Kidfluencers are today's version of chimney sweeps

The topic of child labor evokes strong emotions and old stereotypes, such as the chimney sweeps of Dickensian London. The good news is that nowadays child labor can be more pleasant and more rewarding. The bad news is that the question of how to protect working children is more complicated. A lot of children are grossly underpaid - not necessarily by the master sweep, but by their parents.

More and more children, by which I mean minors below legal working age, are producing content as online influencers. A lot of Instagram or YouTube or TikTok accounts feature such children, and they can be cute, endearing or (depending on your mood) annoying - as well as profitable. By one estimate, the most successful children working in this area - called "kidfluencers" - can generate more than $20 million a year in revenue.

Their work may be a far cry from the labor of the chimney sweeps, but work it is, at least as the concept is understood in America circa 2023. These children are under pressure, whether from their parents or from their algorithms, to produce content on a regular basis. Being a child social media star also involves a potential loss of privacy and a reframing of one's image with one's peers, which may be either positive or negative. And these children can be quite young. One star of a YouTube channel with more than 35 million subscribers, which started out as a toy-review site, was 7 years old in the channel's early days.

Legally, these children have no claim to the income their sites generate. Thankfully, many parents are loving and generous. But not all. There is no data on how social media earnings are distributed within the family, but the long history of child movie and TV stars indicates that many receive little or nothing.

Enter the state of Illinois, where a recently passed law gives successful child social media stars a right to some percentage of the earnings they generate, to be held in a trust in their name until they turn 18. Such legislation has precedent. In the early days of Hollywood, California passed the Coogan Law, which gives child actors a right to a certain percentage of earnings, which employers have to place in trust accounts. New York has passed similar legislation.

The social media case is tougher to enforce, because often the parents themselves are the de facto employer and there is no contract specifying terms. And how is the relative contribution of the child to the family income to be assessed? (Time spent onscreen? Cuteness? What if the social media presence leads to a book contract or podcast?) Nonetheless, the law sends a clear signal that the children do have some rights to the generated income, and grown children can sue their parents if the money is not passed along.

Labor markets work best when there is a clearly defined notion of consent. But that is hard to come by when children perform services for their parents. What if a child expresses a desire to quit performing on social media, and the parents respond that such income is needed to send the kid to college, or pay for the family home? On what basis could the child's response be considered as fair, well informed and not under duress? It is neither practical nor desirable for the state to insert itself into family decision-making on a regular basis.

Given these problems, it's probably wise to pare back expectations of what "kidfluencer" legislation can accomplish. At the same time, it is probably better to do something rather than nothing, if only for symbolic reasons and because this sector of the economy is likely to grow.

At the margin, more protection for children's rights also may boost child labor supply, and in a beneficial way. When I was 12 years old, I started winning money in chess tournaments, and my parents let me keep all of it. A year later, I was giving chess lessons and being paid for it. Not only was I earning money from my labor, but I like to think I helped other players get better, and maybe earn some money themselves.

In retrospect, I am glad I acquired those skills and experiences. But not all cases of "child labor," if I may use that phrase, are so positive. And for every kid (and family) who tries to earn early income, many more will fail and be left with nothing.

It's possible, of course, that granting kids greater legal rights to income might encourage more children to seek to become social media stars. On balance, I am OK with that outcome. But it is by no means an easy call.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Cowen is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include "The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream."

