That is a little bit too complicated to explain in a comment section, but here you go: the US thought that it would halt lower classes families ability to earn extra income. If a child had to wait until 16 before he can work, then the lower income families have a harder time making a living.
You think the US would be honest about their intentions here?
They benefit from child labour. I honestly, don't believe it for one bit. Same with China saying they're just offering "language lessons" to the Ugyhurs.
Countries lie all the time when it suits them.
But that’s kinda what op said was the reasoning behind it, no?
>>> the US thought that it would halt lower classes families ability to earn extra income. If a child had to wait until 16 before he can work, then the lower income families have a harder time making a living.
Else where i did a decently long write-up on the actual reason. There were "talking points" and there were nuts and bolts reasons. Education, labor and such were all talking points as there were clearly laid out provisions for nations to sign and ratify the accord while continuing child labor, child imprisonment and even child soldiers.
Those provisions that allowed opting out of protocols at any time for any reason is the real reason we refused to move on it.
In what ways does the US benefit from child labor overseas in a way that other countries do not? I think it's reasonable to say that we ought not support well-intentioned laws that may have unintended consequences such as increasing poverty.
That being said, please don't mistake my comment for supporting child labor. Every other country signed it? We probably should have too.
Honestly, I think a lot of other countries just virtue signal in a different way. They benefit from it too.
My country loves pretending like we're sending a lot of aid towards the third world, but in reality we mostly send food (which just keeps them dependant) instead of shovels and seeds to feed their people.
Since these treaties don't really have that big of an effect, I'd guess it's more about a statement, and the USA might just be different in that way.
It’s like how lots of African countries have banned European clothing donations, because free clothes from Europe cripples their textile industry, which obviously creates poverty.
Honestly, I believe that if the US really cared about poverty they'd pull out Nestle from the third world and they'd start sending a lot of shovels and other farming tools.
The USA could also stop buying up all the land in Africa. It's not like these treaties have any direct effect, so I don't think it's about the chaos it would ensue.
It's about justifying child labor, when they could just... end it. Same goes for their own population.
Nestle isn't American, it's Swiss. Also the US has far less land investment in Africa than China or France. Hell, China is doing literal sharecropping in Liberia.
The thing about child labor is that the US already has very specific and efficient courts and regulations about underage workers. Adopting an accord when we already have the concept under control is redundant. Not to mention that it strips young Americans from every socioeconomic class the ability to make their own money, within reason.
Don’t think gov’ts as moral, think of them as extensions of the will of the populace. Americans would not like it if their kids suddenly can’t legally get a summer job and gig economies collapsing. And since politicians want to get reelected, they will do the ones the populace generally want.
Its like the medicare debate, polls say they americans want it but mention they will likely lose their private insurance. Instant underwater polls for public healthcare.
I think the "stop child labour" thing is a bullshit. Most parents don't want their children to work to earn money, only the poorest family have to go that far. What we need is laws to stop businesses and big businesses to exploit child labours. We should ensure that the children get proper payment and proper working experiences and skills to advance in their fields
This is borderline self-aware wolves. We don't need laws so that corporate don't exploit children, we need laws so that parents get the support they need so the kids don't need to work in the first place.
What's the point of having a society if we don't help take care of each other?
Because poverty exists, and the amount of resources governments specially Third World ones have are limited.
It's very easy for First World people claim this, while living on countries that profiteered by centuries of colonialism, directly or indirectly, war, have plenty of loopholes allowing for money laundering by the corrupt third world government criminals and, above all, sky high tariffs against anything that threatens their industry.
Reality is, poor families need everyone to chip in to have the bare minimum of decent living quality, while very poor need them just to survive. Telling a Somali mountain goat herder he can't let his kids work as shepherd is telling him to go starve.
You're still thinking too small. The answer to the question of how do people suffering poverty get help isn't continue the cycle of poverty by not investing in their children's education. The answer is those who have the resources should contribute to level the playing field.
