Apple fires Chinese supplier for using underage workers | Hacker News Reader

Apple fires Chinese supplier for using underage workers

arstechnica.com

143 pointsrkudeshi99 comments

So apparently Apple is making good on its promise to look deeper down in the supply chain. While it sucks for the workers at the plant that they're probably going to lose their jobs (shitty work is [usually] better than no work), the jobs aren't actually going away. They're just being shifted to another factory that now has the knowledge that they too could be fired for what Westerners consider egregious working conditions.

This is great, and the outcome of putting a lot of vocal and consistent pressure on Apple to behave in a less inhumane fashion. It's yet another example that well organized and vocal campaigns can result in meaningful change. They do take a while, though.

The unfortunate reality of global business is that those components will simply end up in other devices. The companies which sell the devices will just try harder to hide it from the consumer.

The pressure needs to be put not so much on Apple, as on the industry... or the practices continue pretty much unabated.

Unless Apple really does turn into a monopoly.

Since consumers have no visibility into the problem nor ability to solve the problem, I disagree that it starts with them (but it needs to get to them eventually).

Apple wields a very large, very concentrated number of dollars, which may be enough to get the ball rolling. Other higher-end electronics companies may decide that, for marketing reasons, they will only work with "Apple approved" vendors or may decide the positive press is worth approving their own.

It will be some time before the fifty-cent, crap electronics are reached, but you have to start somewhere.

> While it sucks for the workers at the plant [..]

> This is great [..]

Aren't these statements contradictory? Isn't the supposed goal to help underage workers?

Presumably, not all the workers are the plant are underage. Having compassion for those who are losing their jobs is rather human.

Getting vaccinated sucks because you have to get poked, but it's great when you don't get the flu. It's possible to suck today but lead to a better state of being.

Short term vs long term

In the long term, underage workers still can't work there and have to work somewhere else, presumably somewhere where they wouldn't work if they had the choice.

Technically in the long term the workers will age and become age appropriate and enter the workforce legally with an advantage of prior experience. Although its a fair point that there are other places, undoubtedly with less oversight where these children might be shipped off too.

First I would like to say I am not in support of underage workers, I would never be. However, if we look at the realistic situations in certain parts of the globe, especially China, sometimes it is not always such a simple situation that we allow these underage workers to work.

In some far far away frugal rural land, a family is struggling financially. Their 14 year old son was not able to go to school, neither was there enough food to be fed to him. The news hit that there's a plant that's openly hiring workers without age restriction. The seemingly insignificant pay in the western's eyes will be a huge help to the family's financial in the remote rural China. After all, it's much better to work at such places than some coal mine that severely underpays.

Depending on where you are born from, some kids are meant to grow up faster than others. Some kids just cannot afford a normal education like everybody else should. It's not a fair world and it never will be. Is it fair for the kids? No it's not, but what's their best option?

Of course, not all situations are like this, but for situations where underage workers are actually working, there is a strong trend that this may possibly be the case. After all, who in the right mind would send their child to work at such an early age is they don't have to? Who doesn't want to live a good life? Remember Li Ka-Ching? He started working at a young age of 15 at a watch shop. See where he is at today?

Once again, I am not saying that education isn't important, I believe it is. However, under so many unique circumstances, it isn't always the most viable path one goes through.

I don't support underage workers, this comment isn't meant to bring to justice to the underage worker hiring practices in China. But it just pains me to see people generalize that the goal is to 'help' underage workers. The situation isn't the same in the West, hence why we think like that. It's a well wish and a prospect to help the country though.

Then let me say that I am in support of underage workers.

The idea that preventing children to work in these factories helps the children is ill-conceived, as you pointed out. If Apple wanted to help these children, it could have required better working conditions or better pay, but not letting them work doesn't achieve the goal.

These kids won't just say "alright let's go to school then" when they can't work anymore.

Not in the case of firing the company outright but the article clearly illustrates what happens to the children these companies employ against contract terms:

>Apple requires its suppliers to return the workers back to a school chosen by the family and finance their education. "In addition, the children must continue to receive income matching what they received when they were employed. We also follow up regularly to ensure that the children remain in school and that the suppliers continue to uphold their financial commitment," wrote Apple in its latest report.

Tough luck for those children who didn't already work there.

^This sums up the situation pretty well.

Trying to do good does have unintended consequences. If pressure works, it will mean that underage workers will have one fewer avenue towards self-sustenance, or ability to help their destitute families. If I were underage I would want the option to work at a factory rather than combing the garbage dumps ofr scraps --at least there is a future on a factory floor, for the time being.

