“NO” Sweatshops are not inhumane
Argument: Raising wages above market levels should be expected to increase unemployment
I would argue that
Sweatshops are not an inhumane practice. What would be a more inhumane practice would be to fire half of the factory workers to pay for the other half of the factory workers wage increase. Assuming then that some unemployment will result when a wage above the market level is paid, persons who are unemployed will have even fewer means provided to them then if they were employed at the market wage. So by paying higher wages not only will companies fire more people to keep there profits in line the people that were then fired will have harder times finding new jobs.

If the wages and conditions are so bad, why would anyone choose to work there? Often times they choose to do so because they have no better options. In other words, the job in a sweatshop is better than no job at all.

Rebuttal:
I would argue that and increase in wages would not lead to greater unemployment * F0r example Why would an Indonesian contractor like Nike, contract also in Mexico, where wages are at least four times higher. Logic would require that worker productivity in Indonesia be precisely 25 percent of that in Mexico, or that the cost of other factors be lower in Mexico than in Indonesia, offsetting higher labor costs. Otherwise, you could not claim that if Indonesian wages rose even a tiny bit closer to Mexican levels, seamstresses would be expelled to the garbage dump * Also, The requirement to pay a higher wage gave many employers incentives to invest in training so that workers would become worth what they now must be paid. Resulting productivity increases more than offset the higher wage costs

* And final No clothing assembler will move back from Jakarta to New York because of a requirement to raise wages from $2 to