If I’m so provably wrong, why don’t you prove it? [I suppose we can agree that your mere assertions don’t constitute proof]. Quote me something, or provide a link.
Here are my sources: http://mises.org/daily/2858.
Here’s a quote: Capitalistic competition is also why “child labor” has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school. Union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun. Moreover, child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work. Since child labor sometimes competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work. In the Third World today, the alternative to “child labor” is all too often begging, prostitution, crime, or starvation. Unions absurdly proclaim to be taking the moral high road by advocating protectionist policies that inevitably lead to these consequences.
That’s from: http://mises.org/daily/1590
Then we have this thread: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/what-about-child-labor/1764 It sends us to this scholarly article, complete with references: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor Here’s a little quote:
“Most economic historians conclude that this legislation was not the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force. In addition, child labor rates have been linked to the expansion of schooling, high rates of return from education, and a decrease in the demand for child labor due to technological changes which increased the skills required in some jobs and allowed machines to take jobs previously filled by children. Moehling (1999) finds that the employment rate of 13-year olds around the beginning of the twentieth century did decline in states that enacted age minimums of 14, but so did the rates for 13-year olds not covered by the restrictions. Overall she finds that state laws are linked to only a small fraction – if any – of the decline in child labor. It may be that states experiencing declines were therefore more likely to pass legislation, which was largely symbolic.”
The comments here reveal that “In New Zealand there is no minimum age at present but almost everyone objects to children under the age of 13 working in paid employment.” So your claim that without socialist govt intervention to save the day there would still be child labor, though interesting in that it shows your ability to see what is happening in parallel universes, somehow doesn’t jibe with the events of our current universe.
OK, my friend, or should I say comrade, your turn.