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.
Comment on A literal child taking orders in a fast food restaurant in the US
cryptosporidium140@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago[deleted]
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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.”
crapwittyname@lemm.ee 10 months ago
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:
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
Can you explain how this human being is not fitting the description above?
ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 10 months ago
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.
crapwittyname@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I respect that, but your 14 year old is probably quite unusual in that respect. To his credit, of course! Some kids mature faster. 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
people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
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.
CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Can you explain how the pictured human being does not fit the description above?
R Kelly has entered the chat.
grue@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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).
crapwittyname@lemm.ee 10 months ago
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.
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 10 months ago
From my reply to the other comment:
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.
crapwittyname@lemm.ee 10 months ago
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
UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Those people might say, back in my days I fought wars even though we know better.
NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 10 months ago
Could be a Shawna Rae thing
SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world 10 months ago
14 and a bit is literally a child
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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.
tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
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.
BigMacHole@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I agree with you and Priests and Republicans that 14 isn’t a Child. 😉
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 10 months ago
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.
Still@programming.dev 10 months ago
you can work for your parents in many places regardless of age
Kadaj21@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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.