A common argument for banning sweatshop labor asserts that no one should be forced to work in a sweatshop due to economic necessity. Everyone is entitled to a good job. A standard reply to this argument emphasizes that a ban on sweatshop labor merely takes away options from people who already lack options. Indeed, presumably the reason why someone would decide to work in a sweatshop is precisely because they lack a better option. Of course, if a ban were paired with cash transfers or a guarantee of a good job, that would be a different story. But on its own, a ban harms those it purports to help by taking away their “best bad” option.
Does the same argument apply ceteris paribus to minimum wage regulations or is there any relevant difference? "If people want to get paid very little to work very hard, then why shouldn't the state let them?" seemingly works for both sweatshops and low wages more in general ("low" depending on context, since minimum wage regulations often extend also to job settings that wouldn't classify as sweatshops).
Does the same argument apply ceteris paribus to minimum wage regulations or is there any relevant difference? "If people want to get paid very little to work very hard, then why shouldn't the state let them?" seemingly works for both sweatshops and low wages more in general ("low" depending on context, since minimum wage regulations often extend also to job settings that wouldn't classify as sweatshops).