine with just a college ID; they didn't otherwise check age.)

Well yes, your own home is certainly one thing. But I'm pretty sure in the UK you can totally order alcohol for your own kid at a restaurant and it's not illegal as long as the parent gives permission. In some other places it's illegal for someone to sell alcohol knowing that it will be consumed by a minor - so that scenario couldn't happen.

In the UK 16+ year olds can have alcohol with a meal in a pub / restaurant etc. providing it's bought by someone over 18

https://www.gov.uk/alcohol-young-people-law

In the US at least, the 21 yo drinking age is mostly a wholly pragmatic law to reduce teenage drunk driving (which affects more than the individual).

Because making the legal drinking age 21 has stopped people between 18-21 from getting alcohol.

See also the “War on Drugs”

You can reduce something without stopping it. I'm not advocating for the policy change that was made. But the evidence suggests it was at least somewhat effective in the goal of reducing teenage accidents in which elevated blood alcohol levels were involved. People can differ on whether that justified the policy change or not.

Can you imagine one case where an 18-21 year old was at a party where people were drinking and they said “I can’t have that beer because I’m underage”.

Yes.

I'm against having the drinking age being above the "adulthood" age, and I KNOW lots of kids violate these laws, but it is absurd to say that every single person violates them given the chance.

Yes.

Me.

Plus various other, similar situations.

(I am in complete honesty unsure whether to regret it.)

Do you also never go over the speed limit?

My sense of “honesty” isn’t dictated by the government.

Now whether I obey the law is determined strictly by a risk/rewards calculation

But those are still entirely different.

> My sense of “honesty” isn’t dictated by the government.

> Now whether I obey the law is determined strictly by a risk/rewards calculation

That's the most intellectually dishonest answer I've seen to "I followed the law in a specific scenario".

It’s not intellectually dishonest. Speeding is against the law. Do you speed?

Have you ever downloaded a movie off of bit torrent?

Do you think that Black people should have moved to the back of the bus in the 60s because it was the law?

There were laws on the books in many southern states until recently making homosexual sex a sin. Should that law have been followed?

There were laws against interracial marriage until the 60s and Utah is just now debating whether a law against premarital sex should be taken off the books.

Sorry, the phrase risk/rewards was a trigger. I know acquaintances that drive in the carpool lane because they can afford to pay the fine if caught, and brag about it. You seemed to fall in that camp (vs thinking about higher level, heavily debated laws like the ones about homosexuality), but clearly that wasn't the case!

You never answered the question - do you ever go over the speed limit?

Would you speed if the penalty was $1000 a mile over?

What’s the moral difference?

And in either case there shouldn’t be anymore of “a debate” about how two grown people decide to have sex and who they should marry than whether a grown person should be allowed to drink.

That 18 year old college student who the government doesn’t deem to be mature enough to drink is mature enough to vote, fight in the military, sign for a student loan that can potentially put them in 10s of thousands worth of debt, etc.

No, I never ever go over the speed limit (except for the minor single digit breaches that happen when I'm not in cruise mode, etc.). But that's kind of a stupid question to ask, it's a super straightforward decision (at least for me) to follow the law when driving.

Currently, I don't drive, so I have no empirical answer.

Some people who know me have joked that I would hate learning to drive (here in the US) because of the issue where most drivers break the speed limit most of the time and expect others to do the same. I think I could get used to it or find a way to deal with it, but it's possible it would stress me out for a while at the beginning.

As I sorta-mentioned, I'm not sure my original level of tendency to follow the rules is actually adaptive here. The point was more the existence proof. And between cultures it may vary even more widely than this.

If you or your parents grew up as anything other than a straight White Christian in the southern US, you would understand why I don't necessarily hold an unquestioned respect for the law or the justice system....

Please don't do this.

You've gone from “implying that an attitude is out of the acceptable/plausible range” to “implying that the visible counterexample doesn't understand why anyone else might hold a different one” in the span of three posts.

I can imagine several reasons why this might be a hot-button topic for you, especially given what you've just said, but I am not putting my nature up for attack here. If you expect me to have a generalized disregard for or incomprehension of people who don't share my tendencies, I don't think it's true, though I don't expect you to believe me. If you feel like my attitude or existence is a shock or an affront, I'm sorry. If you resent feeling stuck with the institutions that surround you because they're not serving you well, I'm sorry. I would ask that you not extrapolate my personal attitudes about alcohol and speed limits to assuming that I follow social institutions “unquestioningly”, if that's what you were doing, and especially that you not extrapolate it to much wider and deeper issues.

This will be my last comment on this topic.

Two sub threads going on at once here.

That was more aimed at the statement (that you didn’t make)

That's the most intellectually dishonest answer I've seen to "I followed the law in a specific scenario".

My apologies. I attributed that statement to you.