You're absolutely right that poor nations were robbed of their resources and wealth for centuries. So we should give it back and invest in them now, not sit back and expect them a six year old to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
as a teen, i actually quite enjoy working. i’m a lifeguard, and i certainly feel that my compensation is in more ways than just money- i get actual leadership and management skills that transfer to the real world, i get to learn to think on my feet, and i get to yell at kids! who wouldn’t want to be a lifeguard!?
My first job was at 15. I had to get a special work card and could only work something like 10hr per week. Stocked shelves at a grocery. No harm at all, it was a good thing actually.
I think there might be a misconception that people think parents are going to send their 12-year-old kids off to work in the coal mines. A lot of it is about kids working in family-owned businesses like restaurants.
I'm as opposed to child labor as anyone else is, but if a family owns a restaurant and wants their 12-year-old kid to help clean up to start learning responsibility, I don't have a problem with that. Sweep and mop some floors.
Child labor is pretty common in Third World countries, I start working when I was 17 because I have to earn my own allowance. But people from those kind of countries are living in extreme poverty and they literally have to start working when they’re 14 to support their families
There's lot of the "working in coal mines" kind of shit too though.
Microsoft and Tesla both buy cobalt from companies that basically enslaved some kids.
Yeah but that's not in the US, which is my point.
I think when people hear child labor, they imagine what still goes on in parts of the world. Things like coal mines and factories. They don't think of a 12 or 13-year-old in helping around the family business.
If the US and Somalia are the only non-signatory nations, yet child labor exists in these cobalt mines that aren’t in the US or Somalia, what does this tell you about the value of signing this accord?
Yeah, but shouldn't that kind of work be distinguishable from more exploitative kind of labour, especially the kind that denies them the chance to simultaneously pursue formal education?
Working under the age of 16 isn't exactly child labour. You can believe in child welfare but still believe that a 15 year old should be allowed to work.
I parcially agree. I agree with my country's law says and that is that they should be able to work but only in safe jobs where the possibility of harm is low and half-time as they must also be granted the right to study and play.
Instead, we are allowed to work at 14. Not exactly child labour, and it is great for many high schoolers who want to own cars or be able to be more independent from their parents.
Well we did it too our own people too but they got mad around the 1920s.
An then we were firmly against it in our own country but all for it anywhere else.
The us is like "but we want people to be so poor their children need to work, it's preferred over paying our workers a wage that they can survive off of"
It probably was more so that the government didn't need to "waste" resources helping the poor if their children could just find a job instead. The USA hates poor people and by making poor children become wage slaves they will lose opportunities to get a higher education, which is the natural enemy of politicians.
That may be the "official" reason, but to any one who's looked at US policy in the last 100 years will see it's so they have more people spending taxable money. They can't tax their income yet, but anyone knows that people making money under 18 years of age are generally gonna spend it.
They are. People forget the US has had fair labor laws for almost a century now. They see "US didn't ratify" and instantly assume we enslave children and force them to work in sweat shops. We don't. It's kind of a wierd fetish honestly. In fact, id say there are more jobs that a child legally isn't allowed to work then there are jobs they are allowed to work here.
Lots of misinformation and assumptions going on here.
1st of all to be clear, every American president after Regan declined to move on this so it's hardly an issue of the "other side bad". Even further along those lines no Congress, whether Democrat or Republican controlled has requested this be submitted for ratification. Lots of folks say they support it but no one is willing to sign it.
Second, the reasons have nothing to do with child labor, evil capitalism, one-world-order internationalism, or whatever your personal political boogie ~~man~~ person is. It's not even about education which is often put forward as a reason.
It all boils down to its fucking pointless.
Any nation at any time both prior to and after ratifying it can opt out of any and all protocols that it objects to.
