Gingrich: Child labor laws "truly stupid"

[memphis]

Gingrich aside, the notion that schools are failing kids is completely backwards. I can't tell you how many bright idealistic young people begin careers as teachers because they really want to make a difference in the world. And they don't mind working the ghetto schools because that's where one can REALLY make a difference, right? All you need is a little patience and perserverance and it all comes together? Wrong. The kids there are completely of control, barely literate, and refuse to take any responsibility in life. The students frequently make no effort beyond showing up (even that is sometimes too much to ask) and are completely unreceptive to any efforts to help. Schools are trying their hardest to help poor kids, and the kids are throwing it away with one hand and holding up a giant middle finger at the teacher with the other. And then the politicians come along and say it's the teacher's fault. That she should be able to control these kids like a warden, inspire them to learn, and make sure all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed administratively along the way. Heaven forfend some juvenile delinquent get "left behind." And the turnover rate is out of control, naturally. We need to hold kids (and in many cases, parents) responsible for all the "failing" that's going around. That's the culture of responsibility that we need to implant in all youngsters. There are poor performers in any field, but teachers are giving way more than most. It really pisses me off when people imply otherwise.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Will you stop misinterpreting what I'm saying?  That's another point, entirely.  Of course you can teach someone the value of hard work without making them work in sweat shops.  Gingrich wants to amend child labor laws so schools can hire cheaper labor and knock union workers out of jobs.  You believe he's saying this because he actually gives two sh**s about the students.  He said right in the quote that he wants to get rid of all the unionized workers and replace them with students.  And last time I checked, students aren't really the union type.

Sorry.  Unless you've met him personally and had a real conversation with him about these things, I doubt you know him any more than the rest of us do.

Well first I've met him on 3 separate occasions. I've been on a first name basis with some of his old American Solutions staff. A gentlemen I know used to work at Gingrich Communications and he would fill me on a lot of what was going on behind the scenes at the time. And most important to this subject I've seen him discuss this topic over a dozen times in the past. I've actually heard it enough that I could recite probably 4 paragraphs of his words almost verbatim(because when he was on the speech circuit he tended to repeat himself a lot) about this topic. And I've watched or listened to over 100 of his speeches. Now tell me what makes you an authority on Newt, please!

I'm not misinterpreting what your saying. You keep on talking about kids dropping out, sweat shops and forced labor, etc. and none of that has anything to do with this. Its very simple do you or do you not support the child labor laws being amended to allow kids to be able to get a job that doesn't demand to much hours that impacts school? Yes or No! Newt picks yes. You seem intent on changing the argument towards sweat shops and dropping out so that you can attack him. That is not what he's saying. It doesn't matter if he mentions "union" janitors in the quote. I've heard him make this argument over a dozen times without any "union" jobs brought up. He probably added that in so he could make a statement that would appeal to conservatives on that level, but that isn't his argument. His argument is that extra jobs for kids is a good thing and we should allow them to do it, plain and simple.

Again to the degree that your focusing on just the fact that he mentioned "union janitors" must mean that you are a union rep or something because most people don't go all hot and bothered when someone mentions the word "union" in a sentence.

I, for one, support child labor laws and the rights of union workers.  That is why I am against this whole "child labor laws are silly" spiel we've been getting by some of our politicians, not just Gingrich.  Gingrich is just another right-wing politician, lying about his real intentions so he can punish the unions.  Many people support child labor because they are not union-protected, so it's easy to get them to do cheaper work.

[Wonkish1]

Gingrich aside, the notion that schools are failing kids is completely backwards. I can't tell you how many bright idealistic young people begin careers as teachers because they really want to make a difference in the world. And they don't mind working the ghetto schools because that's where one can REALLY make a difference, right? All you need is a little patience and perserverance and it all comes together? Wrong. The kids there are completely of control, barely literate, and refuse to take any responsibility in life. The students frequently make no effort beyond showing up (even that is sometimes too much to ask) and are completely unreceptive to any efforts to help. Schools are trying their hardest to help poor kids, and the kids are throwing it away with one hand and holding up a giant middle finger at the teacher with the other. And then the politicians come along and say it's the teacher's fault. That she should be able to control these kids like a warden, inspire them to learn, and make sure all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed administratively along the way. Heaven forfend some juvenile delinquent get "left behind." And the turnover rate is out of control, naturally. We need to hold kids (and in many cases, parents) responsible for all the "failing" that's going around. That's the culture of responsibility that we need to implant in all youngsters. There are poor performers in any field, but teachers are giving way more than most. It really pisses me off when people imply otherwise.

