[Rei Murasame]

Teeth are why child labor exists in the first place. Parents bully their kids around.

What?

The source refers to between 1921 and 1926. If anything, that would make your argument easier because it's before the Great Depression and WW2, yet still, labor is expected to "work to death" as you described in the other thread.

Well, Sanpo didn't exist until 1935... it was precisely the abysmal conditions that you describe, which Fascist socialisation through Sanpo endeavoured to alleviate with a remarkable amount of success.

[Daktoria]

What?

...

My father lugged me around on the job because all he wanted to do was instill work ethic. He was a terrible communicator, and had no interest in having children other than workaholism. That's all he does. Work, work, work. He also believed it was the school's job to teach children social values. He didn't see himself as needing to be a role model at all.

To this day, we don't see anything eye to eye. He has no appreciation for creative achievement or working smart to have free time. Even when we went on vacations, he hated it because he doesn't know how to relax.

I don't know any other kids made to work who didn't have parents who felt the same way. None of our parents have social lives either. They're paranoid, extremely conscientious, and look at any form of creativity as immature. They live to work, and take pride in struggle and being better than their children.

That said, their attitudes exist because of being on the bottom of the totem pole themselves. The attitude of social hierarchy itself is the cause of child labor.

Well, Sanpo didn't exist until 1935... it was precisely the abysmal conditions that you describe, which Fascist socialisation through Sanpo endeavoured to alleviate with a remarkable amount of success.

...on the back of the ideas of Kamino Shinichi's Jikyokai union, yes. That's where the quote came from.

You should really read that source I linked you to before. If you want to know more of his story beyond the quote on p.228, you can read from p.225-230.

[Rei Murasame]

...on the back of the ideas of Kamino Shinichi's Jikyokai union, yes. That's where the quote came from.

But I feel as though you are now waffling and trying to create uncertainty where there is none, while diverting away from the topic. On the issue of Sanpo, you are now egregiously moving goalposts to the point where you are now trying to blame the fascists who formed Sanpo after much struggle, for actions that occurred between 1921 and 1926, before liberal-capitalist relations had been eradicated from the workplace by fascists.

Japanese Fascism was not even in effect until the 1930s. What are you trying to say?

[...] That said, their attitudes exist because of being on the bottom of the totem pole themselves. The attitude of social hierarchy itself is the cause of child labor.

In short, your father is a terrible parent, and you have for some reason chosen to blame not him, and not the institutions which foster the re-production/perpetuation of capitalist relations which makes the emulation of the quality we like to colloquially refer to as 'short-sighted greed' a necessity for living in society, but instead you have decided to blame it on the mere existence of hierarchical relationships in any and all human societies?

Are you serious about this?

[fuser]

Why is child labour always worse than education then?

Because a child is far more productive after "educational" investment in him or you are really planning to send your child to the nearest coal mine instead of school.

After all, if there is no voluntary child labour

No, there's not. A 10 year old is not capable of making such decision, he is always forced either directly or indirectly. Childrens in UK (Victorian era) didn't had the option of school or child labor, wake up.

really? so it is inconceivable that a 13-year-old would like to make money helping people access the Internet?

In this scenario, he is not selling his labor to some appropriator(Capitalist), try again. Also, we are talking about blue collar workers of 18th-19th century here.

As usual, you had a long-term trend towards reduced child labour

Why don't you show such trend rather than just posting it? No statistic support such view, until 'unions' came in action and eventually Government child labor was not decliing. Please cite, one example where child labor was abolished because of the market long before government intervened.

My point solely that since the Indian government is either unable or unwilling to effectively enforce child labour laws,

Of course and its only proving my point. Child labor exists in a place, where government is not able to exercise its role, i.e. market is using child labor in case of lack of government. There you go, government is good for you.

[quote"Eran"]Middle class children have not worked in Britain and the US, nor do they work in today's India[/quote]

Irrelevant, as been cited, before government intervention there was no decline in sheer number of child laborers, whether they were middle class or not. And of course, only poor classes were used as child labors,until government intervened.