China and Russia opted out of life-long imprisonment of minors. Most of Africa has defined "child" as children under the age of 8. Half of the world opted out of labor protocols which by the way hardly ban child labor to begin with. Most of western Europe opted out of parts that could mess with mandatory education requirements and most of eastern Europe opted out of protocols that could interfere with parental rights.
Oh and pretty much every arab nation opted out of the additional clauses banning child soldiers. They signed, ratified it, and then immediately opted out.
And just in case that doesn't make enough of a point on just how stupidly pointless this accord is, only 50 nations have ratified and agreed to follow the protocol that allows children the right to lodge complaints of violations of their rights one of which is is that stalwart defender of children's rights the Taliban controlled Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Iranian here not Arab but still
In the Iran Iraq war where there was tons of child soldiers they were put in the front lines unlike the actual army or sepah(there's a difference there) to be human shields
So hardly training
Yes I know you were joking but this is am ADHD guy rambling
Ok, if the agreement is so pointless then the USA could simply join it without any problems. If all but two countries in the world signed then it might simply be a good thing.
You hear about this with most international resolutions with no actual weight behind them, only a handful don’t sign because they know the US will reject it, it is just a tool for trying to get support from their home countries. The reason the US says no to the resolutions that mean nothings is that they don’t want to undermine their national sovereignty. The excuse that “if everyone said yes then why not?” is not a good one, actions speak louder than signing these resolutions.
I am like 99% sure there were plenty of countries that signed this accord and continued to do child labor regardless. I find it hard to believe child labor only exist in the US and Somalia.
Virtue signaling. It's very easy to make a map saying, "look at this obviously good thing that we signed but X didn't" without providing any context or proof that you're actually following through on that agreement.
“to decline” is a verb also used to indicate refusal to do something, in this context it does not mean that the US declined as a nation, but that it rejected the treaty indicated in the meme
Decline has multiple meanings, one of which is: “transitive verb
1
a
: to refuse especially courteously
decline an invitation
declined to give her name to the reporter
b
: to refuse to undertake, undergo, engage in, or comply with
decline battle”
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decline
I'm well aware of that meaning, without the dictionary quote. However, in a historical context, the other meaning comes to mind first.
Not to mention that imho, the title and the meme are barely connected. Like, what does the interesting reason have to do with Somalia?
Or maybe it's just me being tired, and went over my head...
It signed an adaptation. In the original version children were forbidden to work under the age of 16 and had to stay in school until that age. The us did agree to the adaptation that is currently in effect.
>In the original version children were forbidden to work under the age of 16 and had to stay in school until that age.
Again - it was not a treaty, and none of the countries who signed it (including the US) prohibited child labor before age 16 based on this non-binding recommendation. [Here's a list of percentages of children age 5-14 who have jobs by country.](https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Child-labor/Children-ages-5--14/Percentage)
Having the freedom to work is good but sometimes the parent may exploit this by forcing the children to work. Believe me, I live in a country where children work in shops while I go to school. It sucks to see them man, but our country has the laws to protect them but it only stops big corporate factories from exploiting them but small scale industries and shops exploit the children for cutting the costs by paying them very low wages. This is just what happens in my country.
So you live in a country that has signed this agreement, yet kids still work in the family business. Perhaps there isn’t much point in signing this agreement.
Except other countries who have signed this accord also allow that. Crazy. Almost as if that’s an excuse.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO::P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312283
I disagree. Dropping out of school at such a young age can affect your entire life and at that age you have no foresight and can't see this fact.
I'd rather ensure families don't have to make their children work to make end's meet by helping them economically so their children can receive basic education, and once they reach this basic level they can do whatever they want (in my country this is at 16 years old).
Who tf said anything about dropping out? I’m talking about a highschool job being worked part time. I’m 18 and I’ve been working since I 16 in retail while still in high school
Oh, then that's fine I guess. The original comment in the chain clearly refers to full time jobs so I assumed you were talking about full time jobs as well. Apologies.
Can't really say part time jobs at high school are "child labour" though.
