Hacker News Reader

Comment by drcube | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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?

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.

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.

>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_...

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com