Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

Of course, for Marxists every picture of capitalistic reality which does not present employers as evil bloodsuckers with strong sadistic tendencies is not realistic

So there are no Marxists here, then. Why introduce irrelevancy?

On the other hand, one can reasonably doubt that the model of Basu has much to do with reality

To prevent that doubt, no matter how farfetched and indicative of an uninformed or naive perspective, they included analysis of a real world example of a familiar type. One in which, for example, part time child labor is just as legal as full time - and yet child labor persists.

The only difference is that it allows part-time child labor

It also assumes various tradeoffs, etc - that part time arrangements impose no net costs or liabilities on the employer, for example.

And, just for information, a lot of child labor is in the family business, and in this situation part-time labor is not a problem at all.

Unless the family needs the full time labor, or the tradeoff is not worthwhile, of course.

As we all know, thereby demonstrating that part time labor is almost always "allowed" in your sense - meaning the government does not legally forbid it - including where child labor persists, as in the real world example of a familiar kind analyzed in the paper.

About now, enough chaff has been thrown to again obscure the particular denial at issue (itself only an example of the category of denial that is the thread topic): that child labor exists and persists and does harm in the absence of government support, and without government interference of some kind will often continue indefinitely in the real world.

That is not, at first glance, a denial of the same level or absurdity as Holocaust denial, or Jim Crow denial, or AGW denial - it could even be taken as a step toward an alternative explanation of recognized historical events or physical circumstance, certainly as a warning against authoritarian impositions and government making things worse.

But when we see the advocate doing such things as informing us of the role of child labor in a family business, we recognize a familiar situation: we've been instructed in the logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations.

Another pattern, or feature even, of the absurd denial. Add to the list.

 

[Schmelzer]

To prevent that doubt, no matter how farfetched and indicative of an uninformed or naive perspective, they included analysis of a real world example of a familiar type. One in which, for example, part time child labor is just as legal as full time - and yet child labor persists.

No. Even in this model, it persists only as long as the adults alone do not have income above subsistence level. The effect itself exists only in a short period of time when the difference between adult wages with vs. without child labor allowed is big enough to move the family above subsistence level. And the two equilibria exist only because Basu and Van have artificially, without any justification for doing this, taken the possibility of part-time child labor out of their model.

It also assumes various tradeoffs, etc - that part time arrangements impose no net costs or liabilities on the employer, for example.
Unless the family needs the full time labor, or the tradeoff is not worthwhile, of course.

Of course, you can invent circumstances where the two equilibria appear. But please don't claim that they matter. For example, once the family needs full time labor, there is no equilibrium without child labor, because the family simply starves if child labor is forbidden. The two equilibria appear only if the family does not need full time labor.

About now, enough chaff has been thrown to again obscure the particular denial at issue (itself only an example of the category of denial that is the thread topic): that child labor exists and persists and does harm in the absence of government support, and without government interference of some kind will often continue indefinitely in the real world.

And here we see a nice example of iceaura argumentation. Emphasis mine.

The particular content of the paper (the particular model, the properties of this model, the conditions when the model predicts two equilibria, the validity of my counterarguments) are completely ignored. My position is named "denial". The Party line, which is in no way supported by the paper in question. Instead, the paper explicitly mentions that in such poor conditions (which iceaura describes with "the family needs the full time labor") a child labor ban (the only government interference which is extensively discussed) harms:

To sum up, bans are a powerful instrument but by no means unequivocally desirable. One has to be very careful about the empirical context before using this instrument. If there are multiple equilibria in the labor market, a ban is a benign policy intervention and worth-
while. But if the market has only one equilibrium which is likely in very-poor countries, then a ban can worsen the condition of the labor households.

A nice and simple strategy. You lose the argument? No problem. Summarize your position as if you are the winner of the argument, and name the opponent a denier. And (once you don't like him - that's quite typical if you lose arguments) add the accusation that this is absurd denial:

That is not, at first glance, a denial of the same level or absurdity as Holocaust denial, or Jim Crow denial, or AGW denial - it could even be taken as a step toward an alternative explanation of recognized historical events or physical circumstance, certainly as a warning against authoritarian impositions and government making things worse.

But when we see the advocate doing such things as informing us of the role of child labor in a family business, we recognize a familiar situation: we've been instructed in the logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations.

Another pattern, or feature even, of the absurd denial. Add to the list.

Wow. Now the use of scientific arguments - like "logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations", and my counterarguments to the model of Basu and Van became "a pattern of absurd denial". We naive deniers thought that using only scientific arguments could somehow help us - no. This is an aggravating circumstance, and makes our denial even more absurd. LOL.

 

[iceaura]

"It also assumes various tradeoffs, etc - that part time arrangements impose no net costs or liabilities on the employer, for example." 1
"Unless the family needs the full time labor, or the tradeoff is not worthwhile, of course."
Of course, you can invent circumstances where the two equilibria appear. But please don't claim that they matter. For example, once the family needs full time labor, there is no equilibrium without child labor, because the family simply starves if child labor is forbidden. The two equilibria appear only if the family does not need full time labor.

You are now pretending that 1 and 2 were both referring to the same situation. That is dishonest. The first refers to hired child labor, the second refers to your attempt to deflect the argument into family businesses only, and a false claim you attempted to make about them along the way.

Clearly when the employer and the negotiating laborers are the same people, the calculation of net benefits and consequent equilibria will be much different. Nonfamily employers of child labor seldom employ their own children in those jobs, for example, even in established child labor economies. So?