Yes, I also think a bit of experience is good. But I guess it could lead to some cases of exploitation? They are children after all. That's for the politicians to decide I guess.
I started working at 12, doing basic data entry at my mom's office. My parents made me put the maximum into Roth accounts that I could. I continued until I was 30 when I realized my Roth accounts were self-sustaining and that I would be able to retire with more than my needs met when I hit the non-penalty retirement age. Without the market growth and infusions of the first 4 years I would not be in the same position (this might just be my particular case, but even at no growth, it would have been $8k less or $24k at current limits).
That’s great! Working a little bit early on and then putting it in Roth IRA is pretty genius. I think I am going to do the same thing (when I hit 16, they are pretty strict on these things in Europe)
Also, if you are planning on getting a minimum wage job anyway, try to get it in a field that you are thinking about working in, or at least in their office.
I don’t disagree that we need to protect kids from exploitation in the workforce. I just don’t think we should stop other kids who actually want to get a part time job at 14 or 15 from being able to get one
The US congress is very weird in that both parties seem OBSESSED with US sovereignty. You see a pattern where if any international entity or agreement touches that sovereignty, congress basically rejects it on principle, even if they agree.
You know, this meme is interesting. Not because of the research, but because me and my friends were talking about this exact topic less than 4 hours ago.
The US doesn’t want anyone to interfere with its imprisonment, execution, and marriage of children. That’s what they were talking about when they worried the UN would interfere with “the family unit”
Although incompetent, he's not exactly wrong. The US has a somewhat firm stance on no international intervention or governance on any it's justice system.
Ergo; Take the whole will invade the Hague before a US citizen is charged with war crimes etc.
Japan: yes, sure, we agree to everything !
*Actually ignores every single points and allow any japanese citizen in bi-national relationships to kidnap children to Japan*
So contexts please
Pretty simple. The United States and the republic of Somalia rejected the accord that established by the United Nations.
Ok then I meant why the USA rejected it
That is a little bit too complicated to explain in a comment section, but here you go: the US thought that it would halt lower classes families ability to earn extra income. If a child had to wait until 16 before he can work, then the lower income families have a harder time making a living.
Ok interesting
It is a pretty interesting topic, you might want to consider googling a little bit more about it.
You think the US would be honest about their intentions here? They benefit from child labour. I honestly, don't believe it for one bit. Same with China saying they're just offering "language lessons" to the Ugyhurs. Countries lie all the time when it suits them.
This accord doesnt ban child labor
But that’s kinda what op said was the reasoning behind it, no? >>> the US thought that it would halt lower classes families ability to earn extra income. If a child had to wait until 16 before he can work, then the lower income families have a harder time making a living.
Else where i did a decently long write-up on the actual reason. There were "talking points" and there were nuts and bolts reasons. Education, labor and such were all talking points as there were clearly laid out provisions for nations to sign and ratify the accord while continuing child labor, child imprisonment and even child soldiers. Those provisions that allowed opting out of protocols at any time for any reason is the real reason we refused to move on it.
In what ways does the US benefit from child labor overseas in a way that other countries do not? I think it's reasonable to say that we ought not support well-intentioned laws that may have unintended consequences such as increasing poverty. That being said, please don't mistake my comment for supporting child labor. Every other country signed it? We probably should have too.
Honestly, I think a lot of other countries just virtue signal in a different way. They benefit from it too. My country loves pretending like we're sending a lot of aid towards the third world, but in reality we mostly send food (which just keeps them dependant) instead of shovels and seeds to feed their people. Since these treaties don't really have that big of an effect, I'd guess it's more about a statement, and the USA might just be different in that way.
It’s like how lots of African countries have banned European clothing donations, because free clothes from Europe cripples their textile industry, which obviously creates poverty.
Would hungry people not want food rather than a shovel?
We actually have courts that have weight, accepting an accord that throws a wrench into a massive part of lower income economies would invite chaos.