But did you refuse the drink specifically because you where underage or because you didn't want to drink? If that same party had been in country where you where legally allowed to drink would you have drunk then?

It was primarily the former. Had I been in a jurisdiction where it was legal, it seems very possible I would have tried some of the alcoholic drinks—of course I don't know this for sure, because that's not what happened. I didn't have a strong desire for it at the time, so it's not an ideal test case, but neither is it an isolated case; other situations with age-restricted materials or activities went very similarly.

(I'm eliding and slightly distorting a lot of surrounding details both because my memory of the time is often fuzzy and because I don't feel inclined to detail too much of my ancient personal life here. The central points, however, I'm clear on.)

It might be worth adding, to circle back toward the original topic, that while I notice that this isn't “normal” in much of the US (where I live), people around me have wondered whether I got this tendency from somewhere else. (In fact, I had one (non-Japanese) Asian immigrant parent, and while that one was quite chaotic about following the local laws, it's possible that more indirect connections had strong subtle influences.) Some societies are much more regimented and/or conformist, and Japan is frequently described as both (not that I would know what bearing it has on these specific questions). The “natural pattern of rule breaks” is not universal, neither in cultures where it's nearly-expected, nor between cultures.

There's a beer row in some vending machines on public streets in Japan. It seemed that the only enforcement on age limits was a sign that said not to buy beer if you were underage. I took it as an example of the enormous cultural differences between America and Japan.

Yes, I have seen people refuse because they were underage. But on the other hand those were people who I could not ever imagine driving drunk.

Ha ha you framed the question quite stringently. Even I (haven't been to an american-style party) have been in situations where someone refused alcohol because they were <21.

Totally happens yes. In my Japanese university club, the rule at drinking party was: minors can drink if they want but others should not incite them to drink if they don’t want to.

Yeah it's dumb, but to be fair this is something where we get to have our cake and eat it too. The moralizers / religious / people fairly concerned about drunk driving get to feel good and maybe have a positive effect, and everyone that is 18-21 still gets ready access to alcohol at school where the need to drive is substantially reduced. Whenever I wanted to get alcohol at school, I could easily get it and the situation was the same with all of the friends I knew at other universities. If you don't go to school you get access through work friends.

The drunk driving argument extends to Japan extremely poorly due to cultural and infrastructure differences.

Public transportation in Japan is great. In urban areas it's also quite easy, accessible, and affordable to rent a capsule hotel "room" or net cafe seat. This is true no matter what your age or credit history, they won't ask for your drivers license, you can pay cash. It's honestly strange that I have to state some of these things, but I live in the U.S., and this country is all kinds of screwed up.

Also, the enforcement and norms for drunk driving (setting aside age entirely) are totally different. From my experience it's not common to have _a_ drink and drive, and the limit is "detectable".

For a driver in the U.S., the legal and cultural expectations are that you assess your own inebriation and decide when it's okay and when you need to get a cab. That standard doesn't really exist in Japan.

While I might not agree, I can understand people's hesitation about putting the U.S. standard on people aged 18 and 19. But Japan's standard? Pure nanny state.

The reason why they don’t ask you is you are (most likely) a westerner. In my experience if you are an underage looking japanese buying alcohol alone, they most likely will ask your age.

And drunk driving in japan? It’s much more common than you would think.

When I was on exchange in Japan my underage friends from joined me multiple times for bars and not a single time was their ID's checked. I've only had my ID checked during some special event like Halloween in very central areas in Tokyo.

In stores they will not even check ID's or ask your age verbally but you just tap a button that says you are old enough to buy alchohol.

That’s why i said if they are alone. No one ever get asked if they are with a western person.

Can't you just buy alcohol from a vending machine?

(Source: Bought a lot of alcohol from vending machines while I was in Japan. Never got asked for ID.)

I only saw a handful of alcohol vending machines when I was in Japan (2018). I heard a rumor they are being phased out.

EDIT: Found a source "In May 1995, to prevent underage drinking, the All Japan Liquor Merchants Association decided to eliminate outdoor alcohol vending machines, so it is now rare to encounter these machines outside." https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00258/vending-machines-i...

Oh, this was in 2012 so they may have disappeared. Shame. :(

There are still some in the countryside, and small alleyways in the cities. I think there’s only one in my city.

In my experience, the vending machines near and in hotels, etc, did not require any form of ID. However, the random ones I found out on the street required you to have obtained an ID/Authorization card beforehand.

oh sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking about hotels asking for your ID. It is also true that Japan checks ID for alcohol less often (it would be hard to check more often than the U.S.), but that might just mean they're more comfortable going by looks / gut, and that carrying identification (when walking) doesn't have the same norms or laws either.

In Japan you get fined even for being a passenger in a car where the driver is drunk.

It's mega strict.

Is there any statistic that shows a 21 drinking age reduces per capital teenage drunk driving deaths as compared to Quebec or Alberta, where it is 18?

