> Then the problem lies with the employers, the 
   > government, the system.

I see it differently. There is insufficient economic activity to employ these people. Since the government is funded by economic activity (and taxing it) they are not in a position to create a welfare system. Because employers are not competitive if they raise prices while others keep their prices low, they aren't in a position to pay additional wages. Because the system relies on actual economic activity in order for capital to flow, and they have disabled a chunk of that economy by fiat (no child workers) they have essentially removed from the economy jobs for those children.

You can do what the Chinese did and essentially print money to pay people for public works jobs which then enables more non-subsidized economic activity, but that boot strapping is difficult and needs you to start with a stable government base.

That's a very peculiar variant of the "think of the children!" argument; that you should buy things you don't want (stuff made with child labour) in order to stop children you don't know from crushing rocks.

> they have essentially removed from the economy jobs for those children.

Jobs for those children, but not jobs from the economy, period. It's not like the demand for garments just dissipated into thin air with that legislation. The work is still there, and Bangladesh has a surfeit of labour.

> That's a very peculiar variant of the "think of the children!" argument; that you should buy things you don't want (stuff made with child labour) in order to stop children you don't know from crushing rocks.

It shouldn't be about the stuff, it should be about the children. The idea that you'd rather have children in worse conditions as long as they're not making stuff for you seems... weird to say the least.

> Jobs for those children, but not jobs from the economy, period. It's not like the demand for garments just dissipated into thin air with that legislation. The work is still there, and Bangladesh has a surfeit of labour.

Presumably other workers demand higher wages (reducing the country's competitiveness) and/or are less good at the jobs. Otherwise they'd already have been hired ahead of the children.

>The idea that you'd rather have children in worse conditions as long as they're not making stuff for you seems... weird to say the least.

It seems quite normal to me. I'd rather not point out the examples I'm thinking of, but I can come up with a number which I'm willing to be people would be against despite being better overall for the children involved, at least in terms of money earned per harm done, actually quantifying harm in a way that one can easily compare is itself a touchy issue. Even then money is more a generic metric itself, because there are many non-monetary things that one can earn, but which usually can be given a monetary value.

I can't believe you're saying that it's our moral duty to buy the cheapest shit possible, in order to prevent child prostitution. That's just fucked-up, wilfully blinkered thinking.

The problem is that people just buy the cheapest shit possible anyway, without any thought whatsoever about the circumstances of its production.

Maybe it would be better to allow products made with child labor, so long as the children are provided with above-average education in return. I guess that would make children too expensive and companies would switch to adults anyway.

The best possible improvement would probably be to provide children with food, shelter and education free of charge, so they don't have to work at all. Unfortunately, very few people are actually willing to pay for that.

> The problem is that people just buy the cheapest shit possible anyway

Yes, they do. And regulations can control that. Regulations around building codes stop people from building shanties everywhere. Regulations around new vehicle safety means people can't put new, unsafe vehicles on the road.

What makes you think that the garment industry is any different? "Oh, I have to pay $7 for this T-shirt instead of $6? In that case, I'm going to import my own from overseas!". Nonsense. It is insane, the level to which people in this thread are defending gruelling child labour as some sort of unavoidable consequence of the supply chain.

I think he was trying to point out that even if you are putting pressure on the right side unfortunate side effects can still be seen. Not that it's anyone's particular fault.

If you apply pressure and bad things happen unilaterally as a result of that pressure, yes it is your fault. Cause and effect, whether you intended for it or not. Denying that is simply not taking responsibility for your actions.

Indeed. Good intentions do not justify means.

You cannot escape responsibility of the bad consequences of your actions, even if you say the consequences are "unwanted", not what you intended. Particularly if you know those consequences were going to happen.

"The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."

- economist Joan Robinson, 1962

That is one way to wash our hands of the problem.