I do. Child labour laws don't.

Yes, these laws do. In my country, If my 12 year old cousin designs a website, he gets a scholarship but if he starts working at a coal mine, his employer will be behind the bar. (at least according to the law.)

found a handy graph

source? why are you using percentage of labor force? what about sheer numbers?
Why are you disregarding the fact that during depression adults were working at the same wages as kid, (one of the reason child labor had been used was because they were/are extremely cheap) or this is the market plan for abolishing child labor, "A great Depression".

Also, why are you ignoring "Keating-Owen Act" (1916) and other such methods (because of union pressure) that were already making lives of capitalists employing children as labors tough. It surely didn't happened because of the market's invisible hand and your graph actually suggests that because of the dramatic fall (hinting at some outside influence) represented in your graph or you think that raise in America's standard of living was stagnant till 1900s and dramatically increased form the second decade of 20th century.

[Daktoria]

But I feel as though you are now waffling and trying to create uncertainty where there is none, while diverting away from the topic. On the issue of Sanpo, you are now egregiously moving goalposts to the point where you are now trying to blame the fascists who formed Sanpo after much struggle, for actions that occurred between 1921 and 1926, before liberal-capitalist relations had been eradicated from the workplace by fascists.

Japanese Fascism was not even in effect until the 1930s. What are you trying to say?

Waffling?

Sanpo's prototype was Kamino Shinichi's Jikyokai union. Without that, Sanpo would never exist.

In short, your father is a terrible parent, and you have for some reason chosen to blame not him, and not the institutions which foster the re-production/perpetuation of capitalist relations which makes the emulation of the quality we like to colloquially refer to as 'short-sighted greed' a necessity for living in society, but instead you have decided to blame it on the mere existence of hierarchical relationships in human societies?

Are you serious?

I do blame the institution. My father and I went to the same school. My father also grew up in the Bronx, and he built our house in the middle of the woods to get away from public infrastructure. For whatever reason, though, he's addicted to watching city news every morning in order to garnish a sense of belonging.

Capitalism has nothing to do with it. I have plenty of peers who grew up fine because they had parents who cared to talk with them and get involved in the community rather than living to work.

As for hierarchic relationships, there is nothing more hierarchic than withholding inside information by not communicating.

Short-sighted greed? Certainly. My father's a chronic smoker, coffee drinker, and pill popper. He never saves money for entertainment, always buying the cheapest whatever to be satisfied in the moment.

[mikema63]

source?

Greenwood, Jeremy; Seshadri, Ananth (2005), "Technological Progress and Economic Transformation", in Philippe Aghion and Steven N. Durlauf, Handbook of Economic Growth, Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/eag/rereps/3.html

why are you using percentage of labor force? what about sheer numbers?

to control for population growth.

Why are you disregarding the fact that during depression adults were working at the same wages as kid, (one of the reason child labor had been used was because they were/are extremely cheap) or this is the market plan for abolishing child labor, "A great Depression".

the downward trend starts at 1900, and the great depression starts at 1929 and the graph ends at 1930 so you have 1 year of depression represented. unless it retroactively lowered child labor your assertion that it was just because the great depression that did it is silly.

Also, why are you ignoring "Keating-Owen Act" (1916) and other such methods (because of union pressure) that were already making lives of capitalists employing children as labors tough. It surely didn't happened because of the market's invisible hand and your graph actually suggests that because of the dramatic fall (hinting at some outside influence) represented in your graph or you think that raise in America's standard of living was stagnant till 1900s and dramatically increased form the second decade of 20th century.

keating-owen was overturned by the supreme court in 1918, the decline isn't only two years, the only other significant attempt till 1938 was a constitutional amendment that failed.

most of the power of unions, like the wagner act, were formed during or after the great depression, not before.

so child labor didn't decline, then i showed a graph that proved it did, then the unions did it, or as rei seems to have asserted, all the capitalists became progressives.

the standard of living in the US wasn't stagnant but the growth in the standard of living was certainly much much faster after 1900 than before.

