Multinational Corporations and the Destruction of the Family

Time and time again, there have been opposing views on just about every single possible topic one could fathom. From the most politically controversial topics of gun control and stem cell research to the more mundane transparent ones of brown or white rice and hat or no hat—it continues. Sweatshops and the controversy surrounding them is one that is unable to be put into simplistic terms, for sweatshops themselves are complex. The grand debate of opposing views in regards to sweatshops continues between two writers who both make convincing arguments as to why and how sweatshops should or should not be dealt with. In Sweat, Fire and Ethics, by Bob Jeffcott, he argues that more people ought to worry less about the outer layers of sweatshops and delve deeper into the real reason they exist and the unnecessariness of them. In contrast, Jeffrey D. Sachs writes of the urgent requirement of sweatshops needed during the industrialization time in a developing country, in his article of Bangladesh: On the Ladder of Development. The question is then asked: How do sweatshops positively and negatively affect people here in the United States of America and in other countries around the world?

They often use child labor, lack workers’ benefits, and use intimidation as means of controlling workers (Boal, Mark). Typically, sweatshops are found in developing countries, however, they are also a prevalent problem in many first world countries including the United States. Many manufacturers claim that sweatshops exist in order to keep prices down for consumers, while allowing profit. On the contrary, there is also substantial evidence that goes against these beliefs. For instance, a study showed that while doubling the wage of sweatshop workers would increase consumer price by 1.8%, consumers are willing to pay 15% more with the assurance that the product was made with fair labor (11 Facts About). This, however, is a hard argument seeing as the circumstance was hypothetical and if prices were actually raised, there is no way to assure that consumers would react the same way. Either way, both sides of the argument can agree that the conditions are not good, it is just a matter of analysing the cost vs. the benefit to determine their necessity. This leads to several questions: Are sweatshops a necessary evil, how could they be abolished, and what realistic goals regarding the bettering of worker conditions can be met? Through the answering of these questions, it is easy to see that despite claims of sweatshops bringing opportunities to

Firstly, if sweatshops were not as low paid and the working conditions were not as pleasant compared to first world countries, then companies might as well employ citizens of first world countries, who would probably be healthier. This would not benefit the people in the third world countries, who would slip into poverty and starvation.

There are many views with the problem of utilizing sweatshops in developing economies. Many insist that utilizing sweatshops in developing economies composes exploitation. In certain circumstances, this may be true, but not all. It is an ongoing controversy of demolishing sweatshops and changing the laws of labor. Many anti-sweatshop activist supports the idea of demolishing sweatshops. Activist commonly focus on work conditions and low wages causing them to be ill – formed of the economy as a whole. Taking a deeper look into these developing countries, it is with out of doubt that these countries benefit from sweatshops. Sweatshops should not be demolished because the employees are benefited with income, their economy receives growth and

Ben Powell’s “In Defense of ‘Sweatshops’” article offers an uncommon point of view regarding the necessity of sweatshops. Powell knows that people know about sweatshops, but he offers another angle to the topic. The point he tries to get across is how sweatshops can actually be beneficial to the people in the third world countries, rather than them being a terrible thing. Throughout the article, he brought up some relatively good points, but not all he had to say was backed up with evidence. Therefore, Powell’s article was semi-effective.

Sweatshops are manufacturing facilities run by larger corporations where employees work under poor conditions, long hours, and are paid low wages. Workers in sweatshops often manufacture a majority of the products that consumers purchase in the Global North (This term refers to wealthier nations in the Northern Hemisphere, as opposed to the Global South, which refers to poorer nations in the Southern Hemisphere.) In a piece titled “Women Shopping and Women Sweatshopping: Individual Responsibility for Consumerism”, Lisa Cassidy describes three senses of responsibility that dictate a connected world such as ours today.