Yes

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140318140757.h...

Personally I think the legal drinking age should be 18. I started drinking when I was 18, but didn't learn to do so responsibly until I was doing it in public. A bartender can refuse to serve, or call you a cab. Not that they always will, but I think it is advantageous to have at least one adult around keeping an eye on things. Sure there are plenty of irresponsible bartenders, but my experience says it's better than nothing.

I really like how Germany solved the drinking age problem: you can drink beer and wine at 16 and hard liquor at 18. This gives you a safety net to experiment with alcohol. You won't drink yourself into a coma with beer and you aren't allowed to drive till you are 18.

"You won't drink yourself into a coma with beer" - it only takes more time. 1st google result on oktoberfest passed out: https://coed.com/2015/09/16/oktoberfest-best-drunk-photos-oc...

You can certainly drink yourself into coma with beer. Teens drinking 6-10 beers is not an uncommon thing at parties at that age.

That said practically the 16/18 distinction also isn't that important. If you are 16, you typically hang out also with some people that are >= 18, and which will then buy the other things. People might not necessarily start drinking with hard liquor, but the time to it is typically not 2 years.

Source: I'm german, and had been 16 and 18 a long time ago.

I always find it baffling that the problem is drunk _driving_. Where I'm from (Northern Europe), the young people drank way too much at home parties but certainly did not drive under influence.

The driver's age IMO relates to a time when more people were rural, and someone in the household HAD to drive. It is useful to have a young driver.

Regarding alcohol, it seems to be a tragedy of the West, whatever the age of consent. The long-term effects of daily alcohol were under-rated, in an age were many adults did hard physical labor many days, and life expectancy was lower.

joke: in Scotland, they swore that the Irish were the worst drunks; in Germany they swore that the Russians were the worst drunks; in Denmark, they swore that the Norwegians were the worst drunks; and you know what, they were all terrible drunks.

Some people said that the Italians and the Portugese give children wine at a feast, mixed with juice. This seems tragic in modern light.

> In the US at least, the 21 yo drinking age is mostly a wholly pragmatic law [EDIT: laws. It's state by state but there was a big federal stick attached to highway funding.] to reduce teenage drunk driving (which affects more than the individual).

To add another voice of dissent to the Danish poster's point of view, in Australia, you can drink at any age with parental consent (though child abuse laws would come into play if you do anything ridiculous) and you start to get your license at around 16 depending on the state.

Also, getting a full license in my state is a much involved process. It takes around 5 years if you aim to get it as young as possible: 1 year of supervised driving with a fully licensed passenger (there must be 120 hours of driving until you move to the next stage), then 1 year of a limited probationary license ("red P's") and finally 3 years of a less limited probationary license ("green P's").

Throughout this entire process, you cannot have _any_ alcohol in your blood while driving.

I think this, plus public awareness of drunk driving, is much better than just restricting drinking until you're 21. It means that usually, before you even get behind the wheel, you've had years to experience the effects of alcohol and get the thrill of it out of your system. Then once you're driving, you get used to the idea that you can't even have "just a little bit".

I lived in a Japanese university dormitory for a year. Alcohol is absurdly easy for under 20's to purchase. There is essentially no checking of IDs in shops. Most shops have a touch screen point of sale system that will ask "Are you over 20?" if you buy an alcoholic product. Some of those systems only have the "Yes" answer button...

Sounds like a much better system than in the US where they send in cops who pretend to be 18-20 just to say "gotcha!" and fine restaurants.

1) The younger you start consuming addictive substances, the more likely you are to become addicted.

2) Analysis and impulse control are not handled by the same parts of the brain, and those mature at a different pace.

3) Given how social ties are stratified in kids due to the education system, providing a buffer of a couple of years protects high school kids from expostion to addictive substances.

>3) Given how social ties are stratified in kids due to the education system, providing a buffer of a couple of years protects high school kids from expostion to addictive substances.

Is this actually useful though? In some European countries, like Finland, high school kids end up over the age of 18 and are thus legally allowed to drink.

I would heavily disagree that smoking only affects them individually. Also, someone with a gambling addiction or other addiction will need support from society.

That said, I also disagree with the "adult, but not quite" restrictions. Though the US also has its share of weirdness, where you can join the army, get married and have children before being allowed to buy alcohol or visit adult establishments.

It's not about the decision and responsibility. The reason is for the health. Alcohol and Tabaco affect the health of young people more than the old people. So the ban.

> This means teenagers will be considered old enough to make decisions that will affect the entire country,

Yes. I also wonder why Voting age and voting identification requirements are different in US, then for purchasing firearms, or military service.

Both require adult-level accountability. Both can have dire consequences (at different magnitudes).

It seems more logical to have minimum age, criminal record, and identification requirements parity for Voting, Firearms ownership, and military service

(there should be special physical disability exceptions, I presume).

