I've shared some of your thoughts in the past and still today. Indeed, there can be situations where generating a source of income (e.g. for sustenance) in the short-medium term is more valuable than generating knowledge that pays off in the medium-long term. I think the assessment should always be focused on whether it is a net benefit to the child.
Yet I do believe these where child labour is a net benefit are increasingly rare and in some countries simply not present anymore at scale, leaving no justification child labour. The situation in 2021 is in that sense very different from say 1940s Korea.
For one, primary and secondary education has been seen to be an enormous net-positive to society and has very large returns on dollars spent, which would apply to the opportunity cost (not being able to work) as well. As such, while I agree that child labour can be useful as a source of income (which is a primary source of wellbeing) in isolation, it's not necessarily a net gain (particularly in the long-run) for the child or for society if child labour takes the place of education, which it often does.
Even many poor countries today have high levels of universal primary and largely secondary school education available, and while issues like poverty and hunger obviously are very real, the directly life-threatening issues like famine at scale (e.g. in a country like India or China) are quite rare nowadays. As such, I think it makes more sense in a country like India or China (the country in question where the supplier was located) that children primarily go to school and enjoy being kids, despite poverty.
Note that child labour is not 'labour by a child'. e.g. in a country like the Netherlands, kids aged 13 are allowed to work. But it cannot be their primary occupancy, then it would be defined as child labour. That'd imply that work takes priority over school and children being children, and that's not necessary (e.g. for sustenance) or acceptable in most countries (such as India or China).
I see only a few exceptions, e.g. kids doing farmwork in rural Mali to provide much needed income for sustenance in an environment where school isn't available or affordable, may make sense. That's not to say child labour shouldn't be eradicated in Mali, but rather that banning child labour is perhaps a solution that should come only after problems of sustenance are resolved, and may not be a useful policy measure today. Of course it goes without saying many other forms of child labour (war recruits, sex, dangerous labour, hard labour) etc make no sense under any circumstance. Also situations in which there is child labour without pay (quite common too), it is clearly exploiting of a child without any net benefit to the child).
Yet I do believe these where child labour is a net benefit are increasingly rare and in some countries simply not present anymore at scale, leaving no justification child labour. The situation in 2021 is in that sense very different from say 1940s Korea.
For one, primary and secondary education has been seen to be an enormous net-positive to society and has very large returns on dollars spent, which would apply to the opportunity cost (not being able to work) as well. As such, while I agree that child labour can be useful as a source of income (which is a primary source of wellbeing) in isolation, it's not necessarily a net gain (particularly in the long-run) for the child or for society if child labour takes the place of education, which it often does.
Even many poor countries today have high levels of universal primary and largely secondary school education available, and while issues like poverty and hunger obviously are very real, the directly life-threatening issues like famine at scale (e.g. in a country like India or China) are quite rare nowadays. As such, I think it makes more sense in a country like India or China (the country in question where the supplier was located) that children primarily go to school and enjoy being kids, despite poverty.
Note that child labour is not 'labour by a child'. e.g. in a country like the Netherlands, kids aged 13 are allowed to work. But it cannot be their primary occupancy, then it would be defined as child labour. That'd imply that work takes priority over school and children being children, and that's not necessary (e.g. for sustenance) or acceptable in most countries (such as India or China).
I see only a few exceptions, e.g. kids doing farmwork in rural Mali to provide much needed income for sustenance in an environment where school isn't available or affordable, may make sense. That's not to say child labour shouldn't be eradicated in Mali, but rather that banning child labour is perhaps a solution that should come only after problems of sustenance are resolved, and may not be a useful policy measure today. Of course it goes without saying many other forms of child labour (war recruits, sex, dangerous labour, hard labour) etc make no sense under any circumstance. Also situations in which there is child labour without pay (quite common too), it is clearly exploiting of a child without any net benefit to the child).