U.S. rattled as Mexico drug war bleeds over border

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh come on, seriously, you want to defend the idea of child labour? It's one thing for a kid to do a paper round for some extra cash and quite another for a kid to be the main bread winner and screwed by the employer for the privilege and somehow, I think you know that.

[mRx 16]

Oh come on, seriously, you want to defend the idea of child labour? It's one thing for a kid to do a paper round for some extra cash and quite another for a kid to be the main bread winner and screwed by the employer for the privilege and somehow, I think you know that.

As I've tried to point out previously, what is screwed by the employer? How is this subjectiveness quantified?

Your alternative was that you'd rather see the child starve to death.(unless you were being sarcastic; hard to tell on message boards) Is starvation the necessary catalyst needed in order to destroy the businesses?

From an economic perspective, the wage is reasonable, as full-employment is obtained.

As for my personal opinion, I think it's very sad, and I blame the parents more than anything, but that's just me.

[Peikko 1,575]

How can you 'blame the parents'? Are you saying that they would do that to their children even if they had a different choice, one where for example their child had the opportunity to go to school to get educated and have the opportunity to live a much better life?

From an economic point of view, a child who is paid less than the equivalent being paid to their adult counterpart is being exploited, and I am sure it comes as no surprise to you that in fact, not only are these children skilled at their work, but they are chosen to do the work because they will do it cheaper than any adult. Is that better than starving? I would imagine that's hard to say, but overall, I would think that it is at best a short term gain. What happens when they cease to be children? I can't imagine these sweat shops having a sudden change of heart and paying an adult wage once the child grows up.

[mRx 16]

How can you 'blame the parents'? Are you saying that they would do that to their children even if they had a different choice, one where for example their child had the opportunity to go to school to get educated and have the opportunity to live a much better life?

From an economic point of view, a child who is paid less than the equivalent being paid to their adult counterpart is being exploited, and I am sure it comes as no surprise to you that in fact, not only are these children skilled at their work, but they are chosen to do the work because they will do it cheaper than any adult. Is that better than starving? I would imagine that's hard to say, but overall, I would think that it is at best a short term gain. What happens when they cease to be children? I can't imagine these sweat shops having a sudden change of heart and paying an adult wage once the child grows up.

Parents are responsible for their children, and I think it's irresponsible to bring them into this world when you cannot provide for them. Granted, some impoverished people have less access to birth control, but the fact remains; each person is responsible for themselves, and their children.

Your economic analysis is off the mark (again). Labor contracts are agreements between employer and employee. (repeating myself, again!)

Bargaining for wages, similiar to peaceful unions (though not modern day, Congressionally-mandated unions), is a means for employees to determine their marketability and assure they're receiving a fair market wage for their labor. As children grow up, and their skills advance, which they will, then they should be able to ask their employer for a higher wage. If the employer rejects this request, and the employee's labor is worth more than he is receiving, then he should and most likely would seek employment elsewhere to command his market worth.

[Peikko 1,575]

How can you 'blame the parents'? Are you saying that they would do that to their children even if they had a different choice, one where for example their child had the opportunity to go to school to get educated and have the opportunity to live a much better life?

From an economic point of view, a child who is paid less than the equivalent being paid to their adult counterpart is being exploited, and I am sure it comes as no surprise to you that in fact, not only are these children skilled at their work, but they are chosen to do the work because they will do it cheaper than any adult. Is that better than starving? I would imagine that's hard to say, but overall, I would think that it is at best a short term gain. What happens when they cease to be children? I can't imagine these sweat shops having a sudden change of heart and paying an adult wage once the child grows up.

Parents are responsible for their children, and I think it's irresponsible to bring them into this world when you cannot provide for them. Granted, some impoverished people have less access to birth control, but the fact remains; each person is responsible for themselves, and their children.

Your economic analysis is off the mark (again). Labor contracts are agreements between employer and employee. (repeating myself, again!)

