I have heard the same argument a couple of times, including from an NGO. It is a genuine concern. IIRC they were talking about need to phase it out rather than a sudden stop, limiting hours and providing schooling in parallel.

I sometimes wonder if "fair trade" items are clean in this regard.

In 1978 the University of Arizona argued up to the Supreme Court that they should be allowed to pay only 85% of minimum wage to students to increase the number of jobs.

It happens in First World countries with allowing child labor for family businesses and religious exemptions. There's always a reason to make exemptions.

But are any of those reasons *justified*, Randomizer? Should steps be taken to abolish child labour, or not?

Child labor should be abolished, but the Third World countries aren't the only places that it happens. The First World countries that complain about the practices do it too, but just not to the extent in the less developed countries.

There is a long standing practice of less developed countries offering lower manufacturing costs to gain business from the Western world. That's why in the garment industry you have the shift from Made in China to Made in Indonesia and other Asian countries. There was a push into Central America before Asian undercut them. The same in electronics from Japan to China and now South Korea.

The "fair trade" is failing because companies that meet the standard then subcontract to those that don't. Only when a major accident happens does it usually make the news.

I think it is OK for a child to help out in the family shop/farm/whatever anywhere in the world. The problems arise when the job is an alternative to education, is dangerous or physically damaging. In the first world there are usually protections against these things but not so much elsewhere.

Ensuring that your suppliers are following standards is hard even for a major multi-national (look at the problems Apple have had on working conditions). Checking the suppliers of suppliers (of suppliers, and so on) is practically impossible.

Some consumers (e.g. Jamie's employer) want ethically sourced products and they should be free to choose them if they can. At the same time we have others who look only at the price. There are far more of the latter so we cannot expect the demand side to stop child labour.

Wanting the best for your children is a fundamental human drive. Given a choice most people would rather see their children in a school than in a factory. What stops this happening is poverty, sickness and cost (if a school uniform is required, that can be too much for some families). Policies and initiatives that tackle these issues are what will ultimately stop child labour.

Given the history of child labour laws in england, i can't help but being skeptical.

But i don't know how accurate my information is. 1) children used to work in coal mines in the UK; 2) children who worked in coal mines didn't grow up to he healthy strong adults; 3) Coal mine owners needed strong healthy men.
Thus it was in their interest to ban all child labour ( to prevent children working in any of their competitors coal mines, so they had a greater supply of strong men )

Ok, that may have been true back in the 19th century, you say, we have democracy now you say...

But this may be seen as a type of trade war / protectionism (under the banner of child rights) that the impact of reducing purchasing from foreign companies will benefit local business more (though i don't think local cotton production in England exists any more)

I can't see fair trade being used in this way; but banning products like this does seem like a good cover for economic warfare.

Meanwhile, in Ireland at least, there are women who are not allowed work (due to thei refugee status still being processed, for 7 years) who prostitute themselves to help pay for their children's education and/or food.

The government tries to make them stop working (prostitution is illegal) which effectively cuts of their only source of income. Cutting off anyone's only source of income is a bad things, even if you don't approve of how they make it.

Of course these women have some voice, so i can listen to what they say on the matter; the children in some undisclosed foreign country are not people i can talk to, and may be scared of losing their jobs if they speak out... So i can't tell you what is best for them.

PS: can anyone research the original band on child labour in the UK? Are the transcripts from the arguments made at the time??

What age are we talking about?

I also have a different but sort of related dilemma: I contacted a possible producer for a board game and I was told that they didn't go below a certain volume because they produce in China (which is kind of a bullshit argument but that's beside the point). I think that's a little iffy morally, but I only know when they tell me really and most of them probably do so only boycotting when they tell me is hardly consistent and just promotes dishonesty. I think I might personally take care of production, locally..

The thing for me is: I'm kind of cool with it in the right circumstances at most ages if the children or Chinese or whoever get full wage, but from an entrepreneurial point of view that usually makes no sense, so then I think it is the wrong kind of exploitation.

If I can make it work, I'd almost certainly be hiring students, but at the same time I'd make sure it's the kind of job I'd take, and I'm picky. I think that's fine?

Sceptical of what?

