Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (67845)	11/6/2013 7:44:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I agree the child labor isn't inherently and automatically wrong. Even in rich countries it can be beneficial for the child. I'd double down on that statement for poorer countries, where the options for the children other than their current child labor are often much worse. Not "go to a nice school" or "stay home and play", rather after losing their factory job producing goods for consumption in wealthy countries might be something like, prostitute yourself, become a street beggar, steal, sell drugs, dig through toxic waste dumps for low value recyclables, join up with a criminal and/or revolutionary and/or terrorist group, or just die.

To: pcstel who wrote (67845)	11/6/2013 9:21:22 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 71588

Exactly... it's important to make sure apples are apples and oranges are oranges.... If American companies, including labour are competing on a tilted playing field, then we must be aware of the consequences.... we can either let the third world dictate our manufacturing and labour conditions... or put our companies and workers at a disadvantage.... OR we can place import rules where we see a problem... PERIOD. If you disagree please let us all know how it works... {you too Tim! Chime right in!!} This outta be RICH!! LOL DAK

To: pcstel who wrote (67845)	11/20/2013 1:02:23 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

Bans on Child Labor By Jeffrey A. Miron Only a heartless libertarian could possibly object to bans on child labor, right? After all, no one wants to live in some Dickensian dystopia in which children toil endlessly under brutal conditions. Unless, of course, bans harm, rather than help, both children and their families. And in a new working paper, economists Prashant Bharadwaj (UCSD), Leah Lakdawala (Michigan State), and Nicholas Li (Toronto), find just that. They … examine the consequences of India’s landmark legislation against child labor, the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. … [and] show that child wages decrease and child labor increases after the ban. These results are consistent with a theoretical model … in which families use child labor to reach subsistence constraints and where child wages decrease in response to bans, leading poor families to utilize more child labor. The increase in child labor comes at the expense of reduced school enrollment. And it gets worse. The authors … also examine the effects of the ban at the household level. Using linked consumption and expenditure data, [they] find that along various margins of household expenditure, consumption, calorie intake and asset holdings, households are worse off after the ban. Good intentions are just that; intentions, not results. The law of unintended consequences should never be ignored. cato.org

To: pcstel who wrote (67845)	12/15/2013 10:46:04 AM
From: greatplains_guy	Respond to of 71588

A charter schools victory at the state Supreme Court A King County Superior Court rejects nearly every constitutional challenge to charter schools December 14, 2013 at 4:04 PM Seattle Times Editorial KING County Superior Court Judge Jean Rietschel relied on legal precedent and a smart reading of education policy to reject nearly all of the constitutional challenges to Initiative 1240, the charter schools law passed by voters in November. Rietschel’s opinion, released last week, apparently confused charter school opponents, who immediately announced the new schools had been declared unconstitutional. State Attorney General Bob Ferguson quickly cleared up the misunderstanding with a succinct summary of the ruling: “The court has held the vast majority of the charter schools initiative constitutional, and the state will continue to implement this law.” Rietschel did strike down a limited aspect of the charter school law. The judge found it unconstitutional to designate a charter school as a “common school,” meaning charters may not be eligible for money from the state’s school construction fund. That will have little to no immediate impact. The majority of applications to open a charter school in 2014 and thereafter propose leasing space in existing schools or community facilities. The state matching fund is only for major school remodels or new construction. The judge’s ruling rightly does not stop charters from receiving the same per-pupil funding for operating costs as traditional public schools. The teacher’s union, the Washington Education Association, is leading the coalition fighting the initiative, which allows for up to 40 schools over five years. Now the plaintiffs are threatening to turn to the state Supreme Court. For now, state law and public money for operating costs remain firmly behind charter schools. seattletimes.com