View Full Version : Globalization
EN[i]GMA
01-25-2005, 07:11 PM
is so evil, it cut poverty in half in 11 years in East Asia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/opinion/27brooks.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%2 0Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks
By David Brooks, NY Times Syndicated Columnist:
I hate to be the bearer of good news, because only pessimists are regarded as intellectually serious, but we're in the 11th month of the most prosperous year in human history. Last week, the World Bank released a report showing that global growth "accelerated sharply" this year to a rate of about 4 percent.
Best of all, the poorer nations are leading the way. Some rich countries, like the U.S. and Japan, are doing well, but the developing world is leading this economic surge. Developing countries are seeing their economies expand by 6.1 percent this year - an unprecedented rate - and, even if you take China, India and Russia out of the equation, developing world growth is still around 5 percent. As even the cautious folks at the World Bank note, all developing regions are growing faster this decade than they did in the 1980's and 90's.
This is having a wonderful effect on world poverty, because when regions grow, that growth is shared up and down the income ladder. In its report, the World Bank notes that economic growth is producing a "spectacular" decline in poverty in East and South Asia. In 1990, there were roughly 472 million people in the East Asia and Pacific region living on less than $1 a day. By 2001, there were 271 million living in extreme poverty, and by 2015, at current projections, there will only be 19 million people living under those conditions.
Less dramatic declines in extreme poverty have been noted around the developing world, with the vital exception of sub-Saharan Africa. It now seems quite possible that we will meet the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals, which were set a few years ago: the number of people living in extreme poverty will be cut in half by the year 2015. As Martin Wolf of The Financial Times wrote in his recent book, "Why Globalization Works": "Never before have so many people - or so large a proportion of the world's population - enjoyed such large rises in their standard of living."
As other research confirms, these rapid improvements at the bottom of the income ladder are contributing to and correlating with declines in illiteracy, child labor rates and fertility rates. The growth in the world's poorer regions also supports the argument that we are seeing a drop in global inequality.
Economists have been arguing furiously about whether inequality is increasing or decreasing. But it now seems likely that while inequality has grown within particular nations, it is shrinking among individuals worldwide. The Catalan economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin looked at eight measures of global inequality and found they told the same story: after remaining constant during the 70's, inequality among individuals has since declined.
What explains all this good news? The short answer is this thing we call globalization. Over the past decades, many nations have undertaken structural reforms to lower trade barriers, shore up property rights and free economic activity. International trade is surging. The poor nations that opened themselves up to trade, investment and those evil multinational corporations saw the sharpest poverty declines. Write this on your forehead: Free trade reduces world suffering.
Of course, all the news is not good. Plagued by bad governments and AIDS, sub-Saharan Africa has not joined in the benefits of globalization. Big budget deficits in the U.S. and elsewhere threaten stable growth. High oil prices are a problem. Trade produces losers as well as winners, especially among less-skilled workers in the developed world.
But especially around Thanksgiving, it's worth appreciating some of the things that have gone right, and not just sweeping reports like the one from the World Bank under the rug.
It's worth reminding ourselves that the key task ahead is spreading the benefits of globalization to Africa and the Middle East. It's worth noting this perhaps not too surprising phenomenon: As free trade improves the lives of people in poor countries, it is viewed with suspicion by more people in rich countries.
Just once, I'd like to see someone like Bono or Bruce Springsteen stand up at a concert and speak the truth to his fan base: that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches. But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world. Thanks, in part, to them, we are making progress against poverty. Thanks, in part, to them, more people around the world have something to be thankful for.
Ace42
01-26-2005, 05:02 AM
Hah, load of bollocks. Economic growth does not equate to an increase in personal wealth. Who is this crank? Some tosser who thinks an increase in 5% of less than 1 rupee is somehow comparable to the 4% increase in wage of a 10k a year yank factory worker?
"Yeehaa, globalization is changing the tide. At this rate, it only takes 10,000 years of uninterrupted (and unsustainable) growth like this before those injuns are as rich as we are now!"
