Oh, my stars, I just realized I have been abused as a child! Tony the Tiger assaulted my eyes with his deliciously tempting, lightly frosted flakes of corn at the tender age of 4 (5,6? who the hell knows?). I am one of those abominations that was allowed to watch TV, and if I felt like I needed something I saw there, all I had to do was ask my parents. If they felt I didn't need or had no use for said item, they said this word that kids don't hear enough anymore: "NO!!" And if they had to say it more than once, it usually resulted in a swat on the bottom. Despite the "abuse" I endured as a child, I have grown to become a moderately successful adult (still working on my bachelor's degree), and have managed to have well-behaved children of my own as well. With that, I'm going to go make a therapy appointment, I just remembered how a leprechaun teased me with shaped marshmallows and then never gave them to me when I was little.

It's not TV and video games. It's teaching morals and discipline. They're not mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, too many parents can't be bothered with such things, so you see their kids running all over the market, failing in school, in arrest reports. But it's not us as parents, it's society, it's the schools, it's television, etc.
Take some responsibility for raising the children you decided (one way or another) to have.

My heartfelt thanks go out to all those long-dead do-gooders who saved me from the horrible fate of earning money as a child. I love them almost as much as the ones who have saved me from the horrible fate of not being paid enough money. Of course nobody's willing to hire me for that much, but I'm sure with the boom in the economy that'll change any day now.

Before he got super-famous, Seinfeld did a costume skit on HBO as the top businessman in the cereal industry, the biggest enterprise a child could ever imagine... The top dog for GM, Apple and Citibank all rolled into one. It was great

There isn't a thing in those quoted paragraphs that isn't the job of the parent. My kids see those ads. I even buy them one treat of their choice every week at the store. They have to decide if it's Life cereal or fruit by the foot etc. Hasn't made them obese, because I actually encourage outdoor play. Also hasn't made them think they can have anything they want, and we've yet to have a screaming fit over the age of 2.

Damaged, those dogooders kept you from 10 hour days in a garment factory or the like. Sans any schooling. Dogooders since have said you can't work officially until you are 14 (here at least) which didn't stop me from earning as a kid, or working full time from 16 on.

I saw a pictoral exhibit on child labor while in NC recently. It wasn't do-gooders trying to end that. It was people with some humanity. Kids work in factory with their parents instead of going to school, sure it might help that family out with money, but it keeps them in that cycle forever. Make kids go to school, they have options for themselves and their kids besides the factory.

ALso, while in NC, I happened to watch some news. It was a piece on "The danger parents don't know about" at the beach. The danger was building sandcastles. And the news people knew it was a danger, because a 17 yr old dug a 6 ft pit, it collapsed while he was in it, and had to be rescued. Idiots. This is why I never watch the news.

Honestly the video games probably do more to help crtitical thinking and problem solving than schools do these days. (I'm speaking just a little tongue in cheek here.)

The California ban on violent video games was asinine. Not only was it the government trying to do something that parents should do, but it was trying to do something that game stores are already doing. They don't sell M-rated games to kids as a matter of policy.

... these are the same liberal "experts" who railed against 60s-era parents who "limited" their children by actually parenting them.... the only common denominators for these "experts" over time are (a) expansion of government power, and (b) destruction of traditional family/community morals. Everything else is BS.

When you talk about "child labor", could you please do two things for me?

1) Name the alternative. I want to know what else there was for a 10-year-old to do, that multiple people would put him in a factory as the best choice. Do you think a farm of the day represented better conditions? Do you think there was an alternative, like an extensive public school system, complete with buses, back in that day?

Yes, I know the factories were nasty. What I asked was, "what else was there".

2) Try to define, "child". I've seen Sarah Brady try to call anyone under 25 a "child" to lie to the press about gun control issues - and on the other end, I'm actually in a 1967 issue of my old hometown newspaper, working at the marina at age 12. I scowled at the camera because they were in the way...

School and work are not exclusive for anyone. "School", with all its expensive programs, is being touted as the solution to everything today, when it is not.

