Summary Of Coakley And Kates: Challenging Sweatshop Labor

Coakley and Kates: Challenging Sweatshop Labor

In their criticism of sweatshop labor, Coakley and Kates consider the morality of sweatshop labor through a welfarist lens similar to that of Powell and Zwolinski’s. To begin, Coakley and Kates summarize Powell and Zwolinski’s pro-sweatshop argument as a set of three premises:

Sweatshops are better for workers than the available alternatives.

Regulating sweatshop labor will lead to a decrease in sweatshop employment.

Therefore, regulating sweatshop labor will be harmful to workers.

Coakley and Kates provide some evidence that minimum wages or workplace regulations perhaps may not increase unemployment. However, for the sake of argument, they grant the validity of assumptions (1) and (2). Despite these assumptions, Coakley and Kates contend that, although actual employment in sweatshops is “an important factor to consider”, it cannot be the sole moral concern in a regulatory discussion (635). From a welfarist standpoint, Coakley and Kates assert that a more comprehensive evaluation of sweatshop regulation is necessary.

Elasticity of Labor Demand

According to Coakley and Kates, this evidence indicates that elasticity of labor demand within sweatshops is very low. With this in mind, the authors believe that the net welfare of sweatshop workers may in fact rise significantly due to increased wages. This is because a large proportion of workers would realize large increases in income and well-being, while only a small proportion would bear the costs of unemployment. Although this is an unresolved empirical claim, Coakley and Kates appear to be confident in these