[Rei Murasame]

Capitalism has nothing to do with it.

Why not?

[Nunt]

Okay, do you know the definition of what is called in German "previous accumulation", or in British English "primitive accumulation"? If yes, take that concept, and keep in it mind when considering the ancestral history of all the people in the working class, and their opportunities for educational attainment, and the circumstances of their birth, and then tell me if you think anything that happens in the development of this society could ever be described as 'voluntary'.

Yes we humans have to take the world as given. But if someone has built a factory before I was born, a factory to which I contributed nothing. Why should I have any entitlements about the factory?

The answer should be "no", nothing that they are asked to do is voluntary, they are making choices within a framework that they did not volunteer to be in. So given that is so, isn't it the least that the state could do, to at least permit a rule to be made that children of working class people should be able to develop their skills and prepare themselves in the case that they might actually have the ability to make something more of themselves, rather than being pressured by circumstance to slide into work early and perpetuate their family's impoverished status?

Thats just the world as it is. If I don't eat I get hungry. That doesn't make me any less free.

[list][*]1. Accelerate the need for capital investment in machinery and creative solutions to menial labour tasks, thus causing more efficiency;

1) it is not certain that machinery would be more efficient. Making some goods with only machines would be less efficient. If using more machines would increase efficiency, fims would already be doing this. In the short run it would definatly be less efficient. Maybe in the long run after the right technological advancements and invesetments, this may become more efficient. But since you are less efficient in the short run, you have less resources available for investments. So it may actually cause less investments and permanent inefficiency. Trust me, firms really do not need to be forced to replace labor with cheap machines. If they can, they will.
2) if we want to invest more, we need to consume less. Consuming less is not so fun, especially if you are impoverished workers.
3) if we invest more in the widget factory, we can't at the same time invest those capital goods in another factory.

[*]2. Decrease the poll of labour thus applying an upward pressure to wages;

True, but since there is no associated increase in productivity, wage increases will translate in price increases, so that there is no positive effect on real wages.

[*]3. Allow more children to make it through the entire school system without being distracted by the need to work, thus increasing the number of skilled workers that are likely to join the workforce later on - delayed gratification on a national level, which will pay off in:

[list][*]Citizen productivity:
More citizens getting the chance to prove that they are intelligent enough to be good at more than just menial tasks, means that we can discover vastly more talent than if we just left it as it is. It's really obvious and does not require a 40-yr CBA to be done on it.


[*]General social orderliness:
The public school system is what actually prepares people to live in your society and it inculcates them with the basics which prime them to re-produce the present social order, whatever that order might be. This also applies if it's a 'transitional order', an order with a trajectory, as well. Society will not work without institutions that can accomplish this. School is the simplest and easiest tool to do it with. Furthermore, more educated people tend to be less prone to crime and risky behaviour.

1) sending children to school is expensive. There is no guarantee that people can afford that investment. Seems unlikely that 18th century workers would have the means to send their children to school.
2) no guarantee that children will become more productive in school than with on the job learning. In todays society, sure. Probably a good idea that children take some schooling. This is because our economy is dominated by the service sector. In the 18th century, most jobs are factory jobs. Schooling wouldn't help you there.
3) societal indoctrination can occur in on-the-job training programs as well as in schools.

Now I am not advocating that parents in western countries today should be allowed to put their child to work in a coal mine. Whether child labor is ok or not depends on the circumstances. Say you have a 12 year old who is not very booksmart but has an aptitude for technical work. Then parents for example could send him say part time to an apprenticeship with a plumber or something. Not everyone is made for sitting behind schoolbenches till 18. Imo the schoolsystem is completly wrong by forcing booksmarts on children who have aptitude for it. By giving those children the wrong kind of education, you demoralize them. When they turn 18, they have no high school diploma and are effectively unschooled labor. Doesn't it seem wrong to you that the public education system after 12 years of schooling creates unschooled labor? What have they been doing? So yeah, I think a lot of children would benefit from reducing schooling time and increasing time with on-the-job learning. So that at 18 they have at least managed a trade.

