Hacker News Reader

I'll agree with all of 1–5, and elaborate on #2:

> Second, the companies paying these children are extracting value from their labor greater than what they are paying the child laborers.

This is always the case with employment, assuming that the employer isn't getting ripped off: when two parties make a voluntary trade, they're both getting something they value more than what they're trading away.

--

> In other words, this article, in my analysis, is an opportunity to study and question the system that creates the conditions such that there is a labor market comprising children who are available for exploitation for cheap labor by very rich Western companies.

I don't see anything that needs explaining here. Poverty is the default. For almost all of human history we were dirt poor. For almost all of agricultural history we were in a hungry, unpleasant Malthusian equilibrium.

The real miracle is that things are getting better. And a big part of why things are getting better is because it's possible for richer countries to 'exploit' cheap labor in poorer countries – and help them escape poverty by doing it. It's amusing how companies keep looking for cheap labor in different countries every few years, because the places that used to have the cheapest labor got wealthier because of those opportunities. I realize that not everybody shares my aesthetics, but personally I see this as beautiful, even if the ground-level details are a bit grungy.

I think the point that it's voluntary means it's a good trade for both sides isn't entirely accurate, at least in the long run. I'd argue it could be that someone is forced into working due to their conditions (e.g., if I don't work I won't have enough food) but in a way they're trading something that had both more long term value and you could argue it comes with negative externalities.

In this case, if a child is working they're not learning or playing with others, and they're potentially being traumatized if the articles claims are to be believed. This has a long term effect on their well being, and produces a sort of negative externality.

Is it the case that we shouldn't allow this? I'm not sure, since in the long run maybe I'd rather be nourished than innocent, but its probably reasonable to argue that there could be more oversight in terms of what content they're reviewing or how much they're paid to make it a better deal for them.

"Child" is used loosely by commenters on this article, its fairly obvious they mean teenager when they say "underage". It was stated the hours were flexible and they're going to college so its assumed this is after school.

Given its perfectly fine for teenagers (not children) to take part time work here and many of us here had to earn extra money before becoming adults or to help save up for education. I don't see the problem. My part time job bought me my own computer, that I used to start the career I'm in now. If you want me to believe they're more exploited than I was at my part time job at McDonald's of which was also of great benefit to me, you're nuts.

This article tries to make this is somehow exploitative. This would be a great part time job here, it just pays the rate there, and its normal to pay kids less than adults anyway since its assumed their living costs are mostly covered by parents (a living wage is unnecessary) and their inexperience and unreliability makes its so if you're going to pay full rate you're better off with an adult.

If the kids were doing to to make money for the latest Playstation, this would be fine here. I'm not seeing an issue going off what's in the article, if anything it seems like a huge boon considering what other jobs are likely available to teenage workers.

>“It’s digital slavery,” says Hassan.

It's only slavery if you're not allowed to leave, if its a bad deal, the wages aren't worth your time and effort, then don't do it. Go work in a blacksmith shop or something else they do in Pakistan that's somehow accepted but far more hazardous.

The whole article is framed in a completely champagne social justice lense and not what's practical or what works or is to a mutual benefit for both parties. If demand for those jobs has gone up and this depresses wages, that's how it works here.

The reason I constructed my initial response to you in the way I did was to try to make it clear I was acknowledging how complicated this topic is. It’s not as easy as “pay them a Western wage” or “unionize the global south” or whatever. It’s too complicated for easy answers. It’s not all bad. It’s not all good, either, though.

I spent the time to make my comment because your original comment that it’s too easy for well-fed westerners to poo-poo the situation was well-made, and correct in certain context.

How do employees/workers get more than what they are trading away?

They trade away time and effort in exchange for money. Presumably they value the money more than the time and effort, because if they didn't, they wouldn't make that trade.

Why do you think they value the money more than the time and effort?

> Poverty is the default. For almost all of human history we were dirt poor.

I don't know where you get this absurd idea. For many millennia we were commoning, herding, living in symbiosis with game- and fruit-bearing wildernesses, etc. It's not since the enclosure of the commons that subsistence outside employment has been made, largely, illegal.

For almost all of human history we have been wealthy and free. What we now recognize as "poverty" is induced by the holders of Capital in order to maintain a pool of vulnerable workers obliged to cater. We use military might and policing to undermine economic and political power in the colonies, ensuring we they remain desperate enough to take a bad deal. This isn't free market economics, this is blackmail, extortion, racketeering.

If you want to zoom in on a single example and say, "ah, well, this youngster found a pretty flower and smelled it, how can you begrudge him a sniff?" while ignoring the churning, smoke-filled skies above, I suppose it will help you sleep at night, but I'm not fooled.

