I.e. your locally owned mom-and-pop Chinese takeout. I’ve seen the kiddos answer the phones there a couple of times, tho most of the time when picking up food for the wife they’re just playing in a blocked off side area that used to be dining pre-pandemic.
I think many states allow children as young as 12 to work in specific non-dangerous jobs with permission from the parents. A company recently got in trouble when they had like 20 12-15 year olds working in a meat processing plant which definitely did not qualify for the “not dangerous” qualifier.
Yeah, I agree it’s fucked up but there’s almost no way that kid’s under 14, which is the youngest age Culver’s will hire at, he’s just a late bloomer probably. I think a lot of people would disagree with calling that age group a “literal child.”
Assuming the literal meaning of “literal”, a child is, according to the OED, literally:
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
I’m not in any way defending child labor in general or Culvers in particular, but factually speaking, a 14-year-old fits between those two definitions (above the age of puberty but below the legal age of majority).
So that’s an inclusive “or” in the definition. If EITHER of those criteria are fulfilled, then the definition can be applied. Since the criterion about the age of majority is true then the definition is true.
So conversely, a person above the age of majority who hasn’t reached puberty yet (medical condition maybe? Just suspend disbelief for the sake of the argument) is still by definition a child.
I have a 14 year old right now and I’d have zero issues with him getting a job. He’s already been eyeing some places. I know this isn’t what you’re exactly saying, but once they hit puberty they’re a bit different than young kids.
I respect that, but your 14 year old is probably quite unusual in that respect. To his credit, of course! Some kids mature faster, and in different areas at different rates. I have a 13 year old and a 16 year old and neither of them would be capable of paid work in my opinion. I love them from the bottom of my heart but they would crumble after a shift at BK
I got my first job in ‘95 when I was 13. This was in a Toronto suburb at a computer shop and it was awesome although only got $5 an hour and had to stay in the back mostly shrink-wrapping a million cd cases. There was a cute 16 year old older girl at the register that I still remember lol.
Didn’t love wearing a large Windows ‘95 box costume and standing at the corner like a hooker though.
Jeeziz. We’re about the same age and I was unable to even make a sandwich at that age I think. Mind you, I bet 13 year old you was ecstatic about that 5 dollars an hour in 1995. I hope you’ve got a picture of yourself in that box for the laughs.
My first job was call centre work at 16. I answered an advert in the local paper. Trying to use a script to swindle old ladies out of their pension for a commission, it was horrifying. I remember thinking “is this what adults do for a living? Cheat each other??” Looking back, I wasn’t that far off in a lot of cases I think.
Oh man that’s a terrible first job lol. I would absolutely hate doing that.
By the time I was 16 I had moved to the states and got a job at KB Toys at the mall. They paid 7.75 an hour which was better than the rest of the mall at 5.25 an hour. Mall was the place to be though!
I liked service work. I tended bar and worked in kitchens for years while I got my qualifications. I sometimes think everyone should have to do retail or service for a bit so they can meet as many different types of people as possible. I work in research now, and I see a lot of the graduates coming in in their twenties and they don’t understand shit about how the world works, or how people work. I think there’s a lot of value in the experience you get in those jobs that people look down their noses at. If it paid the bills as well as science and engineering, I would’ve stayed.
I was laying lines blueberry raking at 14, and doing dishes in a restaurant at 16. I wanted money and it certainly taught me how difficult manual labor is without putting me in any real danger. The worst I got was bread cuts. I’d 100% put my daughter in the same situation when she’s older.
Getting a job as an indulgence because they are interested is fine. Getting a job because their parents are not capable of giving them a dignified lifestyle is downright disgusting and such kids should be rescued. Often greedy parents mask the latter as the former because they are scum.
Getting a job because their parents are not capable of giving them a dignified lifestyle is downright disgusting and such kids should be rescued
I just don’t understand this leap to conclusions that every young person is out there working because their parents aren’t feeding or clothing them. I grew up with rich friends, middle class friends, and poor friends. Random assortments of all three groups grew up working. The vast majority of the time it to earn money for themselves to buy luxuries. One friend was working to support their family due to a parental situation. There’s no way putting that person in the foster care system would have been better. They Graduated with decent grades too.
Don’t get too worked up over it. The average Stay-At-Home-Lemmy is completely unable to understand the concept that not everyone’s mom and dad will buy them an Xbox and that sometimes teenagers will get jobs to pay for things they want.
I don’t think most people would disagree that “teenager” is a more accurate word to describe that age. Trust me, there is plenty fucked up with the OP picture, we don’t need to resort to hyperbolic language to get our point across.
It is blatantly the opposite of accurate. When teenager describes both a thirteen year old who hasn’t hit puberty and a nineteen year old who could fight and die for their country, it’s obviously not an accurate enough term
I don’t think most people would disagree that “teenager” is a more accurate word to describe that age. Trust me, there is plenty fucked up with the OP picture, we don’t need to resort to hyperbolic language to get our point across.
Its not hyperbolic, 14 is a teenage child. Teenager is not more accurate, because when you say a ‘teenage worker’ most would assume they were at least in the usually accepted ‘young adult’ range, 16-19, the image here is of a child worker. If they were 17 or 16 that might be different, though still literally, legally a child.
deleted by creator
you can work for your parents in many places regardless of age
I.e. your locally owned mom-and-pop Chinese takeout. I’ve seen the kiddos answer the phones there a couple of times, tho most of the time when picking up food for the wife they’re just playing in a blocked off side area that used to be dining pre-pandemic.