Previously:
• 09/06/23 Kidfluencers are today's version of chimney sweeps
• 08/30/23 What Harvard can learn from Olive Garden
• 08/02/23 Why 'Barbie' tickets aren't more expensive
• 06/07/23 Would you let Elon Musk implant a device in your brain?
• 05/10/23 Second-guess AI 'experts'
• 03/14/23 Governments should compete for residents, not businesses
• 02/22/23 Economists finally have a good excuse for being wrong A land tax won't make cities more affordable
• 01/26/23 Economists finally have a good excuse for being wrong
• 01/24/23 AI is improving faster than most humans realize
• 12/27/22 Beware the dangers of crypto regulation
• 12/27/22 Americans have found their happy place
• 12/14/22 The real risk of higher inflation is lower wages
• 12/07/22 Fight poverty, not income inequality
• 10/10/22 A crisis is coming in Europe. The only question is, which kind?
• 09/06/22 What is the purpose of public policy?
• 08/15/22 The future of travel is less exotic
• 08/01/22 Welcome to the era of antisocial media
• 07/25/22 Biden's COVID diagnosis is a wake-up call for America
• 05/12/22 A nuclear strike might not prompt the reaction you expect
• 03/22/22 Doomscrolling has ruined our sense of time
• 01/22/22 Wokeism has peaked
• 01/31/22 The latest bias to worry about
• 01/17/22 America's loneliness epidemic
• 01/07/22 Some of America's top universities just revealed they're not morally serious
• 12/29/21 America would be more happy with more people
• 12/10/21 Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk . . . and Paul McCartney
• 12/08/21 The only two pieces of advice you'll ever need
• 11/29/21 Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming
• 10/27/21 America's national mood disorder
• 06/10/21 Lifting of mask mandates poses a challenge for Libertarians
• 05/28/21 Why economics is failing us
• 04/19/21We need green energy. We don't need green jobs
• 04/14/21 Libertarianism isn't dead. It's just reinventing itself
• 04/05/21 What does the world need? More humans
• 02/10/21 If Biden goes big now, he may have to go small later
• 01/12/21 Covid improved how the world does science
• 12/07/20 How to make sure your complaint is heard
• 10/27/20 It's getting better and worse at the same time
• 09/14/20 How to be happy during a pandemic
• 09/04/20 Trump is winning the vaccine debate with public health experts
• 07/01/20 Why Americans are having an emotional reaction to masks
• 05/20/20 Covid-19 will expose the ghosts in the U.S. economy
• 05/07/20 Are aliens visiting us? US military seems to think so
• 05/06/20 America's reopening will depend on one thing --- trust
• 04/22/20 How the covid-19 recession is like World War II
• 04/15/20 America is returning to 1781
• 04/08/20 Covid-19 is is upending everything for status seekers
• 03/17/20 The coronavirus will usher in a new era of entertainment
• 01/28/20 Social Security isn't doomed for younger generations
• 01/08/20 Why 2020 is harder to predict than 2019 was
• 12/02/19 Equality is a mediocre goal so aim for progress
• 11/25/19 Inflation inequality creates winners and losers
• 11/09/19 OK kids. This boomer has had enough
• 10/20/19 Would you bet against Trump in 2020?
• 09/25/19 The right industrial policy for America
• 09/24/19 Harvard's legacies are nothing to be proud of
• 09/02/19 Yes, the Fed could still stop a recession
• 08/20/19 A trade deal with China wouldn't change much
• 07/29/19 How your personality traits affect your paycheck
• 07/16/19 Internet 101 should be a required class
• 05/28/19 How Dems actually are the ANTI-immigrant party
• 04/23/19 Want to help fight climate change? Have more children
• 03/22/19 America isn't as divided as it looks
• 03/12/19 The Twitter takeover of politics: You ain't seen nothing yet
• 03/04/19 How to tell which Dem dreams won't come true
• 02/07/19: Now the Dems want to end America's nuclear first strike option. How clueless is that?
• 01/29/19: The shutdown hit a lot of government workers --- hard. But, ultimately, who is responsible for their unfortunate circumstances?
• 12/12/18: The West is abusing its legal power to punish people or institutions that do things it doesn't like. It better stop
• 10/23/18: The US needs Saudi Arabia, and vice versa
• 10/19/18: The right finds the perfect weapon against the left
• 07/24/18: The drive for the perfect child gets a little scary
• 06/04/18: Side effects of the decline of men in labor market
• 05/14/18: Proving Marx's theories right
• 05/08/18: Holding up a mirror to intellectuals of the left
• 05/01/18: Virtual reality will make lives better ... mostly
• 04/16/18: It's hard to burst your political filter bubbleIt's hard to burst your political filter bubble
• 04/09/18: The missing key to grasping why American politics seems to have become more polarized, with no apparent end in sight
• 04/05/18: Two American power centers are about to clash
• 03/22/18: We fear what we can't control about Uber and Facebook
• 03/08/18: How to stop the licen$ing insanity
• 01/10/18: Polarized Congress needs to bring back earmarks
• 12/27/17: The year when the Internet collides with reality
• 11/07/17: Would you blame the phone for Russian interference?
• 10/23/17: North Korea is playing a longer game than the US
• 10/12/17: Why conservatives should celebrate Thaler's Nobel
• 08/02/17: Too many of today's innovations are focused on solving problems rather than creating something new