For 18th century children, working in a factory at that time is a terrible life. And sure those factories were abusive and non-voluntary, something which libertarians are also against, .e.g. children that didn't work were beaten. A lot of things went wrong in that time, not only factory owners were abusive but governments too. It wasn't that uncommon to end a worker strike with a cavalry charge. So I do not the defend the 18th century status quo. If I was King then, I would also place limitations on the abuses of factory. But it may have been that some form of child labor was unavoidable.

[Eran]

Because a child is far more productive after "educational" investment in him or you are really planning to send your child to the nearest coal mine instead of school.

Perhaps. Or perhaps gaining experience doing work is more conducive towards future productive life than wasting years being bored in a class-room in which irrelevant and quickly-forgotten facts are hammered into you.

The relevant alternatives today are not between sending 8-year-olds to the mines vs. teaching them to read and write. It is between allowing 14-year-olds to engage in productive service or white-collar pursuit, vs. forcing them to study subjects they are likely to never remember not to mention use in their adult lives.

A 10 year old is not capable of making such decision, he is always forced either directly or indirectly. Childrens in UK (Victorian era) didn't had the option of school or child labor, wake up.

We are not in Victorian Era. Wake up.

To your point, a 10 year old is not capable of making any decision. That is why we have the people closest to the child - his parents - making decisions on his behalf and presumably with his interests in mind. Whether it is to send the child to school (which many Victorian-age children of the middle classes and often working classes did do) or to work (which only the poorest did).

In this scenario, he is not selling his labor to some appropriator(Capitalist), try again.

He would be, if the employment is through a firm. Besides, child labour laws do not distinguish between self-employment and wage-employment, just as they don't distinguish between industrial, service or white-collar pursuits.

Please cite, one example where child labor was abolished because of the market long before government intervened.

Middle classes in either UK or US in the late 19th century. Middle class Indians today.

[quoteIrrelevant, as been cited, before government intervention there was no decline in sheer number of child laborers, whether they were middle class or not. And of course, only poor classes were used as child labors,until government intervened.[/quote]
There was a decline in the percentage of children employed amongst middle-class parents, with virtual elimination of the practice.

Let me challenge you. My claim is that prosperity eliminates child-labour. Can you give a single example of a segment of society (today or historic) which is both prosperous and engages in child-labour? If you cannot, isn't that a persuasive piece of evidence supporting my point (that prosperity, rather than government, eliminates child-labour)?

Yes, these laws do. In my country, If my 12 year old cousin designs a website, he gets a scholarship but if he starts working at a coal mine, his employer will be behind the bar. (at least according to the law.)

I'm not sure what country you hail from. In all the countries with which I am familiar (US, UK, Israel), your cousin's employer would end up behind the bar even if he employed your cousin designing a website (for a pay, not "scholarship").

[fuser]

to control for population growth.

or rather more adults are now getting work.

the downward trend starts at 1900

1.7 million kids were child laborers in 1900 while 2 million in 1910. Also, not to forget that government was already making amendments to solve this problem, i.e. By 1899, 44 states and territories had a child labor law of some type. Twenty-four states had minimum age limits for manufacturing employment by 1900, with age limits around 14 years in the Northeast and Upper Midwest.
See, thank you government for abolishing child labor.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor

your assertion that it was just because

never said it was just because of that.

keating-owen was overturned by the supreme court in 1918

The point is, leftist movements were growing very strong against child labor that no longer employers can hire child labors with impunity, they were becoming a nuisance exactly because of unions and different government sanctions (for example Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) ruling, Pomerane Amendment of 1918, etc) frequently coming up against child labor which ultimately culminated in to the 1938's act.

Basically Child labor didn't disappeared because of free market in USA.

all the capitalists became progressives.

They had to, there was no other choice.

We are not in Victorian Era. Wake up.

And your point is?suddenly kids have become more intelligent?

