[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.