If you draw a box around labour and management and compute the relative bargaining power of each group, child labour worsens the bargaining position of labour (by increasing supply). It is in the collective interests of China's poor (children and adults alike) to see child labour ended.

What you have noticed is something completely different: it may be advantageous for an individual family to send their child to work.

Restrictions on child labour put the system out of Nash equilibrium but they perform better globally with respect to helping the poor. This paradox manifests itself in many places; I suspect, given that this is Hacker News, that you may be familiar with a few of them already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox

The critical conclusion that free markets search for nash equilibria but NOT global optima is highly relevant to fiscal philosophy and entrepreneurship.

By definition any company hiring children in China is doing it illegally. By definition any company hiring children in China and working for Apple is doing it (one hopes) in secret and without Apple's consent. Given those two premises, it's not hard to extrapolate that said company is unlikely to place a high priority on avoiding inhumane treatment of said children.

Child labor and humane treatment of workers do not go hand in hand. After all, if you are paying fair wages and have good working conditions, why would you choose to hire children instead of adults?

> After all, who in the right mind would send their child to work at such an early age is they don't have to?

Many people. You don't think any child is working because her parents ignorantly don't see any value in an education? Your view that parents are universally well-intentioned and know how to make the right choices for their children is as naive as the view that no child would be better off working than going to school. Unless you think China has the capacity to inspect every home to make an individual determination of a child's right to work, I think most of us prefer it be universally banned than universally allowed.

This isn't about a general ban of child labor but about removing one option for children to work. One could try to argue for a general ban, but that is a different issue.

What? Child labor is already generally banned in China. I just argued that giving money to a company that is secretly, illegally partaking in child labor is giving money (and therefore encouragement) to a company that is likely engaging in inhumane labor practices.

Jobs will not move to other factories, because the underage workers are still underage.

> While it sucks for the workers at the plant that they're probably going to lose their jobs...

From TFA:

    When new violations are found, Apple requires its suppliers to return the workers back to a school chosen by the family and finance their education. "In addition, the children must continue to receive income matching what they received when they were employed. We also follow up regularly to ensure that the children remain in school and that the suppliers continue to uphold their financial commitment," wrote Apple in its latest report.

I don't understand how Apple could do that if they completely fired the company. If they are still doing business with them then they could make such demands, but if they outright sacked the company why would that company continue to do what Apple tells them to?

Is the local government providing enforcement?

A contract clause withholding outstanding payments until certain conditions are met would do the trick.

I suppose such a contract would work provided the cost of fulfilling those obligations did not exceed the outstanding payment. Otherwise I would expect the company to just cut their loses.

It may not be perfect (which country's is?), but China has a justice system. A court case with Apple's weight (and money) behind it probably would be reasonably succesful in China.

Yeah, local government enforcement is the most likely way I can see this being effectively enforced.

Looks like that applies to _new_ violations, with new contractors and new contracts I assume.

That requirement was for the multiple contractors whom they found had unintentionally rather than deliberately hired underage workers, and was a condition of retaining Apple business. This was in addition to required training in how to avoid hiring underage workers, and establishing procedures to avoid this.

Wait...what? The outcome of vocal pressure on Apple to change? There were definitely people pushing for better visibility of the human costs of the electronics industry, but aren't we being a bit circle jerky here? Well-orgaznied and vocal campaigns? I don't know what you're talking about, but suffice it to say I'm not sure this can't be mostly attributed to Tim Cook's increased focus on supply chain and manufacturing and the human consequences thereof.

Ultimately, there's clearly a net positive here: less violations of clear human rights concerns in Chinese factories. I think everyone can agree, that's a good thing. But I can't help but be worried about this notion that this is some massive "win" for a campaign pressuring Apple. This is a problem with the entire industry, and one that needs to be solved. Maybe it's a symptom of being the world's largest company, but too many hugely critical issues to geekdom (patent reform, the costs of cheap mfr labor, etc) get oversimplified in comments like the above into some postured for / against Apple and completely miss the point. It's intellectually cheap and really just getting old and preventing a lot of real good work from getting done...

I don't think it's a win. These underage workers likely weren't doing it against their will. So really we just fired a bunch of poor people, because we think they are too young to work... Win!

Do we really think these underage workers are going to go home and play Xbox, or go to school?

