Should We Boycott Third World Sweatshops

Sweatshops a big issue in today’s society, even though their existence can sometimes stay hidden from the public’s eye. A famous author named Berry states, “ most of us get all the things we need by buying them and most of us know only vaguely, if at all, where those things came from; and most of us know not at all what damage is involved in their production. We are almost entirely dependent on an economy of which we are almost entirely ignorant.” The majority of people in the US have no idea where the clothes they are purchasing are actually coming from. Most people would not support the exploitation of their own race of people. If they were able to see and come to realization about what is actually happening they would have a much different change of heart.

A majority of the clothing worn and purchased today in the United States has been manufactured overseas in sweatshops. Since the beginning of factories and businesses, owners have always looked for a way to cut production costs while still managing to produce large quantities of their product. It was found that the best way to cut costs was to utilize cheap labor in factories known as sweatshops. According to the US General Account Office, sweatshops are defined as a “business that regularly violates both wage or child labor and safety or health laws”. These sweatshops exploit their workers in various ways: making them work long hours in dangerous working conditions for little to no pay. Personally, I believe that the come up and employment of these sweatshops is unethical, but through my research I plan to find out if these shops produce more positive than negatives by giving these people in need a job despite the rough conditions.

In the article “Harnessing Our Power as Consumers: Cost of Boycotting Sweatshop Goods Offset by the Benefits,” Ed Finn asserts that contrary to popular belief, consumers can significantly affect the abusive labor policies of global corporations by their purchase decisions. According to Finn, our continued affinity and patronage of cheap foreign products, disregarding the exploitative labor that churns these products, only serves to further impoverish the Canadian populace in the long term. As an average consumer himself, Finn alludes to the fact purchasing locally manufactured products would involve some additional costs. Finn exemplifies this by the effort expended in seeking a locally manufactured cap and paying “four or five times more than

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.

     We as investors and consumers should not only act in our own self-interest, but also in the interest of the common good. Companies should invest their clients’ money in companies that want to eradicate sweatshops, to ensure that their products are made in compliance of labor

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 is a very big epidemic of consumerism within the United Sates and it is a result of the contribution of many factors within our society. It is evident that this is not necessary when one views other communities throughout the world but America has yet to make the changes it needs to solve this problem. A big problem with retailers and producers of products is their use of sweatshops, which are located in and out of the U.S. Sweatshops are a huge problem because they are known for having very low safety standards for their employees and mistreat their employees consistently. The reason they are used is because they can give the company better profits off of their goods.

Thesis statement: Sweatshops, when left to operate without government intervention, are the most efficient way of out poverty.

We should all ask ourselves this; although, we see and hear about how badly there treated in those third world countries, do we really care? We as Americans say we will stop buying the clothing because of how there made. But honestly that’s not true we are still going to buy the clothing we all like and

Almost everyone knows sweatshops are not acceptable places to work or support. Sweatshops, per definition from the International Labor Organization are organizations that violate more than two labor laws (Venkidaslam). There are several arguments against sweatshops. First, is that these organizations exploit their workers. They provide them low wages and some pay below the minimum wage of the home nation. Moreover, these workers are forced to work more than 60 hours per week and are mandated to work overtime. In addition, workers are subjected to unsafe environments and sexual abuse. Finally, sweatshops are known for their child labor, where children below the legal working age are paid extremely small wages. Anyone who is against sweatshops will say, choosing to partner with these organizations are unethical.

Workers are manufacturing products in foreign countries that are shipped to the United States to make a more substantial profit. Sweatshops often have poor working conditions; people are suffering from health issues from hours of hard labor. While one

provides a more specific explanation of this imperative and states; “Act so that you use humanity, as much as in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time and never merely as a means” (Audi, 17). Kantian ethics argues that each person should be treated as valuable and should never be used simply to satisfy the needs of others. Kant would not believe that the ability for sweatshop workers to avoid other “jobs” to receive income is a morally justifiably excuse for oversea factories to exploit workers. Forcing sweatshop employees to work long, exhausting, dangerous shifts for low wages is not treating them as valuable. “Treating people as ends clearly requires caring about their good. They matter as persons and we must at times and to some extent act for their sake, whether or not we benefit from it” (Audi, 17). If a company could raise sweatshop wages, therefore increasing the standard of living for these workers and only experience a 3% profit decrease, they should do it. U.S corporations that use sweatshops across seas are providing employment for poor citizens, however Kant would argue that these people are being used and “We are never to use people- including low-level, readily replaceable employees” (Audi, 17). Kant would see the positive implications sweatshops provide, but he would argue that these corporations need to demonstrate they

Many of the products sold in America, nationwide, are usually not even made by the people of our country or in our country. These products are usually made overseas in sweatshops. Sweatshops is a factory or workshop, especially in the clothing industry, where manual workers are employed at very low wages for long hours and under poor conditions. After knowing the definition of a sweatshop, I believe that sweatshops are permissible but are not morally permissible.

Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the vast range of goods produced overseas and the often horrifying conditions under which workers labored to produce them. College students, activists, and certain scholars were quick to condemn “Sweatshops” and the multinational companies (MNC’s) that used them. However, this initial moral condemnation was based more on a natural sense of horror than moral reasoning, and critics often demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to both the underlying economic conditions that gave rise to the sweatshop phenomenon and to the beneficial consequences of sweatshops for both their employees and the broader economies in which they functioned. As a result, many economists quickly leapt to the