I.e. your locally owned mom-and-pop Chinese takeout. I’ve seen the kiddos answer the phones there a couple of times, tho most of the time when picking up food for the wife they’re just playing in a blocked off side area that used to be dining pre-pandemic.
Yeah, I agree it's fucked up but there's almost no way that kid's under 14, which is the youngest age Culver's will hire at, he's just a late bloomer probably. I think a lot of people would disagree with calling that age group a "literal child."
I don't think most people would disagree that "teenager" is a more accurate word to describe that age. Trust me, there is plenty fucked up with the OP picture, we don't need to resort to hyperbolic language to get our point across.
Its not hyperbolic, 14 is a teenage child. Teenager is not more accurate, because when you say a 'teenage worker' most would assume they were at least in the usually accepted 'young adult' range, 16-19, the image here is of a child worker. If they were 17 or 16 that might be different, though still literally, legally a child.
I don't think most people would disagree that "teenager" is a more accurate word to describe that age. Trust me, there is plenty fucked up with the OP picture, we don't need to resort to hyperbolic language to get our point across.
It is blatantly the opposite of accurate. When teenager describes both a thirteen year old who hasn't hit puberty and a nineteen year old who could fight and die for their country, it's obviously not an accurate enough term
Assuming the literal meaning of “literal”, a child is, according to the OED, literally:
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
I'm not in any way defending child labor in general or Culvers in particular, but factually speaking, a 14-year-old fits between those two definitions (above the age of puberty but below the legal age of majority).
So that's an inclusive "or" in the definition. If EITHER of those criteria are fulfilled, then the definition can be applied. Since the criterion about the age of majority is true then the definition is true.
So conversely, a person above the age of majority who hasn't reached puberty yet (medical condition maybe? Just suspend disbelief for the sake of the argument) is still by definition a child.
I have a 14 year old right now and I’d have zero issues with him getting a job. He’s already been eyeing some places. I know this isn’t what you’re exactly saying, but once they hit puberty they’re a bit different than young kids.
I respect that, but your 14 year old is probably quite unusual in that respect. To his credit, of course! Some kids mature faster, and in different areas at different rates. I have a 13 year old and a 16 year old and neither of them would be capable of paid work in my opinion. I love them from the bottom of my heart but they would crumble after a shift at BK
I got my first job in ‘95 when I was 13. This was in a Toronto suburb at a computer shop and it was awesome although only got $5 an hour and had to stay in the back mostly shrink-wrapping a million cd cases. There was a cute 16 year old older girl at the register that I still remember lol.
Didn’t love wearing a large Windows ‘95 box costume and standing at the corner like a hooker though.
Jeeziz. We're about the same age and I was unable to even make a sandwich at that age I think. Mind you, I bet 13 year old you was ecstatic about that 5 dollars an hour in 1995. I hope you've got a picture of yourself in that box for the laughs.
My first job was call centre work at 16. I answered an advert in the local paper. Trying to use a script to swindle old ladies out of their pension for a commission, it was horrifying. I remember thinking "is this what adults do for a living? Cheat each other??" Looking back, I wasn't that far off in a lot of cases I think.
Oh man that’s a terrible first job lol. I would absolutely hate doing that.
By the time I was 16 I had moved to the states and got a job at KB Toys at the mall. They paid 7.75 an hour which was better than the rest of the mall at 5.25 an hour. Mall was the place to be though!
I liked service work. I tended bar and worked in kitchens for years while I got my qualifications. I sometimes think everyone should have to do retail or service for a bit so they can meet as many different types of people as possible. I work in research now, and I see a lot of the graduates coming in in their twenties and they don't understand shit about how the world works, or how people work. I think there's a lot of value in the experience you get in those jobs that people look down their noses at. If it paid the bills as well as science and engineering, I would've stayed.
Service work wasn’t bad at all. First service gig I had was when I was 18 and I worked a catering gig for a golf tournament. Thought I was practically a millionaire because it paid $20 an hour!