So I'll be the guy to ask it: What's the problem with underage workers? As long as it's voluntary, the conditions are okay and the pay is fair, who does it hurt?

Some societies don't have the luxury of an idle childhood. I don't feel right telling some family the choices they make in the face of extreme poverty or starvation might offend my first world sensibilities, so therefore they shouldn't get to make that choice.

Should we work at fixing the root problems which drive children to work? Yes. Should we fire them and let them starve in the mean time? I don't think so.

I'm happy about the education and guaranteed income that Apple is demanding, because it looks like they're trying to fix the actual problem, rather than just playing a PR game and kicking kids out on the streets.

I suspect the main issue is that the kind of people that forge documents to get children into a job may also be the kind of people that wouldn't worry about fair work conditions or fair pay.

Beyond that, slavery/human trafficking is likely a part of the problem. Sadly, Apple moving elsewhere will unlikely improve the lives of those left behind. The underage workers will just have to get a different job, which probably isn't as good.

From the article:

"When new violations are found, Apple requires its suppliers to return the workers back to a school chosen by the family and finance their education. "In addition, the children must continue to receive income matching what they received when they were employed. We also follow up regularly to ensure that the children remain in school and that the suppliers continue to uphold their financial commitment," wrote Apple in its latest report."

That's all fine for the handful of children involved here. The obvious plan is to deter further violations by firing the underage workers before they get caught, or not hiring them in the first place.

The issue comes down to the legal and moral definition of consent.

How old must a child be until they are wholly fit to make their own decisions? How do you define public policy around this, written to incorporate the whole of the public and not just the outliers? It is absolutely impossible to try to give special exceptions on such a large scale. This leads states to define a minimum age at which a child can give full consent and be legally bound to contracts.

We send children to school without their consent.

In fact, we force parents to send children to school without their consent.

We compel education. We don't mandate sending children to school.

This can be argued to be morally unethical, although some people don't see it that way, but that has more to do with how people view children both as people and property.

Children of any age are legally able to work on farms owned or operated by their parents, which would disagree with your premise. If parents are able to legally assume consent for their children to work on the farm, they would be able to consent for all employment opportunities.

For what it is worth, working on the farm as a youngster brings some of my fondest memories of childhood. I find it rather sad that people outside of the agriculture communities do not have similar opportunities until they grow older.

I think to be more accurate, you mean to say that since children can't consent, who will consent on their behalf? A freely elected government generally does, since the state protects children in the same way it protects the mentally handicapped.

States don't just define a minimum age of consent. They consent on behalf of children. In that sense, we can compel them to go to school "without their consent," so to speak, because the state is the only institution that can really legitimately claim to consent on their behalf.

The state has stronger claims over children in some cases than their parents do.

>> What's the problem with underage workers? CO: They are underage.

>> As long as it's voluntary, the conditions are okay and the pay is fair, who does it hurt?

CO: They are underage. They can overestimate short-running goals over theirs long-running goals: better education, better health.

>>Should we work at fixing the root problems which drive children to work? Yes. Should we fire them and let them starve in the mean time?

As I understood, Apple doing exactly as you said. They are not just firing them, Apple guarantee their income wo work.

Can you propose the better way than Apple chose?

(excuse me for my Runglish)

I mentioned in my comment that Apple was doing the right thing here.

What's "CO" mean?

I supposed that "Captain Obvious" is international meme.

I think that you answered most of your questions yourself.

No offence: maybe you are ultimate libertarian or maybe you just do not have children.

I think that Apple doing right thing, maybe it's not enough ... but I can't propose something better.

Apple requires its business partners to continue paying underage workers while they go to school. In this case, the company is no longer a business partner. Therefore, it would seem that the children aren't going to get paid.

Fourth paragraph of the article:

>>As a result, Apple terminated its relationship with PZ and reported the labor agency (Shemzen Quanshun Human Resources) to the provincial governments of Shenzen and Henan. "The agency had its business license suspended and was fined. The children were returned to their families, and PZ was required to pay expenses to facilitate their successful return," wrote Apple. "In addition, the company that subcontracted its work to PZ was prompted by our findings to audit its other subcontractors for underage labor violations—proving that one discovery can have far-reaching impact."

Remember, this company is breaking Chinese labor law. And committing fraud, to boot.

To me, it sounds like your quote is simply saying that the companies were legally obligated to pay the travel expenses for returning the kids to their families.

Perhaps I'm missing something. I hope that the kids are being cared for after they go home, but my understanding from reading the article was that it was just a requirement Apple imposed on it's business partners. If Apple terminates the contract, why would the companies still have to pay the children's salaries?

