Does the money people earn working in sweatshops really help the local economy in any significant way?

Question

People defend sweatshops by saying that the people who work in them need the money, but outside these individuals, is the community better or worse off?

Answer 1

Some 10 or 20 years ago there were these sweatshops in nepal where they had children making rugs. People in the US loved to buy these rugs, but soon boycotted rugs when found out about the children from nepal that made them. Needless to say this put the sweatshops out of business and many of the children that worked there had turned to prostitution since they didnt have jobs anymore. The children would much rather have worked at a sweatshop, than as prostitutes, but because of the US boycott they had no choice.

The american public is the most clueless on earth. They think that all countries have the same opportunities as us. They confuse sweatshops with slave labor which is a totally different thing.

Answer 2

The money the employees earn wouldn't help the local ecomony that much because the wages are only 'sweat shop' wages anyway.
However the fact that it is only sweat shop wages means that the enterprise (being a sole trader, a partnership or an incorporated company owned by shareholders) would be able to operate that much more efficiently because of lower overheads and thus eventually turn a profit which would then go to further investment or even just back as dividends to the owners. Either way the local economy will benefit.

Answer 3

Even if the economy did benefit in some fashion, the practice is still unethical and immoral here in the U.S. I went to a trade conference recently where the question came up. If we impart our morals on other countries, will we be the bad guys when we stop Jr. from working because his work keeps the family fed, etc.