Put 'Em to Work!

When kids were stuck in factories, they wanted to learn.

 Last year, Newt Gingrich caused a firestorm when he said that he'd like to see poor kids put to work as school janitors. I hope I can escape unscathed, because I now have the same idea. Yes, put the kids to work. They need it. Although unlike Newt, I wouldn't differentiate based on economic status. Under my plan, students who have chronic behavioral problems or just showing general apathy towards education would be put to work. No, they won't be in a factory putting together iPhones. Nor will they be crawling in coal mines, à la the turn of the 20th Century. (Although that might be the experience they really need to finally realize how much they have that they're just wasting.)

So since I said they won't be working in factories nor will they be mining coal, what will they be doing? We need more details on this here plan. Well for starters, it should be obvious by now that I'm not advocating a free-for-all to get kids behind the counter of McDonald's and I'm certainly not suggesting that kids replace janitors like Gingrich suggested. But kids are not incapable of doing anything at all. Libraries all over are scaling back on hours, they can assist there. Computer programs need testing. Other kids need help with schoolwork. The list goes on, although it is much shorter than the list available to the able-bodied adult.

To protect the children, the child labor laws will have to be modified somewhat. I'd suggest that children aged 12-15 be allowed to work a maximum of 15 hours weekly, but with a minimum of three school days included in there. Why the school days? If they're working, they're not out causing mischief on the streets. They're not vegetating in front of a TV. Then by time they get home, their parents will probably be arriving as well. The children would also have to get a report signed from their supervisor on their performance. Meanwhile, any company wishing to participate would have to get their program signed off by the school as meeting all the guidelines and requirements.

As for their pay, I'd set a special minimum wage for tweens that is lower than the federal by 30%. The federal minimum is currently $7.25, so that means the tween minimum would be $5.075/hr. Don't worry, it would rise whenever Congress decides to quit being lazy and raise the federal minimum. This depressed minimum would accomplish a couple things. First, it would give the kids a bit of money in their pocket. Even if they didn't work the 15 hour maximum but a very plausible 10 per week, they would be earning around $200/month. While raising kids can definitely be expensive, I certainly didn't receive $200 a month for allowance and I'm sure parents would welcome their kids having a little spending money of their own.

At the same time, the minimum would be low enough to (hopefully) keep families from exploiting the child's labor. An additional $200 can fit nicely into a family budget. (I'd even welcome it, that's my car payment.) Naturally, the parents will have to know that their kids are in the program and will almost assuredly find out how much the kids are making. To help lessen the appeal of that money to the parents, several program contingencies will have to be in place and met. First, the kids will have to register for a 529 account if their parents don't already have one for them. Then, 30% monthly will be put in there automatically. At that rate, they should have a couple dollars available for tuition room & board books a parking pass by time they start college. That also drops their income down to $120/month, which is hopefully less likely to be plundered by their parents.

In addition to the 529 plan, these kids will be enrolled in a mandatory money management course that must be completed within the first quarter of the program. Failure to do so will mean the program ends for them until they finish. The classes should be geared more toward extolling the virtues of saving and thrift over just conditioning them to believe that credit is both a natural and inevitable part of life that can't be avoided. This is especially imperative if the children really are the "poor" that Newt Gingrich was talking about. They will often not be able to see a good financial blueprint modeled for them at home at all and the areas they live in are chuck full of predatory lenders. This could be an important step toward reducing poverty both in future generations and in the current generation by the kids taking their knowledge home.

On the employer side, things will probably be quite a bit trickier. Understandably, it could potentially open them up for litigation, so many employers may choose to not participate. At the same time, it could potentially offer several advantages to those who do participate. At $5 an hour and no benefits, their labor costs would be relatively low. It also helps them identify individuals they'd like to pursue as employees in the future and could be useful as an early form of recruitment. Soon as the kid turns the full legal age, the company could offer an already trained employee some more hours (and higher pay) to keep them around.

Of course, this idea isn't perfect. It relies a lot on trust of the business owners, which some may scoff at. At the same time, it also relies on trust in the kids, which others may scoff at. There'll be a limited amount of jobs the kids can even do due to various privacy laws and insurance statutes, etc. But at least, they will be able to do something and see an alternative to what many of them happen to have grown up with so far.

Photo from US National Archives.