The cheap labor is an important factor in the investment attractiveness of the country, Third World counties such as Indonesia and Bangladesh offers United States cheap production of goods , however most of the time they are made in sweatshops, under terrible working conditions and low wages that barely supports their needs . Many people are against sweatshops , they believe that its against human rights and labor laws. Although sweatshops have negative impact on workers health , I think that sweatshops are beneficial to poor nations because it provides jobs and increase their countries economy. John Miller, professor of economics wrote an article “Why Economists Are Wrong About Sweatshops and the Antisweatshop Movement” in which he argues …show more content…
He gives an example of U.S corporation that uses cheap labor such as Wal-Mart and Nike, who violate Chinese labor laws, people work seventy hours a week and are getting paid very little, also their identity papers are being confiscated, they are forced to pay fines and suffer from physical abuse. Miller also mentions the Triangle Shirtwaist fire of 1911 where 146 women were killed because they couldn’t escape due to blocked doors and windows. After that Fair Labor Standards Act under the Roosevelt established the minimum wage that limited child labor, payed overtime and provide safer conditions. Some people work in sweatshop factories against their will , Miller gives examples of forced labor where people were locked and surrounded to produce brand name clothing . He mentions brand Reebok as they believe to be “promoter of human rights in the Third World” however , based of the former worked Yati ,she was forced to work sixty-three hours a week and only earn 80 dollars a month , and it exceeds the minimum wage of Indonesia . Generally, the pair of their shoes cost 60$ and more however , the real price is around …show more content…
He begins his argument with a flashback of Third Worlds poverty symbol the “Smokey Mountain”, garbage dump where people try to make a living from collecting recyclable items . Krugman believes that comparing to that situation there been more improvements in wages and conditions, it also allowed trade between rich and poor countries that boost up their economies. He states that in mid 1970, to become the worlds manufactured market, cheap labor was not enough to attract other countries to invest, however the decrease of tariff barriers , better telecommunication and reduced air transport benefit the producing of manufactured goods. Krugman says “ low wages allowed developing countries to break into worlds markets.” He doesn’t deny that sweatshops have terrible working conditions for little pay , however he believes that “bad job is better than no job” and they are better than alternatives. The growth of manufacturing creates jobs and some factories offer higher wages that can almost compare to McDonalds in America. He also lists the benefits of export to economic growth, for instance, Indonesia increased its daily calorie intake from less than 2,100 to more than 2,800, and children starve much less. Krugman believes that poverty is still awful but significantly better and the improvements were made because of entrepreneurs and multinationals who provide
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.
In today’s world, increasing big companies open factories in developing countries but many people said it is unethical and the factories are sweatshops. Most of the sweatshops were opened in east Asia and third-world countries and regions. The companies open the sweatshops in order to get more benefits is a kind of very irresponsible behavior. For example, Apple's factories in China are not good and unethical. Audit finds
Sweatshops started around the 1830’s when industrialization started growing in urban areas. Most people who worked in them at the time were immigrants who didn't have their papers. They took jobs where they thought they'd have the most economic stability. It’s changed a bit since then, companies just want the cheapest labor they can get and to be able to sell the product in order to make a big profit. It’s hard to find these types of workers in developed areas so they look toward 3rd world countries. “sweatshops exist wherever there is an opportunity to exploit workers who lack the knowledge and resources to stand up for themselves.” (Morey) In third world countries many people are very poor and are unable to afford food and water so the kids are pulled out of school and forced to work so they can try to better their lives. This results in n immense amount of uneducated people unaware they can have better jobs and that the sweatshops are basically slavery. With a large amounts uneducated they continue the cycle of economic instability. There becomes no hope for a brighter future so people just carry on not fighting for their basic rights. Times have changed. 5 Years ago companies would pay a much larger amount for a product to be made but now if they’re lucky they’ll pay half, if a manufacturer doesn't like that another company will happily take it (Barnes). Companies have gotten greedier and greedier in what they’ll pay to have a product manufactured. Companies have taken advantage of the fact that people in developing countries will do just about anything to feed their families, they know that if the sweatshop in Cambodia don't like getting paid 2 dollars per garment the one in Indonesia will. This means that there is less money being paid to the workers which mean more will starve and live in very unsafe environments. Life is
...e their product. Sweatshops are found usually all over the world and need to make a better decision as in more labor laws, fair wages, and safety standards to better the workers' conditions. It should benefit the mutually experiences by both the employers and the employees. Most important is the need to be educated about their rights and including local labor laws.