Went to college and waited tables at some restaurant named Pargos. Biggest tip I ever got was when I accidentally spilled an ice tea over the patriarch of an 8 top lol. I was mortified. I had been pledging a fraternity and got very little sleep before. Turns out the guy was also a fraternity alum so I got really lucky.
I completely agree with you. You learn so much dealing with customers and not to mention some interesting coworkers. That movie “Waiting” was pretty spot on.
I was laying lines blueberry raking at 14, and doing dishes in a restaurant at 16. I wanted money and it certainly taught me how difficult manual labor is without putting me in any real danger. The worst I got was bread cuts. I'd 100% put my daughter in the same situation when she's older.
Getting a job as an indulgence because they are interested is fine. Getting a job because their parents are not capable of giving them a dignified lifestyle is downright disgusting and such kids should be rescued. Often greedy parents mask the latter as the former because they are scum.
Getting a job because their parents are not capable of giving them a dignified lifestyle is downright disgusting and such kids should be rescued
I just don't understand this leap to conclusions that every young person is out there working because their parents aren't feeding or clothing them. I grew up with rich friends, middle class friends, and poor friends. Random assortments of all three groups grew up working. The vast majority of the time it to earn money for themselves to buy luxuries. One friend was working to support their family due to a parental situation. There's no way putting that person in the foster care system would have been better. They Graduated with decent grades too.
Don't get too worked up over it. The average Stay-At-Home-Lemmy is completely unable to understand the concept that not everyone's mom and dad will buy them an Xbox and that sometimes teenagers will get jobs to pay for things they want.
I enjoyed it. The work was easy and it gave me a sense of purpose and I needed that. It taught me the value of my time, and enabled me to get a car when I turned 16. Some people grow up fast, simply because they have to, or sometimes because they just, do. One size does not fit all.
I think many states allow children as young as 12 to work in specific non-dangerous jobs with permission from the parents. A company recently got in trouble when they had like 20 12-15 year olds working in a meat processing plant which definitely did not qualify for the "not dangerous" qualifier.
I work in the Media Center of a High School. Some 9th and even a few 10th graders definitely look like they still belong in middle school, some kids mature late. I’d totally believe that there’s a possibility this person is actually at least 14.
I'd argue that kids are not fit for the stress put on people in service positions with customer contact. It's fine if they have a holiday job cutting grass or delivering newspapers or something like that but standing behind a counter taking orders from people that often don't even acknowledge that you're human, too? That's hard enough on adults already - I definitely don't think it's the kind of job for kids.
Also which business is hiring kids to work a couple of weeks during school holidays and then is fine having one less worker again? The time spent on teaching the child what to do and how to handle different situations as well as the paperwork probably takes more time and money than not having the help for a couple of weeks - even less so as you probably have to have another person nearby in case of customers overstepping so I'm not sure this is just some holiday job for the kid to earn pocket money or get job experience
You'd think so, but people can be downright cruel to those they think are 'under' them, and guess what every person working a job that can't get them fired (so no business-to-business contacts) is to them?
I remember working in a customer facing role when I was a teen, and occasionally had to tell people the place was closed due to weather. They would accuse me of being everything under the sun and personally on a vendetta to make their lives miserable... and there was nothing I could do about it aside from calling the police if they actually started making threats.
I've always been about kids getting out there early and getting a taste of working, but these days feel different. I wouldn't want to go back into customer service now and I've got experience and age to back be up in dealing with customers.
I do think that people who cause the disruptive behavior that I'm referring to should be required to serve time doing those jobs, as I think part of their entitlement is ignorance of what's it's like behind the counter.
I mean service jobs are never great, but most of my jobs from 14 through early adulthood were all service and they weren't that bad.
You encounter plenty of rude and unpleasant people, but you just get on with it. It's not traumatic for the vast majority of people. Learning to handle people like that is a good skill to have.
I totally agree that people would be better to each other if everyone had so service job experience.
Waiting tables at the tail end of high school and throughout college really boosted my intrapersonal skills. I have no problem interacting with most anyone and can usually pick up on cues that go beyond what the person is saying. I work in engineering at a fortune 500 now it's really amusing how bad a decent swath of employees are at getting their point across, understanding what someone else is trying to tell them, and reading the room.
