What's wrong with making 13 year-olds support themselves? Why do parents owe their children support? Why should a single mom have to bust her butt to support her 13 year-old son who is bigger and stronger than she is so that he can have plenty of time to hang out with his friends, play video games, do sports, take drugs, etc.?
In my mind adolescence is like venture capital. It only makes sense to fund a person (and thereby to excuse self-funding) if the person being funded works hard during the funding period so as to generate a payoff.
Consider the numbers for a 13-year-old.
$7k education/year
$10k lost wages/year (assume the kid could get a job @$5/hr)
$7k parental support/year
= $24k /year
Seems to me there are better ways of spending $24k than to force a kid who doesn't want to to stay in school and jobless for a year.
Because she birthed him. Look, if a 13 year old kid wants to get a job, more power to them. However, if they don't, it's the parents' responsibility to provide for that child until they're an adult mainly because, at least in this society, kids aren't raised to be factory workers by 13.
You're looking at it from a perhaps pragmatic point of view, but you're missing the human factor; children aren't some investment you can liquidate if it doesn't work out. Having a child is a conscious decision to bring another human being into this world -- a human being who never actually asked to be brought. Once you do that it becomes your responsibility to care for and raise that person (or find someone else who can) regardless of whether or not they provide a return on investment.
Until when?
I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not, but the post you are responding to isn't saying parents have no responsibilities to their children, only that a 13 year old could take on a whole lot more responsibility than is typical in our society.
So, maybe "get a job and take care of yourself" is too harsh, but is there some middle position?
Or that they have nothing better to do?
Had I gotten a job at 15, I would likely be far worse off than I am now since my life would have been filled with more things I didn't like, leaving less time for me to learn what I did like and make mistakes trying, etc. I believe the fundamental problem here is that kids are basing their actions off of their peers, who are just as bored and unsatisfied and just as immature. Therefore, they end up making the same immature choices. If, instead, schools were improved, parents were more proactive and children were all extended the same opportunities someone like myself was, this wouldn't be an issue.
Of course that's never going to happen so the drug business is safe. Phew.
And here I was thinking that sex and drugs are loads of fun, regardless of whether you're bored or not.
I've smoked marijuana before. I've been drunk. I haven't had sex, because I'm into the idea of abstinence, but I'd done everything but. And absolutely those things are enjoyable.
The difference is that I don't rely on stuff like that. I write, I program, I design things, I read, I try to write music and shoot films. I don't feel the need to drink once a week, or to go out and randomly hook up. And that's because I have so many things I can do at any given moment.
If you don't have that stuff, you're forced to rely on sex and drugs. And those things are both easily abused.
Therefore, it's "dumb" in that it requires no effort whatsoever on your part. And if you come to rely on that stuff for entertainment, then you're not gaining anything as you go. As opposed to its being used sparingly, in which case you're off doing more productive things.
That said, if the purpose of "adolescent" institutions such as high school and college is to prevent people from indulging in these things until they're ready, then they're a massive fail.
If high STD and drug use rates tell us anything, it's that these young people are, on average, too immature to assume adult roles. I adore the feelings of achievement that being an entrepreneur/adult have brought me, but at the same time I recognize the fact that "being a kid" wasn't as bad the article makes it out to be. I spent most of my time playing video games, hanging out with friends and, yes, doing drugs! OMG! But you know what, at the end of the day, it was still fun.
I think we as a society should do everything in our power to encourage young people to focus on school so that they don't get dragged down into the worlds of drug addiction, poverty, etc. However, the reason I had so much time to dick around during my adolescence/teenage years was mainly because school was far too easy and not engaging enough. The entire schooling system is not nearly as progressive as it needs to be. Furthermore, there are not nearly enough reasons to excel at it. Working hard in high school just means you can get into a good college where you have to work even harder (and, unless you really excel or are financially secure, take a long-term monetary hit for the privilege) and the reality is that where one attended college is rarely relevant today.
School should be designed to provide useful knowledge instead of information that is merely cataloged, regurgitated, and forgotten. It should encourage and enable young people to find something they are passionate about and learn relevant things about that and gain useful experience in the process. The only classes that I worked hard to excel in and go beyond the bare minimum were programming and writing courses. It should come as no surprise that these are the two topics I am most passionate about to this day.