poverty and child labor

After reading the articles and understanding views from multiple perspectives I am hesitant to say with my limited knowledge that I disagree with Divakaruni. After considering multiple scenarios and the effects they would have I decided the pros of the bill would outweigh the pros of not having the bill. Although Divakaruni does have a plausible point that the bill would take many children out of work which would mean out of food and starving on the street as well as a burden to their families. I also put into play the fact that the U.s is a primary consumer of these products produced by children. Without their primary consumer these companies would surely fail. So the next option would be to hire adults to work for them, and chances are many of these adults may be the parents of the previous child workers. In turn the parents would be making money and the children would be able to perform jobs the parents previously had such as farming. Although I may be completely wrong with this. I believe if it were to work this way the bill would be very positive.
  I would also say that I disagree with Peter Singer in his essay.I believe that it is all in a chain of events similar to the food chain and sudden donations of money for something we aren't necessarily obliged to could upset economic systems  and other people's lives. I believe this money should go directly to something that would fix these problems once and for all by fixing governments and starting farming and education to these people in need. i Do not believe that200 dollars saves a childs life. It goes to the organization and then where does it go. straight to the kid/ is it  split up? thissystem is flaawed and needs major override.