People in the rich world tend to assume that child labor, like
slavery, is something that was abolished a century ago and that now only
exists in third world countries. This can not be any further from the
reality of this issue. In fully developed countries like Canada and the
United States, parents encourage their children to have a job at an
early age, as a way of letting their children gain experience of the
real world. Few people see it as exploite that a child should work
(for example to have a paper route) even if they are paid less than
adult wages and local child-labour laws are infringed by their working
before seven in the morning and after seven o'clock in the evening.
'Child labour' in general is too explosive and negative a word to be
applied to all children workers. It is insulting to those whose lives
are ruined by hard labor to lump them into the same category as those
children who help out in the family shop after school. If people treat
all work by children as equally unacceptable they are trivializing the
whole issue and making it less likely to be able to root out the most
damaging forms of child labor. It is simply the nature and conditions
of children's work that determines whether they are exploited, not the
plain fact of their work age. Another term that is too loosely used in
the business world and elsewhere is that of a 'sweatshop'. The term
'sweatshop' stems from the word sweating, originally used in the late
19th century America. It was thought to describe "a subcontracting
system in which the middlemen earned their profit from the margin
between the amount they received for a contract and the amount they paid
workers". This margin was said to be 'sweated' from the workers because
they received minimal wages for excessive hours worked under unsanitary
Unlike some problems that are just surfacing in the world today and are
not too p...