The whole concept of a child potentially earning real money always becomes tricky.
Look at Magnus Carlsen. He is deemed the greatest Chess player of ALL time.
If you were his parents and it was evident as a child/teenager that he had extraordinary talent, would you simply ignore his gift or would you support the extension of application and thus withdraw him from formal education (for a tutor) and travel around the world for tournaments and training?
Or, alternatively, with child geniuses. Do you keep them in their official school grade despite them being intellectually superior or do you let them enter college at 14 knowing they will never have a normal social friendship experience? They would be sacrificing their normality for potentially benefiting the rest of the world with inventions etc.
It's the same with this child. They are not 'normal'. So, do you ignore their gift (whatever it is)?
Supporting and pushing are so different and the only people who really know the true motivations are those in the situation.
I agree with this.
Personally, I think that life is too short to wait for another time- and I think that if a child has relatively grounded parents, then they will have a childhood whenever they are and whatever they do, whether this is being a model, actor, chess player, or just going to normal school. To me at least, the idea of people (e.g. Emma Watson) complaining they had "no childhood" is a bit of a strange concept. I think we have a very ideaolised image of it in the West, but if you look around, it's not that simple. There are kids who are sent to boarding schools young, kids who lost their parents, kids who are expected to make a living as soon as they can, kids who are bullied or unhappy, kids who attend ballet or other rigorous schools, etc. I used to have so many lessons, sports and tutors when I was 8 that I'd come home after 6 or 7 pm. Is it that different from a kid that spends some of that time modelling? I think that if a parent is grounded, lets a kid have some free time now and then and doesn't treat the child as a money-maker, but allows them to use their opportunities and chances in life and pushes them to be the best that they can, then there is nothing wrong with it. Kids are not porcelain dolls that will break if they have something productive to do- if they are good at chess, piano, modelling, art or ballet, then the parents have every right to give them the resources to pursue this. Talent is important, but it must be exercised, otherwise it goes to waste. The world won't wait, sadly, and it's good to have an edge later in life. Did I enjoy every single second of my childhood? No, but I am now extremely grateful to my parents for pushing me, because it all paid off. Letting a kid work (whether in classes or in a paying job) also teaches them responsibility, gives them varied experiences, and stimulates their brain, which I think is better than letting the kid decide what they want to do with all of their day after compulsory classes (which in most cases would be playing on the computer and eating candy).
I'm not saying kids shouldn't have their own free time- I just simply don't think that they need as much of it to be happy as many people think.