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
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. We can’t control and tell what you can buy or what you can’t because that’s up to the person...
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.
All of my life I have considered myself as a person who loves children. I enjoy playing with them, helping them, and just being around them. So when I first agreed with corporations who use child labor I shocked myself completely. After examining two articles; one “The Case for Sweatshops”, by David R. Henderson, and two “Sweatshops or a Shot at a Better Life”, by Cathy Young, I came to the conclusion that in some cases when young children work under proper conditions it can keep them out of the streets and be helpful to them and their families.
As GDP per capita grows, the country’s standard of living rises with it. This newfound wealthiness allows for nations to invest in infrastructure, such as roads and education, and establish socially-conscious institutions, such as the American EPA, FDA, and CDC. In addition to further increasing quality of life and working conditions, establishment of such infrastructre allows foreign investment to be absorbed even easier: “Findings in literature indicate that a country’s capacity to take advantage of FDI externalities might be limited by local conditions, such as the development of local financial markets or the educational level of the country, i.e., absorptive capacities.” As the citizens become more productive, the government has more funds to invest in its own economy, which further improves the productivity of its citizens. This positive feedback loop eventually produces the necessary infrastructure of the nation begins to support itself. It can then afford to employ more effective and safer means of production, and sweatshops are phased out, no longer necessary. From here, the downsides of sweatshops will be completely gone, and replaced with only net social
I. Introduction A sweatshop is a workplace where individuals work with no benefits, inadequate living wages, and poor working conditions (Dictionary.com). Sweatshops can be found all around the world, especially in developing nations where local laws are easily corrupted: Central America, South America, Asia, and in certain places in Europe (Background on Sweatshops). China, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Bangladesh are the main places where most sweatshop products are made (McAllister). Often, sweatshop workers are individuals who have immigrated and are working in other countries.
Contrary to what many people believe, sweatshops actually improve the lives of workers and the surround community. Kristof is a personal witness to this phenomenon. In his words, “My views on sweatshops are shaped by years living in East Asia, watching as living standards soared… because of sweatshop jobs” (Kristof). Its one thing to notice a change in living standards, but how do sweatshops cause this change? In an interview with the Mises Institute on March 20th, 2017, Benjamin Powell reasoned, “Sweatshops bring with them the proximate cause of economic development- capital, technology, and the opportunity to build human capital” (Powell, “Sweatshops: A Way Out of Poverty”).
middle of paper ... ... They should make sure the products and the companies they love pay their workers in developing countries fairly. Works Cited Chery, Dady. " Sweatshops: Stepping Stone or Dead End?”
Short Synopsis: This novel is about the hidden reality of innocent children sold to wealthy sweatshop owners by their parents in order to pay off family debts in modern day Pakistan. Iqbal, an actual child slave, was only four years old when his father sold him to a carpet weaver for $16 in the 1980’s. This novel is told through the eyes of a young female slave, Fatima who works with Iqbal at a carpet factory, also known as a “sweatshop”. She reveals the terrible reality of being a child slave in Pakistan, working long hours, crammed into a dark, dingy, and humid room with no fresh air, with dozens of other young child slaves.
Globalization and industrialization contribute to the existence of sweatshops, which are where garments are made cheaply, because they are moving production and consumption of those cheap goods. Industrialization has enabled for global distribution, to exchange those goods around the world. They can also set apart the circumstances of consumption and production, which Western countries as mass consumers, are protected from of producers in less developed countries. These factories are usually located in less developed countries and face worker exploitation and changes in social structures. Technological innovation allows for machines to take the place of workers and do all the dirty work instead of workers doing hours of hard work by hand.
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