You are also attempting to strawman your denial by framing it as a choice between government ban and government absence - so that we are to choose between a government ban of all child labor that will starve people, and government imposition and regulation as unnecessary. In the first place, that contradicts your presumption that stable equilibria involving child labor do not exist (what would the government ban?). In the second, pretending that banning all child labor is the only government option for moving off the bad equilibria is nonsense, and ignores even the history of child labor law - which almost universally does not do that.

And you are of course denying the observation of equilibrium child labor economies in the real world, in agreement with the theory.

No. Even in this model, it persists only as long as the adults alone do not have income above subsistence level. The effect itself exists only in a short period of time when the difference between adult wages with vs. without child labor allowed is big enough to move the family above subsistence level.

That situation is maintained indefinitely - stable equilibrium, remember?

The particular content of the paper (the particular model, the properties of this model, the conditions when the model predicts two equilibria, the validity of my counterarguments) are completely ignored.

No, they aren't. They are presented as features of the denial.

Wow. Now the use of scientific arguments - like "logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations", and my counterarguments to the model of Basu and Van became "a pattern of absurd denial". We naive deniers thought that using only scientific arguments could somehow help us - no. This is an aggravating circumstance, and makes our denial even more absurd.

So those were actually presented as "scientific arguments" - that wasn't my exaggeration or mocking misrepresentation.

And such "arguments" are features of absurd denials. The list is supported by reaffirmation.

 

[Schmelzer]

You are now pretending that 1 and 2 were both referring to the same situation. That is dishonest. The first refers to hired child labor, the second refers to your attempt to deflect the argument into family businesses only, and a false claim you attempted to make about them along the way.
Clearly when the employer and the negotiating laborers are the same people, the calculation of net benefits and consequent equilibria will be much different. Nonfamily employers of child labor seldom employ their own children in those jobs, for example, even in established child labor economies. So?

So? In the model of Basu and Van such differences play no role. In standard economic theory the differences are also almost irrelevant. And I do not have to pretend that 1 and 2 refer to the same situation, simply because the for the arguments I have made the difference is quite irrelevant too. That non-family employers seldom employ their own children has the simple reason that they can usually afford this, subsistence level is not their problem.

You are also attempting to strawman your denial by framing it as a choice between government ban and government absence - so that we are to choose between a government ban of all child labor that will starve people, and government imposition and regulation as unnecessary. In the first place, that contradicts your presumption that stable equilibria involving child labor do not exist (what would the government ban?). In the second, pretending that banning all child labor is the only government option for moving off the bad equilibria is nonsense, and ignores even the history of child labor law - which almost universally does not do that.

First, we discuss the Basu and Van paper. It is about a small part of all situations. There is agreement that in very poor societies child labor is economic necessity, and a ban would be harmful, that in rich societies there will be no relevant child labor, and the ban will be almost irrelevant. The paper is about the small intermediate region. Then, I do not pretend that a ban is all the government can do, it can do a lot of things, up to genocide, but the ban of child labor is what is discussed in the paper.

And here is the lie of this posting:

And you are of course denying the observation of equilibrium child labor economies in the real world, in agreement with the theory.

Of course I do not deny that in poor societies the equilibrium will be one with child labor.

That situation is maintained indefinitely - stable equilibrium, remember?

In a model world, where nothing changes, the equilibrium will remain indefinitely. But, sorry for you, we live in a world which changes.

About "logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations":

So those were actually presented as "scientific arguments" - that wasn't my exaggeration or mocking misrepresentation.

And they are obviously evil scientific arguments, those who use them are therefore guilty of "absurd denial".

 

[iceaura]

So? In the model of Basu and Van such differences play no role. In standard economic theory the differences are also almost irrelevant.

In your replies here, and the discussion here, they are central.

And I do not have to pretend that 1 and 2 refer to the same situation, simply because the for the arguments I have made the difference is quite irrelevant too.

But you did, and based your response on that, which was dishonest.

The paper is about the small intermediate region.

No, it isn't. It is not about independently established economies that then have child labor as an imposed necessity - it is about economies structured around and by child labor. Child labor itself maintains its status - stable equilibrium, remember? That includes many poor economies, some intermediate ones, and even a few rich ones.

Then, I do not pretend that a ban is all the government can do, it can do a lot of things, up to genocide, but the ban of child labor is what is discussed in the paper.

Then you will cease presenting it here as government's only alternative to doing nothing.

Of course I do not deny that in poor societies the equilibrium will be one with child labor.

Not "the" - "a".
And it will maintain the poverty. Stable equilibrium, remember?
In a wide range of market capitalist economies found in the real world, a stable equilibrium involving child labor exists.
You denied that. You denied the real world existence of the child labor equilibrium established by the theory.

In a model world, where nothing changes, the equilibrium will remain indefinitely. But, sorry for you, we live in a world which changes.

Stable equilibria, by definition, maintain themselves in fluctuating and changing circumstances.
Of course no economy lasts forever. Volcanoes. War. Resource depletion. Disease. Climate change. Even technological innovation can push an economy off of an equilibrium and into a new state.
And so can political effort, governmental decree.

And they are obviously evil scientific arguments, those who use them are therefore guilty of "absurd denial".

They are not scientific arguments.
Anyone who thinks they are is dealing in absurdities.
Anyone who denies the actual science, history, and physical reality surrounding us all on the basis of such absurdities is engaged in absurd denial.