EN[i]GMA
01-26-2005, 02:43 PM
Hah, load of bollocks. Economic growth does not equate to an increase in personal wealth. Who is this crank? Some tosser who thinks an increase in 5% of less than 1 rupee is somehow comparable to the 4% increase in wage of a 10k a year yank factory worker?
"Yeehaa, globalization is changing the tide. At this rate, it only takes 10,000 years of uninterrupted (and unsustainable) growth like this before those injuns are as rich as we are now!"
In 1990, there were roughly 472 million people in the East Asia and Pacific region living on less than $1 a day. By 2001, there were 271 million living in extreme poverty, and by 2015, at current projections, there will only be 19 million people living under those conditions.
100% ILL
01-26-2005, 02:53 PM
Is this where arguments for a global currency come into play?
EN[i]GMA
01-26-2005, 02:57 PM
Is this where arguments for a global currency come into play?
Not really.
STANKY808
01-26-2005, 03:26 PM
GMA']In 1990, there were roughly 472 million people in the East Asia and Pacific region living on less than $1 a day. By 2001, there were 271 million living in extreme poverty, and by 2015, at current projections, there will only be 19 million people living under those conditions.
The World Bank wouldn't have an agenda at work here would they? Nah!
Of course as you, I'm sure, already know statistics can be misleading...
"The many defects which Reddy and Pogge find in the World Bank’s methodology range from straightforward to obscure. For one, the World Bank starts by arbitrarily designating ‘one dollar per day’ as the universal poverty line to be applied to all nations. But because a dollar can buy more in some countries than others, World Bank economists attempt to convert its worth using a method called “purchasing power parity” adjustment. Existing purchasing power parity adjustments identify the extent of purchasing power of the world’s people according to their capacity to buy all goods and services consumed in the world economy. This is not limited to the things they need to survive, such as food, housing, clothing, and healthcare, but also includes limousine service, luxury hotels, and pedicures, which will presumably not be purchased by those without disposable income. Because services are typically cheaper in poor countries than in rich countries as a result of lower wages, purchasing power parity adjustments typically overstate the ability of the poor to purchase basic necessities that are not especially cheaper in poor countries. Furthermore, the growth of the service sector worldwide may translate over time into the appearance that the poor have increased purchasing power. In fact, the increased consumption of these services by the non-poor does nothing to reduce poverty.
Reddy and Pogge argue that the $1/day standard and the use of unrealistic purchasing power parity conversion factors not only distort the results, but reveal the failure of the World Bank to relate its estimates of poverty – to a meaningful concept of human deprivation. Equally problematic is the fact that the most recent calculations, covering 1998, are based on consumption distribution data for a limited range of countries, with guesswork used for many of the others, including those containing the largest number of the world’s poor (India and China)."
Yeah, all those poor people should just shut up and be thankful!
EN[i]GMA
01-26-2005, 03:34 PM
The World Bank wouldn't have an agenda at work here would they? Nah!
Of course as you, I'm sure, already know statistics can be misleading...
"The many defects which Reddy and Pogge find in the World Bank’s methodology range from straightforward to obscure. For one, the World Bank starts by arbitrarily designating ‘one dollar per day’ as the universal poverty line to be applied to all nations. But because a dollar can buy more in some countries than others, World Bank economists attempt to convert its worth using a method called “purchasing power parity” adjustment. Existing purchasing power parity adjustments identify the extent of purchasing power of the world’s people according to their capacity to buy all goods and services consumed in the world economy. This is not limited to the things they need to survive, such as food, housing, clothing, and healthcare, but also includes limousine service, luxury hotels, and pedicures, which will presumably not be purchased by those without disposable income. Because services are typically cheaper in poor countries than in rich countries as a result of lower wages, purchasing power parity adjustments typically overstate the ability of the poor to purchase basic necessities that are not especially cheaper in poor countries. Furthermore, the growth of the service sector worldwide may translate over time into the appearance that the poor have increased purchasing power. In fact, the increased consumption of these services by the non-poor does nothing to reduce poverty.
