Why do the Industrialists care? (Child Labor and Workers' Protections)

[FocusedHope]

So, in game the Industrialists support Child Labor and oppose any attempt to restrict it. They also support Serfdom Abolished, and oppose an attempt to add Regulatory Bodies to workers' rights. This is of course historical, factory owners in history didn't like it when government stopped them from doing things that made them more profits, even at the workers' expense.

Except, in game, do those laws actually cut into factory owners' profits in any way? Historically, restricting or forbidding child labor meant they had to hire adults to do the same jobs, and pay them more. But there's no "Laborers can be replaced with Children" mechanic in game, and a factory without child labor hires the same number of (adult) laborers as it did with child labor. Maybe a lower dependents' income makes the laborers demand higher wages to maintain standard of living? Possibly with extra demands because restricting child labor lets you increase the education institution, making them demand more of a SoL From Literacy? Is that actually the result?

Same thing with Regulatory Bodies. It's obvious how Minimum Wage would affect the factory owners' profits, but Regulatory Bodies only reduces Dangerous Working Conditions. Historically, certain conditions were dangerous for the workers but more profitable for the owners. Is there any such relationship in-game? (I haven't noticed any...)

If these laws don't affect factory owners' profits, why do the Industrialists care? Should they, as historically they did, affect profits?

 

[brainiac1530]

Maybe a lower dependents' income makes the laborers demand higher wages to maintain standard of living?

Almost certainly not. First off, I simply doubt it's accounted for to begin with, and secondly, dependent wages just aren't worth much. A typical value is $0.5/yr per dependent. Only desperately poor pops (read: peasants) are going to notice a 30% increase on such a small amount. Thus, as currently implemented, the interest group which ought to support child labor would be the rural folk. That's probably a lot more historical in fact, anyway, but y'know, chimney sweeps are the meme. Children doing unpaid farmhand work on their parents' farm, or low-value cottage industry work, doesn't make for as satisfying of a narrative.

They either need to change the effect of child labor, or they need to change the pops that support it. There's actually some simple ways they could do the former, such as having it directly affect the workforce ratio. Anything that increases the supply of labor should be supported by employers (industrialists) and opposed by workers (trade unions), since it changes the likelihood of entering a labor-constrained condition where employers have to compete over workers. [1] There should be a better implementation out there which actually creates the right incentives, but it'll likely require some actual programming to implement. For example, actually having some fraction of every laborer pop being an "employed child" who earns a fraction of the normal wage but nonetheless satisfies a building's need for laborers, would do it. Naturally, unrestricted child labor and restricted child labor would have to support different fractions to make that work.

Additionally, the intelligentsia really should care about the child labor institution. Anything which increases literacy should get their support, since that increases their power base. Even the (admittedly minor) mortality effect from child labor affects literacy, since pop deaths tend to reduce literacy. Perhaps, by adding the intelligentsia as opponents of child labor, space is "freed up" to have someone (trade unions) become indifferent, or to add a new supporter (rural folk), as appropriate to the implementation that actually exists.

[1] -- There's admittedly some funny business with this particular implementation, since it highlights the disconnect between what's in the interest of the trade unions as an entity, and the interests of the pops they represent. A higher workforce ratio means there are more employed pops, almost certainly earning more than a dependent would, and thus a higher wealth and standard of living for those pops. Admittedly, child labor as currently implemented often benefits the most common trade union pops, laborers, but the trade unions still oppose it. Perhaps a band-aid could be applied by also adding a reduction to the expected SoL, which would reduce base wages in unconstrained labor markets, but it would have to be dialed in just right.

 

[Jorlaan]

Child labor is simply badly modeled as is in the game.

There need to be benefits/downsides to every law and right now child labor is one that really has ONLY downsides. The benefit should be a cheaper, larger labor pool at a higher rate of mortality and that keeps education lower because no going to school if you're working; but all we really get is the higher mortality and we can't use the last 2 education tiers.

Allowing child labor should maybe add a slight wage depressor that halves with the restricted labor law and goes away with compulsory primary school to really simulate how using children kept wages lower.

 

[lokthar]

Thus, as currently implemented, the interest group which ought to support child labor would be the rural folk. That's probably a lot more historical in fact, anyway, but y'know, chimney sweeps are the meme. Children doing unpaid farmhand work on their parents' farm, or low-value cottage industry work, doesn't make for as satisfying of a narrative

I'd make an argument that the rural folk ought to be opposed or neutral to compulsory education, neutral to full child labor, and approve of restricted.

As far as I can tell with a rudimentary search, even today, at the very least in the US, we're on what would probably be classified as restricted child labor in game, in that there's mostly mandatory schooling up to 18, but minors are permitted unlimited hours outside of that in agriculture, especially on family farms.