[quote"Eran"]just as they don't distinguish between industrial, service or white-collar pursuits.
[/quote]

Yes, they do mostly with wordings like "Hazardous Conditions" which is typical to an industrial environment.

[quote"Eran"]Middle classes in either UK or US in the late 19th century. Middle class Indians today.
[/quote]

Please source it, rather than just saying it, as already provided there was no decline in child labor in either USA or UK before government intervention.

[quote"Eran"]Let me challenge you. My claim is that prosperity eliminates child-labour. Can you give a single example of a segment of society (today or historic) which is both prosperous and engages in child-labour? [/quote]

USA? Agricultural sector.

Now, let me ask the second time, name a place (even historically) where government hasn't made an effort to eliminate child labor and yet it got eliminated.

[quote"Eran"]I'm not sure what country you hail from.[/quote]

India

[quote"Eran"]In all the countries with which I am familiar (US, UK, Israel), your cousin's employer would end up behind the bar even if he employed your cousin designing a website [/quote]

Can you cite a example. Generally entering into a contract with a firm, it is required that, that kid's father/guardian is also a signatory, that's it.

[Eran]

And your point is?suddenly kids have become more intelligent?

Kids are becoming more intelligent, but that is not my point. Rather, technology makes it much easier to be productive without needing to be physically strong.

Yes, they do mostly with wordings like "Hazardous Conditions" which is typical to an industrial environment.

That distinction typically applies only to older children, perhaps 16-18 years old. Please tell me which jurisdiction you think allows a 13-year-old to earn a salary building web sites.

Please source it, rather than just saying it, as already provided there was no decline in child labor in either USA or UK before government intervention.

Your data sheds no light on the socio-economic breakdown of working children. Before I go look for information, please clarify your position. Are you suggesting that middle-class children, either in today's India or in 19th century America or Britain found themselves working in the mines or spending long days in dark factories?

You are from India. Do you know of middle-class children who work?

While it is not evidence, the Wikipedia article on child labour in India (here) keeps referring to poverty as the cause of child labour.

Here is a summary of UK child labour law. Children (out with acting/modelling) are categorically prohibited from working below age 13. Their hours of work are strictly limited (even during school holidays). And since children are categorically restricted from working in any industrial setting, all the other restrictions apply to white-collar jobs.

[Rei Murasame]

Nunt, I think you really misunderstood my post, since I am talking about the present day in an Asian country - in this case India is what I was sure this thread was about - but a lot of your response to me for some reason is assuming that we are talking about 18th century North Atlantic?

My post was written with the actual composition of the Indian economy in mind, as it continues to develop and integrate into the Asian regional economic sphere and the world. They are catching up, they do not have invent machine-tools from scratch or any such thing. They also do not have to worry about affording schooling seeing as the state is able to pay for it.

They have a whole services sector that they can tax and use to boost their industrial sector. So I think your whole response to me was all well and good in theory, but in the real world it obviously does not apply.

Abstract:
Global integration of China and India has had quite different effects on the structural pattern of their economic growth. Manufacturing became the engine of economic growth in the former whereas the latter thrived due to the rapid growth of services sector. The implications of their present patterns of growth seem to be very favourable for long-term development. However, employment effects of their integration into the global economy are quite similar, and are evident in fast growth of labour, migration of skilled labour force to developed countries, decline of employment in formal sector and slow growth of regular wage employment. In this context, sustainability of the fast economic growth of China and India depends largely on the extent to which they are able to generate a process for steady expansion of regular wage employment and productivity of low skilled labour force.

Read that whole paper, and then reconsider the matter with that in mind.

__________________

Yes we humans have to take the world as given. But if someone has built a factory before I was born, a factory to which I contributed nothing. Why should I have any entitlements about the factory?

As I said in the grey section in the bottom of that post - because you are a libertarian, I don't expect you to ever understand or support the thought-shape behind this.

All I can say to you is that is even if you don't believe it, most humans act as if there is an entitlement even if they haven't properly thought out the logic for why there is one.