The sad thing is, Bakan, because of his hard-on for destroying capitalism, misses a lot of ways in which we are in fact destroying childhood. Not in any of the ways he mentions, but because we aren't allowing normal maturation processes to occur -- in short, we aren't letting kids grow up. But yeah, Bakan's screed is prototypical leftist agitprop. "Won't someone think of TEH CHILDRUNZ!!!!!!!"

Rad, work and school were exclusive when you worked 12 hour days at age 8. Public school WAS an option, but parents could pull the kid out to work. Not all kids back then worked. Not even all kids in factory towns. Farm work was grueling, and if you'll notice those do-gooders also made farm kids have to go to school.

We've defined child pretty thoroughly as regards to work in this country already. Under 14, no (unless babysitting or the like). Under 16, only certain hours. I see no problem with that.

I love when they demonize video games. Because being part of the first generation to grow up with them, clearly we're all useless. Never mind the fact that they (ok, not all, but most) actually do require a lot of mental interaction and not being completely tuned out. For a lot of us, they even sparked our love of computers when we wanted to learn more about how they worked, or needed to fix our computers or just learn to upgrade them (on the cheap) to play the latest games. I doubt I'd be as into computers as I am, and making a good living because of that love of computers and what I learned, had it not been for video games.

The other question in this is how long "childhood" actually existed as the concept it is now?

I have seen toys that date from the 17th & 18th century that were used to churn butter. Others taught a child how to milk a cow and other simple functions around the house/farm.

because a 17 yr old dug a 6 ft pit, it collapsed while he was in it, and had to be rescued -momof4

I though he was tunneling

I hated the rice-puffed cereal. However, even that was better than when Mom tried to get us to drink powered milk.

As far as video games go, I probably let my 9-year-old daughter play them a bit too much. However, she also likes to read and is learning Spanish. Her grades are good and she gets along well with almost all her classmates. If those things change then I'll worry about the video games, but until then I think we're doing okay. Plus, she uses her own allowance money that she has saved to buy the games.

dogooders kept you from 10 hour days in a garment factory or the like

Yes, because without the laws making it forbidden, it would have been mandatory. Obviously.

Who will protect us from those who protect us from ourselves?

momof4: I knew that. Now - does anyone have the alternative in that day, now that parents are shown to have shipped the youngster to work?

I was playing the video game Doom at age 9. My dad and his friends played it, and they thought it was just adorable that I played it too. I even set it to "invincible" mode so that I could cause all the carnage I wanted to without being hurt myself.

And whattaya know, I turned out OK. Maybe it was because I wasn't allowed to play for hours on end. If I stayed in one spot for hours on end, it was easier for my mom to find me and make me do chores. A few times, I remember she shut the game off while I was playing it. So, there were limits.

Now - does anyone have the alternative in that day, now that parents are shown to have shipped the youngster to work?

Starving? I think the point is that some families were so desperate when it came to making ends meet that they took advantage of the fact that their 10-year-old could bring in a salary. Who could blame them, when starving was the alternative?

For that reason, child labor laws were all the more necessary. For parents who were faced with some tough choices -- and making the wrong ones. And for factory owners who took advantage of these families' predicament.

Child labor laws and minimum wage laws both make do-gooders feel good, and enable the poverty pimps to stay in business. And that's the important thing!

Ben David..

... these are the same liberal "experts" who railed against 60s-era parents who "limited" their children by actually parenting them.... the only common denominators for these "experts" over time are (a) expansion of government power, and (b) destruction of traditional family/community morals. Everything else is BS.

Yup. You'd think that these people that believe it's inhumane to "limit" a child would pay attention to the smarmy "butterfly must struggle out of the cocoon and overcome obstacles all on it's own to grow" story they pass around, and realize that maybe kids, too, need actual limits.

Just when I thought my opinion of the NY Times couldn't get lower.

