[Eisenstein]

Well, the difference is also that many children want to act -- I don't think any children want to work in a meat processing plant. Are we do deny them artistic expression because we think it is morally strange? We allow many exceptions to things for strange reasons because we are humans and are kind of strange. We allow kids to homeschool and we allow them hobbies -- if their hobby is acting should they not be allowed to be paid for it as long as they homeschool?

There is no 'moral' answer. We, as a society decided that children acting is fine and that it is not outrageous and we like watching entertainment with children instead of exclusively adults. People are concerned for good reason because hollywood is predatory and when lots of money is involved then people act out of bad interests instead of the child's interests, but that is tertiary to the fact that acting is allowed for children to do and we allow them to get paid for it.

[ryanklee]

What children do or do not want is an unreliable signal of what is good for their long-term well being.

Being paid changes the dynamic in a deep way from being a hobby. It opens up the floodgates of manipulation and abuse.

How is it at all tertiary? It's the primary point: we don't allow children to work for pay because of the potential for abuse; children get paid to act; many child actors are abused as a result of extracting money from them and their labor.

We make an exception because it is convenient, not well understood by the public, and we all benefit from the resultant entertainment.

[Eisenstein]

> What children do or do not want is an unreliable signal of what is good for their long-term well being.

Sure, you can make them do things or forbid them from doing things you deem inappropriate or detrimental -- if they are your own kids. When society tells other parents what to do or not to do, then we are in different territory.

> How is it at all tertiary?

Forbidding all work is one end of the spectrum which is obviously stupid (no lawn work, no babysitting, etc) while forbidding no work is obviously stupid (let 12 year olds operate construction cranes). It is finding the in between that is difficult.

Acting for money is fine when it is what, $50 for a community gig? Or $5000? What if they are exceptionally talented? Or you say, nope, zero dollars for anything a minor produces since they cannot produce things of value?

Where do you draw the line?

Hence, the 'lots of money' part is tertiary to the 'we let them do it' part.