Reddy and Pogge argue that the $1/day standard and the use of unrealistic purchasing power parity conversion factors not only distort the results, but reveal the failure of the World Bank to relate its estimates of poverty – to a meaningful concept of human deprivation. Equally problematic is the fact that the most recent calculations, covering 1998, are based on consumption distribution data for a limited range of countries, with guesswork used for many of the others, including those containing the largest number of the world’s poor (India and China)."
Yeah, all those poor people should just shut up and be thankful!
Yes, the World Bank does have an agenda. Tell me what you think it is.
Are the numbers skewed due to a method that doesn't accurately portray wealth in certain places or do to intentional trickery?
Our helpful (Likely biased?) guides don't say.
And their economics are rudementary when stating:
Furthermore, the growth of the service sector worldwide may translate over time into the appearance that the poor have increased purchasing power. In fact, the increased consumption of these services by the non-poor does nothing to reduce poverty.
That's just false. The non-poor purchasing the poor's services will easily help the poor.
So essentially, poor people in 3rd world countries are making more money (As even they aren't denying) and it's not "enough".
This is why I said wait 20 years and come back to me. You'll see just how "viscious" capitalism is when the number of the worlds poor is cut in half.
As for not using those countries, the data could easily be extrapolated for these countries espescially considering that India and China are the 2 most industrialized and modern of the 3rd world nations.
Accurate numbers of poor there would likely increase the number, not decrese it.
And "One dollar a day" by any stretch of the imagination, is better than nothing, which is your socialistic wet dreams would afford them.
Ace42
01-26-2005, 03:37 PM
GMA']In 1990, there were roughly 472 million people in the East Asia and Pacific region living on less than $1 a day. By 2001, there were 271 million living in extreme poverty, and by 2015, at current projections, there will only be 19 million people living under those conditions.
In 10 years time, you'll see that you swallowed a load and called it ice-cream.
EN[i]GMA
01-26-2005, 03:45 PM
In 10 years time, you'll see that you swallowed a load and called it ice-cream.
Whaaaa, whaaaaa, Ace made fun of me over the internet.
I'm mortally wounded Ace. Your intelligence never fails to astound me.
If in 10 years you're still an intellectually stunted communist I'll be sure to rub the success of the 3rd world in your face.
STANKY808
01-26-2005, 03:46 PM
GMA']Yes, the World Bank does have an agenda. Tell me what you think it is.
Are the numbers skewed due to a method that doesn't accurately portray wealth in certain places or do to intentional trickery?
Our helpful (Likely biased?) guides don't say.
And their economics are rudementary when stating:
Furthermore, the growth of the service sector worldwide may translate over time into the appearance that the poor have increased purchasing power. In fact, the increased consumption of these services by the non-poor does nothing to reduce poverty.
That's just false. The non-poor purchasing the poor's services will easily help the poor.
So essentially, poor people in 3rd world countries are making more money (As even they aren't denying) and it's not "enough".
This is why I said wait 20 years and come back to me. You'll see just how "viscious" capitalism is when the number of the worlds poor is cut in half.
As for not using those countries, the data could easily be extrapolated for these countries espescially considering that India and China are the 2 most industrialized and modern of the 3rd world nations.
Accurate numbers of poor there would likely increase the number, not decrese it.
And "One dollar a day" by any stretch of the imagination, is better than nothing, which is your socialistic wet dreams would afford them.
OK, I have been trying to keep it civil as there is clearly a difference of opinion. Clearly you cannot.
I asked you before if you had travelled outside of the developed world and you did not answer. So I'll ask again, have you travelled outside of the developed world?
If you do in the future I suggest you gather some locals wherever you are and explain to them how "enterprise zones" are going to lift them out of poverty. And explain to them that while they cannot afford to buy the products they make, one day (in twenty years maybe thirty) they may be able to.