I don't know when child labour was banned in the UK; I am not even sure it was per se. It certainly wasn't done to ensure a supply of strong men to work in the pits. Mine-owners could have stopped children working there any time that they wanted; no law required.

The foundation for universal education in the UK was the 1870 Elementary Education Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_Education_Act_1870). One of the motives was to improve future trade competitiveness through making better products. In any case, in those days the easiest way to make foreign imports uncompetitive was to levy an import duty.

These days it is much harder to apply arbitrary import duties. Membership of the WTA and assorted free trade communities has eliminated many of them. Instead, countries try to limit imports for other reasons (Germany has beer quality laws, there are laws about the origin of rice in Japan, and they are also very picky about the quality of imports, subsidies given under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy reduces the competitiveness of imported produce, there are grain subsidies in the US, and so on).

However, it is hard to see that rules which limit the exploitation of children are really meant as a hidden trade barrier. In any case, I doubt that stopping the use of children in third-world sweat shops would be enough to make mass production of clothing in Europe viable again.

I have no doubt that the motives for stopping child labour are wholly good. My only concern is potential unintended consequences such as increased poverty.

What does the child earn and how much difference in poverty does that actually make? Maybe it's just me but I can't imagine it makes a real difference most of the time.

How many families can say they would be starving if it weren't for their working young child(ren)? Genuine question, I just can't imagine a lot but maybe it's the tipping point for lots of families.

Also @diplomat: "Mine-owners could have stopped children working there any time that they wanted; no law required."

You're missing the point I think. Without a law, it's a prisoner's dilemma for the mine-owners. The optimal solution on the whole would be if everyone does not employ children, but in that situation, a mine-owner would personally gain an advantage if he did employ children. All mine-owners together would lose out in this case, but the one mine owner would profit. The same counts for all the other mine-owners. Their personal best move, no matter what the others do, would be to employ children while the best thing for all mine-owners combined would be if none of them employed children. In that kind of situation, a law helps making sure everyone makes the collectively best decision.

I had a bit ranty reply, but i lost it... :(

All i have now is this quote from wikipedia: "The prohibition of employment of women and of boys under ten years underground in this class of mines, as well as in coal mines, had been effected by the act of 1842"

Which may have been an early move to ban 'child labour' - where a child is defined as under 10.

I will post more shortly!

@Steephie, thanks your prisoners dilemma explanation. It explained my point well, and i sadly lost what i had typed :(

You're welcome!

To be clear, I haven't really given the rest of what you said thought, so I wouldn't know whether you're right, but it can't hurt to explain your reasoning nonetheless

I probably don't even need to clarify this, but talking to BOG makes me wary of any words that could be placed into my mouth :-)

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/child-labors-hidden-adorable-side-10300

In my research, i have come across the justification for some children in the UK being pushing into labour - because it would help reduce unemployment as adults if they were familiar with working in industry...

Basically it was illegal to be poor, and the very first labour laws were ones which made it illegal to force people into labour. (this is pre-19th century)

Also, apparently the problem with women working in mines was that the mine were so hot that all the workers would be naked (or at least topless) and this was scandalous to the British parliament in 1842.

But i continue to see the justifications for a lot of these laws as being pure propoganda; up until the labour movement actually gained some momentum... which i'm going to research but not now.

And Steephie, i'm not BOG, and i also don't know that there is evidence to support my previous claim. The fact that it makes sense - or is explainable - doesn't make it true (it makes it a nice story). And i know that even within science people falsely believe things which sound good but aren't true... (for which i can provide excellent examples)

Does being raised as a child star count as child labor? It's not quite the same as the whole "fallen on hard times" thing that we find in the typical understanding of child labor, but it does have largely similar psychological strain, and to some degree physical. I mean, how often do we see stories out there about some former child star going crazy? How many become addicted to drugs?

It certainly has little to do with the OP. I'm sure local authorities don't need a policy which says they won't purchase textiles woven by Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber.

@TrPrado, i guess that links back to what i said about prostitution; should we tell other people how to act, or what kinda of work to do?

I don't have problem with health and safety rules particular when they a pushed for by the labourers themselves - but i have become more cynical of 'nice' policies which sound like they will sell votes, but also have real economic effects...

It sounds like there were some lame justifications for child labour in 19th century England. Businessmen and politicians in the Third World probably use some of the same ones today.