Maybe I understood incorrectly, but Apple will pay children their fee.

>Some societies don't have the luxury of an idle childhood.

I don't bother arguing this point because pretty much anyone who hasn't taken part in nor witnessed this won't be able to comprehend. For whatever reason, it's assumed de facto that child labor is bad.

It took the great depression to restrict child labor in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United_...

The problem with underage workers is:

1) Education is a right which far too many people miss out on

2) Children's bodies and brains are still forming and so making them repeat actions many times per day is intrinsically harmful and the lack of mental development is similarly harmful

3) Children in factory jobs removes opportunities for adults to do the same jobs.

4) The pay is rarely "fair"; the conditions are rarely "okay".

You're right that it's better that children earn a bit of cash to help with family bills. But that would be better done by paying the parents a fair wage.

You're right that children shouldn't have to work. But in the situations where they do anyway, it serves them better to fix the underlying problem -- poverty -- than to fire them and send them right back to the conditions they tried to escape. Because when legal means of earning money aren't available, what's left but gangs, robbery, drugs and prostitution?

Again, I'm not talking about kids who are forced into work, aka slaves. I'm also not trying to implicate Apple here. It seems like they're doing the right thing by educating the underage workers and guaranteeing them their previous income.

You're right - children tend to work because they need to work, not for fun or to get a bit of cash for nonsense.

But that's why it's important to have strict laws. Desperate people are easy to exploit.

I guess it's better that they're exploited in a clean factory rather than sold to be indentured slaves or worse.

In a society with significant child labor, it's not clear to me how "just pay the parents more" is a serious response. When significant child labor exists, it does so for a reason.

Given that parents would probably prefer their kids get an education instead of working, it's not clear to me that depriving them of the option to work in a factory will result in the child going to school. In all likelihood, the child will continue to work, albeit at their next-best (perhaps illicit) option; their best option (via revealed preference) having been removed by enlightened westerners who don't have to face the same constrained set of choices.

Let's look, amorally, at why China has a serious interest in not having child labor.

1. It cheapens their labor, and trades an adult's job for a child. Most of the money for the jobs with potential child labor is coming from out of the country; why not soak them for a few more Yuan per person?

2. It upsets their primary business partners and reinforces the "China regularly violates human rights" stereotype that the West uses as a cudgel.

3. It trades a worker's future gains for much less siginificant short-term gains. China wants more highly-skilled jobs for its young people. It wants more Chinese luxury goods, and wants them sold the world 'round. Every child working in a factor is another child that isn't getting the education to make China a bigger world power and take the reins of a given industry.

All of which is irrelevant to the fact that the best option for many children (again, revealed preference) is to work, and depriving them of that option is likely to lead to a net worse condition.

But to your point, I'm quite certain that "China" would prefer to have an economy sufficiently productive and wealthy that child labor is no longer a choice parents feel they need to make. Banning the effect does not change the cause.

"When significant child labor exists, it does so for a reason."

The reason is that it is in the interest of wealthy factory owners to keep the cost of labor as low as possible, just like when child labor was prevalent in the United States.

Lower costs explain why child labor is in demand, but says nothing about supply, namely why parents send their children off to work in a factory, something parents in productive, wealthy economies are unlikely to do.

Which is why it's important to give parents a working wage.

Part of that is strict laws about child labour, to avoid factory owners exploiting poor people. Creating a level field makes it easier for ethical employers to follow their ethics.

It would be nice if some of the premium paid for some products in the west was used to pay poor workers better, or used for health and educational projects.

You might want to look into why it was possible for child labor to end, as well. Every economy that has transitioned from rural/agricultural to urban/industrial has gone through a period of "exploitative" labor practices. I'm not sure it's necessarily inevitable, but it seems to be the norm.

How is this different from children learning programming or a musical instrument early?

Do we really have to re-argue child labor laws. Should we be allowed to pollute their country because they are struggling? If they want to exploit their children let their companies do it, we already had that battle and made our decision.

How about we not exploit their children or their adults? But of course, that will drive up the end cost of goods, which in turn hits everyones wallet directly and so everyone starts complaining. It's just easier to turn a blind eye and ignorance is bliss.

I agree with the OP. I am originally from a 3rd world country (one of the poorest in the world) but had the fortune that my father managed to emigrate to a western country. It's no good reading about it in a book or newspaper, that stuff from Slumdog Millionaire does actually happen.

