Anil Kumar Nauriya misapplied my explanation, "When one appreciates that   
the 'poor worker' would be worse off in the absence of such an   
opportunity to work, it gets one to think differently about the   
employer."  He claimed that "This is the precise argument that is   
sometimes used to justify child labour."  I thought his   
misinterpretation of my explanation was obvious to readers and decided   
not to correct it, but Sam Bostaph's post shows that I was wrong.   
Richard Sutch's discussion of the economics of child labor is brilliant,   
as it stands, but yet misses addressing Nauriya's misinterpretation of   
my explanation.  Before the point gets totally lost, let me repeat it.  
  
I think Nauriya (judging from the name) has in mind the plight of   
children mortgaged to weaving-loom owners in South and South East Asia by their parents
for some money.  We've seen Western film or documentary makers
go to record the plight of such children, sometimes asking that   
consumers in the West boycott textiles manufactured by such childlabor.  
  
I think it is terrible that children would be *exploited* that way.  But   
unlike Nauriya, I do not regard the loom owners as the exploiters, but   
the mothers or fathers who mortgage their children to such servitude.  I   
don't think loom owners go around canvassing for young, unskilled   
children to hire as workers.  Rather, it is a poor mother or father who   
goes to ask for a loan and pledges the child's labor in payment.  
  
Now imagine the following: A poor mother goes to ask for a loan from a   
loom owner in exchange for the child's work.  The owners rebukes the   
mother: "How callous of you to mortgage your child for your own   
subsistence!  You should send the child to school to acquire useful   
skills for the future."  The mother goes home with the child, does not   
have much to feed the family, and the child does not go to school either.  
  
Imagine another situation:  This time the loom owner grants the request.   
The mother gets some money to feed the family.  The child also   
acquires some training in working looms.  Does this loom owner deserve   
all the condemnation that people like Nauriya would like to heap upon   
them?  I don't think so.  
  
Better to understand clearly the circumstances we may find repulsive   
than to act upon our passions.  Working directly to relieve the causes   
of poverty the lead to parents mortgaging their children to loom owners   
would be a more reasonable approach than penalizing those who, in fact,   
are directly helping poor families with loans and training their   
children in income-earning skills.  Simply banning the incidence of   
childlabor does not provide subsistence to poor families, and neither   
does it get poor children to school.  
  
James Ahiakpor