• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid'

randel

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
5,758
Reaction score
2,094
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are ‘truly stupid’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


(CNN) - Newt Gingrich proposed a plan Friday that would allow poor children to clean their schools for money, saying such a setup would both allow students to earn income and endow them with a strong work ethic.

snip

"I tried for years to have a very simple model. These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work; they'd have cash; they'd have pride in the schools. They'd begin the process of rising."

snip

Gingrich said his idea would be "making work worthwhile" for children.
 
:shock::lamo good god, he is actually serious
 
I think I read somewhere that child labor was originally outlawed, in part, as a strategy to deal with adult unemployment. So it makes total sense why it should be legalized now...
 
yes, let's stop paying workers a decent wage, and just hire children to work for $2 a day...or less.

yeah, that Gingrinch is a real jerk.
 
I do love that he suggests this as a strategy to get rid of "unionised janitors". As though belonging to a union means you shouldn't have a job.
 
I do love that he suggests this as a strategy to get rid of "unionised janitors". As though belonging to a union means you shouldn't have a job.

and getting rid of unionized janitors and hiring children, is a great way to reduce unemployment.
 
I do love that he suggests this as a strategy to get rid of "unionised janitors". As though belonging to a union means you shouldn't have a job.
i was waiting to see who would comment on the 'union' part of his statement...lol
 
I don't exactly see how this is unusual. I did the same thing when I was in middle school, I was never officially hired but I worked anyway just cuz I wanted to. As long as it's voluntary, I don't see how this is a bad thing. I just think it was stupid for gingrich to bring it up.
 
It would save the schools money and help those children stay in school longer. The only reason this would be a bad idea is that homework loads have been steadily increasing over the decades solely in order to discourage teenagers from working. Perhaps it is time to rethink that stupid policy.
 
If Gingrich has something here, why not expand it to all sorts of other jobs in the land and really save money and empower children? I bet they would be willing to go into mines and work for half of what miners do - especially those evil United Mine Workers members. And those people standing by the side of the road with orange vests and yellow hardhats spinning the stop sign to tell you when to stop during road construction - how hard is that to teach a 12 year old who would do it for four bucks and hour? Think of the savings to tax payers. There has to be lots and lots of jobs like that which kids would do far cheaper. I bet a ten year old could not do worse as general manager of some professional sports team which finished last this year in their division. And those adults make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. A kid would do it for 10% of that.
 
Last edited:
It would save the schools money and help those children stay in school longer. The only reason this would be a bad idea is that homework loads have been steadily increasing over the decades solely in order to discourage teenagers from working. Perhaps it is time to rethink that stupid policy.

I totally disagree...it would cost schools and taxpayers BILLIONS if you were to allow this all over the country. Lawyers will be suing schools at the behest of parents on a daily basis...Teaching a strong work ethic side of it I agree with...but theres other ways to do that...making children school employees is NOT the answer.
 
I totally disagree...it would cost schools and taxpayers BILLIONS if you were to allow this all over the country. Lawyers will be suing schools at the behest of parents on a daily basis...Teaching a strong work ethic side of it I agree with...but theres other ways to do that...making children school employees is NOT the answer.
I like the idea - if it could be implemented correctly (no idea how to manage basic safety, etc.). I worked when I was a kid, too. Manual labor - mowed yards, dug holes, split firewood, put down sod, washed cars - whatever I could. My parents encouraged it - and, they didn't need the money. They wanted me to understand the value of work and education. I can still outwork the majority of people I meet at any given task. I am constantly amazed at how few people have any idea of what it means to work hard - to look for the next thing that needs to be done and to do it. So many people relax, take their time, take it easy - for what? You don't get a longer life - it just takes longer to do everything. There are some indications that you may actually live longer by staying busy. Ever heard the phrase "if you want something done give it to someone who's busy"? That's because there are a ton of people out there who have no idea what it means to get something done.

I think all kids should be taught how to clean toilets and mop floors. There is real satisfaction in a job well done and the reward therefrom.