When your next worry is where your next meal is going to come from you really don't care about child labor laws, education or better health. If you can't afford food, it's unlikely you can afford the other two. It seriously is a case of bringing in food for the whole family for some of these people.

I understand your argument more than you suppose, but the reality is we already have made these laws. Until developing countries reach that level it is best that all the profits from such activity stay in that country, speeding their rise to parity.

Edit: This may be too idealistic because Samsung and others seem to get a free pass, but no American company is going to get away with child labor regardless of how bad other countries companies are behaving, I have no problem with that fact. Let lesser countries take the low road.

I agree it's idealistic, but as you say it's something we should be aiming for. Unfortunately the only way that will happen is if people make a conscience decision and talk with their wallet; whether it is Apple, Samsung or Starbucks etc.

Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier goes into this, among other things, in the context of 1930s England. I don't know how much the situation in China is similar:

http://www.george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/6.html

  The time was when I used to lament over quite imaginary pictures 
  of lads of fourteen dragged protesting from their lessons and set to work 
  at dismal jobs. It seemed to me dreadful that the doom of a 'job' should 
  descend upon anyone at fourteen. Of course I know now that there is not one 
  working-class boy in a thousand who does not pine for the day when he will 
  leave school. He wants to be doing real work, not wasting his time on 
  ridiculous rubbish like history and geography. To the working class, the 
  notion of staying at school till you are nearly grown-up seems merely 
  contemptible and unmanly. The idea of a great big boy of eighteen, who 
  ought to be bringing a pound a week home to his parents, going to school in 
  a ridiculous uniform and even being caned for not doing his lessons! Just 
  fancy a working-class boy of eighteen allowing himself to be caned! He is a 
  man when the other is still a baby. Ernest Pontifex, in Samuel Butler's Way 
  of All Flesh, after he had had a few glimpses of real life, looked back on 
  his public school and university education and found it a 'sickly, 
  debilitating debauch'. There is much in middle-class life that looks sickly 
  and debilitating when you see it from a working-class angle.

Should we work at fixing the root problems which drive children to work? Yes. Should we fire them and let them starve in the mean time? I don't think so.

Most contemporary political philosophers disagree with the "who does it hurt" theory pretty simply: it hurts adults. What factory wouldn't prefer a pliant, cheaper, healthier 16 year old to a demanding, hungrier, ornery adult? There are lots of unemployed adults.

This is a tough problem to solve. Doesnt this provide HUGE incentive to underage workers to try to get a job and then get caught?

the law of unintended consequences of the perverse incentive kind

Yes, I would argue that the children already had an incentive to work. Now the supplier, assuming the supplier pays for all this, has a strong incentive not to let them work.

isn't also a disincentive to employers to hire children?

Definitely, but fake documents are easily acquired and employment agencies are very sketchy in the export zones. So fraud exists, and I'm sure apple doesn't make the distinction between intentional and accidental violations.

It's a brilliant solution - it's a lottery ticket for everyone who slips through their suppliers' defenses.

Either someone does or does not have official and legitimate paperwork saying they're an adult, and they're tall enough and developed enough that it's most likely true, or don't hire them.

When the law catches up it will just be illegal and the consequences will be much harsher I'm sure.

What is interesting to me is that I don't seem to hear anything about this where other companies are concerned. Is it a case of me not noticing or is Apple being singled out?

Any time Apple does anything it pretty much gets reported. I imagine most other major companies don't care or their supply chains are ignored by the average person. For example, do you know where your television was made, by what suppliers, and how old they were? Me either.

Until Apple starts to make televisions. Then that factory where your telly was made turns into "Apples factory" and every minor problem there ends up in NY Times first page. Every time.

Apple gets more attention because of their size, but Samsung has recently caught some notice on these labor issues[1].

[1]: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/14/3767272/samsung-htns-supp...

So, will any media outlet actually do the digging and find out which companies still do business with Guangdong Real Faith Pingzhou Electronics Co?

According to their website, the are TDK's largest subcontractor[1]. They are also big suppliers of LED lights (through a different subsidiary).

1. http://www.gd-realfaith.com/en/displayproduct.html?proID=100...

Seems to be a 'small' (<1000 employees) LED manufacturer.

http://www.gd-realfaith.com/en/displayproduct.html?proID=100...