"the only common denominators for these "experts" over time are (a) expansion of government power"

Yup, it really seems to be about this primarily, I think. The excuse is irrelevant, they would make anything up, if it wasn't children it would be something else.

Well, if government is going to raise our kids, why the hell are they still living with their parents? Shouldn't we put them in government-runned orphanages so that the evil world can't touch them?

Seriously. Parents need to grow the fuck up already.

Some people have very whack priorities. Really the fight against corporations hold on children is that important or that so perverse. So there are no starving children left in the world. No children are not working in dangerous condition in the world too? All that is solved!

This is stupid. This is like feminists who bleat on about the indignities of having to wear high heels and rail against the patriarchy but will turn a blind eye to the good portion or so of women who are kept in under big body bags called Burgha and such. Or some Christian group yells and screams about the dangers of Harry Potter being read by some kids, really there are no homeless or other destitute people to help? Yea some people will thing maybe you are fighting for a just cause but the most of us will either ignore this.

You do have have to fight for something sometime but you have to find something worth fighting for. Fine be crazy choose a fight that can be considered weird or silly but if you are going to tilt against windmills fine. Just make sure you are not tilting against a pinwheel.

"Child labor laws and minimum wage laws both make do-gooders feel good, and enable the poverty pimps to stay in business."

Bingo. Sending your children to school instead of having them work is a luxury of modern civilization. If you have the ability to support your children someone for 16 or 18 years, without them contributing to the household, that give them time for education, and off you go.

Our company has bought a lot of things from second- and third-world countries. We have been berated for this - it wasn't about child labor, but about the comparatively poor working conditions and salaries. Pass the question along to the workers, and the answer you get is simple and to the point: "If we didn't have this work, we'd have no work!".

Are their exploitative companies? Yes, and one can address that. However, if the company treats its employees well - for the standards of the culture and country they are in - that is all you can ask. In fact, purchasing from them is a far, far better form of "aid" than any charity would ever be.

For amusement and irritation, see http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45785, where the US attempts to enforce the laws of India on an American manufacturer. Not by any sort of criminal action, but through asset forfeiture.

We truly have lost our collective minds!

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/52469658-68/garrity-card-court-lawsuit.html.csp

Stupid article. Somehow, while my children grew up in an age where most children were being inundated by video games and TV, they were outside playing. I may have had something to do with that.

It's odd that this thread has turned to railing against child labor laws. Really? I understand the libertarian bent of this crowd, but child labor laws are too "big government" for you?

Where the rest of us live, they're pretty widely accepted as a good thing.

This is the sort of nut-job notion that makes libertarians unelectable.

"Now - does anyone have the alternative in that day, now that parents are shown to have shipped the youngster to work?"

Yes. We've been talking about the alternative for some time. People did not starve in the streets when child labor ended. Parents were simply forced to do things other than pimp their kids out for pay, once they had to go to school instead. So, to be very clear, the alternative was to make it illegal for these parents to send their kids to work and make them send them to school instead.

Kids grow up. They don't need to buy the corporate line. If parents are doing their jobs, the kids will learn to question everything. They don't have to buy anything.

Government is forever and there is no escaping taxes.

Where are the parents nowadays?

We've defined child pretty thoroughly as regards to work in this country already. Under 14, no (unless babysitting or the like). Under 16, only certain hours. I see no problem with that.

Neither do I. I have to ditto whistleDick's incredulity that people are bitching about child labor laws. If you can't vote or drink or smoke legally, you shouldn't have to work 10 hours a day to support yourself. Children are not tiny adults. Adults who have them need to be ready to support them financially until they are 18.

Yes, because without the laws making it forbidden, it would have been mandatory. Obviously.

What does that have to do with anything? If we made rape legal, it wouldn't be mandatory, either. But it would still be pretty damn damaging for the victims.

What does that have to do with anything?

That question indicates that you don't know the difference.

"Everything not forbidden is compulsory; everything not compulsory is forbidden."

"Everything not forbidden is compulsory; everything not compulsory is forbidden."

That question indicates that you don't know the difference.