With this being said, why do so many companies choose to partner with these organizations? Many people think that companies are only using sweatshops to decrease their labor cost. Even though this is exactly true, after researching, there are positive benefits to a sweatshop. According to Times Magazine, “sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty” (Kristof). Thus, one reason companies choose to work with sweatshops is that they help lift people out of poverty. In addition, after reading Kristof’s article in the Times Magazine, Where Sweatshops Are a Dream, one mother actually hoped her son would be able

Nicholas D Kristof begins his essay by exploring the ideas that factory jobs in poor countries are actually a means of reduce poverty. As noted in his article, “sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause” (paragraph 8, pge 110). Although sweatshop may be harsh, present a better alternative for workers for in poor countries than what is already available to them. The problem he identifies in his article is the fact that many families would rather work at a sweatshop than stay in a dangerous garbage dumps, searching for something to recycle for a change (Kristof). He assumes that his readers know little about sweatshops; furthermore, how difficult and awful the living conditions are. He goes on to say that some of those workers have

According to Marx’s labour theory of value, the value of the product is equal to the amount of labour it takes to produce it (Longofer & Winchester, 2016, p. 125). However, when the product enters the market, it’s value is hiked, often exceeding the original value. An important distinction to note is that the workers do not receive compensation equivalent to the product’s market value. These individuals are overworked and exceeding the necessary labour, which is basically breaking even with the expenses of producing the product. From an objective standpoint, the workers need to exceed the necessary labour in order to gain a surplus for the sweatshop owner. However, the surplus labour can become an exploitative measure in which the majority of the profits are reaped by the owners. Ideally, the surplus revenue is to be shared among the government through taxation and the owners (Powell 2017: Feb 15). The government would then invest into public funding and social issues that would improve the lives of their constituents, especially the lower working class. However, the lax regulations and lack of intervention by the governments regarding wages and working conditions, reveal the governments priorities or interest do not lie in closing down

Rubi Garyfalakis in her article “No sweat?” supports her point of view that sweatshop can be considered as a good solution for women in the third world to live by their own, and that sweatshop sets them free from early arranged marriage (Garyfalakis, 2016). However, those are only the visual surface of an iceberg. What about 91% of the iceberg below the surface of the water of the terminology: sweatshop? A sweatshop is defined as “a shop or factory in which employees work for long hours at low wages and under unhealthy conditions” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Therefore, it is not strongly recommended to fight for things that consequences are overweighed benefits it would bring back to a part of the society including child labor, violation of law, and increasing rate of unemployment.

In many sweatshops, however, the workers are there voluntarily. Even the meager wages earned are more than the undocumented immigrants workers would earn in their home countries. As long as there is a supply of willing workers, sweatshops will flourish.

Sweatshops have been a popular and serviceable “business,” although there are a lot of controversy on whether sweatshops should be banned and hows pay wages should be higher. Many people believe that sweatshops are unfair, cruel and unlawful, whereas others think that sweatshops are a second chance for many people living in developing countries. The dictionary definition of a sweatshop is factory or workshop, especially in the clothing industry, where manual workers are employed at very low wages for long hours and under poor conditions, it is defined by the US Department of Labor as a factory that violates 2 or more labor laws. Sweatshops are a frequent ordeal in many countries, all over the globe, with a variety of perspectives.

Sweatshops and developing countries go hand in hand. Cheap and plentiful labor along with little to no taxation allows big businesses to build factories countries that are on the low end of the economic spectrum. We can see why--if a country is stable enough (i.e. no civil war, civil unrest or corrupt government) and the populace is generally poor, it would be beneficial for a company like Adidas to build factories in such countries in order to maximize their production via cheap labor. Conditions in such factories are often despicable. Dreary work, harsh supervision, difficult and hazardous jobs and frequent accidents along with extremely low pay and very long working hours make the lives of sweatshop workers miserable. However, sweatshops

In his New York Times essay, “What Sweatshops Are a Dream,” writer Nicholas D. Kristof argues that the best way to help people who live in the poorest countries is not to campaign against sweatshops but instead promote manufacturing. (PA 109-111). Kristof’s opinion was influenced by the years he spent living in East Asia; he was able to personally observe how sweatshops affected people’s lives. His purpose was to inform the readers about the importance of sweatshops in other countries. Also, promoting manufacturing in sweatshops and how sweatshops can benefit the people and the economy.

Sweatshops do not alleviate poverty, however, some opinions say that rejecting companies that use sweatshops will leave poor nations in a worse situation than they are now.