Do you think western manufacturing workers have a right to their relatively luxurious lifestyle even if maintaining those jobs in the west doom countless millions in developing countries to a life of hard to imagine levels of deprivation, struggle and pain?

Come on, this is ridiculous. The cost savings are based primarily on a dramatically lower cost of living, differences in exchange rates, etc. If I can hire someone in NYC for $125 / hr or hire someone in Arkansas for $50 / hr and the Arkansas guy has a higher standard of living in Arkansas, how am I exploiting him? It's no different on an international level.

But the ethical evaluation of labor practices is not as simple evaluating an improvement in standard of living. There is a line that can be crossed - the line certainly isn't crossed in your NYC vs. Arkansas example, but it /can/ be crossed (min age, min wage, max hours, safety, etc.).

I've spent time in poor countries. It's not that simple.

Though I agree that it's a bad thing for Americans that manufacturing is happening less in the States.

For the family of that child, it's a disaster. For the Chinese economy, it's one less cheaper worker to drive the engine of progress. If the child find any job at all, it may be prostitution, scrapping metals, and other much more less savory work. He may be lucky to find a higher paying job for his family.

Now, it's perfectly in the right of Apple(Or the CEO officiating the policy) to do this, as they have the right to dictate whatever voluntary contracts to their suppliers. They may have even seen the temporary profit margin loss as a win in the long run.

But where is the moral justification for banning child labor, and a voluntary one at that?

Everyone who is from the first world country and who has never visited a third world country should stop talking about child labor. Now. Just stop it. It's very easy to bash child labor but do you know why the child labor exists in first place? Do you think parents of those child have any other alternatives? For their parents, it's a choice between living another day or dieing of hunger. For them, the so called 'abusive' work condition is the only option to survive.

To give a little personal perspective, let me tell you my story. I am from India. And when I was 10 years old (in 1990), my mom took up some side work to support us. She would do it 7 days a week and I would do it in evenings and full day on Sunday. We did it not for food but to make sure that me and my sisters could go to school and get the books we need. It was back breaking work but it was worth for me and my family. I was lucky enough that I worked so that I can go to school. Few of my other cousins were not that lucky. They had to work so that they can eat in evening. Because of my education, I have been successful and have been living in USA for last 5 years. Those poor cousins are now grown up and doing an average job but they are doing everything possible to send their kids to school. I am sure their next generation will be much much better off.

Before you decry child labor next time, ask yourself, what's the alternative for the child? Are you going to provide that alternative? If not, you are taking away the only viable choice from that child. Please don't do that.

For more thoughts, read this: http://cafehayek.com/2005/07/postrel_on_edmo.html

Someone has to do jobs requiring no skill or education, By enforcing an anti-child labor law you are just removing the natural head start those people would have in life (by working and acquiring experience) against those who go to schools and colleges.

People who grow up on farms are almost always out of the application of anti-child labor laws, and its important for them to do so, and because of this agriculture remains a profession passed on from generation to generation.

The point is with gradual prosperity less and less kids work in dangerous menial jobs, its not the child labor laws which have prevented kids from working, but the parents have stopped sending their kids to work because its not needed anymore.

About break the laws of those nations, well honestly speaking my own observation is that American companies follow the most amount of laws in these countries than any other individual or domestic corporation, this really does increase their costs more than how a domestic corporation would produce the same thing(by breaking the stupid laws and bribing govt officials), but American corporations don't care because they aren't really producing for domestic markets, they are producing for American markets where people can pay the slightly higher cost.

"Apple discovered three facilities that had previously hired 15-year-old workers in countries where the minimum age for employment is 16."

Hiring 15 year olds was illegal in these countries. The "Western point of view" had nothing to do with it.

Also, that issue isn't really related to the core child labor morality debate.

So since you've argued that a fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, then by parity of reasoning...

And the next thing you know, we have nine year old kids in factories and William Blake rolling over in his grave.

China sets an absolute minimum age of 16, and mandated special working conditions for workers between 16 and 18. This allows for a sort of "sliding scale" for that transition period between childhood and adulthood. And I think that saying, "we don't want any workers younger than X years old" is legitimate policy.