No, it indicates that applying physics principles to human behavior is cute but not useful.

Now that I think of it, your original comment on this doesn't make any sense, either.

Child labor laws and minimum wage laws both make do-gooders feel good, and enable the poverty pimps to stay in business.

Because as we know, the people who had their children working didn't suffer poverty. They were comfortable and well fed.

They're not physics principles, they're moral principles. But based on your past performance, I wouldn't expect you to recognize that difference either.

Why do so many parents understand that "you are what you eat" but not "you are what you do"? In other words, just because kids are deprived of
escapist/passive "screen time" in school (and that is less and less the case these days, what with TV taking over for teachers so often), that is NO reason to let kids have a 20-hour MINIMUM per week, at home, of videogames / texting / TV / Internet!

(Note: Since computers are becoming more and more user friendly, to the point where Third World adults can learn to use them in no time, it is NOT essential for kids to learn to use them easily before their teens! Whereas MANY social skills need to be practised from day one to create a decent human being - and a love of reading is best, and most easily, cultivated early as well.)

To put it another way,

1) you wouldn't let your kids be on a home diet that was 80% sugar on the grounds that they don't get to indulge themselves like that during the school lunch.

2) Elementary school kids, on average, probably have FEWER than 30 hours a week of leisure time when you subtract (from 168 hours) the time needed for eating, sleeping, school, homework, transportation, chores, and maybe one extracurricular activity.

3) So, doesn't it stand to reason that they should be spending at least 20 hours or more of that time on essential activities such as outdoor exercise, face-to-face socializing, creative play, and...oh yes....READING? (Keep in mind, too, that even reading is time spent sitting down, so you need to exercise all the more!)

4) Allowing kids to have visual electronics in their bedrooms clearly doesn't help them to maintain the quota from point 3. Dr. Spock (whom
I consider to be somewhat unfairly maligned) naively wrote, in "Baby and Child Care," that it IS OK for kids to have a TV in the bedroom,
but he changed his mind....in the mid-late 1960s. All I wonder is, what took him so long to smarten up? However, I don't remember his
ever speaking AGAINST the practice, unfortunately.

Jim Trelease, the author of "The Read-Aloud Handbook," told of how, in the 1970s, his kids started complaining about the family evening read-aloud time because "it takes away too much time from the TV." Taking a tip from another family, he and his wife decided there would only be TV watching on weekends from then on. The kids cried every night for FOUR MONTHS. But it was worth it. Their grades shot up, as did their literacy skills; family fights plunged, etc. etc.

Seems to me the only way to make sure that the time for essential activities doesn't get wiped out is to enforce the same rule while the kids are young.

Trelease quoted Paul Copperman from his book, "The Literacy Hoax": "Consider what a child misses during the 15,000 hours (from birth to age 17) he spends in front of the TV screen. He is not working in the garage with his father, or in the garden with his mother. He is not doing homework, or reading, or collecting stamps. He is not cleaning his room, washing the supper dishes or cutting the lawn. He is not listening to a discussion about community politics among his parents and their friends. He is not playing baseball or going fishing or painting pictures. Exactly what does television offer that is so valuable it can replace these activities that transform an impulsive, self-absorbed child into a critically-thinking adult?"

P.S. Rumor has it that employers are becoming more and more desperate for workers both willing and able to deal well with clients on the phone and/or in person - and too many young people aren't willing or able because they're used to texting more than anything else.

One thing I don't get about child labor laws is: What exactly ARE the laws, if any, about parentally-enforced UNPAID work? Kids need time to play as well as time for homework, right? Does one assume that, most of the time at least, parents can dump as much unpaid work on their kids as they please so long as it doesn't seriously hurt their health or their grades?

BTW, I heard, many years ago (don't know if this is still true) that when 16- and 17-year-olds earn money, the parents have the right to confiscate and spend it if they wish. Which is confusing, because in Hollywood at least, the Jackie Coogan laws are supposed to stop that from happening - at least with regard to preteen actors.