That said, I had a stint in retail. Waiting tables was more stress, but the people were generally quite a bit nicer.
I don't get why you're downvoted. The French would have brought out the guilotines by now. The threshold for warranting violence has LONG been crossed by European standards
Not sure where you're getting your info, but 14 year olds can legally work (with some restrictions) in France. Some EU countries have a minimum age of 13. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_working_age
Yeah this is so much worse than 5yo kids working in coal mines a hundred years ago.
Sure its not exactly ideal, but if this is a kid whose parents own the franchise and he is legally working and being paid at the family business its better than him being left at home on the xbox.
My grandpa brought my brothers and I to work at the family business when we were pretty young. Mostly it was stuff like sweeping and cleaning tasks, nothing really cruel or stressful or that we could screw up.
A bit different than customer service but convenience stores often have the kids helping out too.
People offended just by looking at this picture out of context should really try explaining their preferred authoritarian social policy to a teenager who wants a part-time job but for whom some people would forbid them by penalty of the law.
Spoiler: They won't understand why you should have any authority over their body and time.
I don't understand why you should have that authority either. I mean, where does it end?
What are your criteria for exceptions? Shouldn't it be between the kid and their parents, and not you?
Are you imagining there is a parental figure with a bull whip for this kid in the back office and you want to outlaw physical abuse? There are already separate laws for that!
Children should not be working. We have piles of dead children that died in the past for the profits of capitalists, and it took millions of maimed children marching to DC led by Mother Jones for anything to be done about child labor. I highly doubt that there's anyone, let alone children, that want to be in the coercive environment we call work. If you want to say protecting children from the dangers of a capitalist workplace is authoritarian, then so be it. I don't want to see children in a workplace where they will be exploited by everyone above them.
It's cute that you think I'm talking about murder. Triangle Shirtwaist fire. Children in mines and mills. Children in factories. Children on farms. Children in retail. These are all areas of labor that have killed, maimed, and injured children. These kids were never murdered, they were hurt and killed in accidents that occurred because they were too young to handle the conditions of labor that was demanded of them. Fuck you for advocating for children to return to that type of labor.
Kids routinely get hurt (and sometimes killed) just playing. As long as they're not getting more seriously hurt more often at a job than regular activities, I don't see what the issue is, at all.
I started working at age 13 back in 1980 because I wanted money to buy GI Joes, and comic books. So I started going to construction jobs with my shithead father on Saturdays and helped him put up sheetrock. My first legitimate job was the summer I turned 15, I was big for my age so I started doing deliveries for a furniture store, worked there for two summers until I was fired after a workplace injury. The guy I worked with was a racist Italian from Whitestone New York, and I was a smart slightly autistic black kid. His delivery truck only had one seat so I stood in the open door on the right side holding on for dear life. One day we were moving a heavy office desk upstairs and I was bringing up the rear, he lost control which resulted in the desk sliding downstairs and slamming me into a wall. My ribs were badly bruised so after I got home the store panicked and fired me, they probably thought we were going to sue. Anyway I went into a deep depression and couldn't leave my room for a month. One of my therapists later told me that it was the first appearance of my bipolar disorder.
I was legally employable, and of age but still got hurt on the job. I just had shithead employers.
As others have pointed out, those laws have important exceptions to account for kids who want to work, and that is the question I am asking all of the knee-jerk authoritarians:
What is the actual policy position they support? What are the exceptions they support or are they completely authoritarian about this issue? (I think a strict rule prohibiting all people under 18 from ever earning a living is a pretty embarrassing position to defend.)
What are emancipated teenagers supposed to do? Should they live 100% at the mercy of state programs and not improve their living standards beyond the meager social welfare they are afforded until they turn exactly 18 years old? Really? Not even a day sooner, even if they are ready and qualified to work?
That would be completely inhumane. Certainly it's depriving them of their bodily freedom and natural ability to extract capital value from their own labor.