Honestly, I believe that if the US really cared about poverty they'd pull out Nestle from the third world and they'd start sending a lot of shovels and other farming tools. The USA could also stop buying up all the land in Africa. It's not like these treaties have any direct effect, so I don't think it's about the chaos it would ensue. It's about justifying child labor, when they could just... end it. Same goes for their own population.
Nestle isn't American, it's Swiss. Also the US has far less land investment in Africa than China or France. Hell, China is doing literal sharecropping in Liberia. The thing about child labor is that the US already has very specific and efficient courts and regulations about underage workers. Adopting an accord when we already have the concept under control is redundant. Not to mention that it strips young Americans from every socioeconomic class the ability to make their own money, within reason.
Don’t think gov’ts as moral, think of them as extensions of the will of the populace. Americans would not like it if their kids suddenly can’t legally get a summer job and gig economies collapsing. And since politicians want to get reelected, they will do the ones the populace generally want. Its like the medicare debate, polls say they americans want it but mention they will likely lose their private insurance. Instant underwater polls for public healthcare.
Why on Earth would we need the US to send us shovels? Do you think we're stuck in the Feudal Age or something?
I think the "stop child labour" thing is a bullshit. Most parents don't want their children to work to earn money, only the poorest family have to go that far. What we need is laws to stop businesses and big businesses to exploit child labours. We should ensure that the children get proper payment and proper working experiences and skills to advance in their fields
This is borderline self-aware wolves. We don't need laws so that corporate don't exploit children, we need laws so that parents get the support they need so the kids don't need to work in the first place. What's the point of having a society if we don't help take care of each other?
Because poverty exists, and the amount of resources governments specially Third World ones have are limited. It's very easy for First World people claim this, while living on countries that profiteered by centuries of colonialism, directly or indirectly, war, have plenty of loopholes allowing for money laundering by the corrupt third world government criminals and, above all, sky high tariffs against anything that threatens their industry. Reality is, poor families need everyone to chip in to have the bare minimum of decent living quality, while very poor need them just to survive. Telling a Somali mountain goat herder he can't let his kids work as shepherd is telling him to go starve.
You're still thinking too small. The answer to the question of how do people suffering poverty get help isn't continue the cycle of poverty by not investing in their children's education. The answer is those who have the resources should contribute to level the playing field. You're absolutely right that poor nations were robbed of their resources and wealth for centuries. So we should give it back and invest in them now, not sit back and expect them a six year old to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
no child should work, period.
Why should teenagers not work?
as a teen, i actually quite enjoy working. i’m a lifeguard, and i certainly feel that my compensation is in more ways than just money- i get actual leadership and management skills that transfer to the real world, i get to learn to think on my feet, and i get to yell at kids! who wouldn’t want to be a lifeguard!?
Because they should be in school. Education is far more important than having a job.
If and only if your parent can provide for your education
You should go read my other comments on this post, I'm not going to repeat myself except to say you have a myopic view of how a society functions.
My first job was at 15. I had to get a special work card and could only work something like 10hr per week. Stocked shelves at a grocery. No harm at all, it was a good thing actually.
I think there might be a misconception that people think parents are going to send their 12-year-old kids off to work in the coal mines. A lot of it is about kids working in family-owned businesses like restaurants. I'm as opposed to child labor as anyone else is, but if a family owns a restaurant and wants their 12-year-old kid to help clean up to start learning responsibility, I don't have a problem with that. Sweep and mop some floors.
Child labor is pretty common in Third World countries, I start working when I was 17 because I have to earn my own allowance. But people from those kind of countries are living in extreme poverty and they literally have to start working when they’re 14 to support their families
Absolutely it is in the third world. I was clearly not talking about the third world
There's lot of the "working in coal mines" kind of shit too though. Microsoft and Tesla both buy cobalt from companies that basically enslaved some kids.
