This may seem like a rhetorical question but hear me out. I was recently visiting India and was at a museum with my Uncle & we got to talking about the beautiful carpets you get in India. He then commented that the industry was dying out. The reason was that there has been a big push in India to end Child Labour due to international outrage. However, when the carpet makers replaced children with adults & thus had to pay more in labour costs the sales of the carpets dropped. i.e. not enough People from overseas were not willing to pay the cost of a carpet made by adults. You may think so what. At least the kids are now not working and get to go to school. However, my Uncle made the point that the reason these kids are working is because there families cannot afford for them not to. i.e. These children are not now having a nice childhood instead of working . They are living in even worse poverty than before. I have to admit that this confused me. Previously I had always said that Child Labour was bad, full stop. Now, however, I am not certain. Am I applying values of an affluent country to a poorer country & thus making it harder for them to grow affluent. After all , most western countries used to sue child labour until they grew rich enough not to.
This can be seen as the poimt. Let’s face it, in this sort of industry the only competitive advantage they have is cost. If the cost rises too much then people will buy cheaper synthetic carpets. After all, they think. There’s no child labour involved. The fact that because they are not buying the handmade carpet there is less money in a poor area is not thought of. Like I said, I have no answers here, only questions.
From a societal standpoint we (and by we I mean the US, UK, and other industralized nations) have decided to take a general welfare approach to child labor instead of a purely economic one, saying that it is not in our best moral interest to work kids from a very young age. The primary difference between us and people in India is that we can afford this luxury while others cannot. I do not condone harsh and dangerous working conditions anywhere, and much of the child labor in developing countries would from our perspective be unnecessarily exploitative. But in most circumstances, as you point out, it's what keeps food on the table and a roof over a family's head. The key is balance -- many families need children to work in order to survive, but without carving out time for childhood education the entire society is dooming itself to slower or no economic development. It's a vicious cycle that could be broken by people in the developed countries assisting more financially, but we as a society have decided not to do that.
I dont see whats bad about kids working in principle. Its when you subject them to harsh labour and unlivable dangerous conditions is where I draw the line. I mean kids around here do all sorts of stuff for money, like mow lawns, paper routes, shovel snow, sell lemonade, etc. It teaches them responsibility and the value of money.
Thanks for your comments. I know that certainly in some cases it is possible for children to combine work & education. One of my relatives had a boy work as a servant in his house from 11 till 18. He also made sure he went to school & this boy then went to a trade college & is a mechanic. i.e. making far more than he woluld have without this education. That's a good example. I am sure there are many examples of children working in dangerous conditions & getting no education. Those should be removed, in my opinion.
I guess I could give someone forty lashes everyday, in still give him food and a good education. In other words, you can always find extreme examples. Children should be allowed to grow and be educated and working in factories does neither for them -- they are neither taught significant skills nor are they allowed to develope in other areas. Hence, child labor in general is bad and should be avoided. If indeed poverty forces families into making their children work, they doesn't mean that child labor is okay -- it just means that it is a symptom of broader problems which need to be addressed.
If it weren't for child labor, my $179.00 Jordans would probably cost me well over $250.00. God bless the children.