Closing Sweatshops will do More Harm Than Good

First, I'll address the premise. The definition Con stated is true and I'd like to add (from the same source), "The work may be difficult, dangerous or be paid a wage that is not commensurate" and also that it often ignores factors (usually due to laws not preventing it) child labour laws and/or minimum wage. I'll reference this definition again later. Now to address Con's rebuttal. Yes, there were many factors that led to South Korea's economic growth, but sweatshops were undoubtedly a large one. In fact, every industrialized country had to rely on sweatshops to some level to grow. Unless an undeveloped country has a lot of natural resources (which countries like South Korea and Singapore don't), then the only thing they have to offer is cheap labour. (1) As already discussed sweatshops do offer more incomes to people in developing countries than the alternatives in these countries. Like Con mentioned, government policies that promote economy often lead to growth. However, in countries with little to offer (like mentioned above) that will always include making it a sweatshop friendly environment. For example, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan began producing things such as toys and shoes in sweatshops. (2) With so many people being employed in these sweatshops these countries saw their personal incomes grow to 10-40% of American incomes. (2) Con also mentions how sweatshops don't lead to better education, but with higher incomes there is more money for the government to put into it. Not to mention, kids are less likely to drop out of school if they aren't as desperate to get jobs. This is why so many economists, such as Paul Krugman of MIT and and Jeffery D. Sachs of Harvard see sweatshops as stepping stones to economic success. (2) Con also mentions how I don't address the bad working conditions. For example, child labour laws are violated in many of these. However, in many countries education isn't even an option. (2) Also, the conditions in these countries are often worse outside the sweatshops. (3) On top of all this, as mentioned numerous times the wages are better in these sweatshops than the local alternatives. Con begins his case by saying not fighting against sweatshops is merely accepting things just because they're better. However, that is just completely untrue. Like mentioned above, sweatshops were what opened up the opportunities for countries such as Taiwan to see large economic growth, leading to better opportunities for future generations. Con also references how low self esteem could lead to less chance at future employment, but it is worth mentioning that the citation he provided relied on an experiment from Americans. It is a completely different environment in the US than in these developing nations. Therefore, the experiment is more or less unreliable, as future employment is much different to a someone coming out of a sweatshop and one coming out of an American school. The facts are is that sweatshops are still undoubtedly the best options in these in most cases countries for these children and with more wealth in the nation better opportunities open up. (2) Pro suggests as an alternative to sweatshops that we shutdown sweatshops that are inhumane and are better to its workers. That would be hard enough to implement and potentially prevent foreign companies from even wanting to use labour in these countries (as mentioned earlier, this is often all these countries have to offer). As Paul Krugman mentions all these people owners want is to make a profit. (2) Especially if things such as minimum wage are being implemented. Same thing if countries try to implement safer jobs. In order to do that, it will make it harder to run a factory/workshop, so it is still easier for countries to leave. Same thing if work hours are implemented, less time in the factories, less productivity for businesses. Finally, Con mentions that if sweatshops aren't shutdown things may never get better. However, that simply goes against the facts and logic. The facts are is that developing nations are seeing their countries becoming wealthier and healthier, especially the ones with lots of sweatshops. (4) Logically it makes no sense, because more wealth in these countries opens up more opportunities. With more opportunities, more people will become educated and have access to better jobs. 1-http://www.slate.com... 2-http://www.nytimes.com... 3-http://www.nytimes.com...; 4-http://www.gapminder.org...