Blaming it on the kids and families:
1) That doesn't explain why there are large differences in performance of different innercity schools when the areas are both poor and run down

2) That doesn't explain many of these school districts remain run down and hell holes with more than $20k per student and my high school had very high test scores and high quality facilities and now I think that school is about $7k per student and was probably around $6k when I went. If that doesn't show that throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it I don't know what will(it actually seems to have an inverse relationship in the innercity).

3) It also makes it amazing that you aren't willing to attempt any type of reform to get progress. Even ones that don't sound right from your political side of the aisle

4) And Michelle Rhee's point. Just because they are poor, struggling, and there parents don't care doesn't absolve us from the responsibility of doing whatever we can to see they get a good education.

And to the extent that any of the following work we have a duty to implement them so every kid may have a better future regardless of that means that some adults feelings will be hurt or your forced to implement something championed by the other party:
-charter schools,
-vouchers
-paying kids to do their schoolwork
-ending tenure
-ending seniority based layoffs
-implementing some form of performance based pay
-allowing for dividing up of students so teachers can focus on them
-increasing the school day
-increasing the school year
-etc

Or maybe we should just throw our hands up in the air and blame the problem on the kids in the innercity and give up. Or maybe we should talk about how great it would be if it was different, but not actually change anything because real change is too hard so we should just settle for more money in a broken system. And this is what people like Al Sharpton, Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee, etc.(all Democrats) have all come to realize and yet there is still no outrage by the average the average Democrat that their much of their party will defend the feelings of adults over the futures of children.

[Wonkish1]

I, for one, support child labor laws and the rights of union workers.  That is why I am against this whole "child labor laws are silly" spiel we've been getting by some of our politicians, not just Gingrich.  Gingrich is just another right-wing politician, lying about his real intentions so he can punish the unions.  Many people support child labor because they are not union-protected, so it's easy to get them to do cheaper work.

Well that is just factually false. And the notion that you have you who has probably never sat through a 45 minute Newt speech has equality of authority on the subject of Newt's intentions is a joke. An idea put forth by someone that has put absolutely 0 time in understanding a person or subject thinking that his assessment of someones intentions are equal to someone that spent dozens upon dozens of hours of time. I get its a convenient notion to those too lazy to do research on their own that their knowledge on a subject is equal to someone who does spend the time, but that doesn't make it a sane notion either.

Since you haven't put the time in I'm not going to take your assessment of his motives as anything beyond a desperate attempt to smear a person and a group of people who you don't even understand.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I, for one, support child labor laws and the rights of union workers.  That is why I am against this whole "child labor laws are silly" spiel we've been getting by some of our politicians, not just Gingrich.  Gingrich is just another right-wing politician, lying about his real intentions so he can punish the unions.  Many people support child labor because they are not union-protected, so it's easy to get them to do cheaper work.

Well that is just factually false. And the notion that you have you who has probably never sat through a 45 minute Newt speech has equality of authority on the subject of Newt's intentions is a joke. An idea put forth by someone that has put absolutely 0 time in understanding a person or subject thinking that his assessment of someones intentions are equal to someone that spent dozens upon dozens of hours of time. I get its a convenient notion to those too lazy to do research on their own that their knowledge on a subject is equal to someone who does spend the time, but that doesn't make it a sane notion either.

Since you haven't put the time in I'm not going to take your assessment of his motives as anything beyond a desperate attempt to smear a person and a group of people who you don't even understand.

Oh, cut it with the ad hominems.  I've sat through many hours of Gingrich's crying.  Politicians cover up their intentions with lies all the time.  Only this time, Gingrich admitted that this was just another poke on the unions.  I don't have to do research to better understand something dumb your buddy said.

This is why no one here likes you.