It's also a lot easier to enforce an absolute minimum age as opposed to special working conditions.

I said, I think a minimum age is a good solution, as long as there are ways for businesses to hire underage gifted children. This would prevent bullshit like "Even though you're an amazing programmer and we want to hire you and this job could be the best thing to ever happen to you, we can't hire you because you're fifteen, not sixteen. Also once you reach sixteen, this opportunity won't be here anymore."

I say all of this because I WAS in that position (I was 17) and I almost lost out on a very awesome graphics programming job in the game industry just because I couldn't legally sign an NDA. Thankfully it worked out, but it was a really unpleasant thing to see this awesome opportunity slipping away for reasons completely beyond my control. Don't you think that's a valid concern?

Also, it sounds like an awesome thing to offer a gifted six year old a cool internship (one hour per day) at a factory with a safe working environment. This would give the six year old a sweet story to tell, and could easily net him a job later.

That is utterly bizarre. I am assuming you don't know any six year olds. The part about "...could easily net him a job later" made me burst out laughing. Imagine what kind of person would put "1 hour per week factory internship at age 6" on a resume. I am still laughing. Good one, if this was a joke. However, from the context of your other posts, I fear you are serious.

But yeah, six is more than a bit of a stretch. I just think the minimum age should be decided on a case by case basis by the company and the parents, based entirely on the context of the situation.

You see my point, I hope?

Let's call what you're saying to be a "soft" minimum age instead of a "hard" one. Then China has a "soft" minimum age of 18, and a "hard" minimum age of 16. Do you think this system is "silly"?

If so, and you think there should be no "soft" minimum age of 16, then you really are saying that there should be no minimum age, just strong labour laws. Even 3-year-olds can be hired to work at Apple's factories, as long as they're given appropriate protection.

If you don't have a problem with it, then I really don't see what your issue is in the first place.

Suppose we're talking about a really poor country here. Maybe every child is going to be working at a young age, and it'll just be an expected item on the resumé.

Also, the kid might have better future prospects getting a factory job, but he won't realize his full potential because his family needed him to work as a child. Had he stayed in school and focused on his studies instead of taking that factory job, a high school diploma would have afforded him a better future than that factory job. He, and society as a whole, would have been better off for it (provided there is a market for jobs better than factory work).

If you still don't see my point then we'll just agree to disagree.

What I think we can both agree on is this: selfish parents are a problem, and should not be allowed to put their children at risk. However based on my experience I feel restrictions need to be treated with care, so as not to deny opportunities that make a lot of sense.

Huh? Your situation isn't about child labor at all. You weren't able to sign the NDA because you were still considered a minor, but you were legally able to work. Please do not misrepresent your situation as having anything to do with child labor laws.

Also, tone down the pompusness and chill out, eh? I've been very pleasant throughout this whole thing, I think, and I don't appreciate being told what to do.

Your reasoning is broken. You might as well say that statutory rape laws are really 'child labor' laws because they prevent children from becoming sex workers.

In general, hard restrictions are dangerous unless there are ways to circumvent them for the rare situations where that restriction makes no sense.

Of course, not having any restrictions at all is even more dangerous. The restrictions just need to be flexible.

Jumping into this - I intend to have my kids start working one hour/day of real work at age eight, which I think is natural and healthy, and aim for them to do basic rites of passage at 12, and be mentally equipped for emancipation from parents at 16 (though it'd be their choice if they want to leave or not).

It's a bit tangential to the discussion, but I think one of the worst things of modernization is that people are forced into artificially young roles and not given responsibility until much later in life. Many people aren't particularly self-reliant until after age 26 these days! Sheesh, you used to have teenagers serving as officers in the army or helping their father with accounting, or sales, or apprenticing in a craft, or cooking, or keeping an inn 10 years earlier than some people are getting finished with school these days.

That said, any government facing this problem has to decide whether it's more important to draw an easy-to-see line that is entirely unambiguous, or consider what might happen to the families of 15-year-olds if they can't get work.