 

[Schmelzer]

In your replies here, and the discussion here, they are central.

Because of your permanent repetitions of ideological claims with no base in economic theory or the paper.

The poor family where the children have to work too in the family business is not that good as an evil capitalist employer, and so you have to make a difference.

But you did, and based your response on that, which was dishonest.

Iceaura cannot make a post without a lie.

No, it isn't. It is not about independently established economies that then have child labor as an imposed necessity - it is about economies structured around and by child labor. Child labor itself maintains its status - stable equilibrium, remember? That includes many poor economies, some intermediate ones, and even a few rich ones.

Economics "structured around and by child labor" are a fantasy. Of course, in poor societies people start to work earlier than in rich societies. Moreover, the percentage of children is higher because of low life expectancy. But even in this case, most of the work is done by adults.
And again, an equilibrium is stable only if the economy does not change. Our real economy changes, so equilibria change too.

Then you will cease presenting it here as government's only alternative to doing nothing.

I have not claimed that the government's only alternative is doing nothing. I have no doubt that it can do a lot of harm in many many different ways.

In a wide range of market capitalist economies found in the real world, a stable equilibrium involving child labor exists.
You denied that. You denied the real world existence of the child labor equilibrium established by the theory.

And a second lie. It seems, almost all statements about me are lies. I have already many times, in this posting too, written that in poor societies the economic equilibrium will include child labor.

About "logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations":

They are not scientific arguments. Anyone who thinks they are is dealing in absurdities. Anyone who denies the actual science, history, and physical reality surrounding us all on the basis of such absurdities is engaged in absurd denial.

Iceaura seems to live in an alternative reality, where the effect of CO2 boosting is probably exponential, black people score much higher than whites on IQ tests, and Jewish people have in all professions the same prevalence as in the general population. Or so.

Ok, I'm joking, this is all quite natural if one remembers that iceaura is a totalitarian Party soldier. Such a Party soldier knows that mentioning these facts is an indication of rejection of the Party line. So, those who do such evil things have to be penalized, which in this forum takes the form of being named "absurd denier".

 

[iceaura]

The poor family where the children have to work too in the family business is not that good as an evil capitalist employer, and so you have to make a difference.

You don't see any difference in the employer and employee being the same person or family? No wonder you deny suboptimal equilibria. You can't even see the negotiating parties.

Economics "structured around and by child labor" are a fantasy.

Economies. No, they are not.
And that is a straight denial of the existence of the stable equilibria theoretically established and illustrated by analyzed example in that paper. You asked to be informed of when you are denying such things - there's an instance.

And again, an equilibrium is stable only if the economy does not change.

It's the other way around - the economy does not change (in this relevant respect) if the equilibrium is stable. Stable equilibria maintain themselves against small perturbations - by definition.

I have not claimed that the government's only alternative is doing nothing

You have argued from that premise, repeatedly. Total ban/do nothing is your setup. You have presented the bad effects of an incompetent total ban as the bad effects of government interference itself, for example. You even introduced part time labor as something a government would forbid, rather than introduce and enforce in the parents's and children's interest - in contrast to all of history and real world circumstance.

And a second lie. It seems, almost all statements about me are lies.

The statements about your posting here have been backed with illustrative quotes, and are quite clearly accurate.

Iceaura seems to live in an alternative reality, where the effect of CO2 boosting is probably exponential, black people score much higher than whites on IQ tests, and Jewish people have in all professions the same prevalence as in the general population. Or so.

Denialists are always dealing in absurdities, as noted.

Ok, I'm joking, this is all quite natural if one remembers that iceaura is a totalitarian Party soldier. Such a Party soldier knows that mentioning these facts is an indication of rejection of the Party line.

In the US, the Republican Party line - the Party in control of the Federal and most State governments, all public and most private scientific funding, etc - is exactly what you posted. You were not rejecting that Party line, but posting it here on this forum.

And pretending it is a scientific argument. None of those Party line schticks you post here are scientific arguments. Don't you know that? Do you really not know the difference?

 

[Schmelzer]

You don't see any difference in the employer and employee being the same person or family?

Of course I see differences. Which was the reason why I have mentioned family business. Check which difference I have thought to be important enough to mention them.

And that is a straight denial of the existence of the stable equilibria theoretically established and illustrated by analyzed example in that paper.

And this posting is also not without a lie.

It's the other way around - the economy does not change (in this relevant respect) if the equilibrium is stable. Stable equilibria maintain themselves against small perturbations - by definition.

No. If external circumstances change, the equlibrium changes too. The change is a small, continuous one, with smooth dependence on the external circumstances, if the equilibrium is stable. It may, during such a continuous modification, become unstable. In this case, even a small, minor change in the external circumstances may lead to a large effect - switching from the now unstable equilibrium to another, stable one.

You have argued from that premise, repeatedly. Total ban/do nothing is your setup.

It is the setup of Basu and Van. They have considered also a ban in some parts of the economy (say, the parts where government has control), and conclude that this results in failure.

You have presented the bad effects of an incompetent total ban as the bad effects of government interference itself, for example. You even introduced part time labor as something a government would forbid, rather than introduce and enforce in the parents's and children's interest - in contrast to all of history and real world circumstance.

