The use of sweatshops to produce goods is an acceptable practice.

"Tipped wages can legally be as low as $2.13 an hour[1]. In Costa Rica the wages for working in a sweatshop is equivalent to $2.38 an hour[2]." Tipped is the key word there. Waiters in a restaurant can make around 50 dollars or over in the course of a day. And being a waiter and being a sweatshop worker are two very different things; sweatshops are more demanding and workers have much fewer rights. And yes, $4,000 will go farther in poorer countries, but in America if you work 40 hours a week or over you qualify for benefits, and most jobs on the lower pay scale are unionized, which helps protect those benefits. Also, many people who work minimum wage jobs in the U.S. are not supporting families on that job alone; they have other sources of income. Of course there are people who do, however there are government programs like welfare, and the overall standard of living in America is higher; our poor may live in trailers or decrepit city apartment, but the people in other countries have to build wooden shanties. I am not saying that the poor here are not in a bad situation, but sweatshop workers are in a worse situation. And, people supporting families on $2.13 an hour (plus tips) are a minority in the U.S., but in other places there are many more sweatshop workers, aka a poorer population. Besides that, Costa Rica is one of the richer and most economically stable of countries that have sweatshops. Workers in El Salvador earn $1.38 an hour, in China $0.44 and hour, and in Bangladesh $0.13 an hour. [http://www.independent.org...] Even though these countries have lower costs of living, most of these wages still don't cover the needs of a family. And even if mom and dad and the kids all have jobs and that generates enough income, what does that do to the family life? Most importantly, the children cannot get educations, which pretty much destroys any chances of social mobilization. Never seeing my family and having to work long hours every day for little money doesn't sound like a happy life. "having a job significantly raises their standard of living. Given the alternative between no money per year and $4569 dollars per year is significant. Also, the average GDP workers salary to lowest entry level workers salary ratio is significant to the fact that having any job in a third world country improves their standard of living in that country, not America." Of course having a job is better then having no money, that's true anywhere with any job. The point I made before and I'll make again is that even though it's a better standard of living then if they had no job, it's still a bad standard of living. The "it could be worse" argument is a fallacy because pretty much any situation could be made worse by one factor or another, but that doesn't mean that all situations are good, or okay. The choices aren't all or nothing because the employers and companies in power control the choices, and it could be better. "Certain countries offer tax breaks and other incentives to the companies interested in starting up there. It's not unwanted business, these countries have massive unemployment issues and they are trying to resolve them." Because again of course, any money is better then no money, but that doesn't mean that workers are satisfied. "People in America have fast food and food service jobs as their entry level work, and these jobs are hardly less degrading as any sweatshop." I find that very hard to believe. First off, as a I explained earlier the standard of living in America is significantly higher, so even our very poor are doing better. American workers have a lot of laws at their disposal to protect them; companies and businesses here have to meet health standards and minimum wages among other things. A sweatshops are more then likely dirty or unsafe, especially given all of the equipment that workers have to operate. If a sweatshop worker gets injured they are not covered by health insurance, they cannot sue, and they probably won't get paid leave, or any leave (they'd just be fired). "but are these states of employment are things people must endure and typically don't last forever." Just because someone endures it doesn't make it right. People have endured subjugation, prejudice slavery, all around the world, and that fact that it's the standard doesn't make it moral. Actually the fact that such a poor life is the standard in these countries is worse because it means that more people are having a hard time. "Even though it may be morally questionable, try to stop and think and look about what you buy on a regular basis, ask yourself would I still be able to afford this if someone in America made it? Would people who don't live in America be able to afford it." I'm going to answer these questions in reverse. Most of the products produced in sweatshops are only sold in rich countries. Sweatshop workers who work in say, Nike factories can't afford Nike shoes. I don't think the international market would be greatly changed. As to the first one, I might because many products are often sold for much more then they cost to make. This would depend on the companies, and even though they're going to try to make as much money as possible, morals are also at stake here. If I knew that no one was being exploited I wouldn't mind paying extra; and if companies who advertise cheap goods want to keep their consumer bases, they shouldn't up the prices too much. "If a person doesn't like the idea of sweatshops and wants to avoid supporting those products then they don't have to and no one is making them." But that's not the question, it is that sweatshops are wrong period. They exploit workers by not only paying them small wages, but more importantly treating them inhumanely. It would be enough if companies offered sweatshop workers benefits such as insurance, or made their factories safer places to work.