> These jobs aren't great. Who's saying they're great? All I'm saying is that they're better than starving on the street, which as you pointed out is what woul

> These jobs aren't great. Who's saying they're great? All I'm saying is that they're better than starving on the street, which as you pointed out is what would be happening to these people without the shitty sweatshop jobs. I really struggle to see how offering an alternative to starving on the street is a bad thing. Would you prefer these companies pack up the sweatshops, return production to countries with expensive labor, and force some of their former workers back to starve on the street? Personally I would not. If those people want to work in those conditions I think it's immoral to stop them. > but promoting that is far from a "holy mission". I don't think anyone is saying this either. Obviously sweatshop operators are looking out for their own interests, but that's the great thing about trade. When all participants are willing they are necessarily better off due to the trade, otherwise it wouldn't happen.