For most of us, the thought of a thriving sweatshop brings to mind putrid air, blazing heat, and 20–hour work days. These places are outlets of ruthless production that provide us cheap goods and allow marketers to take advantage of our country’s economic standing. But for citizens of the third world who might not even know what air-conditioning and iPods are, life is slightly different. Looking through eyes of the desperately poor, we can begin to see a whole new picture, and it reveals a strikingly different view.

For instance, the horrors we hear about the dangerous conditions of sweatshops sound terrifying. Toxic air, wandering rats, and malicious employers are the epitome of unethical business that we so dearly condemn. However, the comparisons we make regarding capita, as well as “essential” amenities, are not comparable criteria in regards to countries like China, Cambodia, Malaysia, India, or Indonesia. In these countries, it is not so uncommon to find ghettos lined with pieces of cardboard and trash arranged into huts that house networks of families. When one lives on the streets with no money, no job, and a number of children to take care of, a factory job is the only hope for a meal, clean water and clothes. In a place like this a dollar makes all the difference, and any parent with a malnourished and sick child will risk the unsafe conditions of a sweatshop for this benefit. The impression that sweatshop workers receive such low wages that they cannot even support themselves and their families is not wrong but misleading. People of poverty are not poor because their job pays them too little. They are poor to begin with – over a billion live on less than a dollar a day.

Many misconceptions also arise from specific cases of torturous managers who harass employees (including children), mandate long shifts, or fail to comply with health codes (if they exist). This certainly is not a characteristic of all sweatshops, though; oftentimes children eagerly sign up for work themselves. If factory work is not an option, there are always other things to turn to, such as prostitution and the mafia. Plus, sweatshop conditions oftentimes exceed those of a person’s living quarters, so working at one is a relative upgrade. Nicholas Kristof, whose work frequently appears in The New York Times, has reported on personal accounts of these communities in China, Namibia, Cambodia, and India over the years. He encourages the prevalence of factories on the notion that competition will evoke an increase in salary as well as working conditions. In lieu of moving production away from a certain country, he argues, world governments should set more rigorous rules for gas emission and other environmental impacts. Setting up manufacturing sweatshops in Africa would also help alleviate problems where a little money can make a big difference. Even though many might argue that paying workers a bigger wage would have little impact on the price of goods, Kristof calls to attention the bribes local managers require for higher paying jobs. Since jobs are so scarce, people will comply with almost any condition.

Of course, sweatshops are not acceptable workplaces. But to eradicate them in order to make the world a better place is, at this point, impractical. Although many global initiatives such as fair trade and microfinance are geared toward the elimination of poverty, the jobs they create do not come close to the amount that sweatshops provide. If we protest poverty by not purchasing the items that its victims produce, we are doing the world a terrible dis-favor. If a sweatshop goes out of business, the workers are left hanging onto a thread to support their families.

Poverty is not a pretty thing, but to those living in it, sweatshops are one of the few ways out. In a world of nothing, anything helps. While Americans protest the conditions and low wages monopolies pay their foreign employees with dismay, these workers are glad to be employed. Closing sweatshops would eliminate a major source of income, however small it may be, for thousands who need it. Companies are being driven out of poor countries due to pressures from progressive college students like us, only to move their factories to slightly wealthier nations – ones that are not as desperate to have them. In an effort to eliminate poverty, eradicating sweatshops only reverses the process.