You have no idea of what my politics/economics are, I have merely presented opposing viewpoints which you dismiss out of hand.
And I will point out one last time your hipocrasy-
You ask me what the agenda of the world bank is suggesting that you believe it to be benevolent. Then you critisize the writers of a differing opinon as being biased! No shit, there is bias and agendas at work here! And you in typical ignorant fashion pick the biased info. which best suits your world view. I have not stated anything other than I don't think capitalism is the panacea you hold it out to be.
EN[i]GMA
01-26-2005, 04:07 PM
OK, I have been trying to keep it civil as there is clearly a difference of opinion. Clearly you cannot.
I asked you before if you had travelled outside of the developed world and you did not answer. So I'll ask again, have you travelled outside of the developed world?
If you do in the future I suggest you gather some locals wherever you are and explain to them how "enterprise zones" are going to lift them out of poverty. And explain to them that while they cannot afford to buy the products they make, one day (in twenty years maybe thirty) they may be able to.
You have no idea of what my politics/economics are, I have merely presented opposing viewpoints which you dismiss out of hand.
And I will point out one last time your hipocrasy-
You ask me what the agenda of the world bank is suggesting that you believe it to be benevolent. Then you critisize the writers of a differing opinon as being biased! No shit, there is bias and agendas at work here! And you in typical ignorant fashion pick the biased info. which best suits your world view. I have not stated anything other than I don't think capitalism is the panacea you hold it out to be.
I've been perfectly civil.
Sorry for ignoring your inquiry, no I haven't travelled outside the civilized world.
Just because they don't understand economics doesn't mean others don't. The laberors in 19th century worked in conditions worse than this and look at what America has become. I'm sure they absolutely hate the conditions they live in. I would as well. But these situations are temporary as they've been every place capitalism has been instituted. But ignore history if it suits you.
Of course I dismiss them, they're wrong. Why wouldn't I dismiss them?
And you aren't a liberal?
It's not hypocritical. I have a good idea what you were insinuating but I wanted you to say it.
Tell me what the World Bank's bias is.
How interesting that I ask you for clarification regarding your stance on the World Bank yet you attack me AND assume I am for the World Bank. I am not. And what was that big H word you used? Hypocrisy or something?
And let's make this 2 for 2 on the hypocrisy.
You admit your source is biased then lambaste me for agreeing with the source I agree with? Hypocrite. Since every source is biased, we should believe them all right? Tell me what's wrong with that statement.
How no ble of you. Your quest would be better served if it were factually accurate and logical.
STANKY808
01-26-2005, 04:38 PM
[QUOTE='EN[i]GMA']I've been perfectly civil.
And you aren't a liberal?
[QUOTE]
Uhhh... no you haven't been civil
And you typed socialistic in the message I was responding to. You do know there is a difference right? And I would call myself neither a liberal or socialist.
Another one that's never actual interacted with one of the "global poor" but knows what's best for them. "Shut up and take your structual adjustment and come back in twenty years when you are no longer poor".
As to the rest of your shit...yawn
EN[i]GMA
01-26-2005, 06:41 PM
[QUOTE='EN[i]GMA']I've been perfectly civil.
And you aren't a liberal?
[QUOTE]
Uhhh... no you haven't been civil
And you typed socialistic in the message I was responding to. You do know there is a difference right? And I would call myself neither a liberal or socialist.
Another one that's never actual interacted with one of the "global poor" but knows what's best for them. "Shut up and take your structual adjustment and come back in twenty years when you are no longer poor".
As to the rest of your shit...yawn
How have I been less than civil?
What than, do you propose be done?
Funkaloyd
01-26-2005, 07:33 PM
The laberors in 19th century worked in conditions worse than this and look at what America has become.
That situation wasn't improved through a trickle-down effect.
EN[i]GMA
01-26-2005, 07:36 PM
That situation wasn't improved through a trickle-down effect.