[Wonkish1]

I, for one, support child labor laws and the rights of union workers.  That is why I am against this whole "child labor laws are silly" spiel we've been getting by some of our politicians, not just Gingrich.  Gingrich is just another right-wing politician, lying about his real intentions so he can punish the unions.  Many people support child labor because they are not union-protected, so it's easy to get them to do cheaper work.

Well that is just factually false. And the notion that you have you who has probably never sat through a 45 minute Newt speech has equality of authority on the subject of Newt's intentions is a joke. An idea put forth by someone that has put absolutely 0 time in understanding a person or subject thinking that his assessment of someones intentions are equal to someone that spent dozens upon dozens of hours of time. I get its a convenient notion to those too lazy to do research on their own that their knowledge on a subject is equal to someone who does spend the time, but that doesn't make it a sane notion either.

Since you haven't put the time in I'm not going to take your assessment of his motives as anything beyond a desperate attempt to smear a person and a group of people who you don't even understand.

Oh, cut it with the ad hominems.  I've sat through many hours of Gingrich's crying.  Politicians cover up their intentions with lies all the time.  Only this time, Gingrich admitted that this was just another poke on the unions.  I don't have to do research to better understand something dumb your buddy said.

This is why no one here likes you.

Whatever buddy! I guess everybody should just believe the things conjured up in your mind instead of real evidence.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Kay.

[Wonkish1]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Kay.

Good! I would much rather be ignored than have to deal with someone that is just going to pout because they can't win an argument without resorting to essentially the "I conjured this in my mind so it must be true" argument.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I, for one, support child labor laws and the rights of union workers.  That is why I am against this whole "child labor laws are silly" spiel we've been getting by some of our politicians, not just Gingrich.  Gingrich is just another right-wing politician, lying about his real intentions so he can punish the unions.  Many people support child labor because they are not union-protected, so it's easy to get them to do cheaper work.

Well that is just factually false. And the notion that you have you who has probably never sat through a 45 minute Newt speech has equality of authority on the subject of Newt's intentions is a joke. An idea put forth by someone that has put absolutely 0 time in understanding a person or subject thinking that his assessment of someones intentions are equal to someone that spent dozens upon dozens of hours of time. I get its a convenient notion to those too lazy to do research on their own that their knowledge on a subject is equal to someone who does spend the time, but that doesn't make it a sane notion either.

Since you haven't put the time in I'm not going to take your assessment of his motives as anything beyond a desperate attempt to smear a person and a group of people who you don't even understand.

Oh, cut it with the ad hominems.  I've sat through many hours of Gingrich's crying.  Politicians cover up their intentions with lies all the time.  Only this time, Gingrich admitted that this was just another poke on the unions.  I don't have to do research to better understand something dumb your buddy said.

This is why no one here likes you.

Whatever buddy! I guess everybody should just believe the things conjured up in your mind instead of real evidence.

I'm not going to engage too much more on this, as this is yet another time when there is no real room for agreement.

I'll just end it by saying that this seems another example of a reasonable kernel being lost in a sea of BS... yes of course it's good for kids to get out there and have the opportunity to learn about the value of work... but there are a LOT of steps before you start talking about reducing child labour laws of all things. It's not a reasonable conclusion to reach... and I don't see myself as being that unreasonable to see other POV.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I, for one, support child labor laws and the rights of union workers.  That is why I am against this whole "child labor laws are silly" spiel we've been getting by some of our politicians, not just Gingrich.  Gingrich is just another right-wing politician, lying about his real intentions so he can punish the unions.  Many people support child labor because they are not union-protected, so it's easy to get them to do cheaper work.

Well that is just factually false. And the notion that you have you who has probably never sat through a 45 minute Newt speech has equality of authority on the subject of Newt's intentions is a joke. An idea put forth by someone that has put absolutely 0 time in understanding a person or subject thinking that his assessment of someones intentions are equal to someone that spent dozens upon dozens of hours of time. I get its a convenient notion to those too lazy to do research on their own that their knowledge on a subject is equal to someone who does spend the time, but that doesn't make it a sane notion either.

Since you haven't put the time in I'm not going to take your assessment of his motives as anything beyond a desperate attempt to smear a person and a group of people who you don't even understand.