Bargaining for wages, similiar to peaceful unions (though not modern day, Congressionally-mandated unions), is a means for employees to determine their marketability and assure they're receiving a fair market wage for their labor. As children grow up, and their skills advance, which they will, then they should be able to ask their employer for a higher wage. If the employer rejects this request, and the employee's labor is worth more than he is receiving, then he should and most likely would seek employment elsewhere to command his market worth.

, whatever you say.

[mRx 16]

Yeah, I think we took this thread the distance.

[slim 1,525]

Yeah, I think we took this thread the distance.

Except for you guys didn't talk one bit about the Mexican drug war spilling over into the U.S.

How bout that?

And while we're at it, why don't we go ahead and ban hand grenades? That'll stop 'em, right?

[mRx 16]

Yeah, I think we took this thread the distance.

Except for you guys didn't talk one bit about the Mexican drug war spilling over into the U.S.

How bout that?

Well, I said originally that legalizing drugs in the US would end the drug war, and it spun out of control from there.

So, yes, we did talk one bit about it.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Yeah, I think we took this thread the distance.

Except for you guys didn't talk one bit about the Mexican drug war spilling over into the U.S.

How bout that?

Well, I said originally that legalizing drugs in the US would end the drug war, and it spun out of control from there.

So, yes, we did talk one bit about it.

If we legalize drugs, who is going to control the supply, regualtions, etc, the gov?

[mRx 16]

Yeah, I think we took this thread the distance.

Except for you guys didn't talk one bit about the Mexican drug war spilling over into the U.S.

How bout that?

Well, I said originally that legalizing drugs in the US would end the drug war, and it spun out of control from there.

So, yes, we did talk one bit about it.

If we legalize drugs, who is going to control the supply, regualtions, etc, the gov?

You are joking, right?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Yeah, I think we took this thread the distance.

Except for you guys didn't talk one bit about the Mexican drug war spilling over into the U.S.

How bout that?

Well, I said originally that legalizing drugs in the US would end the drug war, and it spun out of control from there.

So, yes, we did talk one bit about it.

If we legalize drugs, who is going to control the supply, regualtions, etc, the gov?

You are joking, right?

If drugs are legalized, we can't let them be smuggled in from Mexico. That won't stop the violence. They would have tobe regulated, like tobacco and alcohol, no?

Edited March 4, 2009 by spookyturtle

[mRx 16]

Yeah, I think we took this thread the distance.

Except for you guys didn't talk one bit about the Mexican drug war spilling over into the U.S.

How bout that?

Well, I said originally that legalizing drugs in the US would end the drug war, and it spun out of control from there.

So, yes, we did talk one bit about it.

If we legalize drugs, who is going to control the supply, regualtions, etc, the gov?

You are joking, right?

If drugs are legalized, we can't let them be smuggled in from Mexico. That won't stop the violence. They would have tobe regulated, like tobacco and alcohol, no?

If drugs are legalized, there would be no need to smuggle them in from anywhere. They could be grown where ever the climate allows, instead of only where corrupt, bribed foreign governments allow.

There would be no profit or business for drug cartels, drug dealers, drug gangs, or even the Taliban.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Matt85

[spookyturtle 9,465]

If drugs are legalized, there would be no need to smuggle them in from anywhere. They could be grown where ever the climate allows, instead of only where corrupt, bribed foreign governments allow.

There would be no profit or business for drug cartels, drug dealers, drug gangs, or even the Taliban.

So you agree that there would be some sort of regulation, like tobacco or alcohol?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I get a kick out of Hulk in your sig. It reminds me of when a bunch of us went to Wrestlemania V in Atlantic City 20 years ago.

[mRx 16]

If drugs are legalized, there would be no need to smuggle them in from anywhere. They could be grown where ever the climate allows, instead of only where corrupt, bribed foreign governments allow.

There would be no profit or business for drug cartels, drug dealers, drug gangs, or even the Taliban.

So you agree that there would be some sort of regulation, like tobacco or alcohol?

No, I don't think central government regulation is necessary at all. What for?