The economic benefit of those kids as they grow (to themselves, to their families, to capitalism, etc.) would more than make up for jobs lost in the school.
 
Such a system would be too easily abused by parents needing the extra income, possibly at the expense of educating their children and getting out of the poverty cycle.

Gingrich certainly will not have my vote.
 
Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are ‘truly stupid’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


(CNN) - Newt Gingrich proposed a plan Friday that would allow poor children to clean their schools for money, saying such a setup would both allow students to earn income and endow them with a strong work ethic.

snip

"I tried for years to have a very simple model. These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work; they'd have cash; they'd have pride in the schools. They'd begin the process of rising."

snip

Gingrich said his idea would be "making work worthwhile" for children.

What's wrong with it? Kids love to earn extra money! They're cryin' to earn extra money. I think it's brilliant.

Such a system would be too easily abused by parents needing the extra income, possibly at the expense of educating their children and getting out of the poverty cycle.

Gingrich certainly will not have my vote.

As if he had it before! :rofl
 
What's wrong with it? Kids love to earn extra money! They're cryin' to earn extra money. I think it's brilliant.



As if he had it before! :rofl

I was considering it given the work he did in the 90s getting the budget balanced and the country prosperous. It wasn't all Clinton.

But if he says crazy stuff like this. It just scares me.
 
Last edited:
i was waiting to see who would comment on the 'union' part of his statement...lol

It was an incredibly stupid thing to say. If you really thought this was a good idea you wouldn't throw something in that would automatically turn many people off to it.
 
Hmm . . . so when an illegal immigrant takes a job at a lower wage than an American employee, it is essentially theft.

When a child takes a job at a lower wage than an adult employee, it saves private entities money and teaches the the children good character.

Makes sense.
 
Last edited:
...When a child takes a job at a lower wage than an adult employee, it saves private entities money and teaches the the children good character....

right, 10 year-olds should be working in factories and office buildings.

that makes a lot of sense. and since they are little people, we can pay them HALF the minimum wage. or just call it a training program.

right. great way to help America's unemployment problem.
 
Are children outlawed from being paper boys or lawn mowers? Or just "official" employees?
 
Are children outlawed from being paper boys or lawn mowers? Or just "official" employees?

When I was 12, I worked at the local school. One hour in the morning and 1 hour at night. I learned to make the connection between my efforts and that 3 speed bicycle. Never camped out in a private park to make the point that should not have to pay back my student loan.

It beat delivering papers by a mile.
 
how does tossing 10 million more people into the workforce, help solve our unemployment problem?
 
I'm going to try to be the voice of reason here because this was a topic my wife and I discussed at length yesterday.

I'll first start with the pro-side of this issue and speak to the broader point I believe Newt was trying to make which is on par with the argument DarkWizard12 was trying to make (post #8).

I remember when I was a child growing up in the 70's you could make money performing odd jobs for your neighbors mowing and racking yards, shoveling snow, setting up a lemonaid/kool-aid stand, babysitting, having a paper route, working a summer job or some rinky-dink low wage job at the local soda shop. But as times and the economy has changed, these such opportunities have either become severely limited or are gone.

Newspapers are all but exstint now as far as local door-to-door delivery is concerned especially with newspaper sales diminishing and with most major newspapers now available online. Besides that, now you see adults taking huge bundles of papers in their mini-vans and delivering them at night as a side-job. Home daycare has become big business; so teenage girls don't babysit much anymore unless it's for a close family friend. Selling koolaid in front of your home now requires a business license. So much for the 1st-grade entrepreneaur. And you can forget about the young lad pulling his father's lawnmower down the block going door-to-door to your neighbors to mow their lawn for $10-25. The lawncare/landscaping business is big small business now. So, the era of kids being able to make money on the side while they are...kids...and learning the lessons of "hard work pays" as folks like Ross Perot and Warren Buffet once did are pretty much gone. Now, if you aren't a critical thinker and you don't know how to look for the opportunities and you haven't embraced technology while you're young, chances are this generation growing up will be left behind. This is the message President Obama has been trying to convey in his push toward improving and providing educational opportunities for the 21st Century and beyond.