Oh, cut it with the ad hominems.  I've sat through many hours of Gingrich's crying.  Politicians cover up their intentions with lies all the time.  Only this time, Gingrich admitted that this was just another poke on the unions.  I don't have to do research to better understand something dumb your buddy said.

This is why no one here likes you.

Whatever buddy! I guess everybody should just believe the things conjured up in your mind instead of real evidence.

I'm not going to engage too much more on this, as this is yet another time when there is no real room for agreement.

I'll just end it by saying that this seems another example of a reasonable kernel being lost in a sea of BS... yes of course it's good for kids to get out there and have the opportunity to learn about the value of work... but there are a LOT of steps before you start talking about reducing child labour laws of all things. It's not a reasonable conclusion to reach... and I don't see myself as being that unreasonable to see other POV.

This pretty much sums it up completely.  I have no problem with young people learning the value of hard work, be it through their grades and/or jobs if they have one, but there's really no reason to stop going by the current status quo with these child labor laws in this country.  I honestly don't see why we need to or should.

[Wonkish1]

I'm not going to engage too much more on this, as this is yet another time when there is no real room for agreement.

I'll just end it by saying that this seems another example of a reasonable kernel being lost in a sea of BS... yes of course it's good for kids to get out there and have the opportunity to learn about the value of work... but there are a LOT of steps before you start talking about reducing child labour laws of all things. It's not a reasonable conclusion to reach... and I don't see myself as being that unreasonable to see other POV.

See its always nice having a discussion with you because you stick to the topic and don't wonder off on some tangent about something that has no place in the discussion(like sweat shops, dropping out of school, or unions).

I agree its not unreasonable to see another POV. I would be curious to here what steps your thinking of and how they apply to the US. Personally a long time ago when I was 14 years old trying to get my first job that I wanted to get I found the rules in the US quite a roadblock to that. I wanted to work at my friends mom's store. Since my friend was the son of a business owner the rules got waved for him, but since that wasn't true for me they weren't. So I remember she just said that she wished I could come help, but the hassle wasn't worth it.

[Wonkish1]

This pretty much sums it up completely.  I have no problem with young people learning the value of hard work, be it through their grades and/or jobs if they have one, but there's really no reason to stop going by the current status quo with these child labor laws in this country.  I honestly don't see why we need to or should.

Well first off that wasn't your position. Want me to grab your quotes? Second Polnut actually sticks to the topic you all over the place with your hair on fire and then pout when you stuck resorting to the, "I conjured facts in my head" argument.

[opebo]

What if when I was 14 years old I wanted to work and earn an income and child labor law prevented me from doing so?

Yes, that is precisely the idea of the law, Wonk - to improve the lives of poor people when they are children.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they should be barred from employment and given money from the government, Wonk.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is by definition a sweatshop if a child is working in it.

[Gustaf]

I see a clever politician here. He throws in an inflammatory comment that gets peoples' attention. Most moderates seem to react with a "he has a point, but he went too far in his comment"

This enables the person who made the comment to say, next time it comes up, "look, the issue isn't what words you use, but to solve the problem. I care passionately about my country and when you get passionate, etc. But unlike my opponent I see the problem and I'm coming up with solutions"

And so on. That's how politics is played. You set the agenda and the formulation isn't going to matter in the long run.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I see a clever politician here. He throws in an inflammatory comment that gets peoples' attention. Most moderates seem to react with a "he has a point, but he went too far in his comment"

This enables the person who made the comment to say, next time it comes up, "look, the issue isn't what words you use, but to solve the problem. I care passionately about my country and when you get passionate, etc. But unlike my opponent I see the problem and I'm coming up with solutions"

And so on. That's how politics is played. You set the agenda and the formulation isn't going to matter in the long run.

That was always Gingrich's style.

[pbrower2a]

What if when I was 14 years old I wanted to work and earn an income and child labor law prevented me from doing so?

Many of the wealthiest people in America got that way in a small part because they started businesses in their very early teens(that includes Buffett).

If a kid wants to work before the age of 16 they shouldn't be prevented from it. Especially considering that it is a good thing in very impoverished places in this country for kids to be able to earn an income if it will improve the situation.


