I said, I think a minimum age is a good solution, as long as there are ways for businesses to hire underage gifted children. This would prevent bullshit like "Even though you're an amazing programmer and we want to hire you and this job could be the best thing to ever happen to you, we can't hire you because you're fifteen, not sixteen. Also once you reach sixteen, this opportunity won't be here anymore."

I say all of this because I WAS in that position (I was 17) and I almost lost out on a very awesome graphics programming job in the game industry just because I couldn't legally sign an NDA. Thankfully it worked out, but it was a really unpleasant thing to see this awesome opportunity slipping away for reasons completely beyond my control. Don't you think that's a valid concern?

Also, it sounds like an awesome thing to offer a gifted six year old a cool internship (one hour per day) at a factory with a safe working environment. This would give the six year old a sweet story to tell, and could easily net him a job later.

That is utterly bizarre. I am assuming you don't know any six year olds. The part about "...could easily net him a job later" made me burst out laughing. Imagine what kind of person would put "1 hour per week factory internship at age 6" on a resume. I am still laughing. Good one, if this was a joke. However, from the context of your other posts, I fear you are serious.

But yeah, six is more than a bit of a stretch. I just think the minimum age should be decided on a case by case basis by the company and the parents, based entirely on the context of the situation.

You see my point, I hope?

Let's call what you're saying to be a "soft" minimum age instead of a "hard" one. Then China has a "soft" minimum age of 18, and a "hard" minimum age of 16. Do you think this system is "silly"?

If so, and you think there should be no "soft" minimum age of 16, then you really are saying that there should be no minimum age, just strong labour laws. Even 3-year-olds can be hired to work at Apple's factories, as long as they're given appropriate protection.

If you don't have a problem with it, then I really don't see what your issue is in the first place.

Suppose we're talking about a really poor country here. Maybe every child is going to be working at a young age, and it'll just be an expected item on the resumé.

Also, the kid might have better future prospects getting a factory job, but he won't realize his full potential because his family needed him to work as a child. Had he stayed in school and focused on his studies instead of taking that factory job, a high school diploma would have afforded him a better future than that factory job. He, and society as a whole, would have been better off for it (provided there is a market for jobs better than factory work).

If you still don't see my point then we'll just agree to disagree.

What I think we can both agree on is this: selfish parents are a problem, and should not be allowed to put their children at risk. However based on my experience I feel restrictions need to be treated with care, so as not to deny opportunities that make a lot of sense.

Huh? Your situation isn't about child labor at all. You weren't able to sign the NDA because you were still considered a minor, but you were legally able to work. Please do not misrepresent your situation as having anything to do with child labor laws.

Also, tone down the pompusness and chill out, eh? I've been very pleasant throughout this whole thing, I think, and I don't appreciate being told what to do.

Your reasoning is broken. You might as well say that statutory rape laws are really 'child labor' laws because they prevent children from becoming sex workers.

In general, hard restrictions are dangerous unless there are ways to circumvent them for the rare situations where that restriction makes no sense.

Of course, not having any restrictions at all is even more dangerous. The restrictions just need to be flexible.

Jumping into this - I intend to have my kids start working one hour/day of real work at age eight, which I think is natural and healthy, and aim for them to do basic rites of passage at 12, and be mentally equipped for emancipation from parents at 16 (though it'd be their choice if they want to leave or not).

It's a bit tangential to the discussion, but I think one of the worst things of modernization is that people are forced into artificially young roles and not given responsibility until much later in life. Many people aren't particularly self-reliant until after age 26 these days! Sheesh, you used to have teenagers serving as officers in the army or helping their father with accounting, or sales, or apprenticing in a craft, or cooking, or keeping an inn 10 years earlier than some people are getting finished with school these days.