So your side will just have to accept that these factors are in play. The only way you can get around this, is if you can find a way to seize the population by the hair and teach them a new story, a story so stripped-down and denude that it would serve to alienate people enough from the old historical story of their own ethnic group, to cause them to lack the tools to draw the collectivist conclusions and ideas of socio-economic obligations which you so dislike.

It would have to be an ambitious project of liberal-capitalist social engineering that you'd be carrying out on these people, and it would be bitterly opposed by people like me, from the very start.

[mikema63]

or rather more adults are now getting work.

or rather because population was increasing by 1.5 million or so a year between 1900 and 1910.

http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm

when population grows then each group also grows

i cant seem to find any specific numbers for child labor, perhaps you would like to share your source for them since you seem to have the overall numbers.

(Ironically, recent research suggests the Census was in error and child labor was already on the decline by 1900.)

this was in the article you cited to prove that government fixed the problem, thought it was interesting to point out that your own source suggested that your numbers might be wrong.

Now, let me ask the second time, name a place (even historically) where government hasn't made an effort to eliminate child labor and yet it got eliminated.

name a place with an industrialized capitalist economy that hasn't made a child labor law and then we can look at its statistics, im afraid im not aware of any such example. how about this, name an unindustrialized country with no capitalism and show that child labor was eliminated by its child labor laws.

USA? Agricultural sector.

the US doesn't have child labor on its farms anymore. what on earth are you talking about.

[Eran]

Rei,
I think you are confusing cause and effect.

You seem to suggest that government action that enforces certain inter-group transfers are both demanded by and required for the ongoing preservation of group identity.

In fact, it is existing group identity which allows and even requires government to do so. Members of our society have come to expect government to use force to express shared values and preferences. That much is true.

However, groups (both whole ethnic groups and subsets thereof) have found non-government ways of expressing their mutual care and desire to help each other for centuries. In fact, until the early 20th century, enforced transfer payments and income distributions were the exception globally.

[Rei Murasame]

You'll have to cite something to demonstrate that your last sentence there is true, before I can give my response, of course.

[Eran]

I'll rephrase.

I am not aware of any significant progressive forced wealth redistribution prior to the early 20th century.

If you or anybody else is aware of such, by all means, enlighten me.

[Sceptic]

I am not aware of any significant progressive forced wealth redistribution prior to the early 20th century.

In UK?

I know of chancellor Otto von Bismarck who established national insurance and many other stable welfare policies in order to subdue socialist political influence but this was a very conservative agenda in Germany.

Bismarck was also one of the world's greatest economical leaders.

[Eran]

Bismark was also a mass murderer.

But setting our personal opinions aside, whether the initial stages of systematic government-run progressive redistribution was in 1900 or a few decades earlier is irrelevant. The point I made was that for most of human history, such redistribution was not attempted.

[Sceptic]

Bismark was also a mass murderer.

In the interests of German unification, yes.

You are from India. Do you know of middle-class children who work?

This isn't a brilliant example given the cultural context: very much a hierarchical society with Hindus divided into castes: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Sudras and finally Harijans ('untouchables' because they work with leather and the cow is sacrosanct in Hinduism).

It would not be socially acceptable for higher ranking castes to send their children into labour, even the poorer Kshatriyas would not (to my knowledge at least) so the very types of people who would force their children to work would not simply fo the sake of status.

But setting our personal opinions aside, whether the initial stages of systematic government-run progressive redistribution was in 1900 or a few decades earlier is irrelevant. The point I made was that for most of human history, such redistribution was not attempted.

Very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populares

I'm not sure how valid this was, since to my knowledge the Populares bribed votes from the urban masses with wealth looted from conquests (or their own voluntarily acquired wealth), however they also subsidised grain.