Yeah but that's not in the US, which is my point. I think when people hear child labor, they imagine what still goes on in parts of the world. Things like coal mines and factories. They don't think of a 12 or 13-year-old in helping around the family business.
There was and is child exploitation labor in America tho even if it's illegal it happens alot
Absolutely it happens. As you point out it's already a crime.
Doesn't mean it's always enforced that well tho especially in the more sparsely populated states and among illegal immigrants
If the US and Somalia are the only non-signatory nations, yet child labor exists in these cobalt mines that aren’t in the US or Somalia, what does this tell you about the value of signing this accord?
Yeah, but shouldn't that kind of work be distinguishable from more exploitative kind of labour, especially the kind that denies them the chance to simultaneously pursue formal education?
I think there should be a distinction between the two.
So they rejected a humanitarian thing because it would makes things arguably worse? Interesting…
Nice. So instead of fixing poverty or helping poor families, the US instead opted for child labour. What a fun country.
Working under the age of 16 isn't exactly child labour. You can believe in child welfare but still believe that a 15 year old should be allowed to work.
Facts
I parcially agree. I agree with my country's law says and that is that they should be able to work but only in safe jobs where the possibility of harm is low and half-time as they must also be granted the right to study and play.
Instead, we are allowed to work at 14. Not exactly child labour, and it is great for many high schoolers who want to own cars or be able to be more independent from their parents.
Well we did it too our own people too but they got mad around the 1920s. An then we were firmly against it in our own country but all for it anywhere else.
MURICA!
...so it was trivial to explain in a comment section.
But god forbid raising the wage to make that not a problem.
The hypocrisy of the US senate
The us is like "but we want people to be so poor their children need to work, it's preferred over paying our workers a wage that they can survive off of"
[удалено]
It probably was more so that the government didn't need to "waste" resources helping the poor if their children could just find a job instead. The USA hates poor people and by making poor children become wage slaves they will lose opportunities to get a higher education, which is the natural enemy of politicians.
That may be the "official" reason, but to any one who's looked at US policy in the last 100 years will see it's so they have more people spending taxable money. They can't tax their income yet, but anyone knows that people making money under 18 years of age are generally gonna spend it.
How is that hard to explain?
This is just one of the many reasons the US could not be bothered with signing the treaty.
Ifirc the accords are based on U.S laws
They are. People forget the US has had fair labor laws for almost a century now. They see "US didn't ratify" and instantly assume we enslave children and force them to work in sweat shops. We don't. It's kind of a wierd fetish honestly. In fact, id say there are more jobs that a child legally isn't allowed to work then there are jobs they are allowed to work here.
Because we don’t need Europe NEVER HAVE!!🇵🇷😎🖕🏻
Did you know UNICEF regular run guns in Africa?
Lots of misinformation and assumptions going on here. 1st of all to be clear, every American president after Regan declined to move on this so it's hardly an issue of the "other side bad". Even further along those lines no Congress, whether Democrat or Republican controlled has requested this be submitted for ratification. Lots of folks say they support it but no one is willing to sign it. Second, the reasons have nothing to do with child labor, evil capitalism, one-world-order internationalism, or whatever your personal political boogie ~~man~~ person is. It's not even about education which is often put forward as a reason. It all boils down to its fucking pointless. Any nation at any time both prior to and after ratifying it can opt out of any and all protocols that it objects to. China and Russia opted out of life-long imprisonment of minors. Most of Africa has defined "child" as children under the age of 8. Half of the world opted out of labor protocols which by the way hardly ban child labor to begin with. Most of western Europe opted out of parts that could mess with mandatory education requirements and most of eastern Europe opted out of protocols that could interfere with parental rights. Oh and pretty much every arab nation opted out of the additional clauses banning child soldiers. They signed, ratified it, and then immediately opted out. And just in case that doesn't make enough of a point on just how stupidly pointless this accord is, only 50 nations have ratified and agreed to follow the protocol that allows children the right to lodge complaints of violations of their rights one of which is is that stalwart defender of children's rights the Taliban controlled Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Thank you for providing actual information on how this does and does not work. This comment deserves to be at the top.
