Our Newest Developer Is Ten Years Old
tech.osper.io
tech.osper.io
Whether Squirrel is a satire on Silicon Valley is, i believe, an open question.
i'm not sure which one is more rare these days.
It's the letter of the law, not the spirit, that we have to worry about.
...What? It's manslaughter, wtf are you talking about?
There are universals, for the times when there is not, you MUST recognize that by forcing them you ONLY cause harm. There's no arguing that.
Second, "sweatshops" in the derogatory sense only exist in socialist countries where families are starving to death trying to support the government. If kids didn't work, they wouldn't have food. You know very well they and their parents would prefer that school be an option.
Third, the work that these companies provide are NOT inherently wrong. Making clothes? Sounds like a good skill to me. Don't base your "opinions" on some dark imagery you've developed in your head.
Speed limits are for people, not cars.
The unfortunate thing here is that even if most people are willing and able to say no to abusive employment practices, it only takes a few underinformed/underrepresented/broke people to create systemic issues. These are exactly the sort of situations we really do need statutory protection for.
Laws on everything you listed reduce opportunity and all cause problems with unemployment. Yet, you've avoided the entire issue by saying, "Well... dumb minority poor people!" Let's ignore the fact that these are the people most harmed by "statutory protection" for a second and address the issue of superiority.
You're telling me that your ideas must be enacted across the entire nation because you think dumb, minority, poor people all need your protection. They can't possibly work things out for themselves or seek help from friends, family and local communities to solve individual issues. Instead, you're going to blanket the whole thing and not harm a single person? How wrong you are.
I certainly wouldn't limit my points to minorities, though the reality of our current society is that the lingering effects of institutional racism means poverty is usually concentrated in communities of color.
The problem with expecting folks to "work things out for themselves" is the extreme asymmetry of information in labor markets. It's far too easy for a single capitalist to take extreme advantage of those in poverty, and far too hard for workers, even when banding together to collectively negotiate, to compensate for that.
The thing is, when you expect people to just "work things out for themselves" it pretty much always ends up favoring those already in positions of power, namely wealthy white males.
I've never ever heard of a "single capitalist" taking advantage of an entire race. You sound like a Marxist when you say that. OED has a fine definition of capitalism that will help you out here. You can't possibly know what a capitalist is by suggesting such a thing.
When someone makes a choice to take a lower wage, it's usually because they can't get anything better. Guess what? Capitalism implies (and I really do mean implies) competition. The minimum wage (originally lobbied for by white unions) means companies are restricted to hiring only those who can produce more than that minimum. For the "stupid poor minority" you're so hell bent on "protecting", this means making it far harder to gain experience and work their way to the middle class. (You know, like immigrants used to do.) Instead, they're paid not to work via welfare programs (meant to make things "easier" right?) and not allowed to work off the books while living off of others.
Also, you're going to have to say it again if you seriously want to stick to the point that unions have no bargaining power. If this is the case I'll be less "strong" (lol) and we'll do this at a lower level. I'll write you up a whole 10 page step-by-step paper on all of the opportunity cost losses that you'd create if, theoretically, you were in charge of the economy. Hell, if you are indeed a Marxist or even socialist I'd be happy to give you the "See Spot Run" version of what subjective value and economic calculation is.
2. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Marxist (despite an obvious misunderstanding of economics).
3. From 1 and 2, it is only your politically correct / conversationally damaging standoffishness that creates your perception of "heated". This explains a lot really. You're more worried about being inoffensive than right, which is exactly why you've chosen the path you've chosen. Ignoring facts and complaining about nonexistent "strong and heated" words. This isn't a good way to learn anything.
There is literally no difference. Your concentration on this is just a way for you to tuck your tail between your legs without running. You're wrong, so you concentrate on what you think is "controversial" and pick out semantics so you don't have to confront your own ignorance.
An underinformed person could get informed, a dumb person maybe not. There are far more underrepresented groups than just minorities, so equating the two is simply ignoring critical facts about the world. And though broke and poor are pretty close to being synonyms, there is still a distinction: broke implies a temporary state.
One day you'll learn that the world is more nuanced than your absolutism would have. Perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion then. For now I'm done feeding the trolls.
He's gonna be able to do this kind of work for decades starting in his twenties. What he won't be able to do his reclaim his lost childhood years.
Actually this is only legal if the child is voluntarily contributing. Which means, of course, than instead of child labor you should let the kids contribute to open source projects and run their own business.
If the kid is running their own business then I don't think it's considered child labor. Although IANAL. So, you see, lemonade stands may still be legal in this country :-P
I'm sure there are plenty of situations where children can conceivably work in a positive, safe manner. This looks to be one of them. It is generally illegal, though, because leaving it as a judgement call between employer and child opens a lot of holes in the system.