Because of the diminishing marginal utility of money, children from affluent families will have no pressure to work, and can therefore focus on school for a better future.

Children from poorer families will have significant pressure to find a job, as any extra money coming into the family will offer a large difference in living conditions. Without minimum working age laws, most poor children will drop out of school and never realize their true long-term potential.

It also results in a less efficient economy, as the people recognized to have higher intellectual capacity, and placed in appropriate societal roles, will be a subset of the relatively affluent portion of society, and not necessarily the best-suited.

This is to assume that labor does not provide an education in itself. We're also assuming that education are particularly effective or appropriate. Most 18 years old are still unable to do much else other than basic labors.

We're also forgetting to take into account economic growth. It may be that economic growth increase opportunity for education, as baser needs are being meet with increasing efficiency, allowing newer generations to get an education.

It may be that the level of education is proper for third world countries and that child labor laws and the formation of a public education system were an aftereffect of an increasingly affluent society, not the actual cause.

The efficacy of education isn't really as much of an issue as the job prospects for the educated, which, in affluent countries, are generally better than job prospects for non-educated individuals. My policy rationale presupposes this, and it's certainly not relevant in every country.

I do agree that the Western view of completely boycotting child labour causes more harm than good. But corporations must respect local laws. Such laws are created by the countries themselves, who are in the best position to decide whether the imposition of a minimum age is a good policy choice.

I didn't mean to say that a minimum age is a good policy choice everywhere, because it might not be. But we can't make an educated decision on when to have a minimum wage if we don't know why we're doing it :)

b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow them to raise their children?

c. "Drive the engine of progress". Well, or serve as corduroy on the road that party insiders take to the bank.

You might have a point if people are enslaved into working.

b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow them to raise their children?

Perhaps, but you could look at it in another way. The person who own that factory will have more money into investing in human capitals or factory capital that will provide more jobs or increase specialization. Specialization will naturally lead to higher real wages as workers of certain type become scarce. Also, they may also get training on the job.

It's the seen that we know, but the unseen that we may not know precisely. It could be either way. It would be presumptuous to think that we know the best path to economic development.

c. "Drive the engine of progress". Well, or serve as corduroy on the road that party insiders take to the bank.

Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too.

Who's to say that the parents aren't forcing the child? The voluntary-vs-involuntary argument doesn't have to mean that the employer is forcing the child to work.

> Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too.

So you believe that the difference between a poor person and a 'rich' person is the ability to save money. So no rich person squanders money, and no poor person saves money?

Going to school is rarely voluntary, given an option they will opt out too, so what's your point?

Isn't it still voluntary that children choose to work insane overtime?

Isn't the employer providing compensation for the children, which they accept in the first place?

Do you begrudge an employer who provide you food and shelter and a chance to live another day in exchange for some work?

For a child, there is a very real chance his entire life could become dominated by insane work policies. He really shouldn't be deciding whether or not to accept those policies until he reaches a certain level of maturity.

Also, you say that we should accept child labor in the name of progress. However, if we do not discourage this practice now, then it will always be accepted later, after China or whoever is a "modern" country.

How do you know if you have the informed perspective? What is a informed perspective anyway?

How do you determine maturity, for that matter? Only parents have that kind of knowledge, and we don't know if they are particularly good parents.

Will his life really be dominated by insane work policies? What do you consider insane?

All of this is because some people don't have knowledge. Therefore, we're going to make laws outlawing certain type of labors, damn the unforeseen consequences, and damn the teenage stakeholders!

It's really a shame we can't have a nice, intelligent conversation on HN without one side of the debate being demonized in the process.

The employer is not the person who should provide food and shelter for kids - that's the parents' job. And 'some work' is often a euphemism for development-stunting, dangerous, exhausting labour which can harm the child for life.

Of course, one can argue that the child needs to work to survive, if its parents cannot support it. That's a separate issue. In this case the child needs a responsible adult to act in locus parentis, whether that is another adult or a state or charity. However, banning child labour is not an immoral choice and refusing to accept the products of it is not immoral either. I am surprised at your apparent astonishment that people are against the entire concept of child labour.

