The Libertarian Thread

[snowychap]

Paper boys and girls still exist, they have them in most of the newsagents around here

Here, too.

Though sometimes, on foul mornings, I see the paperboy/girl being driven around by a parent (I assume it's a parent).

I'm not sure about this 'regulated out of existence' stuff/claim.

Edited March 16, 2015 by snowychap

[Corcaigh]

Pretty sure Norway is one the ultimate example's of 'Statist' ideology in practice.

[bickster]

Paper boys and girls still exist, they have them in most of the newsagents around here

Here, too.

Though sometimes, on foul mornings, I see the paperboy/girl being driven around by a parent (I assume it's a parent).

I'm not sure about this 'regulated out of existence' stuff/claim.

Its the perfect example of a Farage Fact

[norwegianvillain]

Pretty sure Norway is one the ultimate example's of 'Statist' ideology in practice.

yup

[maqroll]

Pretty sure Norway is one the ultimate example's of 'Statist' ideology in practice.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

What a bizarre haircut that is.

[maqroll]

It's called "The Sinclair"

[MakemineVanilla]

 

I conclude from that that most of the jobs I did as a kid which allowed me to buy myself stuff my parents couldn't afford have been regulated out of existence.

 

There is little doubt that sending a kid out into a howling rainstorm to deliver papers for a derisory wage would be considered cruel and exploitative these days, and no doubt these days I would have needed a high-visibility jacket for when I crossed those busy roads.

 

I definitely would have preferred to have been paid a living wage (pro rata) but I am not sure the labourers and artisans I delivered to would have been prepared to pay the extra cost and so the job would have disappeared.

 

The pay actually did increase and conditions improved because the market conditions made it difficult for the newsagent to attract enough child labour to keep the service going.

 

I did the job entirely at my own volition and both me and parents would have been worse off had the government regulated the job out of existence.

 

I was glad that the government left me at liberty to do the job.

Paper boys and girls still exist, they have them in most of the newsagents around here

 

 

But are they 13?

 

I see a few young (16+) adults delivering the free papers on Saturdays but I haven't seen any 13-year-olds delivering papers in the mornings or in the evenings for years.

 

Same in shops. No butchers' boys or kids helping the milkman, and no grocery delivery boys either.

 

I just don't see the amount of children doing jobs like I used to and I don't know any.

 

The point being, that my solution, to what would be considered child poverty these days, was getting a job, it seems that these days it is the state's job to make sure a kid has enough toys.

 

If the state has not regulated these jobs out of existence, why are kids of 13 not working these days, in an age when we are told they are so deprived?

[snowychap]

But are they 13?

 

I see a few young (16+) adults delivering the free papers on Saturdays but I haven't seen any 13-year-olds delivering papers in the mornings or in the evenings for years.

 

Same in shops. No butchers' boys or kids helping the milkman, and no grocery delivery boys either.

 

I just don't see the amount of children doing jobs like I used to and I don't know any.

 

The point being, that my solution, to what would be considered child poverty these days, was getting a job, it seems that these days it is the state's job to make sure a kid has enough toys.

 

If the state has not regulated these jobs out of existence, why are kids of 13 not working these days, in an age when we are told they are so deprived?

It would appear that the evidence in support of your assertion/conclusion that the job of paperboy/girl (especially those under the age of 16) has been 'regulated out of existence' upon which we must rely is your anecdotal evidence (which may well be a lot different from other people in other parts of the country - here, for instance, the free 'paper is delivered on wednesday/thursday evenings) and your ability to tell the age of a child through your front room window?

It would be more interesting to see (relatively) objective statistics and then try and understand what reasons there could be for any decline (I see the decline reported in a number of articles but that isn't the same as something no longer existing). From a few of those articles, there seems to have been a number of possible reasons put forward, amongst them: changes in regulations for under 16s (like not working before 7am?); increases in pocket money; children not wanting to do the job; exam/school pressure (perhaps related to changes in testing at schools and league tables?); decrease in demand for delivered newspapers from a local shop and so on.

I have little doubt that changes in regulations will have had an effect but I would take a punt that many other things (such as those suggested above) have also had an effect.

You appear to have jumped on a post by OBE and 'come to' this regulated out of existence conclusion - a conclusion, I fear, that you firmly had in mind before anyone had posted on the subject.

Edited March 17, 2015 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

When HanoiVillan wrote this and there are no stats; you didn't disagree.

 

 

You're right, I was being too dramatic. in fact, rising wages were a part of the decline in child labour. However, they were a small part of the decline (in the UK - all of this comment is based on the UK), which started before significant wage growth, and continued at its fastest rate in the wake of relevant legislation.