Thank how was it improved?
Ace42
01-27-2005, 02:56 AM
GMA']
If in 10 years you're still an intellectually stunted communist I'll be sure to rub the success of the 3rd world in your face.
I'm not the person who said that the value of Gold is a static figure.
Funkaloyd
01-27-2005, 06:42 AM
how was it improved?
Socialist workers movements. Whether government regulation of private contracts is just or not is a relevant question, but the fact is, the Western world would be (way more) seriously fucked up without things like the minimum wage, and workplace safety standards.
EN[i]GMA
01-27-2005, 02:56 PM
Socialist workers movements. Whether government regulation of private contracts is just or not is a relevant question, but the fact is, the Western world would be (way more) seriously fucked up without things like the minimum wage, and workplace safety standards.
That just isn't true.
What increased wages was increased productivity. Labor unions never played a significant role as labor unions never composed a large percentage of the working class and existed only in a few industries.
Real wages grew at 2% yearly BEFORE the advent of industrial labor unions here in America and 2% afterwords. Where is the change?
At it's peak, labor comprised 33% of the workforce in 1950, now they comprise less than 10.
Labor unions only improve the conditions for their own employees. Every penny a union employee makes above market value is a penny a non-union member doesn't make.
Minimum wage laws cause unemployment, hurting the poor they supposedly help.
When wages rise, labor becomes more costly, and it becomes less profitable for employers to higher more workers.
Working conditions improved on their own right. If people are constantly dying in your factory you are losing money due to lawsuits, due to downtime, do to decreased efficiency, due to promising, young, intelligent workers going to different companies and the bad press generated by deaths.
Government regulation has never been shown to be more effective and has actually made the problem worse in certain areas.
All my data and facts were taken from How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo. You should read it.
phinkasaurus
01-27-2005, 03:41 PM
GMA']Minimum wage laws cause unemployment, hurting the poor they supposedly help.
When wages rise, labor becomes more costly, and it becomes less profitable for employers to higher more workers.
Working conditions improved on their own right. If people are constantly dying in your factory you are losing money due to lawsuits, due to downtime, do to decreased efficiency, due to promising, young, intelligent workers going to different companies and the bad press generated by deaths.
keeping wages low will make people live better? if I was an employer trying to make money, profit and accumulate all I could, why would I ever pay my workers more? they are an expense, not a income source. are you telling me people will decide that they don't need as much money, and decide to pay more to their workers? capitalism is about making more capital, as much as one can get. it's not about fairness or equity. there is no room for either in a successful company.
and I bolded the phrase up there to show how everyting breaks down in capitalism, whether you are losing money or not. not whether you are KILLING PEOPLE or not.
GMA']All my data and facts were taken from How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo. You should read it.
and you parrot well. have you ever held a job?
EN[i]GMA
01-28-2005, 02:56 PM
keeping wages low will make people live better? if I was an employer trying to make money, profit and accumulate all I could, why would I ever pay my workers more? they are an expense, not a income source. are you telling me people will decide that they don't need as much money, and decide to pay more to their workers? capitalism is about making more capital, as much as one can get. it's not about fairness or equity. there is no room for either in a successful company.
and I bolded the phrase up there to show how everyting breaks down in capitalism, whether you are losing money or not. not whether you are KILLING PEOPLE or not.
Keeping wages low? The minimum wage only effects 8% of workers. If they wanted to keep wages rediciously low, a large percentage of current workers would be making minimum wage. They aren't. Those workers are mostly high school and college kids as well. Minimum wage workers usually only stay on minimum wage for a few months as their productivity and thus, usefullness increases.
Say a resturant wanted to hire another cook, but this cook would only bring in 5 dollars an hour profit for the restaraunt. If the worker would make less than 5 dollars, the restuarant would employ the worker because it would bring in more revenue. But if they HAVE to pay their workers 6 dollars an hour, that worker will remain jobless because his employment will cost the company money.
