The prevalence of sweatshops depends on the definition used, but experts estimate that around 50% of manufacturers, particularly in the apparel industry, employ labor. Many workplaces violate labor laws, and economic situations in poorer countries encourage employers to run businesses with minimal investment. Some economists argue that sweatshops are a necessity, while others believe declining labor standards create a downward spiral.
The prevalence of sweatshop work largely depends on the definition used. In its most general definition, where the term refers to working in a confined space that is extremely difficult or dangerous, sweat breaks can be considered quite common. If the definition used refers to the common image of a factory with overworked and underpaid workers, labor becomes less common than expected, although it is still widespread in third world countries. Following the US Government Accountability Office definition, which states that a grocery store is any workplace that violates one or more state and federal labor laws, prevalence spikes, becoming very common. Using a combination of these definitions, experts estimate that around 50 percent of manufacturers, particularly in the apparel industry, employ labour.
It can be difficult to ascertain the exact number of workplaces in a given area due to the fact that these workplaces usually, if not always, violate labor laws. Violations include worker pay below minimum wage, child labor and a serious lack of safety regulations. As a result, many of these locations tend to disguise their identity as hoodies through a variety of means, including bribing government officials.
Another factor that increases the prevalence of labor is the economic situation in the country or region. Many people choose to work in workshops simply because there are no better alternatives in terms of a livelihood, even if the compensation cannot yet support basic living standards. This has led to a greater proliferation of labor-producing firms in third-world economies, where there is a comparative advantage in settling for labor that doesn’t work at all. In turn, the abundance of people willing to work for such conditions gives employers greater incentives to run businesses, as minimal investment in these workplaces yields higher profits.
Some economists, such as Jeffrey Sachs and Benjamin Powell, dispute the popular view that working in fleece should be illegal. Sweatshop advocates argue that workplaces are a necessity for poorer countries, where sweatshop workers actually earn more than the average. Swamps are seen as an economic stimulus following this train of thought; employers who follow this philosophy are encouraged to increase the number of work centers in poorer countries.
Other experts counter, however, that declining labor standards in third world countries create a downward spiral in which people are willing to work in increasingly worse situations. The demand for labor is significantly greater than the number of jobs, making it almost inevitable that wages and employee rights will continue to fall in response to desperation. Employers who follow this philosophy often take steps to ensure that none of their workers work in hoodies.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
