An Analysis of Society's Dependence on Sweatshops

Why Many Economists Support Sweatshops

Although not all economists support sweatshops, the economic way of thinking sees sweatshops from an exchange program in which both the workers and employers benefit when they decide to sign a labor contract. In spite of the fact that some people view the wages at the sweatshops to be too low, economists have been in support of the sweatshops because of the concept of the labor demand curves, which slope downwards. The economists suggest that the low wage sweatshops are significant in achieving modern prosperity in the developing world (Myerson).

Some economists have even noted the number of sweatshops to be less than the number that is expected to be established. Economists with solid liberal and academic credentials such as Mr. Sachs, a leading adviser to European countries such as Russia and Poland suggests that countries where the source of income of the people has been depleted ought to have more sweatshops despite the low wages. Areas with high cases of Malaria and Aids also should have more sweatshops (Myerson).

The economists who have traversed the world even compare the wages in different nations but they still support the sweatshops because the jobs could be used by developing countries to act as a stepping stone and come out of rural poverty. An example of Singapore is given by economist Mr. Sachs who is also opposing child labor, but is in support of the plants that make clothing and shoes for external markets ("Why The World Needs Sweatshops | NUES").

Economists also believe that business between developed and the developing nation leads to the prosperity of both the countries. Sweatshops are noted to promote such business as the developing countries make clothing and shoes for export to the developed world. The underdeveloped countries would use the sweatshops as a way of eradicating rural poverty among its citizens. The support that economists give for the establishment of more sweatshops is an indication of optimism in the modern world. Economists often use conventional methods to argue for points. In the case of sweatshops, the economists are just optimistic that the third world countries would graduate to the developed world at some point ("Why the World Needs Sweatshops | NUES").

Economists also warn against foreign investment in countries as a way of eradicating self reliance and socialism. Foreign investment is also warned by the economists to be a form of imperialism as advanced countries invests in the underdeveloped countries to exploit their resources. From the economic perspective, developed countries such as China and Japan invest in other countries to extract oil, agricultural products, but create very few jobs in the countries where they invest. In fact, some of the developed countries hire professionals from their countries to carry out the tasks that might require skilled manpower (Arnold &Hartman 3).

Sweatshops are viewed by economists as a choice in minimizing reliance on manufactured imports; hence, boosting domestic industries for the home market. The protected businesses such as the sweatshops are however too small in number; thus, they cannot sustain the needs of the citizens. There is, therefore, the need to increase the number of sweatshops and other domestic businesses in the developing world for purposes of economic growth.

A case study of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is given to encourage the establishment of sweatshops. The countries are said to have started the journey of their economic success by manufacturing toys and clothing for purposes of export. Economists note that the national incomes for the countries went up rapidly over a short duration. An example of Singapore and South Korea is also given to indicate the progress between the two nations. Singapore paved way for foreign plant owners while South Korea built more industries, the major industry being the sweatshops (Myerson).

The case study of the nations altered the views of economists who now believe that the sweatshops are the way to fight poverty in developing countries. Sweatshops are part of the industrialization programs as they can be built to produce large quantities of clothing and shoes that can be exported to many countries. Even with the presence of corrupt leaders, economists perceive sweatshops to be the solution to the absolute poverty as there would be rare cases of starvation and malnourished children (Rosen 114).

Given the low pay at the sweatshops, some people have opted to stay without having to work in the factories that manufacture clothing and shoes. However, economists compare the stability of the different groups of people who decide to work in the sweatshops and those who decide not to work. It is noted that those who work at the shops have always achieved temporary stability and steady wages; thus, ensuring the well being of their families.

Economists have concluded that the jobs at the sweatshops have ensured the stability of many citizens in countries such as Ethiopia where people rely on jobs for their social safety, which the government cannot provide. Sweatshops are also used by economists to ensure the improvement in labor ethics at the firms globally. There have been critics that the sweatshops employ underage people to do the factory jobs. Such mistakes have always been corrected; thus, illustrating to other industries the required labor rules ("Why the World Needs Sweatshops | NUES").