If your point is that people in the first world are complicit in benefitting from child labor, fair enough. But that's not exactly the topic. The topic is, we

If your point is that people in the first world are complicit in benefitting from child labor, fair enough. But that's not exactly the topic. The topic is, we stopped child labor here, and, in fact, we did it in era of far less globalization than the present. I don't think that there's any historical truth to a notion that we simply one-to-one replaced domestic child labor with foreign child labor. And even if we did, putting aside the morality of it, why would it be a replacement and not a supplement? That is, if a hypothetical person is okay with child labor, why not have both their children AND foreign children go down into mines?