A distinction can be drawn between someone who has the benefit of a wage where they can save money, and without. If the options are, work somewhere that pays just enough to live, or perish - it's not really an option.
Let's say that someone who, in an alternate universe would have the aptitude to work as a Software Engineer in Silicon Valley, happened to be born in the poorest province in a developing nation, and the only options available were work day and night, with enough pay for food and lodging, no internet access. Is that the same as someone born in Europe, has public education, access to the internet, uses the library, becomes a developer, gets hired by FAANG... etc?
You're not going to solve sweatshops by taking away people's agency. You get rid of them by providing viable alternatives.
This seems to be ignoring reality. If you're born in a locality without options to grow your own food, or don't have a farm to inherit, these aren't actually options.
And actually, a lot of poor people have been forced off their lands, when lucrative commercial interests have swayed law-makers and bureaucrats. Property rights aren't quite the same in poorer countries.
> You're not going to solve sweatshops by taking away people's agency.
Obviously.
> You get rid of them by providing viable alternatives.
I'm not sure how this fantasy become reality without protectionist government intervention, or the whole world deciding they won't buy cheaper socks because they aren't certified fair trade. I'm pretty certain which one of those two is more likely though.
that place is _everywhere_ on planet earth. Calling the need for somebody to work 'effective slavery' is wrong. Slavery is involuntary. work is voluntary.