I suspect that your next argument in favour of the concept is that it would be immoral to take away the job of a child who relies upon that support. I'd argue that, in fact, the moral lapse lies with the parents and society that allows a vulnerable person to be put into that position without having had a chance to mature properly first.

It was a commonly-received 'truth' that the earth was flat. But the fact is, everybody can be a victim of potentially abusive deals, not only children.

Child labor need not be abusive. And Another fact you are forgetting is that children are moral agents and so their choices are to be respected.

Children may be more likely than an adult to make a wrong decision. However, it still does not follow that consents law and labor laws actually solve the problem. Young adults still need to accumulate experience and knowledge about potentially abusive deals.

I suspect that your next argument in favour of the concept is that it would be immoral to take away the job of a child who relies upon that support. I'd argue that, in fact, the moral lapse lies with the parents and society that allows a vulnerable person to be put into that position without having had a chance to mature properly first.

That is to assume that society and parents have unlimited resources at their disposal. It may be the only moral option.

Banning child labor does not in actual meaning child labor will not occur. All that does is put child labor in the black market and from the prying eyes of upstanding members of society.

I think that the idea is to allow children to accumulate a certain base level of experience in an effort to prevent them from being the exclusive target of adults who know how 'innocent' they still are to the ways of the world. Obviously you can't make a blanket rule that applies perfectly to everyone, but the alternative is to have no rule and throw everyone to the wolves. I guess this works if you have a strictly Darwinian view of the world and feel that the children that can't cut it deserve to be exploited/killed/whatever as a weeding process so that the society of adults doesn't have to deal with them, but I don't subscribe to that newsletter.

This to assume that rule-making will make children better off. It may be in fact, the opposite.

Another alternative is that children in apprenticeship will see how superior the adults are and will be more cautious of what deals that they accept. A skinny boy won't think he's stronger than the village's blacksmith.

We think children are naive, but that's partly because we refuse to expose everything to children, preferring that they will be innocent.

At one time, it was pretty necessary for children to be an adult at a young age. Now that we live in luxury, we can afford children to live out of touch with the world until it is time for them to enter adult society.

Think of the children swallowing traces of wines in France at an early age. They grew up drinking for the taste. Where as young American adults who turned 21 engaged in bringe drinking more often or for the drug effects.

By this argument, pimps are really philanthropists.

However if an employer is the only one who will give a job, than, it is a morally superior outcome to starving.

Taking that job away will in fact, create an inferior moral outcome.

Would you pose the same question to someone that used the saying, "I'm whoring myself out?"

Beyond that, we readily allow our children to babysit, mow the lawn, rake the leaves, and a whole host of tasks that exploit children for reduced expenses, and we readily allow this in our own homes. Yet we complain about child labour in third world countries, why? Because the poverty level is so high in these countries that the children need to work to help provide for their families.

The main, and often only cause, of child labour is parental poverty. If you solve parental poverty, you solve child labour. Once the parents can support themselves be it by better wages, unemployment or disability insurances, then those very parents will be free to exploit their own children like we do our own. Once the parents can support their families, their children will be voluntarily babysitting and doing chores.

If we don't evaluate babysitting as child exploitation in a first world country, then we have to seriously re-evaluate what child exploitation means in a third world economy. I'm certain the majority of these children are doing it exclusively to provide for their family, and forcing them out of legal employment will force them to illegal employment. This means forcing underage children into criminal organizations that will allow them to get money. For many children this will quite literally come down to a child working in a factory vs working in a gang or working as a child prostitute.

I don't particularly want children working in factories, even if the conditions are vastly better than what my great-grandfather went through. However, in my opinion, even if it prevents only a single girl from working as a prostitute, it's a moral fucking victory. However, it's likely to prevent thousands of young girls from working as prostitutes, and thousands of boys from joining gangs and dealing drugs.

There's lots to talk about in regards to why the shift occurred, but one contributing factor is the unsavory (unethical?) labor systems abroad that we so conveniently continue to overlook.

p.s. Some might argue these days that a service economy is "icky" when a fair amount of the services are financial services.