To expand on my comment #2 above, since I don’t have to be “respectable” at all , one of the oddest things about the political constraints is the way that while this is all Labor 101, you’re never, ever, supposed to indicate you know that, because that’s Not Acceptable within the boundaries of permissible discourse. I keep praising JZ for being willing to engage this obvious aspect even a little.

Well, we can make a p-r-e-t-t-y good guess at some of them, from a simple acquaintance with labor history. Hmm, whatever could happen from a system that makes workers completely powerless and expendable, with no collective bargaining power whatsoever? Just what could be the possible results? Oh, this is such new and unexplored territory, maybe little elves will love working for Santa at wages of a glass of milk and cookies (they like making toys – it’s fun!) …

No personal offense intended, and I understand there’s many pressures involved in some of the politics of having to be considered intellectually reasonable by fanatical plutocrats. But it does lead to some very strange effects.

First, the key point that I’ve heard from JZ is about “fun work”: what to do when children would rather play what is a game to them rather then play outside?

secondly, most child labor is physical, in the meatspace, and that platform, if turned to a form of child labor, can actually encourage parents to let they children in front of a computer, most likely the best thing for them. My point isn’t unlike the defense of sweatshops where work conditions are rather OK, thanks to minimal unionisation and a steep improvement over the alas usual prostitution, mining, etc.

I do like being an economist and asking ”is it better?“, in addition to listening to laywers and polsci asking “is it good?”