Do you think work experience itself has any benefit to young people?

No. It's pretty much always a result of another system failing. We're not talking about a kid helping out in their mom and pop's shop. We're talking about kids working in meat plants because it's cheap labor.

If they have to work to help out with money, then our system has failed in providing an adequate environment for a kid to grow up.

If a child wants to learn a craft or pick up specific skills, that should not be done in a work environment that can put them in danger. Again, that's another failure of the system.

Most of us already have to basically work until death since they can't ever properly retire, so I see zero benefits in forcing humans that are still developing into that reality even sooner.

Do you think there's any benefit from the population of "young people with experience" being 16 instead of 20?

Do you think it outweighs those involved having a higher risk of maiming for lower compensation?

>> I honestly can't believe I'm seeing people arguing against child labor laws.

And where are you seeing these people, exactly?

My argument is that the claim “winding back labour law has caused a rise in workplace deaths involving children in sawmills” is unsupported by any statistical evidence, and very likely false. There are no statistics that support this claim.

False assertions are no way to debate about policy, provided we want good policy that is actually effective at keeping people safe. Such policy must be evidence based, and not vibes and feels based.

You’re battling a strawman of your own creation.

Okay, let's assume then all this thread is about being pedantic, and not because you're actually against child labor laws. My bad.

Still not sure how sending kids to work will increase their safety. You've mentioned evidence but I've never seen any evidence that supports it increases their safety. We've seen evidence it can decrease their safety since some are killed/injured, even if you dismissed it as not statistically relevant.

So in the end, this goes both ways: we don't have evidence that allowing kids to work improves their lives or society, making it a bad policy.

My guess these policies were based on greed, not "vibes". Clearly better, right?

I’m not saying sending kids to work will increase their safety, and - again - I’m honestly not sure how you’re getting that from what I’ve said. I would respectfully suggest reading the posts of others in good faith.

I’m saying there exists no evidence that the number of children dying in sawmills has dramatically increased as a result of changing labour laws. This is important, not pedantic, because it goes to the heart of the claim that modern labour law has changed in a way that harms children. If the data isn’t there, this claim is false. If this claim is false, we shouldn’t be rushing to revise labour law on the basis of it.

One person can claim that modern labour law kills children, another can claim it protects children. Until some statistics come in, all of this is noise.

Labour law exists to protect workers. It is too important to get wrong, such as by rushing into ill considered changes on the basis of vibes or feels. There may well be other reasons to adjust labour law - based on facts and hard evidence that it’s not working in some way.

I don’t understand why you seem to take such umbrage at the view that important safety laws should be made on the basis of actual data, so we can ensure they’re effective.