Btw. When child labor laws were passed, many people felt that the government should not intervene in their children’s lives. Parents wanted their very young children to work 10-12 hours in the mines and factories to help support them.
Btw. When child labor laws were passed, many people felt that the government should not intervene in their children’s lives. Parents wanted their very young children to work 10-12 hours in the mines and factories to help support them.
Of course they thought that, children contributed income to the household and they had to find a way to replace that somehow 😕 The idea was good but as always with the government, implementation was flawed. I wonder how many children subsequently went hungry because their income was suddenly missing from the household? A transition period to allow households to adjust m, or some other way to ease into it, would have been a better idea, but I am sure the people patting themselves on the back for “saving the children” didn’t ever consider that.
OMG 😳 please look at some of those pictures (search child labor) of children in mines and factories.
BTW wouldn’t the churches have fed the hungry children? Surely they wouldn’t let children starve. People say we don’t need government lunches because wonderful church people will feed them. Those 7 year-old children forced to work 10+ hours, 6 days a week, couldn’t have possibly have gone hungry with so many good samaritans in nearby churches to help them.
A society that doesn’t protect and provide for its children doesn’t have (or deserve) much of a future.
What does that have to do with what I said?? Did I say I thought they should be working like that? Why is it that you just react emotionally to those pictures (which I do as well, they’re heartbreaking) but refuse to acknowledge the reality of people’s lives that their children contributed to household income? Stating that truth does not mean I think child labor was a *good* thing. How do you think the parents made up for that income once it was taken away, I ask you again? Maybe the churches did feed them. But then again, do you think churches were equipped to handle a sudden massive influx of hungry people that weren’t there before?? I’m sure they weren’t. You can’t just wave a magic wand and suddenly find a way to provide for large numbers of hungry people. I’m sorry, that’s just completely unrealistic. That’s why I said a transition period would’ve been helpful. This idea of sudden revolutionary change is never not fraught with all kinds of unintended consequences, because no one ever thinks that far ahead since they’re too busy crowing about how wonderful they are for supposedly solving a problem. The virtue signaling and emotion-driven decisions that have not been well thought out inevitably carry with them all kinds of issues downstream that sometimes can be as bad as or worse than the initial problem.
“ That’s why I said a transition period would’ve been helpful” My “emotions” would kept me from allowing any child to enter a factory or mine to work ever again. There would have been no transition period. I thank God for that.
I guess the short in-a-nutshell summary is, your statement simply confirms that you have zero cares about what happens to the children and their families once the children are banned from working, as long as *you* can feel good about *yourself*. It’s not actually about *their* well-being at all.
That’s a harsh statement, but I guess I see the same in you -that you could care less about children. Many died or were permanently injured in factories or mines. Obviously, the children and families survived just fine. How many of those dads used the kid’s money for alcohol? That was a big problem. Just because the kid earned the money doesn’t mean it was used for the family.
Also, my viewpoint has nothing to do with my “feeling good about myself” and everything to do with stopping the exploitation of children. I’m ending any further dialogue on this topic with you. There are other things we can discuss someday, but this conversation must stop now. Thank you in advance for not replying again.
You have no idea what you would or would not have done had you lived in those times. We all like to believe we’d have acted in a certain way but society helps shape our expectations and our perceptions. There’s no guarantee and you certainly have no way to prove that. It’s just speculation.
And it’s great that you see yourself as disallowing them from working in those conditions but again, what good is that if the child ends up starving? My objection is not to banning child labor of this sort but as usual, the government and the do-gooders have NO plan or provision for the consequences of their decrees. It’s all about preening over their virtuous actions and not bothering their heads about what negative effects might ensue even from a positive action. It’s about appearances and not reality. It’s always about telling themselves and the world what good people they are, regardless of the real life outcomes and downstream effects.
Btw. When child labor laws were passed, many people felt that the government should not intervene in their children’s lives. Parents wanted their very young children to work 10-12 hours in the mines and factories to help support them.
Of course they thought that, children contributed income to the household and they had to find a way to replace that somehow 😕 The idea was good but as always with the government, implementation was flawed. I wonder how many children subsequently went hungry because their income was suddenly missing from the household? A transition period to allow households to adjust m, or some other way to ease into it, would have been a better idea, but I am sure the people patting themselves on the back for “saving the children” didn’t ever consider that.
OMG 😳 please look at some of those pictures (search child labor) of children in mines and factories.
BTW wouldn’t the churches have fed the hungry children? Surely they wouldn’t let children starve. People say we don’t need government lunches because wonderful church people will feed them. Those 7 year-old children forced to work 10+ hours, 6 days a week, couldn’t have possibly have gone hungry with so many good samaritans in nearby churches to help them.
A society that doesn’t protect and provide for its children doesn’t have (or deserve) much of a future.
What does that have to do with what I said?? Did I say I thought they should be working like that? Why is it that you just react emotionally to those pictures (which I do as well, they’re heartbreaking) but refuse to acknowledge the reality of people’s lives that their children contributed to household income? Stating that truth does not mean I think child labor was a *good* thing. How do you think the parents made up for that income once it was taken away, I ask you again? Maybe the churches did feed them. But then again, do you think churches were equipped to handle a sudden massive influx of hungry people that weren’t there before?? I’m sure they weren’t. You can’t just wave a magic wand and suddenly find a way to provide for large numbers of hungry people. I’m sorry, that’s just completely unrealistic. That’s why I said a transition period would’ve been helpful. This idea of sudden revolutionary change is never not fraught with all kinds of unintended consequences, because no one ever thinks that far ahead since they’re too busy crowing about how wonderful they are for supposedly solving a problem. The virtue signaling and emotion-driven decisions that have not been well thought out inevitably carry with them all kinds of issues downstream that sometimes can be as bad as or worse than the initial problem.
“ That’s why I said a transition period would’ve been helpful” My “emotions” would kept me from allowing any child to enter a factory or mine to work ever again. There would have been no transition period. I thank God for that.
I guess the short in-a-nutshell summary is, your statement simply confirms that you have zero cares about what happens to the children and their families once the children are banned from working, as long as *you* can feel good about *yourself*. It’s not actually about *their* well-being at all.
That’s a harsh statement, but I guess I see the same in you -that you could care less about children. Many died or were permanently injured in factories or mines. Obviously, the children and families survived just fine. How many of those dads used the kid’s money for alcohol? That was a big problem. Just because the kid earned the money doesn’t mean it was used for the family.
Also, my viewpoint has nothing to do with my “feeling good about myself” and everything to do with stopping the exploitation of children. I’m ending any further dialogue on this topic with you. There are other things we can discuss someday, but this conversation must stop now. Thank you in advance for not replying again.
You have no idea what you would or would not have done had you lived in those times. We all like to believe we’d have acted in a certain way but society helps shape our expectations and our perceptions. There’s no guarantee and you certainly have no way to prove that. It’s just speculation.
And it’s great that you see yourself as disallowing them from working in those conditions but again, what good is that if the child ends up starving? My objection is not to banning child labor of this sort but as usual, the government and the do-gooders have NO plan or provision for the consequences of their decrees. It’s all about preening over their virtuous actions and not bothering their heads about what negative effects might ensue even from a positive action. It’s about appearances and not reality. It’s always about telling themselves and the world what good people they are, regardless of the real life outcomes and downstream effects.