 

There are a mix of reasons why child labour declined. Allowing rising real wages as one of them, that doesn't account for the impact of compulsory education (especially in Britain, the Compulsory Education Act 1880), the increasing complexity of technology, which children were unable to use efficiently, or a change in the conception of childhood inspired by Romantic poets like Wordsworth or authors such as Dickens as a time of innocence which manual labour robbed them of. 

 

The comparatively small role played by rising incomes can be seen in the fact that successive labour laws in Britain (beginning with the landmark Factory Act 1833, and continuing with various other legislation into the 1870s) failed to have a large impact on child labour in the UK. If incomes, which were rising rapidly throughout this period, especially the latter half, were the key to the answer, you would have expected the legislation to be successful. After all, if rising incomes meant children didn't really need to work that much, then you would generally expect them to stop when forbidden from doing so. In fact, the economic imperative for children to work remained for most working class families, and combined with lax enforcement and paltry fines, it continued to be economically beneficial for many to work. The real change wasn't brought about by forbidding children from working, it was brought about by forcing them to go to school (which was, in any case, considerably easier to enforce). 

 

But when I claimed that the government probably had a huge influence on the decline in 13 year-olds working, you find fault.

 

Is it just because he has established his Lefty credentials and you think I am a c***? 

Edited March 17, 2015 by MakemineVanilla

[snowychap]

When HanoiVillan wrote this and there are no stats; you didn't disagree.

I didn't disagree because I didn't read the post (apologies to HanoiVillan).

 

But when I claimed that the government probably had a huge influence on the decline in 13 year-olds working, you find fault.

Your claim was not as you suggest here, your claim was:

I conclude from that that most of the jobs I did as a kid ... have been regulated out of existence.

Is it just because he has established his Lefty credentials ...?

I take the contents of people's posts and arguments on their merits (albeit with consideration to the posting history if that gives context to the posts themselves and assistance in understanding them).

With apologies to HanoiVillan again, I haven't taken enough notice of his posting on political matters to know whether he has established what you would consider 'lefty credentials' (I'll have to guess at what you actually mean here) and it wouldn't matter if I had and he had; I'd agree or disagree with him on the merits of what he said and I'd post a response if I felt like it.

There are plenty of people on here (and off line) with whom I would not politically align myself (or with whose political stances I would find little sympathy) but with whom I have,do and would, in future, agree.

There are plenty of people on here (and off line) with whom I might align myself politically (or with whose politics on certain subjects I would find common ground) but with whom I have, do and would, in future, disagree.

[blandy]

He didn't deny he thinks you're a c.

[Risso]

 

Paper boys and girls still exist, they have them in most of the newsagents around here

Here, too.

Though sometimes, on foul mornings, I see the paperboy/girl being driven around by a parent (I assume it's a parent).

I'm not sure about this 'regulated out of existence' stuff/claim.

 

 

I would imagine that it's less to do with regulation and more to do with the media-led thought in most parents' heads that it isn't safe for kids to be out on the streets by themselves when it's dark.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Risso

[Risso]

Although MMV would seem to have a point about regulation - I'm sure nobody ever had to apply for a permit to employ me to deliver papers when i was a kid, as seems to be the case from the following link:

 

https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/local-council-rules-for-child-employment-permits

 

"Most local councils say that businesses intending to employ school-aged children must apply for a child employment permit before they can be employed."

[bickster]

Paper boys and girls still exist, they have them in most of the newsagents around here

Here, too.

Though sometimes, on foul mornings, I see the paperboy/girl being driven around by a parent (I assume it's a parent).

I'm not sure about this 'regulated out of existence' stuff/claim.

 

I would imagine that it's less to do with regulation and more to do with the media-led thought in most parents' heads that it isn't safe for kids to be out on the streets by themselves when it's dark.

Well that and the decline of people actually buying papers (that internet thingy) or having the need to have them delivered because they pick one up on the way to work at the garage etc. I think most of the people that still get them delivered round here are retired or housebound in some way.

I do also think your reason is also a huge contributory factor

I'm not sure so much on the requirement of a permit, its the equivalent of a single hoop to jump through not many of them and council permits are usually pretty easy to come by for stuff like that, its mainly a simple register,

[chrisp65]

I can report that our local paperboy is actually a girl and by my estimates (I didn't feel I could stare for too long), early teens.

 

I can also report the bag / satchel thing for carrying papers was light blue reflective material in the best tradition of elf n safety.

 

As Bickster has suggested, the same disease that appears to have wiped out paperchildren has also devastated imperial measurement milk distribution specialists

[MakemineVanilla]

For those interested in libertarian economic thinking, Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression, offers some interesting insights into the American government's part in creating that financial disaster.

 

The book should really be used to balance the statist orthodoxy taught by state schools, of how Hoover was laissez faire and that FDR ended the depression with his New Deal.

[norwegianvillain]

Good book. Its available as a free ebook on the Mises Institute website. http://mises.org/library/americas-great-depression