No. The incompetency of a total ban was the point of criticizing the paper of Basu and Van - they have claimed that in some particular circumstances, which appear only in their artificial model, a total ban would have positive effects. And I have argued that a different modification of this model - namely allowing part time child labor, which was artificially excluded in the model, is a much better way to reach the same effect in a much less harmful way.

Forbidding part time child labor is, of course, nonsense. But that Basu and Van have made this nonsense part of their model is not my problem.

Note also that the thesis that government interference is almost always harmful is a general one, which I have for a lot of reasons, and the harm caused by child labor bans (which are a quite common and popular form of government intervention) is only a particular example.

The statements about your posting here have been backed with illustrative quotes, and are quite clearly accurate.

And yet another lie. You use quotes only as rare exceptions, usually without link, 99% or so of them come from the immediately answered post. And those almost always illustrate only your strange ability to completely misinterpret what is written.

Cheap polemics disposed.

 

[iceaura]

No. If external circumstances change, the equlibrium changes too.

That is not always the case - and in stable equilibria, commonly not the case.

The change is a small, continuous one, with smooth dependence on the external circumstances, if the equilibrium is stable. It may, during such a continuous modification, become unstable.

Or it may - as is very common - not. Depends on the circumstances.

"You have argued from that premise, repeatedly. Total ban/do nothing is your setup."
It is the setup of Basu and Van.

No, it is only an example they consider, of a significant problem faced by those dealing with stable child labor economies.

They have considered also a ban in some parts of the economy (say, the parts where government has control), and conclude that this results in failure.

Sometimes. They even illustrate, by example, this problem with that particular error of governance. Partly this reinforces their thesis: clearly we have evidence for the stability of the child labor equilibria involved.

Meanwhile, their analysis holds. So does the common reality that government is not restricted to crude errors like that.

So we all agree that this occasional failure of one particular form of misguided government intervention has no bearing on the description of the equilibria, etc. So you never need to mention it again - it's irrelevant here.

Of course I see differences. Which was the reason why I have mentioned family business. Check which difference I have thought to be important enough to mention them.

That severe limitation - your presumptions of what is important - may be why I didn't notice them. You are ignoring the relevant differences - if you weren't, you would not have bothered mentioning family businesses, or idealizing their nature.

No. The incompetency of a total ban was the point of criticizing the paper of Basu and Van - they have claimed that in some particular circumstances, which appear only in their artificial model, a total ban would have positive effects.

And correctly.

And I have argued that a different modification of this model - namely allowing part time child labor, which was artificially excluded in the model, is a much better way to reach the same effect in a much less harmful way.

And I pointed out that "allowing" was not at issue - part time labor is almost always "allowed", by the government. Government was not involved - their analysis was of market operations unrestricted by government.
Meanwhile, you imagined a situation in which an employer would be willing to incur immediate costs (including risks from competition) and forego immediate profits, to accommodate the wishes of a few parents that threatened to raise his costs and reduce his profits long term as well, and that this minority of unconventional parents would then move the economy away from the old equilibrium by accruing benefits ten or fifteen years later. That is not common.

Note also that the thesis that government interference is almost always harmful is a general one

And irrelevant here. This is one of the situations in which it can be beneficial, and is critical to benefits.

 

[iceaura]

And yet another lie. You use quotes only as rare exceptions

With the amount of repetition involved in dealing with your endless reposting of denial and obfuscation, the quotes do drop in percentage terms after a while - I only repeat them once or twice.

 

[Schmelzer]

First, I will drop the "stable equilibria" nonsense. We live in a world where economy changes because of technical progress, societies become richer, and the local equilibria change. For poor societies, child labor is mandatory for survival, and part of its stable equilibrium, for rich societies, it is not part of the equlibrium. The two equlibria fantasy of Basu and Van is even claimed to exist only in a small intermediate period, when the society becomes richer. Given that technological innovation is an external influence, and once it has already driven the society into that mystical situation with two equlibria, it will nonetheless continue and also drive the society into the domain with a single equlibrium without child labor.

Anyway these two equilibria are possible only if there is no part-time child labor in this period. Which is an artificial restriction, which is not plausible at all. Not even governments are so stupid to forbid such things. Only pro-government economic researchers invent models which forbid it, creating in this way two equilibria. "Allowing" is, indeed, not an issue in reality. It is only an issue in the model of Basu and Van. Which makes the model artificial nonsense worth to be disposed.

Meanwhile, you imagined a situation in which an employer would be willing to incur immediate costs (including risks from competition) and forego immediate profits, to accommodate the wishes of a few parents that threatened to raise his costs and reduce his profits long term as well, and that this minority of unconventional parents would then move the economy away from the old equilibrium by accruing benefits ten or fifteen years later. That is not common.

Nonsense. In general, the costs of having two part-time children vs. one child are minimal. They work the same time, thus, produce the same things (even if not, they are paid for what they produce, so no difference). If there are really some additional costs, it means the two half-time children will be offered less wage that half of the full time wage, that's all. This is the only consequence for a rational employer. (Of course, for lefties employers are irrational sadists, so for iceaura the situation may be different, but this is nothing I care about.)

Then, allowing part-time labor increases the number of workers ready to work for that particular employer, thus, reduces the wages he has to pay. This becomes especially important if not all employers allow part-time child labor - in this case, those who want part-time will be ready to accept lower wages. This is how markets work. So, the very idea that on a free market there will be no part-time child labor if there is supply for part-time child labor makes no sense.

 

[iceaura]

First, I will drop the "stable equilibria" nonsense. We live in a world where economy changes because of technical progress, societies become richer, and the local equilibria change.