So where is the line? 13? 14? I think somewhere in there is reasonable. Perhaps a test could determine their capacity to participate in their own economic fate? Or an evaluation by a social worker? I could go for something like that.
What if they are NOT emancipated and their parent is supervising them? Should the age minimum be higher then? 17? 18? I do not think so.
I think it's only logical that the age minimum should actually be lower if a parent is directly supervising - their physical and economic risk is lower if the parent is looking out for their best interests. This of course presumes that the parent is not physically or mentally/emotionally abusing the kid(again, separate laws exist for the abuse component and most parents don't abuse their kids).
The wall is usually 14-ish with limitations on what you can do and how many hours you can work.
We have to limit it otherwise adults will take advantage of the fact that children don’t know what they’re doing.
Yes, some of them might be smart enough, but a lot of them aren’t, and it’s better to protect the majority and work on irregular cases on their own merits.
Part of becoming an emancipated minor is showing that you have the means to care for yourself to a judge, otherwise you’re not allowed to become emancipated
Why tf should a kid want to work? Why would you want a society to normalize a 14-year-old hustling and working after school? It's not authoritarian to protect children from parasitic businesses. Child-labor is illegal because at that stage a person has less emotional intelligence and rationality, they can more easily be taken advantage of and overworked, and won't understand their rights as a worker as well. You can't even sign a contract at 14 without a parent or guardian and you want them to be able to act at the whim of fast food managers?
Your argument is hardly one step away from the argument I see people trot out when defending child marriage.
What if a teen really really wanted to date an adult.
They're a child, no one cares what they "understand" because their capacity to understand is literally crippled. Their brains aren't developed yet.
It sounds like you are equating any job to getting sexually abused or raped.
That is "like... Yuck".
It's an irrelevant comparison because the work itself is not abuse. There are other laws that protect kids from being abused, if they are being abused to force them to work(or for any other purpose).
If you don't care what people under 18 think, you should reflect on how selfish and closed-minded that sounds to me and especially to the real human people you are proposing to lose their ability to work.
Do you really think there is a major difference between the brain of a 17 year old the day before their 18th birthday and the day after? There is no significant difference at all.
So, my question is, where do you draw the line for a person under 18 whose quality of life might depend on working? Should they just have that freedom stripped because you don't care what they think?
Even if they are on their own? Or supporting a dependent, like their own baby? Really? If you are that authoritarian about this, I hope you forget to vote on it.
The yuck part is that children under 18 are legally defined as not having full reasoning and consent capabilities.
So, I wasn't saying all work is rape, that's silly and foolish to think.
I'm saying your assertion that teens should have adult independence to make adult choices without laws and support is yuck.
"They don't understand" is literally my point. They CANT
If you're saying teens can consent in the same way adults can, that is yuck. And that is wrong. (For clarity, you need to consent to a working relationship for it to be healthy.)
It sounds like you are using a legal framework from medical treatment of minors. If I have that right, then you should know that there is an exception for emancipated people under 18 years of age.
Would you support the same exception for work, now that you know this or perhaps you would also eliminate this exception for them to control their own bodies in a medical context?
Court-ordered emancipation. A child under the age of 18 who lives independently without the support of parents and makes his or her own day-to-day decisions may petition the court for emancipation. If granted, the minor will have the same legal rights as an adult, including the right to consent to (and refuse) medical treatment.
This is the first time I've encountered such extreme and immovable opinions on Lemmy. It's wild to me that people who are (presumably) trying to support social justice for minors cannot even acknowledge that teenagers sometimes need and would prefer to work - that it's a separate issue from child abuse and strict authoritarian prohibition over their labor is itself abusive.
Don't people understand that a 17 year old can have a baby and need a job?
They won't even entertain the possibility and defend an actual policy position. It's devoid of social responsibility.
If they are genuinely socialist or communist, then how can they defend stripping 14-18 year olds of their natural right to profit from their own labor? It's just as bad as a capitalist exploiting that labor with unlivable wages - they are essentially condemning these people to $0 in wages and total state dependence.
