On Thursday, Newt Gingrich—that famous historian! (see previous post)—campaigned in Iowa and spoke about his stance on child labor laws. He was already on record saying that child labor laws are “stupid” and “entrap” poor children, and schools ought to get rid of union janitors and replace them with poor children who need the money:
Then, in this most recent speech, he further explained the problem as he sees it: poor children don’t even understand how jobs function.
Gingrich believes that regulations like child labor laws get in the way of the pursuit of happiness, and that his idea of getting rid of them, which he admits is radical, will “fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America.” He may be right about the change that would occur, but what would it really look like if we got rid of child labor laws? If history is any indication, the problem of wealth disparity—which is the issue Gingrich identifies as the core reason changes to these labor laws are needed—would only get worse.
The biggest problem is that Gingrich is right. It would be mostly poor children doing the work. Dickensian chimney sweeps were not the children of the aristocracy. A big part of the problem with child labor prior to the establishment of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 was that without a law preventing it, work was not a choice for poor children but a necessity.
According to the Department of Labor, the point of child labor laws is to “protect the educational opportunities of youth and prohibit their employment in jobs that are detrimental to their health and safety.” Gingrich’s vision of a child paid a reliable one hour a day to greet people at a clerical desk is lovely. But that’s not what child labor looked like. Children at work looked like factory workers and manual laborers, and for a family in real need one hour would not be enough. You can’t do homework and “real” work at the same time. Without regulation, a working child would soon become a child who does little else outside of school or who falls asleep in class after a long night shift. And that would only lead to further inequality.
If there is a lack of examples of a good work ethic, the solution is to help parents and other adults—the example setters—find work. The solution is not to make an example of those who need one.
Besides, Gingrich wouldn’t have to look far into history to see why his idea is unnecessary. Right at this very moment, children of any age can already do certain jobs. But those jobs are regulated—and, for Gingrich, that seems to be the real problem.
