No, nike wasn't. If you open a factory in a country that previously had little or no manufacturing sector, offer people jobs at 3-10 times the typical competin

No, nike wasn't. If you open a factory in a country that previously had little or no manufacturing sector, offer people jobs at 3-10 times the typical competing wage, and greatly improve the lives of said people, you'll still be accused of running a "sweatshop". However, using the lie "slave labor" against Apple's workers is particularly egregious. This is really easy to reason out-- why would people work under these "appalling" conditions? Why wouldn't they just stay home or work somewhere else? Simple: They are vastly better than these alternatives. The core argument of these people who criticize giving third worlders jobs is that they would rather see those third worlders starve. If these "sweatshops" weren't significantly better than the alternatives, they would not find any workers. Of course, that simple truth is irrefutable, so you'll hear all manner of rationalizations about how these people are really masochists. Of course the really ironic thing about this is, the same people making the "sweatshop" claims are often the same people who supported the brutal regimes (aka "workers paradise") that ultimately lead to the economic destruction that resulted in the "sweatshop" being a vast improvement. Edit: Unless of course, you consider using giving foreigners jobs instead of local unionized workers to be a "particularly egregious" offense. In that case, nike was.