Why wouldn't capitalists raise wages? Perhaps it's you, not I, that's misrepresenting capitalism to achieve our ideological goals. The capitalist would raise the wages of his employees for many reasons.
Higher paid workers are generally happier.
Happier workers are more efficient, less likely to quite which incurs training costs, less likely to cause disturbances and likely to show up daily and perform their job, a rare thing in the job market.
A company will pay it's employees enough to keep them at thier job, working effectively and above all, making a profit.
Wages rise 2% a year, inflation adjusted, without any sort of government help. The free market can solve it's own problems. With that statistic ringing true, further discussion of wages is really moot. Capitalism does what's required by society.
Workers should not be paid more than they bring in as profit for their employer.
and you parrot well. have you ever held a job?
Parrot? Those were facts and figures. Are you able to debate using anything other than appeals to emotion? You have no facts backing you up, that much is clear, and your case is merely criticism of capitalism.
You're the one who's parroting that same simplistic ideas over and over again, not I.
And no I haven't had a job.
phinkasaurus
01-28-2005, 04:21 PM
GMA']And no I haven't had a job.
ok.
that makes sense.
get a job, paying minumum wage, try to pay your own bills (rent, utilities, etc), maybe have a kid or two, and then tell me how we should abolish minumum wage should be.
Capitalists want profit. if they can lower their expenses, they will. Be it in porduction costs, marketing costs, or labor, or all three. Business 101 tells us that. If there are always people who need to money to eat and live, then you never will have to raise wages. look at sweatshop conditions in other countries. as soon as the local population gets organized or the gov't recends the tax breaks, the companies pull out and find another destitute country.
i agree though, if you wanted to maintain your workers happiness in order to retain them, higher wages and safer working conditions would be a good start. but the nature of capitalism does not allow for that. only in rare cases does a company function like that, and those are usually high end, smaler companies .
capitalism dictates profit first and foremost. worker happiness is irrelevant when their will always be more people who need jobs. a constant pool of unemployed workers is a necessary by product of capitalism. it keeps wages and work place reforms low and maintains the capitalist control over the workers.
i am sorry I have no figures or %'s to quote, but all my info comes from many books and being a working member of society. i can point you to books I've enjoyed and you can see my facts there.
seriously, get a job. you're old enough. let me know how you feel about it then.
EN[i]GMA
01-28-2005, 04:32 PM
ok.
that makes sense.
I haven't had a job but I'm well versed in economics.
get a job, paying minumum wage, try to pay your own bills (rent, utilities, etc), maybe have a kid or two, and then tell me how we should abolish minumum wage should be.
Minimum wage jobs aren't meant for people with families. They are meant for high school and college kids supporting themselves.
Fewer than 10% of minimum wage earners support a family on it.
In fact: fewer than 1 in 3 low wage earners are heads of households and even fewer (less than 1 in 10) are the sole earner in their household.
http://www.livingwageresearch.org/factsheets/overview.asp
That's where I got that number and the site absolutely destroys "living wage" arguments. Take a gander.
So basically, 10% of 8% of the workforce are in the situation you described.
Capitalists want profit. if they can lower their expenses, they will. Be it in porduction costs, marketing costs, or labor, or all three. Business 101 tells us that. If there are always people who need to money to eat and live, then you never will have to raise wages. look at sweatshop conditions in other countries. as soon as the local population gets organized or the gov't recends the tax breaks, the companies pull out and find another destitute country.
Than tell me why companies, free from government legislation, improve their wages 2% a year.
I've described this for you many times, you just choose to ignore it. If what you say is true, wages would never go up. They do.
i agree though, if you wanted to maintain your workers happiness in order to retain them, higher wages and safer working conditions would be a good start. but the nature of capitalism does not allow for that. only in rare cases does a company function like that, and those are usually high end, smaler companies .
capitalism dictates profit first and foremost. worker happiness is irrelevant when their will always be more people who need jobs. a constant pool of unemployed workers is a necessary by product of capitalism. it keeps wages and work place reforms low and maintains the capitalist control over the workers.