So, from the above perspective I do understand the greater point Newt is trying to make. However, I also see alittle bit of hypocricy, not to mention problems, with what he's suggesting.

Linked herein is a study conducted by the Regents of the University of Wisconsin System on behalf of the Institute for Research on Poverty in 2006. The graph on page 2 tells us all we need to know as far as which youth demographic "should" benefit most from youth jobs in poor neighborhoods. However, my concerns with Newt's urban youth jobs initiative as he details it is that it would only lend itself to the most disadvantaged youths unknowingly being sent back to the days of under-appreciated custocial trades many of these children's parents and grandparents fought hard to get away from. My point here is simple, folks: If you filter out the white noise of politics, you eventually get to the truth. So, what is it that Newt Gingrich is really trying to say here?

Poor minority children, you can help your single mom (whose likely on welfare) suppliment the household income by being a janitor working a few hours a week after school making minimum wage. Wouldn't that be great? You earn alittle pocket change while in the process help clean up the mess you make at your school. Imagine what pride you'd have coming home showing moms your little paycheck along with your C- report card. You'll be earning an income while also experiencing what it's like to be a good, hard worker. Now, who among you poor little nigglets and wetbacks wants to make some money cleaning up for somebody else just like your parents and grandfathers?

I'll probably get thread-banned for the above quote, but what Newt Gingrich is proposing is nothing more than a step backwards for poor minority children whose parents, grandparent and great-grandparents very likely performed such similar meanial labor task at some point in their lives going back to the 50's, 60's and 70's. Newt is attempting to usurp child labor laws and justify such as a call to action to provide impovished youths with a means to earn pocket change while also "taking pride in keeping their schools clean". I have no problem with students taking pride in their school. If they are being trashed and are in disrepair, volunteer students through efforts by the student body should advocate performing such repair jobs, i.e., paint over graffiti, help install new light figures by shop students, the jocks mow the football field or the baseball diamond. But DON'T try to con poor minority students into doing janitorial work on the cheap!
 
Last edited:
when I was a kid of 13 and 14... I did exactly what Gingrich is talking about... a lot of us did.
we didn't replace the janitors though, we complimented them and did a bunch of jobs they didn't want to do or didn't have time to do.

they used to be just student jobs, but that changed to being being students jobs subject to means testing... which meant that only poor kids could get the jobs.


we made $1.25 an hour and worked after school, some weekends.. and the job turned full time in the summer months.
it was a pretty good deal.

but that was 1966 and this is 2011... kids are too special to work now, it's better that they sit on their ass at home and play Skyrim.
 
how does tossing 10 million more people into the workforce, help solve our unemployment problem?

Are you talking about a few kids working a couple hours a day, or the 10 million illegal workers?
 
when I was a kid of 13 and 14... I did exactly what Gingrich is talking about... a lot of us did.
we didn't replace the janitors though, we complimented them and did a bunch of jobs they didn't want to do or didn't have time to do.

they used to be just student jobs, but that changed to being being students jobs subject to means testing... which meant that only poor kids could get the jobs.


we made $1.25 an hour and worked after school, some weekends.. and the job turned full time in the summer months.
it was a pretty good deal.

but that was 1966 and this is 2011... kids are too special to work now, it's better that they sit on their ass at home and play Skyrim.

Thanks for helping to illustrate my point.

I'm not saying kids shouldn't work whether they come from poor backgrounds or are being raised with a silver spoon in their month. I am saying, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about doing it especially when dealing with poor minority kids who have bore witness to this same level of degradation for generations. You don't try to go "back to the future" by conning kids into performing such meanial tasks for little pay that we all know are generational in scope!

If you're going to implement such a program to help youth earn extra pay, do so over the summer when they it won't interfer with their school work/activities and they won't be seen by their peers, thereby subjecting them to ridicule.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom