Why many economists support sweatshopsAlthough not all economists support sweatshops, the economic way of thinking sees sweatshops as an exchange program in which both workers that employers benefit when they decide to sign an employment contract. Despite the fact that some people consider wages in sweatshops to be too low, economists have been in support of sweatshops because of the concept of labor demand curves, which slope downward. Economists suggest that low-wage sweatshops are significant for achieving modern prosperity in developing countries (Myerson). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Some economists have even noted that the number of sweatshops is fewer than the number expected to be established. Economists with strong liberal and academic credentials such as Sachs, a leading advisor to European countries such as Russia and Poland, suggest that countries where the population's source of income has been exhausted should have more sweatshops despite low wages. Areas with high cases of malaria and AIDS should also have more sweatshops (Myerson). Economists who have traversed the world also compare wages in different nations, but continue to support sweatshops because the jobs could be used by developing countries to act as a stepping stone out of rural poverty. An example from Singapore is provided by the economist Sachs, who also opposes child labor, but supports factories that produce clothing and shoes for external markets ("Why the world needs sweatshops | NUES"). Economists also believe that business between developed and developing countries leads to prosperity for both countries. Sweatshops are known to promote business as developing countries produce clothing and shoes for export to the developed world. Underdeveloped countries would use sweatshops as a way to eradicate rural poverty among its citizens. The support that economists give to the creation of more sweatshops is an indication of optimism in the modern world. Economists often use conventional methods to argue points. In the case of sweatshops, economists are simply optimistic that third world countries will eventually become developed countries (“Why the world needs sweatshops | NUES”). Economists also warn against foreign investment in countries as a way to eradicate self-sufficiency and socialism. Economists also warn that foreign investment is a form of imperialism as advanced countries invest in underdeveloped countries to exploit their resources. Economically, developed countries like China and Japan invest in other countries to extract oil and agricultural products, but create very few jobs in the countries they invest in. In fact, some of the developed countries hire professionals from their countries to perform tasks that may require skilled labor (Arnold & Hartman 3). Sweatshops are seen by economists as an option to minimize dependence on imported manufactured goods; thus, stimulating domestic industries for the domestic market. However, protected activities, such as sweatshops, are too few in number; therefore, they cannot support the needs of").