this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
-47 points (23.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43380 readers
1866 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Labor: No. Consent doesn't matter.
Doing jobs / working as a kid is perfectly alright if it contributes to their education, teaches them skills for life or helps them learn how to become an independent individual. But within limits. They also need time to grow, have fun and go to school.
Other than that, children will consensually work if the alternative is seeing their little sister starve. Help contribute to the family income or happily skip school if able. Under a certain age, children are regarded as not very wise, unable to consent and easily manipulable. For example by cruel or stupid parents.
That is why it needs to be banned to a certain (and arguable) age. Instead, the state/society needs to provide for poor children, and protect them. Sometimes even from their parents and themselves. Until they're grown enough to make their own decisions.
I'm not sure I would call that "consent." It's coercion.
It's kind of a slippery slope altogether.
If the money involved is enough to ensure they are not poor and legal protections exist, should there still be such a ban?
Adults paid minimum wage without other sources of income are poor. What you’re implying is a system that pays children a living wage that is above the current minimum wage. What employer is going to pay someone more than minimum when they are a child who will have major limitations and liabilities as an employee, and when they could potentially pay a full grown adult to do more work with less liability for less pay?
The only reality where that happens is when it is a job that a child can do more easily than a full sized adult, and that is exactly the kind of work that made child labor illegal in the first place—those little hands can sure reach deep into those factory machines, can’t they?
If these protections work 100% and the kids are for sure not being manipulated and it doesn't take away from their education... And we're sure they don't 'not know better'. I'm not sure if we'd need that ban.
Let's say you're Harry Potter. Or Hermione Granger and you're 11 yo and you have people to make sure you don't suffer from working. I'm okay with that. And I think they got paid more than minimum wage. I didn't watch the documentary so I don't know if it worked out alright for them. But starring in movies reportedly is hard work.