They do this often at the Culver's near me. It's a fundraiser for school / extracurricular activities. The group works for a few hours and Culver's donates the receipts for that time.
It's better than having them go door to door selling wreaths and shit.
The school is funded already through taxpayers. The fact that "the children are working to fund the school" is an acceptable line of logic is already dystopian.
Traditionally, children do fundraisers to fund extracurricular activities, like a field trip. If the school is taking that money to add to their budget, that's crossing the line into exploiting kids' labor for money.
Where do you live that public schools are properly funded by taxes? American schools are embarrassingly underfunded, and teachers are tragically underpaid and typically have to spend their own money to buy supplies for their students.
The fact that public schools used to be properly funded by taxes and aren't any longer is part of the dystopia. Do you think I'm defending the current system?
I was surprised to find out how much the U.S. actually does spend on education, given how shitty it is. Idk where the money is going, but it's definitely funded
Part of this comes from the fact that most public schools are funded from local property taxes, so naturally wealthier residents have better public schools due to better funding as they naturally pay more in taxes
Most School systems are financially gutted to the bone. It's dark but most red counties school districts are near bankruptcy and blue areas are slightly better off. So expect more of this as public schools try to keep the doors open.
When looking at homes in the more rural areas I noticed that the schools basically shoved all the kids from a good bit around different towns and areas into one. I’d guess to consolidate as much funds as possible in an effective manner, rather than having to pay for more infrastructure that was really needed.
While I would have liked the slower pace….all I could afford out that way were 100 year old farmhouses with very questionable bones. One you could literally walk the dip between the kitchen and living room. Another had electric, propane and fireplaces for the heating in different areas of the home. Had to tell my wife to stop looking at those.
I remember having school assemblies in middle school with some third party fundraising company trying to get us to sell...I don't even remember what as a fundraiser for the entire school. At the time it felt weird and as an adult looking back I find it far more concerning that that's how they made up the budget shortfalls instead of raising property taxes by fraction of a percent
I had to help out behind the register at a mcdonald's for a scout thing, I was supposed to upsell coupon books. I spent about 2 hours standing next to a teenage girl who calmly stood there and took a near non stop stream of abuse from entitled idiots. People got mad at her when the kitchen messed up their order. They got upset at her over price changes since their last visit. They got mad at her when an item was missing out of a 4-bag $80 order (they unbagged and checked everything there on the counter). One particular piece of shit actually got mad because the girl didn't recognize him and know his usual order as he was in there a lot, according to him. That one really blew my top. The casual way in which people were awful to the cashier just blew my mind.
They got mad at her when an item was missing out of a 4-bag $80 order (they unbagged and checked everything there on the counter).
That one seems valid. That person got burned before with the staff not bothering to do their job and were NOT going to short their friend whatever item(s) the staff kept for themselves. Sure, you can say the counter girl didn't do the bagging, but she's the one that the customer is supposed to tell, and it is hard not to be angry when you've paid for stuff and you're getting shorted -- AND there's almost surely another person relying on you to get it right this time. It shouldn't take so much effort to just get the stuff you paid for.
it's definitely not valid. Anyone getting upset at fast food workers just doing their jobs can get fucked. They could have resolved the issue without being assholes, she was nothing but polite to them and it wasn't her fuckup.
... but they WEREN'T doing their job. I've been a counter cashier at a burger joint. Most of the job was getting the order correct and taking in money properly, but I also has to to things like add extra relish packets and see that I was giving them the correct food. That's the job. You give the customer what they ordered. That is the EASY part. The hard part is dealing with the people trying to scam you with bill-switching/wrong-change schemes (though I suspect those are less common as fewer people use cash now).
That's true, but I don't know how much of a stink was made. If someone is unbagging everything at the counter, they've probably been burned before, so I can see some reason to take a harsh tone -- enough to show they're tired of the BS. If, instead, they started throwing things and screaming obscenities, yeah, that'd be an overreaction.