Lies. Wages improve accross the board 2% a year, free from government coercion. Child labor was non-existant when it was banned. Workplaces were safter BEFORE government regulation and hardly anyone in the United States is starving.
That's nothing but a pack of lies. In a true capitalism economy unemployment would be almost zero (And if the government did it's job with border controll immigration would be low).
i am sorry I have no figures or %'s to quote, but all my info comes from many books and being a working member of society. i can point you to books I've enjoyed and you can see my facts there.
Sure.
seriously, get a job. you're old enough. let me know how you feel about it then.
I see myself getting a job at some point soon.
And I'm sure it will suck. Oh well.
Ace42
01-28-2005, 05:00 PM
GMA']I haven't had a job but I'm well versed in economics.
Hah.
EN[i]GMA
01-28-2005, 05:14 PM
Hah.
What job would a brilliant economic theorist like yourself maintain?
Economist learaute of the United Kingdom (There never has been a decent economist from Britain, that hack Keynes was an embarrassment)? Proffessor at Cambridge?
Or ignorant youth who's never going to accomplish anything because he has the social skills of a very pissed off rock?
Ace42
01-28-2005, 05:19 PM
Why, I would use my economic theories to go on a talk circuit and publish books at extortionate prices explaining why ripping off people is good for them and society in general.
If I was a cunt [read: economist], that is.
STANKY808
01-28-2005, 05:20 PM
GMA']
Child labor was non-existant when it was banned.
Uhhh, what's this then...
Bulletin 69, Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Census (Washington, D.C., Jan. 1907), gives the following table of the extent of Child Labor in the United States in 1900:
TABLE I
Children Ten to Fifteen Years of Age Reported at the Twelfth Census as Having a Gainful Occupation
United States (area of enumeration) 1,752,187
Continental United States 1,750,178
Alaska 1,002
Hawaii 998
Military and Naval Service Abroad 9
A classification by year of age is also given for the following reason: "In the age period ten to fifteen occurs the transition from childhood to adolescence, and normally each year included in that period marks important changes in the child's growth and development; hence in any question relating to the education and welfare of the child, a difference of only one year is significant" (p. 7).
TABLE II
Breadwinners Ten to Fifteen Years of Age in Continental United States, 1900
Age Number Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Years 142,105 8.1
11 Years 158,778 9.1
12 Years 221,313 12.6
13 Years 268,427 15.3
14 Years 406,701 23.2
15 Years 552,854 31.6
Total 1,750,178 100
I really don't know when it was banned, but at the turn of the century one point seven million children were working.
EN[i]GMA
01-28-2005, 05:22 PM
Uhhh, what's this then...
Bulletin 69, Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Census (Washington, D.C., Jan. 1907), gives the following table of the extent of Child Labor in the United States in 1900:
TABLE I
Children Ten to Fifteen Years of Age Reported at the Twelfth Census as Having a Gainful Occupation
United States (area of enumeration) 1,752,187
Continental United States 1,750,178
Alaska 1,002
Hawaii 998
Military and Naval Service Abroad 9
A classification by year of age is also given for the following reason: "In the age period ten to fifteen occurs the transition from childhood to adolescence, and normally each year included in that period marks important changes in the child's growth and development; hence in any question relating to the education and welfare of the child, a difference of only one year is significant" (p. 7).
TABLE II
Breadwinners Ten to Fifteen Years of Age in Continental United States, 1900
Age Number Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Years 142,105 8.1
11 Years 158,778 9.1
12 Years 221,313 12.6
13 Years 268,427 15.3
14 Years 406,701 23.2
15 Years 552,854 31.6
Total 1,750,178 100
I really don't know when it was banned, but at the turn of the century one point seven million children were working.
That's a little earlier than I meant (Though still rather low compared to 20 years earlier).
Child labor was regulated in the very late 40's or early 50's and by that point had become almost non-existant.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.