Sweatshops are typically associated with inhumane treatment of the working poor, and people without choice of work and labour conditions. The general consensus of the global community is that sweatshops are unprincipled and unacceptable. An economic analysis of the economics of sweatshops identifies their benefit to the economies of developing nations. Globalization has caused an increase in sweatshop labour, which benefits the economies of developing nations and the standard of living of the sweatshop labourers despite some detrimental effects. Sweatshop labour is at times inhumane and violates the rights of its workers however it also acts as a stepping stone to economic development, and it improves the workers standard of living.
Many critics of sweatshop labour argue that sweatshops are inhumane to their workers and that the conditions and treatment of their employees are cruel and in violation of their individual human rights. Kevin Danher of the Hoover Institution claims that, "Sweatshops are not a sign of progress...Look
at Mexico, where 15 years of trade 'liberalization' have not succeeded in closing the gap between rich and poor. " He continues to argue that sweatshop labourers are forced to work for a below minimum wage that cannot properly support their families. However many argue that on an economic perspective there are more benefits to sweatshop labour then detriments.
"Some managers are brutal in the way they house workers in firetraps, expose children to dangerous chemicals, deny bathroom breaks, demand sexual favours, force people to work doubt shifts or dismiss anyone to tries to organize a union. .. But workers would be aghast at the idea of American consumer boycotting certain toy or clothing in protest. "
They argue that sweatshops help to increase the standard of living of their workers and that they enable to country's economy to grow and...