I'm Australian and this reminds me of working at the local fish and.chip store when I was 12. I asked the local general store, but they'd only pay me to do odd jobs, the local bakery said no,.and the local fish and.chip shop said I could help take orders and.package meals during their busy hours each evening.
My Lego collection grew, I got real good at Time Crisis 3, and I went to see a movie each Saturday. It was awesome. I didn't see it any different to scoring cash for mowing lawns or washing cars, just stable and they appreciated my help so I felt good too.
If you'd told me I wasn't allowed, I'd have done it behind your back and said I was going to friend's houses.
The work itself wasn't important but learning responsibility and the value of money was important.
It was the first time I did anything completely on my own without being directed in some way by a parent, teacher, coach, etc. Without that job and after-school/summer jobs I had when I was older there is a good chance I would have made poor financial decisions in early adulthood.
With 18 year-olds getting credit cards shoved in their face the day they show up for orientation, after probably signing up for student loans, it's probably a good idea for them to have earned money on their own for a while.
I don't understand the people down voting you. Having a job growing up taught me a lot of responsibility and how to manage my own money and act in a professional environment. Invaluable skills that you wouldn't get anywhere else, certainly not school
These jobs you are speaking of--washing cars, mowing lawns, even kids working in their parents' store--do you think that is the same as working for a multinational conglomerate handling food with no breaks and minimum wage?
No they're not the same. The multinational conglomerate is far better.
Chores for the neighbors and the paper route paid peanuts. Once I was old enough to work for the conglomerate (where I received food safety training) my pay after taxes more than doubled (a little more than minimum wage, which did, and does, exist), I started contributing to my future social security check, I received paid breaks, and there was a maximum amount of hours I was legally allowed to work.
Flipping burgers beats the hell out of lugging Sunday papers around the neighborhood or knocking on doors to mow lawns in the summer heat or shovel driveways in the freezing cold. Back then I counted the days until I was old enough for a "real" job.
This is what I don't understand about all the angry people in this thread. Of course it's not okay to have children working in like fucking coal mines and not regulating the hours they can work and the pay you can give them. Of course that's not cool and should be stopped. But the people doing that (and there are many) aren't usually the ones doing it out in the open in a fast food restaurant.
All this constant hyperbole for every single issue is exhausting. No one is defending sending 13 years olds out to replace someone's roof. We're talking about "unskilled" labor like taking orders, stocking shelves, running registers etc.
Immigrant children are already being exploited and are dying doing roofing work. You want to put children in the workforce but they would not be safe. If we had a pilot program in place and had some successful results that would be a different situation, but we have kids working 30 feet in the air with no safety gear. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/14/us/roofing-children-immigrants.html
Learning things a little at a time, when the stakes are low/non-existent is the way to go. From early teens to partway through college when you get an off campus apartment you can learn how to apply for a job, how to interview, responsibility, managing your money, responsible credit use, professionalism, bill paying. All this over the course of years, with a support system when you make mistakes (hopefully).
I guess some people think you should just have all that dropped on you like a ton of bricks the day after you get a diploma.
Your example is very extreme. Having an after school part time job as you're growing up will prepare you for quite a bit, and set us apart from our peers that didn't work, and instead wasted their days after school or on the weekends. I take it you never worked growing up ? It's building essential life skills, not inhaling noxious fumes working 16 hr days in mines, this isn't the 1800's. I loved flipping burgers and making a paycheck at 15
I wasn't sure where I stood on this and read a lot of comments.
One thing that seems common is that many of those who worked young seem to think it made them better than the other kids somehow. They "wasted" their summer, while you built "essential life skills" unlike the person you're replying to, who did not? Are you still "set apart" from the person you replied to?
I might think getting thrown into the system at a younger age is the real waste of life. I've had a job since I was 15, but I really don't think it made me better than anyone.
It didn't make me "better" but from talking to people I went to college with (that didn't get jobs early), I'd definitely say I was more prepared for the workforce.
Also having money was dope and my fast food job was fun. I still enjoyed my life and summer outside of work, even more so because I could afford to do and get shit that my parents might not have been able to give me. It's not an all or nothing deal it's just a different life experience. I think it would be infantilizing to take the choice away from teenagers, though it is important to regulate it as shitty people will take advantage of it.