Poverty is a mugging.

>For many millennia we were commoning, herding, living in symbiosis with game- and fruit-bearing wildernesses, etc. It's not since the enclosure of the commons that subsistence outside employment has been made, largely, illegal.

And I wouldn't in a thousand years want to have a quality of life as low as we had back then.

> For almost all of human history we have been wealthy and free.

Are we on reddit?

> Second, the companies paying these children are extracting value from their labor greater than what they are paying the child laborers.

From the article:

> He found that an hour’s labor would earn him around $1 to $2, he says, more than the national minimum wage, which was about $0.26 at the time.

The kid was probably making more than many adult workers.

Also from the article

> Platforms require that workers be over 18, but Hassan simply entered a relative’s details and used a corresponding payment method to bypass the checks—and he wasn’t alone in doing so.

The article makes it look like the platform was taking willingly taking advantage of underage labor, but it was the kid that was pretending to be an adult because, again, that was a job that was paying 2-3 times more than other regular job in that country.

> The kid was probably making more than many adult workers.

Indeed, and the “why” of that economic reality is worth thinking about.

>The rawness of the deal only becomes apparent when we start to inspect why material conditions are such that this deal... is enticing to children.

Should these children be denied this deal because their "material conditions" aren't currently ideal? How long should they have to be denied opportunities for their material conditions to be improved? Why does your interest in their material condition outweigh their interest in having a good income right now?

> Why does your interest in their material condition outweigh their interest in having a good income right now?

“Outweigh”? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

Western companies are the outlier, not the norm, the norm is poverty.

No one is extracting nothing, the western company find more value in the labeling than what they are paying, to you that value is probably 0, for the 15 year old, he finds more value in the money than in the time it takes him to label the content, to you who probably writes from a 2.5k mac that time is wasted for such low amount of money.

I wish more people from poorest countries could join the workforce of the western companies, no doubt.

Look at China, massive growth from the bottom producing for the west.

Is easy to think that what we have is the norm and that everyone should be pay like a swe in s.f, look back at history, humanity is advancing so fast.

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

Child mortality went from 27% in 1950 to 4.3% in 2020.

So please, stop with the narrative that the west is a shit system, you live better than any king who lived before the 1900.

> No one is extracting nothing

Well, this is just objectively not true.

As for the rest of your comment, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

>Third, the employers chose laborers located “predominantly … in East Africa, Venezuela, Pakistan, India, and the Philippines” for this work because that’s where they can pay the least in labor costs while still extracting value.

But that's also where some of the poorest people live! You know, the people who would benefit the most from having jobs like this.

>The reason your analysis doesn’t lead you to thinking this is a raw deal for the children involved is because in a sense, it’s not. Given the economics of their lives, this is, relatively speaking, a good deal.

It is! In the 90s senator Tom Harkin proposed the Child Labor Deterrence Act:

>According to Harkin's website, "This bill would prohibit the importation of products that have been produced by child labor, and included civil and criminal penalties for violators."

This was a bill that never got anywhere, but simply talking about it had this impact:

>In 1993 employers in Bangladesh' ready-made garment (RMG) industry dismissed 50,000 children (c. 75 percent of child workers in the textile industry) out of fear of economic reprisals of the imminent passage of the Child Labor Deterrence Act.

>UNICEF sent a team of investigators into Bangladesh to learn what came of the children who were dismissed from their factory jobs. UNICEF's 1997 State of the World's Children report confirmed that most of the children found themselves in much more deplorable situations, such as crushing stones, scavenging through trash dumps, and begging on the streets. Many of the girls eventually ended up in prostitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act

Things might be different nowadays, but people from poor countries don't have as many opportunities. Taking some away, might be taking all they have.

When the minimum wage is a quarter and a job is offering 4-8 times that AND you can do it part time, this is a great deal for the kids. Impoverished kids have plenty of free time, what they don't have is money, if you ensure they have more free time and less money you are dooming them not saving them. If you wanted to help them you would pressure OpenAI to raise the compensation, or you would just send direct aid to the children.

Unfortunately people are more motivated by optics and their sense of embarrassment than the interest of children worldwide. A lot of the people who also pass laws around this sort of stuff grew up middle-upper class at worst and simply can't understand why these children aren't spending their free time travelling around with their youth groups and sports teams and going on vacation and presume they just don't have enough time due to all this child labour.

> The rawness of the deal only becomes apparent when we start to inspect why material conditions are such that this deal — trading an hour of labor for $2 to a company serving a multi-billion-dollar market — is enticing to children.

