The Effects Of Free Trade On Economic And Social Human Rights

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.

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?

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2014) emphasizes that everyone has the right to work willingly in healthy conditions, free of discrimination. Article 23 also states that individuals need to be compensated for their work, and have the right to unionize. Though

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

Sweatshops help the distribution of wealth in the world. They make sure that rich first world countries don't simply become richer. Without sweatshops, the population in third world countries would just become poorer and poorer. Several studies have shown that the poverty level of many developing nations has decreased significantly after implementation of mass scale privatization.

In the third world countries such as Vietnam, China, South Korea and Taiwan, we are provided with an example of cheap labour. These corporations could now achieve the benefit of the United States consumer market8, while keeping their costs extremely low in offshore production. The working conditions in the United States were poor for centuries, often little to nothing was done unless a tragedy occurred to influence worker rights by the public. This was the issue during the Industrial Revolution and in the late 20th century. In the United states, improvements have been made and these conditions have disappeared, with the privilege in some agricultural areas. Companies from the United States have moved a considerable amount of their factories

Globalization and sweatshops are in some way positive and universal, but only given that free trade is provided. Governments can sometimes reduce the freedom of trade with very strict regulations. Such as designating what products are considered pharmaceuticals, and the only way that one could import these into the country is by being qualified, by the government, in medicine or pharmacy. Some of these laws set by the government are so strict that it almost seems like another prohibition, but with

Introductory rationale: When it comes to social justice issues, most people believe the government needs to solve the problem. Social justice in sweatshops is no exception. In my research, I have found that what people see as the cause of injustice in developing countries, sweatshops, are actually what is responsible for lifting people up out of poverty. As a result, any sort of government regulation will fail to solve the problem. The audience I am writing for is a diverse group of peers who are concerned with social justice though they may have different solutions and beliefs about the topic. My goal in this draft is to expand their knowledge and show them the benefits of not interfering with the free market.

In conclusion, the topic of free trade is difficult to debate and often controversial as it has advantages but also disadvantages. Nonetheless, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits as it one, contravenes basic moral ideologies, two, makes the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer, and three, jeopardizes our declining environment. All in all, free trade will neither support nor sustain our country to be ethical, prosperous or

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

Abstract: Many countries, industries and people are becoming more affected by sweatshops in different ways because of they’re continuous increase in growth. Sweatshops benefit many developing countries as they provide opportunities of employment to the people living in poverty and benefit the community at large by creating an economic infrastructure that utilizes the country’s resources and increases their tax base. These institutions first came into existence in the early 1800’s and were referred to as dwelling houses, which were local factories that generally had the same idea of the sweatshop that we have in today’s society. There

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

Free trade is exchange of goods and commodities between parties without the enforcement of tariffs or duties. The trading of goods between people, communities, and nations is not an innovative economic practice. Nations are however the main element within a free trade agreement. By examining free trade through three different political ideologies: Liberal, Nationalistic, and Marxist approaches, the advantages and disadvantages will become apparent. Theses three ideologies offer the best evaluation of free trade from three different perspectives.

Free trade has long be seen by economists as being essential in promoting effective use of natural resources, employment, reduction of poverty and diversity of products for consumers. But the concept of free trade has had many barriers to over come. Including government practices by developed countries, under public and corporate pressures, to protect domestic firms from cheap foreign products. But as history has shown us time and time again is that protectionist measures imposed by governments has almost always had negative effects on the local and world economies. These protectionist measures also hurt developing countries trying to inter into the international trade markets.

Furthermore, there is also literature written on the impact free trade has on the gears of an economic state. One of the components is the effects on employment, and how the free movement of goods has impacted on this section. Bassanini and Duval 2006 derive from their works that there is a direct link between free market and unemployment. However, they adhere that there isn’t a lot of research done on the surrounding area. Davis (1998) believes that the advancements in free trade can destroy employment, and have severe consequences. Furthermore, some