this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
180 points (98.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7120 readers
637 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, children do not need to do labor to live. The goal here is to teach kids through work experience, meaning time management (juggle work, school, and play) and managing money.

Here's my personal experience:

  • mowed lawns around 14yo
  • did simple landscaping at 15yo
  • cleaned offices and had a programming internship at 16yo

More than half of that money went to my school fund, and is a large part of why I didn't need student loans for college. I also used it to buy things my parents wouldn't get me, such as a gaming console.

If we allow kids under 18 to work (and we should, with lots of limits and safeguards), it should have some clear restrictions:

  • none of the money is used for family expenses
  • parents can use a custodial account, but that can only be used to give the child spending money or saved until the child is 18yo (may be invested in something like a 529 or IRA as well for the child); every withdrawal is tracked by the custodian and subject to review
  • if the child raises complaints, work ends immediately; children may not be able to consent, but they can certainly opt out
  • at 16yo, the child gets to decide how to get paid (which account, etc)

That should prevent most of the abuse since parents wouldn't get any benefit from the labor. The only goal should be for the child's benefit, not to somehow benefit the parents.

The NHLP went too far, and were rightly called out for it.