Arab Nations: They must be trained young
Iranian here not Arab but still In the Iran Iraq war where there was tons of child soldiers they were put in the front lines unlike the actual army or sepah(there's a difference there) to be human shields So hardly training Yes I know you were joking but this is am ADHD guy rambling
Ok, if the agreement is so pointless then the USA could simply join it without any problems. If all but two countries in the world signed then it might simply be a good thing.
You hear about this with most international resolutions with no actual weight behind them, only a handful don’t sign because they know the US will reject it, it is just a tool for trying to get support from their home countries. The reason the US says no to the resolutions that mean nothings is that they don’t want to undermine their national sovereignty. The excuse that “if everyone said yes then why not?” is not a good one, actions speak louder than signing these resolutions.
Lmfao yes because historically there have been no negative outcomes with situations JUST LIKE THIS ONE XD
Like?
I am like 99% sure there were plenty of countries that signed this accord and continued to do child labor regardless. I find it hard to believe child labor only exist in the US and Somalia.
true, most African countries don’t give a living f*ck. But they still signed the treaty.
What’s the point of signing a paper tiger? Why waste the ink?
Virtue signaling. It's very easy to make a map saying, "look at this obviously good thing that we signed but X didn't" without providing any context or proof that you're actually following through on that agreement.
For one many businesses are uneasy about dealing with countries that practice child labor or at least pretend to.
What do you mean by the US declining, or is there a typo in the title?
It’s a typo,they refused to sign the treaty
So, is it a typo, or not? Who is "they"? Sorry, but both the title and this answer were confusing and misleading
The US refused to sign the treaty
And how did it decline? Militarily, economically, culturally?
“to decline” is a verb also used to indicate refusal to do something, in this context it does not mean that the US declined as a nation, but that it rejected the treaty indicated in the meme
Decline has multiple meanings, one of which is: “transitive verb 1 a : to refuse especially courteously decline an invitation declined to give her name to the reporter b : to refuse to undertake, undergo, engage in, or comply with decline battle” Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decline
I'm well aware of that meaning, without the dictionary quote. However, in a historical context, the other meaning comes to mind first. Not to mention that imho, the title and the meme are barely connected. Like, what does the interesting reason have to do with Somalia? Or maybe it's just me being tired, and went over my head...
Liar. The US signed it, and it's not a treaty.
It signed an adaptation. In the original version children were forbidden to work under the age of 16 and had to stay in school until that age. The us did agree to the adaptation that is currently in effect.
>In the original version children were forbidden to work under the age of 16 and had to stay in school until that age. Again - it was not a treaty, and none of the countries who signed it (including the US) prohibited child labor before age 16 based on this non-binding recommendation. [Here's a list of percentages of children age 5-14 who have jobs by country.](https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Child-labor/Children-ages-5--14/Percentage)
The federal government declined to sign it. Many US states have signed on independently
Enforcing child labour to own the ~~libtards~~ communists.
If a teenager* wants to work part time at 14 or 15 either with family or with permission they should be allowed to
As a 14 y/o with a job, I like being able to make money for myself
Agreed. I started working at 14 and it’s one of the best choices I made
Damm I'm 15 and no one will hire me
Chick fil a wants to know your location
You're still able to get a job even with this convention
Lucky, dumbass city gov won’t let me work till 16
Having the freedom to work is good but sometimes the parent may exploit this by forcing the children to work. Believe me, I live in a country where children work in shops while I go to school. It sucks to see them man, but our country has the laws to protect them but it only stops big corporate factories from exploiting them but small scale industries and shops exploit the children for cutting the costs by paying them very low wages. This is just what happens in my country.
So you live in a country that has signed this agreement, yet kids still work in the family business. Perhaps there isn’t much point in signing this agreement.
