Child labor, like almost every other issue of the sort, is a double-sided coin. While it is undoubtedly a social and moral hazard, it is also a primary source of income for those who practice it. Considering this fact, the question that arises is whether taking action against child labor would do more harm than good to the very people we aim to help. Let’s look at it this way; if child labor is banned and the huge chunk of the third-world population that depends on it sinks further into poverty, how can future generations be prevented from having to resort to it, possibly in worse conditions to make up for the losses they have suffered?
There are two major reasons due to which child labor is becoming more and more normalized in third-world nations; firstly, it is a source of permanent family income. The sooner children start working, the more money their family will have to live off of. Now, the second reason, and this one is the most popular with unthinking conformists, is the idea of child labor being passed down through generations. The status that parents have held since they were children is given to their own. Personal experience along with years of conditioning makes them believe that living in poverty is significantly less difficult if every single member of the family starts earning at as young an age as they can – this creates a fixed mindset that is nearly impossible to change.
Oftentimes, this setting proves to be suitable for not only the employee’s family but also for the employer. In countries like Pakistan, where disorder and lawlessness are frequently brushed under the rug, it is fairly easy to keep children employed under inadequate circumstances; that’s not to say that making children work under better circumstances would extenuate the crime. When children coming from poor families are hired to work, they can usually be hired for much cheaper than the actual cost of the labor. This saves employers a lot of money and often leads to the children being overworked.
When children start working at a very young age, it adds to their versatility. Working children are engaged in a wide variety of occupational activities, domestic and otherwise. And although it may be both mentally and physically damaging to their health, it comes with occasional benefits. Young labor offers minor advantages depending on where and with whom the child has worked, such as vocational training, experience in the workplace, PR, and learning by doing.
That said, families that send their children to work fail to perceive one very important long-term indication of their decision. A child that works is either completely deprived of, or lacks the focus required for formal education. Even if they manage to do both for a brief period of time, they fall behind and eventually have to drop out. This means that in most cases, for them to pursue a stable career in the future becomes nearly out of question. They have lower-incomes since they don’t have much to offer to the corporate world, aside from the limited human capital that they may have acquired on the job. When the future earnings of these children are jeopardized, the chances of them having to send their children to work also increase significantly. Not only that, they are deprived of their childhood. Generally being physical in nature, the work that these children must do can take a serious toll on their physical health, creating problems for them as they grow older. It may also delay their mental development and keep them from living up to their full potential.
Not only is young labor detrimental to the physical and mental growth of children, but it may also adversely impact the business they are working for. This is due to the fact that labor activities performed by young children are often executed in an unskillful manner. They cannot work as effectively and efficiently as a professional can. This setback has the potential to undermine the years of hard work put into building that business and is also one of the numerous motivations for third-world communities to find constructive alternatives for the problem.
For people raising families under unfavorable circumstances, survival is their main goal. They want to teach their children how to earn and feed themselves rather than spend that time preparing for a future that they might not even make it to. Investing in something like formal education would require parents to trust the system. They would need to have faith that a few years of fighting to make ends meet for their children’s proper education would, in fact, secure their futures. Unfortunately, that is not something that can be guaranteed.
Since the idea of immediate and complete eradication of a problem of this magnitude is impractical, the first step can be to limit counterproductivity. An example of this is the Prohibition of Employment of Children, passed in Pakistan by the Sindh Government in 2017; the age of 15 was set as the minimum age for general employment, while for more dangerous work, the employee is required to be at least 19 years of age. Policymakers must focus on cutting down working children’s vocational activities so that they may focus on their lives outside of work as much as, if not more than the labor.
In order to draw people towards a good education and a better life for their children, school availability and quality should be improved. Try as they may, a lot of people are unable to provide this for their children. It is also important to regularly review child labor laws, reduce working hours for children, and pay them according to the actual cost of the labor. Without the exhaustion from being consistently overworked, the lifestyles of working children may be improved considerably.
Renewable energy has emerged as a game-changer in the global energy landscape, offering sustainable and… Read More