And sweat shops is very extreme. Anybody that throws that crap around has got to be kidding.

We have plenty of laws on the books to protect children who would be especially vulnerable to exploitation or would be put in danger. Just because a kid wants to drink booze doesn't mean that he should be allowed to.

Child labor over a century was infamous for abuse and exploitation. Working-class children  started toiling early in life at the expense of schooling. Often it was the parents who shoved them out of the household... especially if the parents were worn out by the grueling toil normal for the time in industrial work and mining. If parents were worn out at age 40, then guess what happened to kids 8 years old at the time.

Today it is not so much the crass employers who would exploit child labor but instead abusive parents who would send their kids to do the work to support the booze and drug habits of the parents.

The problem is that pay fails to keep pace with productivity and is indeed being forced down. Children belong in school even if that means that they can't buy the latest fashions and fads. There will be plenty of time for those kids -- but as adults -- to participate in the crass materialism that is the American way of life.

Chores on the farm? That is different -- and farm kids are little the worse for wear for them.

[DrScholl]

In the early 20th century, child labor was a very much a problem. It really is just a contingent for cheap labor and that wouldn't help the economy much. Pbrower also just made an interesting point about how parents would force their kids into work for their own reasons and that's a bad thing as well.

And let's not pretend there aren't exceptions. Children have to reach 12 before they can work and have limited amount of work hours, which is more than reasonable. A change in that isn't going to magically solve economic problems, it would only be a giveaway that leads to corruption.

[courts]

What if when I was 14 years old I wanted to work and earn an income and child labor law prevented me from doing so?

Many of the wealthiest people in America got that way in a small part because they started businesses in their very early teens(that includes Buffett).

If a kid wants to work before the age of 16 they shouldn't be prevented from it. Especially considering that it is a good thing in very impoverished places in this country for kids to be able to earn an income if it will improve the situation.


And sweat shops is very extreme. Anybody that throws that crap around has got to be kidding.

We have plenty of laws on the books to protect children who would be especially vulnerable to exploitation or would be put in danger. Just because a kid wants to drink booze doesn't mean that he should be allowed to.

Child labor over a century was infamous for abuse and exploitation. Working-class children  started toiling early in life at the expense of schooling. Often it was the parents who shoved them out of the household... especially if the parents were worn out by the grueling toil normal for the time in industrial work and mining. If parents were worn out at age 40, then guess what happened to kids 8 years old at the time.

Today it is not so much the crass employers who would exploit child labor but instead abusive parents who would send their kids to do the work to support the booze and drug habits of the parents.

The problem is that pay fails to keep pace with productivity and is indeed being forced down. Children belong in school even if that means that they can't buy the latest fashions and fads. There will be plenty of time for those kids -- but as adults -- to participate in the crass materialism that is the American way of life.

Chores on the farm? That is different -- and farm kids are little the worse for wear for them.

What about kids that watch their parents work or help with the family business? Not too long ago I remember reading about a pizza place being busted for just that. And that's not the first time I've heard of a case like that either. Wonkish is correct, it's one thing to say we shouldn't have 8 year olds sticking their fingers in gears or stitching Nikes on assembly but the laws as they are now are patently absurd.

[Phony Moderate]

Does he also think that kids should be allowed to have sex before the age of 16? And drive? And consume alcohol?

[Ban my account ffs!]

There is a different between "a little work", and full-out child labor.  Babysitting counts as a job - a very manageable one, at that - but it doesn't deprive students of development or education.  Before we had things like safety laws and child labor laws, children often worked in sweatshops with their parents, received little pay, and were easily exploited by their bosses.  These laws were put in place for a reason.  Not so some twelve-year-old won't be allowed to babysit.  I'm beginning to think you are intentionally twisting my words, now.

Studying is, indeed, work.  It is preparing kids so that they may grow into skilled adults who can take on bigger things.  Gingrich wants to remove these "stupid laws" so that unionized adults can be put out of their work.  Do you honestly believe his main concern is about the students, not just sticking it to the unions?