And since it is inevitable that such circumstances would soon disrupt child labor equilibria on their own, via "market forces" or the like, such stable equilibria don't exist.

Like I said: you deny the existence of the stable equilibria established by theory and illustrated by example.

Anyway these two equilibria are possible only if there is no part-time child labor in this period.

No part time child labor with certain properties, you mean. Not just any will do - it has to trade off with adult and child opportunity in certain ways.
But given that, yes - that is one of the assumptions.
An analyzed example of one of the many common, real life situations in which that assumption holds was also provided.

If there are really some additional costs, it means the two half-time children will be offered less wage that half of the full time wage, that's all.

And since there always are, the question facing the parents (and child) becomes: how much less? What kind of "less" (room and board?)? (One of the very significant factors in child labor is the fact that the employer often provides room and board, takes on the expense of the child - and enjoys economies of scale in doing so.)
Remember, the costs for the employer include opportunity costs, the foregone production, etc. That would be coming out of the employee's share of the part time production, no?
And the loss of leverage on the adult employee, wage suppression etc.

And so forth. No wonder it's so rare, despite essentially never being forbidden, and the common situation is long hours or no job at all - as modeled.

This is the only consequence for a rational employer. (Of course, for lefties employers are irrational sadists

You make such silly claims with such confidence.

Behold the "rational" employer, who understands that the immediate benefits of the company store and housing, the advantages of debt peonage, payment in scrip, overworking children and adults, wage suppression, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, class structured employment, environmental destruction, etc, are only temporary (for various reasons) - and therefore voluntarily eschews them in agreement with his fellow landowners and employers and financiers, regardless of the immediate loss, all of them so very rational and farsighted.

Of course everyone would be better off, including the employers and landowners and financiers and so forth, without such oppressions. That's why they're called "suboptimal" equilibria. Suboptimal equilibria are all "irrational", in that larger sense, by definition.

To deny their existence on that basis is absurd.

 

[Schmelzer]

And since it is inevitable that such circumstances would soon disrupt child labor equilibria on their own, via "market forces" or the like, such stable equilibria don't exist.
Like I said: you deny the existence of the stable equilibria established by theory and illustrated by example.

Yet another lie, I do not deny the existence of stable equilibria in stable circumstances.

No part time child labor with certain properties, you mean. Not just any will do - it has to trade off with adult and child opportunity in certain ways.

No. In the Basu and Van model, it is simply explicitly excluded, the child works or 100% or 0%, by construction. No base for this property is provided or discussed. Essentially, any part-time labor will do the job of getting rid of the two equilibria.

And since there always are, the question facing the parents (and child) becomes: how much less? What kind of "less" (room and board?)? (One of the very significant factors in child labor is the fact that the employer often provides room and board, takes on the expense of the child - and enjoys economies of scale in doing so.)
Remember, the costs for the employer include opportunity costs, the foregone production, etc. That would be coming out of the employee's share of the part time production, no?
And the loss of leverage on the adult employee, wage suppression etc.
And so forth. No wonder it's so rare, despite essentially never being forbidden, and the common situation is long hours or no job at all - as modeled.

Part time child labor has many forms. The first one is obligatory - children will work only during some years of their childhood, for the simple reason that a two-year-old child cannot do anything in a profitable way for any employer at all. This is, by the way, a thing which changes continuously - in a richer society the age when children start working will be greater. Then, there is seasonal work - quite typical for agriculture, which is important where child labor is important. Here part time means full time during a short season. So, also no additional costs, and your "room and board" will be provided for that time. And then there is the family business, which is naturally part time and your opportunity costs play no role at all.

And, of course, part-time jobs will nonetheless be rare if the society is so poor that children have to work - and would have to take two jobs if only half-time jobs would be offered.

Behold the "rational" employer, who understands that the immediate benefits of the company store and housing, the advantages of debt peonage, payment in scrip, overworking children and adults, wage suppression, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, class structured employment, environmental destruction, etc, are only temporary (for various reasons) - and therefore voluntarily eschews them in agreement with his fellow landowners and employers and financiers, regardless of the immediate loss, all of them so very rational and farsighted.

Nice try but completely off. Because the model of the rational actor in economics does not at all presuppose that he "voluntarily eschews" some immediate benefits because they are only temporary.

Of course everyone would be better off, including the employers and landowners and financiers and so forth, without such oppressions. That's why they're called "suboptimal" equilibria. Suboptimal equilibria are all "irrational", in that larger sense, by definition.
To deny their existence on that basis is absurd.

That in an economy with rational actors there will be a lot of various common good problems is well-known but a completely different question. Because in the question of child labor there are no common goods involved.

 

[iceaura]

Yet another lie, I do not deny the existence of stable equilibria in stable circumstances.

And completely typical of these things you call my "lies". They are inventions of yours.
You deny the circumstances - as noted many times, that is where the absurdity comes from.

No. In the Basu and Van model, it is simply explicitly excluded, the child works or 100% or 0%, by construction.

And that is a common situation in reality, as in their example.

Part time child labor has many forms.

We are talking about child labor - full time or part time - that interferes with investment in the child. Suboptimal equilibria, remember?

Nice try but completely off. Because the model of the rational actor in economics does not at all presuppose that he "voluntarily eschews" some immediate benefits because they are only temporary.

That is an example of dishonesty. We are not going to believe you are that stupid, or that confused by the second language, or whatever.

