Sweatshops: labor conditions, ethics, and global supply chains

Sweatshops: Since all children and women forced into sweatshop work are never happy how can we assume that this is not wrong?

Should the relative happiness of the individuals working in sweatshops be the guide for how consumers view sweatshops as institutions? First of all, one must define a sweatshop. A sweatshop is commonly defined as a place where women and men are forced to labor for low pay, because the standard minimum wage in the nation is so small, or because the sweatshop workers are illegal aliens in a nation such as the United States, thus they have no choice other than to work in illegitimate businesses that will not pay workers a living wage.

Sweatshop workers thus often labor under poor or unsanitary conditions, usually at substandard wages compared to other workers in their nation. If sweatshop workers are always unhappy with their lot, some individuals allege it is cut and dry that employing workers in a sweatshop is always wrong. The argument for sweatshops runs something like this: the use of outsourced low-cost or sweatshop labor in foreign nations by wealthy Western corporations brings in valuable trade and foreign dollars that can improve the standard of living in the poorer nation. Thus it can improve the fates of the sweatshop workers' children, by infusing income into the poorer nation. The argument in favor of the employment of illegal workers in the United States is that the workers chose their lot by illegally immigrating and often work under better conditions than they would on their home soil. Also, the children of the illegal workers will improve if the children are allowed to remain in the United States.