I think many states allow children as young as 12 to work in specific non-dangerous jobs with permission from the parents. A company recently got in trouble when they had like 20 12-15 year olds working in a meat processing plant which definitely did not qualify for the “not dangerous” qualifier.
Yeah, I agree it’s fucked up but there’s almost no way that kid’s under 14, which is the youngest age Culver’s will hire at, he’s just a late bloomer probably. I think a lot of people would disagree with calling that age group a “literal child.”
A lot of people wouldn’t call a fourteen-year-old a child? Which people? I don’t know of any.
Assuming the literal meaning of “literal”, a child is, according to the OED, literally:
Can you explain how the pictured human being does not fit the description above?
R Kelly has entered the chat.
Those people might say, back in my days I fought wars even though we know better.
I’m not in any way defending child labor in general or Culvers in particular, but factually speaking, a 14-year-old fits between those two definitions (above the age of puberty but below the legal age of majority).
So that’s an inclusive “or” in the definition. If EITHER of those criteria are fulfilled, then the definition can be applied. Since the criterion about the age of majority is true then the definition is true.
So conversely, a person above the age of majority who hasn’t reached puberty yet (medical condition maybe? Just suspend disbelief for the sake of the argument) is still by definition a child.
Could be a Shawna Rae thing
I have a 14 year old right now and I’d have zero issues with him getting a job. He’s already been eyeing some places. I know this isn’t what you’re exactly saying, but once they hit puberty they’re a bit different than young kids.
I respect that, but your 14 year old is probably quite unusual in that respect. To his credit, of course! Some kids mature faster, and in different areas at different rates. I have a 13 year old and a 16 year old and neither of them would be capable of paid work in my opinion. I love them from the bottom of my heart but they would crumble after a shift at BK
I got my first job in ‘95 when I was 13. This was in a Toronto suburb at a computer shop and it was awesome although only got $5 an hour and had to stay in the back mostly shrink-wrapping a million cd cases. There was a cute 16 year old older girl at the register that I still remember lol.
Didn’t love wearing a large Windows ‘95 box costume and standing at the corner like a hooker though.
Jeeziz. We’re about the same age and I was unable to even make a sandwich at that age I think. Mind you, I bet 13 year old you was ecstatic about that 5 dollars an hour in 1995. I hope you’ve got a picture of yourself in that box for the laughs.
My first job was call centre work at 16. I answered an advert in the local paper. Trying to use a script to swindle old ladies out of their pension for a commission, it was horrifying. I remember thinking “is this what adults do for a living? Cheat each other??” Looking back, I wasn’t that far off in a lot of cases I think.
Oh man that’s a terrible first job lol. I would absolutely hate doing that.
By the time I was 16 I had moved to the states and got a job at KB Toys at the mall. They paid 7.75 an hour which was better than the rest of the mall at 5.25 an hour. Mall was the place to be though!
I liked service work. I tended bar and worked in kitchens for years while I got my qualifications. I sometimes think everyone should have to do retail or service for a bit so they can meet as many different types of people as possible. I work in research now, and I see a lot of the graduates coming in in their twenties and they don’t understand shit about how the world works, or how people work. I think there’s a lot of value in the experience you get in those jobs that people look down their noses at. If it paid the bills as well as science and engineering, I would’ve stayed.
I was laying lines blueberry raking at 14, and doing dishes in a restaurant at 16. I wanted money and it certainly taught me how difficult manual labor is without putting me in any real danger. The worst I got was bread cuts. I’d 100% put my daughter in the same situation when she’s older.
It’s really good life experience I think. I don’t want my kids missing out on it either.
Getting a job as an indulgence because they are interested is fine. Getting a job because their parents are not capable of giving them a dignified lifestyle is downright disgusting and such kids should be rescued. Often greedy parents mask the latter as the former because they are scum.
I just don’t understand this leap to conclusions that every young person is out there working because their parents aren’t feeding or clothing them. I grew up with rich friends, middle class friends, and poor friends. Random assortments of all three groups grew up working. The vast majority of the time it to earn money for themselves to buy luxuries. One friend was working to support their family due to a parental situation. There’s no way putting that person in the foster care system would have been better. They Graduated with decent grades too.
Don’t get too worked up over it. The average Stay-At-Home-Lemmy is completely unable to understand the concept that not everyone’s mom and dad will buy them an Xbox and that sometimes teenagers will get jobs to pay for things they want.
From my reply to the other comment:
It is blatantly the opposite of accurate. When teenager describes both a thirteen year old who hasn’t hit puberty and a nineteen year old who could fight and die for their country, it’s obviously not an accurate enough term
14 and a bit is literally a child
Fourteen.
I don’t think most people would disagree that “teenager” is a more accurate word to describe that age. Trust me, there is plenty fucked up with the OP picture, we don’t need to resort to hyperbolic language to get our point across.
Its not hyperbolic, 14 is a teenage child. Teenager is not more accurate, because when you say a ‘teenage worker’ most would assume they were at least in the usually accepted ‘young adult’ range, 16-19, the image here is of a child worker. If they were 17 or 16 that might be different, though still literally, legally a child.
I agree with you and Priests and Republicans that 14 isn’t a Child. 😉
You’re getting a lot of down votes, but you’re spot on. I started working fast food at 14, and I looked like I was 9.