No, it's enticing to EVERYONE. FTA:

"A friend put him on to the site, which promised work anytime, from anywhere. He found that an hour’s labor would earn him around $1 to $2, he says, more than the national minimum wage, which was about $0.26 at the time."

Also,

"At 17, most of Younis Hamdeen’s friends were waiting tables. But the Pakistani teen opted to join UHRS via Appen instead, using the platform for three or four hours a day, alongside high school, earning up to $100 a month."

And many adults are working there:

"The sharing of a single account within family units is another way minors access the work, says Posada. He found that in some Venezuelan homes, when parents cook or run errands, children log on to complete tasks."

I'm shocked, shocked that people want to earn good money from the comfort of their home!

> In other words, this article, in my analysis, is an opportunity to study and question the system that creates the conditions such that there is a labor market comprising children who are available for exploitation for cheap labor by very rich Western companies.

First, you tried to backtrack your use of "exploitation" here, which is clearly negative.

Second, these companies are HELPING the folks in these poor countries, paying them above the minimum wage (sometimes above the prevailing wage) for work which is less taxing and/or dangerous than the alternative.

Finally, these companies didn't create the system, but they've found WILLING workers (mostly adults) and are engaged in mutually beneficial exchange.

> who are available for exploitation

You just randomly threw in the word exploitation again.

They're aren't being exploited. Wages are different across the world because of cost of living & PPP.

As the article stated, a child can earn 4 times the national minimum wage. That's not exploitation. They're much better off.

Expecting every American company to pay American wages for workers in Pakistan would hurt people in Pakistan as it completely eliminates the incentive for companies to send jobs there.

> is an opportunity to study and question the system that creates the conditions such that there is a labor market comprising children who are available for exploitation for cheap labor by very rich Western companies

The reason why is because Western countries embraced market-based economies whereas India, China, South America, etc. spent decades embracing socialism/communism and threw away decades of potential growth/prosperity.

A very interesting experiment is to look at North Korea and South Korea. In the 1950s, both countries were identical. One went the market-based route and allied with the West. The other went the communist-route and allied with China.

You can also look at the "Asian Tiger Economies". Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. They all embraced market-based economies and and their economies exploded with prosperity.

There's tons of research into why some countries prosper and some don't.

“Exploitation” has (at least) two meanings: 1. treating someone unfairly for one’s own benefit 2. make use of & benefit from some resource

Are you sure this labor pool isn’t being exploited?

> “Exploitation” has (at least) two meanings: 1. treating someone unfairly for one’s own benefit 2. make use of & benefit from some resource

When you're referring to two people, then exploited always refers to definition 1.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I exploited my employee" in a context where they're referring to definition 2?

If you're talking about mineral deposits or something, then sure... you can apply definition 2. "The company exploited the ore's rich iron deposits".

Labor is a resource. That’s why the phrase “human resources” exists.

Your contention that “exploitation” can’t refer to labor is a political construction, not a rational one.

Well, my suggestion is to avoid using terms with multiple meanings in a position where it can easily be construed in a different way then you intend.

Employers are, indeed, making use of and benefiting from their employees. And vice versa. But so what? If they didn't benefit, they wouldn't bother.

> so what

Indeed, so what?

The first definition is the inherently negative common usage when applied to person-to-person or entity-to-person relationships.

Applying the second definition to the labor market would mean every worker is being exploited, because no profit-seeking corporation (or resource efficient government program) would keep a workforce that is a net loss to the organization.

> Applying the second definition to the labor market would mean every worker is being exploited

No, it means the labor side of the labor market is being exploited by capital. It means the capital side of the labor market is being exploited by labor. And yeah, that’s an accurate and correct use of “exploit.”

>The reason why is because Western countries embraced market-based economies whereas India, China, South America, etc. spent decades embracing socialism/communism and threw away decades of potential growth/prosperity.

India is one of the most neoliberal countries in the world. Meanwhile China is much further ahead. The growth that China has experienced in the past few years exceeds the total economic output of India. Enjoy writing more comments in bad faith

India spent decades under a very restrictive economic regime. That changed a lot after the big liberalization of 1991, but the official economic policies are still moderately stifling. The comment you're responding to was not made in bad faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_Ind...

Are you joking? Do you have any idea what happened to India after the British left up til the early 1990s?

Maybe read up a bit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_Ind...

India and China were equally poor 1990, India was very poor back then yeah but so was China.

After the Korean War, North Korea had significantly more industry, more natural resources and more agricultural land, as well as a larger population.