> Pingzhou electron becomes the largest global sub-contractor of TDK who is the world-famous electronic industry brand

As much as I google I can't find any more names. I searched by the company and CEO name (Chunxiao Jin) but TDK's the only name mentioned... it must be and old document because when Asian suppliers work with Apple they tend to brag/tell everyone, If Apple allows them I think.

So after 1 day of articles, barredo and SoftwareMaven did more investigative reporting than actual news outlets.

I am glad that Apple is making progress here, and I find it sad that this is not being done by the Chinese government.

That news should make $AAPL drop by 5%. </sarcasm>

There's only positive things that can come out of this. A business leader taking it's leading position to put pressure on business that violates human rights.

If you missed it, I recommend listening to the following American Life episodes in consideration on the light shed by this news: 454: Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/m... 460: Retraction http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/r...

Apple, which has the highest profit margins, is on a crusade to make labor less cheap, thus lowering profit margins for everybody, which will hurt their low margin competitors much more than themselves.

I'm not saying that's their only reason but let's be careful applauding their altruism and ignoring the business merits of their policy.

BTW, also, if some Apple competitors can only exist because of the temporary cheap labor pool (one day China, India, etc will modernize a lot more. maybe it will take 50 years but it is temporary), then maybe that says something interesting about their businesses.

It takes a highly developed sense of cynicism to see a transparent effort to curb child labor as an attempt to hurt their competitors.

Furthermore, Apple has publicly committed to bringing more manufacturing to the US, which isn't exactly pool of cheap labor.

There are plenty of Apple's business practices worth criticizing. Making a forthright attempt to end child labor in the third world is not one of them.

Now those kids will starve :(

I think this apply to those that remain selling to apple.

The children on the component maker that were dumped, are screwed,

Crap, didn't see that. Though, I also partially doubt they would actually enforce that rule.

No, they will just make crappy Android phones.

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=apple+reduces+orders

</Unbridled Cynicism>

Let's not all sit here on our laptops, in our comfortable lives and try to understand the political complexities of societies where underage labour is common place.

Let's not pretend to understand, and let's not pretend that we all have some high moral duty to "protect" these children.

But, while you sip you tripple tall americano while reading forbes magazine pretending to be an expert on poverty and politics take a second to think a 12 year old boy who just lost his families only source of income, only source of food, and only source of life. These people live in a society where the cost of your fucking americano goes a long way.

So stop pretending. Because you have no fucking idea.

Along the way, your comment went from the collective "we"/"our" to "you". So I have to ask, do you have any idea?

No, and I don't pretend to. Unlike too many in this thread.

No one here can have any idea what those poor people are going through.

Very sound reasoning. By the very same reasoning, the debate about whether to abolish slavery (in the US) should still be in full rage. After all, who could definitely predict whether those poor people would be able to survive without their masters providing them food and shelter and protecting them from the harsh reality (with hardly a benefit for themselves)?

But I'm sure you will be able to demonstrate why this is not an appropriate analogy.

Enslaving people because of their race in a country that was otherwise prosperous, and hiring children in an economy and society where any thing else is nearly impossible are two entirely different things.

Slavery was the primary economic engine for a long, long time in US and its originating colonies and it was a primary reason for the economic prosperity and viability of colonies.

I agree with you that they are not the same, but both political and social wrongs that can and should be addressed (yes slavery still exists in the US, both de facto and actual i.e. human trafficking).

I found myself thinking of this essay by Mike Turitzin as I read your post:

http://www.miketuritzin.com/writing/how-to-be-a-naysayer/

It's clear, concise, and well worth consideration.

Regardless of what type of coffee people drink or how they drink it, what is the best way to understand the short and long term impacts of child labor on quality of life?

A researcher looking at working conditions alone, without considering whether the alternate is worse conditions on a rural farm or some form of schooling is a sloppy researcher. It is a sloppy researcher, too, who doesn't acknowledge that labor-intensive production is a source of wealth that aids economic convergence for poorer countries.

The perspective of children living in poverty informs a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of child labor and growth economics, but it is not the final word, nor is the child remotely likely to provide any better policy guidance than someone who has the training and tools for sophisticated analysis.

Is squeamishness and moral indignation a blunt tool? Much as children can be easily compelled to act against their own economic self interest, squeamishness can lead adults to act counter-productively in pursuit of their loftiest ideals. That doesn't mean that people should just throw up their hands in despair, or defer to the idea that whatever factors lead to current conditions must be ideal factors.

These aren't new topics, and there is no shortage of research and findings on when, why, or how different types of labor are a benefit or detriment to poor economies:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=economic+growth+%22child...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com