That in an economy with rational actors there will be a lot of various common good problems is well-known but a completely different question.

Nobody was talking about them. As you well know.

Because in the question of child labor there are no common goods involved.

There are, of course - central ones, especially among the capitalist investors, the "rational employers", whose awareness of the big picture is always of interest. Sometimes they can even be persuaded to cooperate in better governance. But that is another matter.
- - -
On topic, we have here more illustration of the common features of absurd denial listed above. Here's the denier instructing us, as mentioned repeatedly above (recently, say, as important subtopic in post 763, about the "scientific argument" feature of the absurd denial):

Part time child labor has many forms. The first one is obligatory - children will work only during some years of their childhood, for the simple reason that a two-year-old child cannot do anything in a profitable way for any employer at all. This is, by the way, a thing which changes continuously - in a richer society the age when children start working will be greater. Then, there is seasonal work - quite typical for agriculture, which is important where child labor is important. Here part time means full time during a short season. So, also no additional costs, and your "room and board" will be provided for that time. And then there is the family business, which is naturally part time and your opportunity costs play no role at all.

Briefly, the bolded are assumptions which deny common ordinary reality and common or research established observation.
In addition, several forms of child labor omitted from that paragraph are central to the discussion, including the example used in the paper to illustrate the entire matter of suboptimal equilibria. So this is not just bs by commission, but also by omission.

And that is a recurrent theme or feature of the absurd denial, significant enough to add to the list specifically: Focus on fringe or trivia, central matters not acknowledged ( factoids or local weather, in AGW a.d.; occasional exaggerations of mistreatment by Jews or presence of better treatment of Jews in Holocaust a.d.; repetitions of the melting temperature of steel being higher than the combustion temperature of jet fuel, no steel building falling by fire, etc, in 9/11 a.d.; IQ and similar "racial facts" in Jim Crow a.d.; and so forth).

It's an avoidance mechanism, and the details of its setup (which trivia are chosen, say) can provide us with an idea of the underlying agenda or worldview being defended - especially if, as is so common, we have multiple denials of superficially unrelated historical events or physical realities by one source.

 

[Schmelzer]

You deny the circumstances - as noted many times, that is where the absurdity comes from.

Yes, I deny that we live in a world where the circumstances are fixed, and no technical progress allows people to become more efficient workers and as the result richer, so that the world will forever remain in the equillibrium where it is now. It is a stable equilibrium, which is something I deny. Horrible.

And that is a common situation in reality, as in their example.

What we have in reality are societies where many children have to work full time, because these societies are too poor. Societies without part-time child labor exist only where there is no child labor at all. This is because a large part of child-time labor is part-time, has always been. And is in one aspect - the age when the child begins to work - always present, even in a society where all children which work - if they work - work full time.

We are talking about child labor - full time or part time - that interferes with investment in the child. Suboptimal equilibria, remember?

Investment in the child - in particular, by education - is in much less conflict with part-time work than with full-time work. The classical European model - school, with vacations in the time of harvest, when seasonal child labor is necessary.

That is an example of dishonesty. We are not going to believe you are that stupid, or that confused by the second language, or whatever. Nobody was talking about them. As you well know.

No. But this is an example of defamation. Because you do not even try to present evidence that there is something dishonest in my claim. So, we agree now that the "rational actor" I'm talking about takes every possibility, however temporary, if he gets some profit? Without caring about "common goods" of the class of employers as a whole, or society as a whole, like the one you constructed in:

Meanwhile, you imagined a situation in which an employer would be willing to incur immediate costs (including risks from competition) and forego immediate profits, to accommodate the wishes of a few parents that threatened to raise his costs and reduce his profits long term as well, and that this minority of unconventional parents would then move the economy away from the old equilibrium by accruing benefits ten or fifteen years later. That is not common.

Behold the "rational" employer, who understands that the immediate benefits of the company store and housing, the advantages of debt peonage, payment in scrip, overworking children and adults, wage suppression, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, class structured employment, environmental destruction, etc, are only temporary (for various reasons) - and therefore voluntarily eschews them in agreement with his fellow landowners and employers and financiers, regardless of the immediate loss, all of them so very rational and farsighted.

Briefly, the bolded are assumptions which deny common ordinary reality and common or research established observation.
In addition, several forms of child labor omitted from that paragraph are central to the discussion, including the example used in the paper to illustrate the entire matter of suboptimal equilibria. So this is not just bs by commission, but also by omission.

No, and iceaura provides no evidence to support the claim, in particular no scientific articles which support that these claims are wrong, or quotes from them. Not even a quote from the paper in question, which is claimed to illustrate something.

Note also that the some part of this - that the age when children start to work is not zero - hold for all child labor, inclusive that of the children of slaves. Note also another general aspect: Societies are never completely homogeneous. And the richer part of the society invests in education instead of forcing their children to work. So, even if all children which work work full time, the part of the children who don't work increases if the society becomes richer.

(And all this, of course, ignores that learning in a school is quite hard work - with working conditions which are quite horrible even in recent times, like that children have to take their working utensils in heavy "school bags" from home, and have, with "homework", some unlimited working time. But this form of government-forced child labor is completely ignored in the "child labor" discussion - which, in real terms, is about taking the control over where the children are working (not if) away from the parents to the government. But this is a side remark.)