Either way, every State in history has had some method of keeping the plebs appeased and not civically revolting, whether it has been wine and bread, or some other indirect way such as land reforms, military recruitment, stolen loot fom war conquests, public construction (roads, technology, plumbing - the very kind for which Rome was famous for). Try rising to the head of the State and informing the broader population you'll be stripping away their welfare, whatever the Tories amongst the working class say, nobody will be especially happy Of course, you could try for a military dictatorship like Saudi Arabia, that seems to do the trick all right

Oh and whatever you may say about the voluntary sector up until the 20th Century (or there abouts) the condition of the working class dramtically surged after the introduction of the welfare state (not to confuse cause and correlation but the theoretical pinnings are strong too, especially when you combine them with modern mainstream macroeconomics, in particular the circular flow model of the economy). Perhaps you attribute the relatively poor living circumstances (I say 'relatively' but it was below, or barely at subsistence for the main part in conditions objectively labelled severely unhygienic and cramped) to the bumpy ride of industrialisation, I don't know.

Anyway, Eran, folk like me aren't to unsympathetic towards your economic views, whatever you may think, I'm just being pragmatic 'tis all

[fuser]

Kids are becoming more intelligent, but that is not my point. Rather, technology makes it much easier to be productive without needing to be physically strong.

What are you talking about, what has this to do with original content of our debate, I said a 10 year old can't make a voluntarily decision regarding his/her labor, he/she being more productive is totally irrelevant.

Please tell me which jurisdiction you think allows a 13-year-old to earn a salary building web sites.

I guarantee free and compulsory education to children between the age of 6 to 14 and prohibits employment of children younger than 14 in 18 hazardous occupations and 65 hazardous processes

There you go. Not that I think that kids should work even in these sector before 15 or near that age, unless they complete their basic schooling.

Are you suggesting that middle-class children, either in today's India or in 19th century America or Britain found themselves working in the mines or spending long days in dark factories?

Of course not, where have I said that? It doesn't changes the fact that market always needed and got child labor, even in these days and even in prosperous countries, the only difference is market is fulfilling that through third world countries instead of in one's own country.

You are from India. Do you know of middle-class children who work?

Yes, to both. Mostly in small family businesses and agriculture.

the Wikipedia article on child labour in India (here) keeps referring to poverty as the cause of child labour.

Nice, to see that you are only paying attention to parts where it fits in with your world's narrative but what about this part :

The demand for child labour further aggravates the situation.

With profit maximizing objectives, firms are incentivised to employ children rather than adults due to their cheaper wages, higher efficiency and most importantly, absence of union problems.[14][15]

Not that wiki's reasoning is perfectly valid but the point being these problems can easily be rectified by strong government (the areas which experiences such are also the places where governance (central) is non-existent for various reasons.)

children are categorically restricted from working in any industrial setting, all the other restrictions apply to white-collar jobs.

Designing a website doesn't requires an industrial setting.

or rather because population was increasing by 1.5 million or so a year between 1900 and 1910

Seriously read the friggin post of mine first,

By 1899, 44 states and territories had a child labor law of some type. Twenty-four states had minimum age limits for manufacturing employment by 1900, with age limits around 14 years in the Northeast and Upper Midwest.

If it was decreasing, thanks government.

it was interesting to point out that your own source suggested that your numbers might be wrong.

Of course, I can be wrong in numbers, I am not an expert on the issue but regardless the gist(which yo totally ignored) is that this source proves my basic point i.e. government's role in eliminating child labor. See above my quoted post

how about this, name an unindustrialized country with no capitalism and show that child labor was eliminated by its child labor laws.

Soviet Union and oh, good to see that one single place can't be named by you where child labor got eliminated by market only.

the US doesn't have child labor on its farms anymore. what on earth are you talking about.

"Hundreds of thousands of children are employed as farmworkers in the United States, often working 10 or more hours a day. They are often exposed to dangerous pesticides, experience high rates of injury, and suffer fatalities at five times the rate of other working youth. Their long hours contribute to alarming drop-out rates. Government statistics show that barely half ever finish high school. According to the National Safety Council, agriculture is the second most dangerous occupation in the United States.

Knowing is good, isn't it.