I think there's a line somewhere and for me the line is whether the job is suitable for children. Like, doing chores around the house or on your grandparents' farm. Paper route riding a bike. I worked summers at a carnival, and at a pool when I was a bit older. Low physical labor, low responsibility, low customer interaction, family friendly environments. You're right it should never interfere with education.
If I saw a kid at the register of a fast food place or a store, I would turn around immediately and never return. Just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.
First of all, I generally agree with you that child labor such as in the OP is bad.
That being said, responding to people who had positive experiences with it in their own lives by jumping directly to sending then to the mines is absolutely fucking insane. They are not the same thing.
I think children should be free to focus on more important things than working.
"Freedom" to do what you want them to and nothing more, not even to earn it over summer break or learn the value of money.
Fuck 'em, just wait until they get out of highschool at 18 before they ever even see real money and have no idea how any of it works, who the predators are, and what the risk is.
Fuck 'em, just wait until they get out of highschool at 18 before they ever even see real money and have no idea how any of it works, who the predators are, and what the risk is.
Why is this worse than the literal same thing at a younger age?
This place is insane sometimes. In their heads they're thinking children being forced into labor, obviously that's not what we're talking about here. I had various gigs I did as a kid to earn some extra money, snow shoveling in the winter, mowing in the summer, I'm doing much better financially than my peers. Most of the guys I was in the military with were losing their whole paychecks just days after getting them, never having that much money in their lives. No one ever taught them and they never developed the skills on their own.
Say what you will, but I don't think there's anything wrong with letting a kid work in an entrepreneur kind of fashion or in limited capacity like what you did on weekends, summer break, etc.
You can't raise someone into an adult if you hand them the keys for the first time on their 18th birthday. Most of us learn by doing and it's best to get the hands on experience.
Sometimes I read comments online and initially think they're sarcastic but then realise the person's serious and flexing way above their capacity, usually by straw manning. And here's one of those moments...
Do you think we should send the kids back to the mines?
facepalm
About as much as you think the police should be shutting down lemonade stands.
I don't know why, but paper boys (yes we were all boys) were some sort of exception to child labour laws. I was selling newspapers when I was 12-13 for 5c ea.
And what about those assholes that never wanted to pay? Just pay the kid you cheap ass. I see your cars, your lights are on, I know you're home motherfucker.
I identified so hard with that "I want my two dollars" kid from Better Off Dead.
One of my customers went and died owing me 80c. I just took the loss. But it would have been hilarious to see some young kid chasing the estate for his debt!
I'm American and I totally agree. It feels like there are two different countries here, with the red one generally mooching off of the blue one while simultaneously claiming they're the "real America". I'm so tired.
There's hardly anything to defend because there's nothing here other than a photo with zero confirmed information about what appears in the photo. People are just making baseless assumptions.
This is a pretty funny image because the kid looks like they're 8 and in full uniform, but there's no way to know their age from this picture. They could be like 14, and a part time job at that age (or a bit younger) isn't weird.
What's weird and, frankly, extremely fucked up is some internet weirdo taking creepshots of a minor and posting it on Lemmy. What the fuck is wrong with you, OP? How would you feel if someone was posting pics like this of your kid on the internet?
Hmm. Maybe minors shouldn’t be working in that type of role if they can’t be photographed at work then? It’s a job in a business that serves the public, photography has to be assumed.
I'm not saying it's illegal, just that it's fucking creepy to take pictures of children like that. I know Lemmy is full of old weirdos, but this is just gross.
I am getting downvoted in another thread for pointing out that in Canada it's illegal to identify minors taking part in, or convicted of a crime. So I am not pro-nazi, just that we view those children as victims as well. People get weird about this stuff.
Good reference to a great book. Anyone who hasn't read it, should. In a similar vein, anyone who hasn't watched the streaming adaptation with Martin Sheen and David Tennant is in for a very nice surprise!
