Thank the Market for Ending Child Labor

For most of human existence child labor was the norm. Thanks to relatively recent advances in productivity in industrialized nations, most children are able to attend school and enjoy their childhood free from hard labor.

When the productivity of parents rises to a point where they can afford to sustain their entire family, they are no longer forced to make their children work. In the U.S., child labor was on the decline for decades, and by 1930 only 6.4% of males between the ages of 10 and 15 were employed, most of whom worked in agriculture. That number was even lower for females, at 2.9%. Though many states placed various restrictions on child labor in the late 1800s, it wasn’t until 1938 that the first national law prohibiting full-time employment of children under 16 was passed.

Summarizing the literature, Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University notes: “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.” He goes on to say: “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.”

Restrictions Only Produce Harm

It should be pointed out that in the event laws prevent children from working when their parents are unable to generate enough income, the result does not make the child nor the family better off. While children working, and especially doing dangerous work, should be avoided as much as possible, it is still preferable to that child starving to death or turning to worse alternatives such as prostitution. Therefore, in cases when laws are the cause of less child labor, it is a harm not a benefit.

There were most likely a few cases when laws restricting child labor caused them and their families great pain. If you want to help a poor family, taking away their first choice is almost always not beneficial. What the world’s poor need is access to the economic freedom that Americans used to have, so that they can increase their own productivity. In the meantime, one of the worst things we could do is ban the forms of work which families decide is their best option.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Principled Libertarian on Patreon!