I have hard time reading "teenagers will be considered old enough to make decisions that will affect the entire country", how many 18 yo people are there any given elections? I don't say their votes doesn't count, but still in face of facts it is not real argument.

There is no way 18 yo is going to be president of any country. To be elected to parliament there is separate rule where you have to be 21 in my country (I assume it is quite the same in other countries). So even though you can vote when you are 18 you are not going to make real decision that can make impact.

> The logic of this escapes me.

It doesn't escape me. Japan has a declining population.

Drinking, gambling and smoking don't produce babies (only an environment that is harmful to children).

The motivation here is obvious.

If you restrict people under the age of <magical unexplainable constant x> from doing something, they usually will find the means and do it anyway, but out of govt control, so it migt be even worse than if you didn't try. That is true about porn, alcochol, tobacco, working (I could never get that one) and lots of other things.

I agree that the number is arbitrary, and probably not a good one but I'm not sure that warrants not having it at all.

Surely we would agree 7 year olds should be kept from (porn, alcochol, tobacco, working 'for money')

Some HN-ers would say "why dictate a 7-year old, let them watch what they find", then head to a YouTube kids thread and brag about only giving their kids 1990s style phones.

I think those are probably separate groups of people. In fact, the ones that argue the first point tend to not actually have kids/interact with children in general

The thinking behind child labor laws insofar as working restrictions is that they should be in school and getting an education during those years.

Of course "train-on-the-job"-style apprenticeships are education, but this gets into how blue-collar labor seems to take a backseat to tech jobs.

> under the age of [...] working (I could never get that one)

It has been suggested that many schemes (disallowing child work outside of family farms and firms, elongating school to mandatory "high school", and then at the other end of the spectrum, social security and "retirement") were primarily to bolster employment % issues among the rest of the population (the not young and not old), and not so much for the other intended aims (stop "bad" child labor, "education", "retirement").

I do not know if there is much truth to this, other than for Social Security where proponents said precisely that (Depression era: retiring older workers would free up employment for young men). It seems sensible that child labor laws followed a similar pattern of thinking. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/flsa1938

> The bill includes clauses that are designed to protect against this problem. For example, young people will be able to cancel a contract if they believe salespeople have manipulated or pressured them into signing it.

I’m curious to know how this is codified legally. Presumably this isn’t just a blanket “oh no I was conned into an agreement that should be invalidated”?

Many countries have laws that require certain types of contracts to have an obligatory right to withdraw within a certain time. In my country, all contracts that have been entered "remotely" for example (over phone, over the Internet, etc.) have this, meaning that if you enter a contract over the phone, it can be nullified within a certain period for any reason.

So in these cases, whether you were "conned" or not is not a part of the legal language, which is probably very much a conscious move. It simply extends the customers right to withdraw from an agreement, keeping the reason for it legally irrelevant.

Though there is a downside. I decided to start working when I was 16, and it was hard to keep business with no right to enforce my own liabilities in the contract.

I wasn't claiming that it's ideal, or something that should be applied to all contracts. I only answered the question of how this could be constructed in the legal sense. What types of contracts that are reasonable to include under a provision like this is an open debate.

The right to be held to your side of the bargain is perhaps not immediately obvious as an important right, but there's a decent bit that has been written on the topic. For example:

"Among the legal privileges of corporations, two that are mentioned in textbooks are the right to sue and the "right" to be sued. Who wants to be sued! But the right to be sued is the power to make a promise: to borrow money, to enter a contract, to do business with someone who might be damaged. If suit does arise, the "right" seems a liability in retrospect; beforehand it was a prerequisite to doing business." ~ Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict

It's likely a form of misrepresentation law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation

I would guess it's a simple cooling off period, which some states in the US have. It gives you 72 hours to recend the agreement. This allow you to escape the social pressures of the room where the contract is being signed. Allows you to escape the pressures of salesmanship and techniques. Allows you to consult with friends and family.

I understand arguments for and against these cooling off periods. However, I think for individual consumers they do more good than harm.

Where does the age 18 comes from? I see that it's the age of adulthood in most countries.

Your brain and body stop developing at 23 if I'm not mistaken?

Presumably some sort of pragmatic balance between protecting children from child labor and war on the one hand, and having enough young people in the society to keep the economy going and military staffed.

It's completely arbitrary and inconsistent everywhere (it probably initially stems from how many males of that age can be drafted and yield a net benefit). Societies routinely violate this through their justice systems ("tried as adult" is a concept in many countries) and their taxation systems (taxation without representation is anathema to at least one country except in this case for some reason).

>Your brain and body stop developing at 23 if I'm not mistaken?

And your brain and body begin majorly degenerating past about 60 (insurance data rates them as causing about the same number of accidents per mile as beginning drivers starting at that age), but most countries don't strip your rights at that age.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com