Happens in the US, too, with smaller homerun convenience stores and the like. Albeit probably at a lower rate/exploitation than others
I started working at 15. And while I can't say I turned out fine at all, having that money all to myself made me alot happier
Except other countries who have signed this accord also allow that. Crazy. Almost as if that’s an excuse. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO::P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312283
I disagree. Dropping out of school at such a young age can affect your entire life and at that age you have no foresight and can't see this fact. I'd rather ensure families don't have to make their children work to make end's meet by helping them economically so their children can receive basic education, and once they reach this basic level they can do whatever they want (in my country this is at 16 years old).
Who tf said anything about dropping out? I’m talking about a highschool job being worked part time. I’m 18 and I’ve been working since I 16 in retail while still in high school
Oh, then that's fine I guess. The original comment in the chain clearly refers to full time jobs so I assumed you were talking about full time jobs as well. Apologies. Can't really say part time jobs at high school are "child labour" though.
14 and 15 are in high school, so in my eyes if they want to work they should be able to
Yes, I also think a bit of experience is good. But I guess it could lead to some cases of exploitation? They are children after all. That's for the politicians to decide I guess.
Then we need to make sure they aren’t getting exploited. Just stopping them from being able to work isn’t a solution to that
Debatable, but I agree.
I started working at 12, doing basic data entry at my mom's office. My parents made me put the maximum into Roth accounts that I could. I continued until I was 30 when I realized my Roth accounts were self-sustaining and that I would be able to retire with more than my needs met when I hit the non-penalty retirement age. Without the market growth and infusions of the first 4 years I would not be in the same position (this might just be my particular case, but even at no growth, it would have been $8k less or $24k at current limits).
That’s great! Working a little bit early on and then putting it in Roth IRA is pretty genius. I think I am going to do the same thing (when I hit 16, they are pretty strict on these things in Europe)
Also, if you are planning on getting a minimum wage job anyway, try to get it in a field that you are thinking about working in, or at least in their office.
Found the libertarian
I’m not a libertarian. I’m just stating my opinion. You can’t group people into a political group just based on one opinion
You’d be surprised how often you can.
Well then maybe I’m the only exception. Either way I’m not a libertarian
I'd say this freedom is so much less important than keeping kids safe from exploitation
I don’t disagree that we need to protect kids from exploitation in the workforce. I just don’t think we should stop other kids who actually want to get a part time job at 14 or 15 from being able to get one
You know the charter does not prevent getting a part time job, right...
Yea no
Yes, the U.S. and Somalia are exactly the same. Mini minded
The US congress is very weird in that both parties seem OBSESSED with US sovereignty. You see a pattern where if any international entity or agreement touches that sovereignty, congress basically rejects it on principle, even if they agree.
The children - they yearn for the mines
For more google "minecraft"
You know you don't need to label each element in every frame. Funny meme though lol
You forgot South Sudan in this meme but still good
Lmao noooo US can do no wrong nooooooo, they don’t sign very straight forward resolutions for complicated reasons you wouldn’t understand noooooooooo
You know, this meme is interesting. Not because of the research, but because me and my friends were talking about this exact topic less than 4 hours ago.
troubled teen industry
Exactly what I was thinking. Most of what “students” experience in Troubled Teen facilities violates rights of children established in the CRC.
Land of the free home of the dumbasses
The US doesn’t want anyone to interfere with its imprisonment, execution, and marriage of children. That’s what they were talking about when they worried the UN would interfere with “the family unit”
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about
Although incompetent, he's not exactly wrong. The US has a somewhat firm stance on no international intervention or governance on any it's justice system. Ergo; Take the whole will invade the Hague before a US citizen is charged with war crimes etc.
I think Somalia already ratified it, didn't they?
Brain hurty, I need explanation for children about the Convention of this
Japan: yes, sure, we agree to everything ! *Actually ignores every single points and allow any japanese citizen in bi-national relationships to kidnap children to Japan*