And that is a recurrent theme or feature of the absurd denial, significant enough to add to the list specifically: Focus on fringe or trivia, central matters not acknowledged ( factoids or local weather, in AGW a.d.; occasional exaggerations of mistreatment by Jews or presence of better treatment of Jews in Holocaust a.d.; repetitions of the melting temperature of steel being higher than the combustion temperature of jet fuel, no steel building falling by fire, etc, in 9/11 a.d.; IQ and similar "racial facts" in Jim Crow a.d.; and so forth).

Thanks for illustrating another aspect of totalitarian propaganda. The problem is that, once the Party soldiers are yet unable to suppress completely the presentation of simple scientific objections by their enemies, and to question the scientific results themselves appears impossible or at least not successful. What remains to do? One names them "fringe or trivia". Hm. Is "the melting temperature of steel being higher than the combustion temperature of jet fuel" fringe science? If not, is it "trivia, central matters not acknowledged "? At least IMHO at least one of the central matters is if the official version of 9/11 makes sense. And this claims that the fire caused by the planes hitting the buildings, and in case of WTC 7 a simple normal fire, was the cause of the collapse, not?

 

[iceaura]

Yes, I deny that we live in a world where the circumstances are fixed, and no technical progress allows people to become more efficient workers and as the result richer, so that the world will forever remain in the equillibrium where it is now.

Now you are denying the existence of stable equilibria entirely, in order to deny the existence of stable child labor equilibria that require governmental intervention.

What we have in reality are societies where many children have to work full time, because these societies are too poor.

Or their wealth is too unequally distributed, yes.
And the effects of the child labor keep them that way, indefinitely. Stable equilibrium.

Investment in the child - in particular, by education - is in much less conflict with part-time work than with full-time work.

That's one reason why laws regulating working hours can sometimes benefit the society, by moving it off of a suboptimal equlibrium.

Because you do not even try to present evidence that there is something dishonest in my claim

I quoted it. My posts are right here, the discussion you are misrepresenting is right here. What more evidence would I need?

No, and iceaura provides no evidence to support the claim, in particular no scientific articles which support that these claims are wrong, or quotes from them

There are no scientific articles involved in correcting your bad arguments and misrepresentations, pointing to your careful omissions and silly presumptions, and observing that nothing you have posted here has any such support as you demand from others.
Meanwhile, I have posted evidence. You have not.

And the richer part of the society invests in education instead of forcing their children to work. So, even if all children which work work full time, the part of the children who don't work increases if the society becomes richer.

Your presumption that riches accruing to others and advantages possessed by their children will be distributed to those whose children must work for survival is a denial of the stable equilibrium established in theory and illustrated by analyzed example in the research report I linked.
That is of course desirable, and does act to reduce and eventually eliminate child labor - but in the case of a stable equilibrium it requires outside coercion. Governmental intervention, normally.

Thanks for illustrating another aspect of totalitarian propaganda. The problem is that, once the Party soldiers are yet unable to suppress completely the presentation of simple scientific objections by their enemies, and to question the scientific results themselves appears impossible or at least not successful. What remains to do? One names them "fringe or trivia".

They aren't scientific objections. They are essentially willful stupidities, factoids employed by absurd deniers to conceal - even from the deniers themselves, apparently - the evident and quite obvious physical situation, sequence of events, etc. Stuff obvious to others, aspects of reality evident to anyone not actively engaged in the absurd denial, are thereby simply denied.

Creationists instructing us all in the flaws of evolutionary theory by using biological factoids (eyeballs are very complex!) are the type specimen.( And they too use the language of the freedom fighter, resisting the totalitarian coercions of the "establishment" and the "Party line" with their independent thought. )

Is "the melting temperature of steel being higher than the combustion temperature of jet fuel" fringe science? If not, is it "trivia, central matters not acknowledged "?

It's fringe politics - the use of a well known, thoroughly considered by all, universally acknowledged and accepted factoid to deflect sound argument and the larger physical reality involved, thereby obscuring the central matters not acknowledged by the 9/11 deniers.

Just as you employed the logarithmic response of temperature to CO2 boosting for AGW denial, just as you employed various tax and economic factors to deny the influence of racial bigotry in the US.

So we see that pattern is a feature, not a bug or idiosyncrasy, in absurd denial.

 

[Schmelzer]

Now you are denying the existence of stable equilibria entirely, in order to deny the existence of stable child labor equilibria that require governmental intervention.

No. The equilibria are stable if the external circumstances are stable. But they depend on these external circumstances. And your "in order to deny" is nonsense (more accurate: defamation) because I simply explain you some basics of the meaning of equilibrium in economic theory.

Or their wealth is too unequally distributed, yes.
And the effects of the child labor keep them that way, indefinitely. Stable equilibrium.

Yes - if the various external circumstances don't change.

That's one reason why laws regulating working hours can sometimes benefit the society, by moving it off of a suboptimal equlibrium.

In a fantasy world where the people are stupid and egoistic but the government is wise and altruistic, government intervention can indeed have good results. In reality, government regulation does what is in the interest of the Big Players, and is - even realizing these particular interests - more stupid than the players themselves. So, while purely theoretical your "can sometimes" is correct, in reality almost always every government invention is harmful.

I quoted it. My posts are right here, the discussion you are misrepresenting is right here. What more evidence would I need?

Your sentences are all completely stupid and meaningless. All I need as evidence to prove this is to quote them. Not? You have to make some argument, if you know what this means - and a simple claim is not an argument.

