As a libertarian, I honestly don’t know where you’re getting that. Libertarianism is firmly rooted in consent, and minors cannot consent, so libertarians should be opposed here.
“I’m sorry, but no. This isn’t what libertarianism means to millions of Americans - pushing a disturbing and out of touch stance on child labor is entirely detached from what people need in America today. This does not advance liberty, or help change people’s opinions,” former Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson responded.
There’s also this Mises article, which argues that kids used to be able to work (largely with their parents), and thus should be able to work. Current labor laws, if I’m not mistaken, are something like this:
12-16 - can work with parents present
16-18 - can work with parental approval
That’s reasonable. I would take this a step further and allow employment of 12-16yos with parental approval and adult supervision by specifically named adults the parents are aware of, and notice should be sent to the school body and local relevant agency of such employment. Employment should be limited to work a child could reasonably do safely (e.g. sweeping, lawn mowing, etc), and hours would be limited as well (max 4 hours at a time without parent present, break every hour).
At the very least, this should demonstrate that this isn’t a policy libertarians are united on. There’s a lot of nuance here, and the backlash over the relatively tame policy position of the NHLP shows that a large chunk of libertarians are unwilling to even go down that path.
No, children do not need to do labor to live. The goal here is to teach kids through work experience, meaning time management (juggle work, school, and play) and managing money.
Here’s my personal experience:
mowed lawns around 14yo
did simple landscaping at 15yo
cleaned offices and had a programming internship at 16yo
More than half of that money went to my school fund, and is a large part of why I didn’t need student loans for college. I also used it to buy things my parents wouldn’t get me, such as a gaming console.
If we allow kids under 18 to work (and we should, with lots of limits and safeguards), it should have some clear restrictions:
none of the money is used for family expenses
parents can use a custodial account, but that can only be used to give the child spending money or saved until the child is 18yo (may be invested in something like a 529 or IRA as well for the child); every withdrawal is tracked by the custodian and subject to review
if the child raises complaints, work ends immediately; children may not be able to consent, but they can certainly opt out
at 16yo, the child gets to decide how to get paid (which account, etc)
That should prevent most of the abuse since parents wouldn’t get any benefit from the labor. The only goal should be for the child’s benefit, not to somehow benefit the parents.
The NHLP went too far, and were rightly called out for it.
And yes, I agree student debt shouldn’t be a thing, but the solution imo isn’t to make education free, but to make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy.
kids should not be working to buy a gaming console
Why not? It teaches them the value of labor, which is extremely useful in transitioning to adult life. I learned the value of hard work, and that has helped me immensely in my life. I don’t want to get into debt because I want my labor to mean more than a line item on a bank’s financial books. I understand the value of investing, because I want my money to work for me.
I had access to other video games as a kid, but I wanted something specific and the condition was I had to earn it. I also wanted to drive a car, but I was responsible to pay for gas and thus needed a job. My parents paid my tuition, but I was reasonable to pay for my room and board. I wanted a cell phone, so I bought one with the money I earned. I got a credit card at 18 (parents co-signed) and a second in school, and never once paid interest and had a great credit score so I could buy a house earlier (bought at 25?). I got married before finishing school, at which point I took complete responsibility for paying my way through school.
I worked my way through college, and I think that made me actually value that educational experience. I had a vested interest to get something out of it, and I was set up to succeed when I landed my own job because I already knew how to manage my finances. I learned to live frugally and not waste my money on nonsense, because I understood the work to get that money.
So I absolutely will be providing my kids work experience, whether on the books or not (we have an allowance system at home based on chores). I think it’s more valuable to work outside the family, just because there’s that added level of accountability (Mom and Dad probably won’t fire you, but that other boss would). I’ve heard horror stories of parents stealing their kids’ money, so that’s where my focus is in terms of legislation.
Removed by mod
As a libertarian, I honestly don’t know where you’re getting that. Libertarianism is firmly rooted in consent, and minors cannot consent, so libertarians should be opposed here.
Removed by mod
I found this instance of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party calling for ending child labor laws, and in that article, we find this quote from former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson:
There’s also this Mises article, which argues that kids used to be able to work (largely with their parents), and thus should be able to work. Current labor laws, if I’m not mistaken, are something like this:
That’s reasonable. I would take this a step further and allow employment of 12-16yos with parental approval and adult supervision by specifically named adults the parents are aware of, and notice should be sent to the school body and local relevant agency of such employment. Employment should be limited to work a child could reasonably do safely (e.g. sweeping, lawn mowing, etc), and hours would be limited as well (max 4 hours at a time without parent present, break every hour).
Here’s a larger article from Libertarian publication Reason about the incident, as well as the larger issue of the Mises caucus. The Mises caucus has since taken control of the national Libertarian Party, but I don’t believe that should be construed to mean libertarians in general support things like the NHLP policy on child labor, it just means libertarians are frustrated with the lack of results and want to try something different.
At the very least, this should demonstrate that this isn’t a policy libertarians are united on. There’s a lot of nuance here, and the backlash over the relatively tame policy position of the NHLP shows that a large chunk of libertarians are unwilling to even go down that path.
Removed by mod
No, children do not need to do labor to live. The goal here is to teach kids through work experience, meaning time management (juggle work, school, and play) and managing money.
Here’s my personal experience:
More than half of that money went to my school fund, and is a large part of why I didn’t need student loans for college. I also used it to buy things my parents wouldn’t get me, such as a gaming console.
If we allow kids under 18 to work (and we should, with lots of limits and safeguards), it should have some clear restrictions:
That should prevent most of the abuse since parents wouldn’t get any benefit from the labor. The only goal should be for the child’s benefit, not to somehow benefit the parents.
The NHLP went too far, and were rightly called out for it.
Removed by mod
Why 21?
And yes, I agree student debt shouldn’t be a thing, but the solution imo isn’t to make education free, but to make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy.
Why not? It teaches them the value of labor, which is extremely useful in transitioning to adult life. I learned the value of hard work, and that has helped me immensely in my life. I don’t want to get into debt because I want my labor to mean more than a line item on a bank’s financial books. I understand the value of investing, because I want my money to work for me.
I had access to other video games as a kid, but I wanted something specific and the condition was I had to earn it. I also wanted to drive a car, but I was responsible to pay for gas and thus needed a job. My parents paid my tuition, but I was reasonable to pay for my room and board. I wanted a cell phone, so I bought one with the money I earned. I got a credit card at 18 (parents co-signed) and a second in school, and never once paid interest and had a great credit score so I could buy a house earlier (bought at 25?). I got married before finishing school, at which point I took complete responsibility for paying my way through school.
I worked my way through college, and I think that made me actually value that educational experience. I had a vested interest to get something out of it, and I was set up to succeed when I landed my own job because I already knew how to manage my finances. I learned to live frugally and not waste my money on nonsense, because I understood the work to get that money.
So I absolutely will be providing my kids work experience, whether on the books or not (we have an allowance system at home based on chores). I think it’s more valuable to work outside the family, just because there’s that added level of accountability (Mom and Dad probably won’t fire you, but that other boss would). I’ve heard horror stories of parents stealing their kids’ money, so that’s where my focus is in terms of legislation.
Removed by mod
Hahahaha