The essay “Where Sweatshops are a Dream” by Nicholas D. Kristof, published in the New York Times, is an unusual stand that you would not hear in everyday life. Nicholas tries to broaden our ideas on sweatshops by narrating the lives of poverty stricken people who have little to nothing in regions like Ghana and Cambodia. He explains that even though the Obama administration and the democrats who favor labor standards and are fighting against sweatshops abroad, that in some places sweatshops are actually a safe haven that bring jobs and protection. Nicholas uses emotion and logic to enhance his argument over sweatshops abroad and how they can help the poor countries labor standards with safety and protection as well as bringing in more jobs to pull people out of poverty. One way you can tell if someone is a credible source is to know where they have been. Nicholas has seen first hand the living standards increase in East Asia because of sweatshop jobs. His wife’s ancestral village in southern China was one of the places that thrived due to the many jobs that sweatshops provided. Knowing that someone has lived through the experience reassures the audience that they know what they are talking about. Nicholas talks to some people at a local dump scavenging through trash looking for sellable items that could provide the little money that recyclers …show more content…
Logically one would work indoors out of the heat. Pim Srey Rath, a 19-year-old woman says “I’d love a job in a factory, at least that work is in the shade. Here is where it’s hot” as she scavenges through plastic in the nasty dumps. A simple thing like shade would make all the difference to someone who barely has anything. Protection from the elements, like heat, is a high priority in civilized countries like the US, so why get rid of a factory that provides not only protection from the elements for people like Pim but also for the future generations like Vath Sam Oeun’s 10-year-old
The controversial issue of sweatshops is one often over looked by The United States. In the Social Issues Encyclopedia, entry # 167, Matt Zwolinski tackles the issues of sweatshops. In this article Matt raises a question I have not been able to get out of my head since I have begun researching this topic, “ are companies who contract with sweatshops doing anything wrong?” this article goes on to argue that the people who work in the sweatshops willingly choose to work there, despite the poor environment. Many people in third world countries depend on the sweatshops to earn what they can to have any hopes of surviving. If the sweatshops were to shut down many people would lose their jobs, and therefore have no source of income. This may lead people to steal and prostitution as well. this article is suggesting that sweatshops will better the economy by giving people a better job than what they may have had. Due to this the companies contracting with sweatshops are not acting wrong in any way. This was a deductive article it had a lot of good examples to show how sweatshops are beneficial to third world countries. Radly Balko seemed to have the same view point as Matt Zwolinski. Many people believe the richer countries should not support the sweatshops Balko believes if people stopped buying products made in sweatshops the companies will have to shut down and relocate, firing all of the present workers. Rasing the fact that again the worker will have no source of income, the workers need the sweatshop to survive. Balko also uses the argument that the workers willingly work in the current environments.
Some companies have acceded to public pressure to reduce or end their use of sweatshops. Such firms often publicize the fact that their products are not made with Anti-globalization activists and environmentalists also deplore transfer of heavy industrial manufacturing (such as chemical production) to the developing world. Although chemical factories have little in common with sweatshops in the original sense, detractors describe them as such and claim that there are negative environmental and health impacts (such as pollution and birth defects, respectively) on workers and the local community.
Look down at the clothes you're wearing right now, chances are almost every single thing you are currently wearing was made in a sweatshop. It is estimated that between 50-75% of all garments are made under sweatshop like conditions. Designers and companies get 2nd party contractors to hire people to work in these factories, this is a tool to make them not responsible for the horrendous conditions. They get away with it by saying they are providing jobs for people in 3rd world countries so its okay, but in reality they are making their lives even worse. These companies and designers only care about their bank accounts so if they can exploit poor, young people from poverty stricken countries they surely will, and they do. A sweatshop is a factory
Large corporations such as Nike, Gap, and Reebok and many others from the United States have moved their factories to undeveloped nations; barely pay their employees enough to live on. Countries such as China, Indonesia, and Haiti have readily abundant cheap labor. There should be labor laws or an obligation of respecting workers to provide decent working conditions, fair wages, and safety standards.
Some people of North America know about these sweatshop workers, they feel bad and some also protest. They set up NGOs, send funds and donations but they never try to break the tradition of sweatshop working. They all assume that this is best for the society. An Idea can be drawn from William
It is often said that products made in sweatshops are cheap and that is why people buy those products, but why is it behind the clothes or shoes that we wear that make sweatshops bad? In the article Sweat, Fire and Ethics by Bob Jeffcott is trying to persuade the people and tell them how sweatshops are bad. Bob Jeffcott supports the effort of workers of the global supply chains in order to win improved wages and good working conditions and a better quality of life of those who work on sweatshops. He mentions and describes in detail how the conditions of the sweatshops are and how the people working in them are forced to long working hours for little money. He makes the question, “we think we can end sweatshops abuses by just changing our individual buying habits?” referring to we can’t end the abuses that those women have by just stopping of buying their products because those women still have to work those long hours because other people are buying their product for less pay or less money.
In his article “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation” Matt Zwolinski attempts to tackle the problem of the morality of sweatshops, and whether or not third parties or even the actors who create the conditions, should attempt to intervene on behalf of the workers. Zwolinski’s argument is that it is not right for people to take away the option of working in a sweatshop, and that in doing so they are impeding on an individual’s free choice, and maybe even harming them. The main distinction that Zwolinski makes is that choice is something that is sacred, and should not be impeded upon by outside actors. This is showcased Zwolinski writes, “Nevertheless, the fact that they choose to work in sweatshops is morally significant. Taken seriously, workers' consent to the conditions of their labor should lead us to abandon certain moral objections to sweatshops, and perhaps even to view them as, on net, a good thing.” (Zwolinski, 689). He supports his argument of the importance of free choice by using a number of different tactics including hypothetical thought exercises and various quotes from other articles which spoke about the effects of regulation business. Throughout the article there were multiple points which helped illuminate Zwolinski’s argument as well as multiple points which muddle the argument a bit.
Now lets take a look and see why sweatshop work is so horrendous. The way that sweatshops treat their workers is absolutely brutal. They force their workers to work all the way up to 60-80 hours per week and do not pay them nearly enough to even be able to provide food for their families. Sometimes the workers will only receive a few pennies for one whole day of work (Background). Another downfall is that the workers are sometimes even forced to work without receiving any wage until they have paid off escalating debts, which can end up taking several years to do. Basically, no matter how long these workers work they will still continue to be poverty stricken (Women).
Most sweatshops have been known to be unlawful, but yet it doesn’t stop them to still be around today. Workers working in sweatshops are known to be getting paid small amount of money while working long tiring shifts, sometimes without being allowed to take a break. Many corporations have their products produce in third-world countries such as Guatemala, Pakistan, Vietnam, etc. where it costs them less to produce goods since they are paying their workers almost nothing. It is believed that it
Nicholas D Kristof was born in 1959 in Yamhill. He is an American journalist and political commentator. He has traveled different countries in the world. The author begins his essay titled.” Where Sweatshops are A Dream” by talking about as image of what look outside of the sweatshop. The problems he recognizes is that even though Americans want to fight back with these sweatshops. Although the argument is lacking in statistical data, it is certainly not lacking in other logical and emotional appeals that evoke an enlightening new perspective on the topic. He tries to convince his audience, Obama and his team that sweatshop are better opportunity and a way-out poverty. Nicholas gives evidence of how living standards are important
Sweatshops, when left to operate without government intervention, are the most efficient way out of poverty especially in developing countries. This argument may feel far fetched, but when examined in the context of those working at sweatshops and the locations sweatshops are most often constructed in, the reason why this is true is apparent. The benefits of sweatshops can be found by examining how they increase living conditions, examining the locations where sweatshops are constructed, and looking at how government regulations on factories don’t help anyone.
There has always been negative attributions attached to the term “sweatshops” or “sweat factories” and there are many legitimate reasons for this. Sweatshops are considered to be any work environment that involves intensive labour and sometimes child labour receiving compensation that is unfair in which the employee’s can hardly survive. These labourers work for exceedingly long hours in hazardous conditions that D’Oria 2 could result in serious injury or death. On top of all these unreasonable conditions, employees may be subject to mental or even physical abuse brought on to them by their employer. One of the most central attributes to sweatshops is the employee’s low wage.
"Samsung Electronics said it has found "evidence of suspected child labour" at a factory of its Chinese supplier Dongguan Shinyang Electronics. The firm conducted an investigation into the supplier after New York-based campaign group, China Labor Watch, accused it of hiring children." - - - BBC - 14 July 2014
Globe Trotting Trainers Article on Exploitation of Workers in Lesser Economically Developed Countries The article 'Globe Trotting Trainers' is intended to persuade readers to complain about the exploitation of workers in lesser economically developed countries. The writer tries to persuade the reader to do something about it. The piece is written for teenagers or young adults. I know this because the title of the magazine is 'Young People Magazine.'
These concerns typically include the rights of the children, the responsibility of the parents and employers, and the well-being and safety of the children. In Stefan Spath’s “The Virtues of Sweatshops,” it is made very clear that he, like many others, feel that the general public is highly misinformed on what sweatshops are and what they actually contribute to their respective communities. In the eyes of someone from a developed country, sweatshops and child labor that takes place in them seem primitive and are interpreted as simply a means by which companies can spend less money on employers. He states that when labor unions claim that companies which establish operations in developing nations create unemployment in America, they aren’t really explaining the whole story. The author claims that those who are adamantly protest sweatshops are only telling half the story with a claim like this. He points out in this part that the American people can rest assured that high skilled jobs will not be taken over to developing countries because “– high-skilled jobs require a level of worker education and skills that poorer countries cannot