Your presumption that riches accruing to others and advantages possessed by their children will be distributed to those whose children must work for survival is ...

Whatever it is, it is not my presumption, but your fantasy. If some families become richer, their children will no longer work, and this reduces the supply of child workers on the market. No share of wealth with the poor is required here.

but in the case of a stable equilibrium it requires outside coercion. Governmental intervention, normally.

Yes, government invention can solve this problem in a simple way. Kill all the poor, and you have no longer any poor children working.

They aren't scientific objections. They are essentially willful stupidities, factoids employed by absurd deniers to conceal - even from the deniers themselves, apparently - the evident and quite obvious physical situation, sequence of events, etc. Stuff obvious to others, aspects of reality evident to anyone not actively engaged in the absurd denial, are thereby simply denied.

Except that among those you have listed are at least some scientific objections. The melting temperature is none? The IQ is none? They may be wrong as scientific objections - because science has made some progress or so. But if you would be interested in a reasonable discussion, instead of identifying enemies of the people to blame them deniers, you would handle them as possibly wrong but scientific objections. And use scientific counterarguments, instead of namecalling.

Creationists instructing us all in the flaws of evolutionary theory by using biological factoids (eyeballs are very complex!) are the type specimen.

And the complexity of eyeballs is not a scientific problem in evolution theory? LOL. It is one, and a quite serious one - the only problem of the creationists is that these problems have already found quite satisfactory solutions in evolution theory.

( And they too use the language of the freedom fighter, resisting the totalitarian coercions of the "establishment" and the "Party line" with their independent thought. )

The point being? If there is totalitarian coercion, then not only True Scientists, but also a lot of cranks will be in conflict with the Party line. Communists have been fighting fascism using the language of freedom fighters too - as well as reverse. Does this change the fact that the regimes they thought against were not free?

It's fringe politics - the use of a well known, thoroughly considered by all, universally acknowledged and accepted factoid to deflect sound argument and the larger physical reality involved, thereby obscuring the central matters not acknowledged by the 9/11 deniers.
Just as you employed the logarithmic response of temperature to CO2 boosting for AGW denial, just as you employed various tax and economic factors to deny the influence of racial bigotry in the US.
So we see that pattern is a feature, not a bug or idiosyncrasy, in absurd denial.

Yes, I see the pattern, but a slightly different one. What is wrong with the arguments is not their content - the logarithmic response of temperature to CO2, the IQ, the melting temperature - it is that they are used as arguments against the Party line, or particular Party lies, which makes them "fringe politics".

 

[iceaura]

Yes - if the various external circumstances don't change.

And if they do - just not in certain ways. Only certain changes - such as government coercion can provide - move the economy involved off of the stable equilibrium. And we know by theory and analyzed example that market operations - such as the generation of profit and enrichment of the "society" - are not sufficient in themselves.

If some families become richer, their children will no longer work, and this reduces the supply of child workers on the market. No share of wealth with the poor is required here.

That would be nice, yes. Clearly if the poor whose children labor are somehow becoming richer faster than they are producing children, there is no bad equilibrium at all. In the common situations in which such is not the case, however, there is.

( And they too use the language of the freedom fighter, resisting the totalitarian coercions of the "establishment" and the "Party line" with their independent thought. )
The point being?

That, like them, when you claim to be speaking in opposition to some kind of coercive oppression*, Party line, etc, as the typical absurd denier does (it's on the list), you're full of shit.

Your denial of AGW, for example, is the same as we get not only from lots of major US media but from the political hack currently heading the US House Committee on Science and Technology. https://lamarsmith.house.gov

The House does the budget - your AGW denial has been the philosophy in predominant oversight of US government climate research funding for several years now. With the recent election of a sympathetic ignoramus to the Presidency, he has been able to extend his influence from mere budgeting pressure and such crude tactics to specific executive level focus, defunding and politicizing and bureaucratically destroying specifically targeted scientists and programs - research of twenty and thirty years's cumulative value has seen its lead scientists transferred to unrelated desk jobs, its data and records put at risk , its ability to communicate with the public cut off and replaced with overtly political agency.

That is the context in which you are blithering on about the effects of political coercion on AGW research, the patterns of political coercion you think you see in the mass media, etc.

Except that among those you have listed are at least some scientific objections.

None whatsoever. They are factual trivia, factoids, completely neutral and without meaning in themselves. When they are employed as chaff, to avoid argument or recognition of reality *, they are a characteristic feature of the typical absurd denial. I listed several examples.

Yes, I see the pattern, but a slightly different one. What is wrong with the arguments is not their content - the logarithmic response of temperature to CO2, the IQ, the melting temperature - it is that they are used as arguments against the Party line, or particular Party lies, which makes them "fringe politics".

What is strikingly wrong with their "arguments" (besides the errors of reasoning and general stupidity found in simplistically bad arguments of all kinds) is their willful and overt refusal to acknowledge common established physical reality*

- their dismissal of the common reality as established by exactly the same experience, science, reasoning, and historical record, that established the factoids they do use.

That is the nature of the absurd denial, in particular - the feature that makes it absurd. It's like having somebody flip a coin heads and deny the existence of tails.

* On the list of characteristic features.

 

[Schmelzer]

.... you're full of shit.

Ok, that's enough. I tolerate a lot of impolite behavior, but this is too much for me. EOD.

It remains to finish this discussion with the observation that the last resort of Party soldiers in a forum is the use of insults. In real life, they have unfortunately less harmless final arguments.