And you think that changing child labor laws so that kids can get an after school job is going to have them dropping out of school and working at a sweat shop? How is doing a few hours of janitorial work at your school a sweat shop or how is it going to deprive students education or development? It is you my friend that is twisting words. You are equating amending child labor laws to allow kids to do something *like* helping perform janitorial work for money to kids dropping out of school so they can work at a sweat shop. That is twisting words and its being stupid too.

He wants to remove stupid allows that say that a kid can't do a little work in addition to school purely because his age. And since I've heard this argument from Newt on at least a dozen different occasions and this is the first time he has used "union" anything in an example I think its quite clear he's doing it to help kids learn the value of hard work. Keep in mind I am the only one on here that is watched well over a hundred of Newt's speeches over the years I know him better than practically everybody on this site combined.

And apparently whenever you hear "union" anything you get all ready for war. Union rep by any chance?

You can get a job at 14 here.  Hours are limited, especially during the school year, but there have been plenty of 14 and 15 year olds working fast food, for example.  I did it at age 15.  This was nothing more than headline grabbing by Newt.

[TJ in Oregon]

There are a lot of dumb laws that restrict what types of labor a child can do prior to turning 16 (and a fair few of them I've broken before). If Newt simply wants a more reasonable set of restrictions on what can and can't be done, doing so could be useful.

[Wonkish1]

What if when I was 14 years old I wanted to work and earn an income and child labor law prevented me from doing so?

Many of the wealthiest people in America got that way in a small part because they started businesses in their very early teens(that includes Buffett).

If a kid wants to work before the age of 16 they shouldn't be prevented from it. Especially considering that it is a good thing in very impoverished places in this country for kids to be able to earn an income if it will improve the situation.


And sweat shops is very extreme. Anybody that throws that crap around has got to be kidding.

We have plenty of laws on the books to protect children who would be especially vulnerable to exploitation or would be put in danger. Just because a kid wants to drink booze doesn't mean that he should be allowed to.

Child labor over a century was infamous for abuse and exploitation. Working-class children  started toiling early in life at the expense of schooling. Often it was the parents who shoved them out of the household... especially if the parents were worn out by the grueling toil normal for the time in industrial work and mining. If parents were worn out at age 40, then guess what happened to kids 8 years old at the time.

Today it is not so much the crass employers who would exploit child labor but instead abusive parents who would send their kids to do the work to support the booze and drug habits of the parents.

The problem is that pay fails to keep pace with productivity and is indeed being forced down. Children belong in school even if that means that they can't buy the latest fashions and fads. There will be plenty of time for those kids -- but as adults -- to participate in the crass materialism that is the American way of life.

Chores on the farm? That is different -- and farm kids are little the worse for wear for them.

Wow your weird. You compare work to children drinking. You bring up sweat shops and people dropping out of school in a discussion about amending child labor laws to allow younger kids to have a few hours a week of work.

And the fact that you think that kids that have to do choirs are worse off shows you have lost any sense between of difference truth and bull$hit!

[Wonkish1]

In the early 20th century, child labor was a very much a problem. It really is just a contingent for cheap labor and that wouldn't help the economy much. Pbrower also just made an interesting point about how parents would force their kids into work for their own reasons and that's a bad thing as well.

And let's not pretend there aren't exceptions. Children have to reach 12 before they can work and have limited amount of work hours, which is more than reasonable. A change in that isn't going to magically solve economic problems, it would only be a giveaway that leads to corruption.

Kids that have alcoholic or drug addict parents have much, much bigger problems than working a few hours a week.

There are tons of limitations until you hit 15/16. Its quite a hassle to an employer even if they only hire you for as little as 5 hours a week.

[Wonkish1]

Does he also think that kids should be allowed to have sex before the age of 16? And drive? And consume alcohol?

Equating a little work to sex, driving, and consuming alcohol shows that you definitely belong on the "not serious commenter list".

[Wonkish1]

You can get a job at 14 here.  Hours are limited, especially during the school year, but there have been plenty of 14 and 15 year olds working fast food, for example.  I did it at age 15.  This was nothing more than headline grabbing by Newt.

At 14 the paperwork hassle is so bad that the only major employer I know willing to put up with it is McDonalds. Ever notice why more jobs become available when people turn 15? And then even more when people turn 16.