Where Sweatshops Are a Dream

Sweatshops have been around for centuries, beginning around the late 1880’s. Sweatshops are classified by three main components, long work hours, very low pay and unsafe and unhealthy working environments. Sweatshops are usually found in manufacturing industries and the most highlighted production is clothing corporations, who take full advantage of the low production costs of their products. Many may think sweatshops are a thing of the past but they are still affecting many lives across the nations. There are many ways sweatshops affect lives, but a recent article titled “New study finds ‘more sweatshops than Starbucks’ in Chicago” explains that there are many low wage industry jobs that are violating labor laws in the United States alone. The article also reports how employees who are working in such conditions won’t speak up in fear of the retaliation employers will implement. Analyzing Sweatshops through the lens of the Sociological perspectives will help us better understand the illegal conditions of workplaces that still exist today.

Sweltering heat, long hours, unfair working conditions are a few descriptive words that Americans use to describe a sweatshop. I believe our judgment is being misguided by the success of our nation, and it is imperative we redefine the word “sweatshop”. Individuals that endure life in third world countries know hardships that Americans could not imagine. If we were to recognize these economical differences it may shine a light on why these workers seek sweatshop jobs. In many of these cases, children must work to aid in the family’s survival. If these jobs are voluntary and both parties agree to working conditions, it results in a mutually beneficial arrangement. One of the worst things we can do as outsiders, to help these impoverished

In his opinion essay, “Sweatshop Oppression,” published in the student newspaper, The Lantern, at Ohio State University, writer Rajeev Ravisankar uses his article as a platform to raise awareness about the deplorable conditions in sweatshops. Ravisankar awakens his readers from their slumber and brings to light the fact that they are partly responsible for the problem. His first goal in the essay is to designate college students as conscious consumers who look to purchase goods at the lowest prices. Then he makes the connection between this type of low-cost consumerism and the high human cost that workers are forced to pay in sweatshops. His second goal is to place the real burden of responsibility directly with the companies that perpetuate this system of exploitation. Finally, he proposes what can be done about it. By establishing a relationship that includes himself in the audience, working to assign responsibility to the reader, and keeping them emotionally invested, Ravisankar makes a powerful argument that eventually prompts his student reader to take responsibility for their actions and make a change.

Sweltering heat, long hours, and unfair working conditions are a few descriptive words that Americans use to describe a sweatshop. I believe our judgment is being misguided by the success of our nation, and it is imperative we redefine the word “sweatshop”. Individuals that endure life in third world countries know hardships that Americans could not imagine. If we were to recognize these economical differences it may shine a light on why these workers seek sweatshop jobs. In many of these cases, children must work to aid in the family’s survival. If these jobs are voluntary and both parties agree to work conditions, it results in a mutually beneficial arrangement. One of the worst things we can do as outsiders, to help these impoverished

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?

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.

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

PURPOSE: (relate topic to this audience and establish credibility): The purpose of this topic is to inform the audience about the history of the sweatshops, companies impacted because of allegations, and what improvements and changes have been made to end sweatshops in the U.S. and especially in

1) “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream” is a short article in favor of sweatshops. The author talks about how the living standards rose due to sweatshops when he was a kid (Kristof). This article has a personal story from the author about improving conditions. This makes for a good pathos argument.

A reporter entered Bangkok, Thailand and interviewed the father of a girl who worked in a sweatshop. He said, ''I hope she can keep that job. There's all this talk about factories closing now, and she said there are rumors that her factory might close. I hope that doesn't happen. I don't know what she would do then.'' This man’s daughter was making 2 dollars a day. The man went on to say that most people want jobs like his daughter has, because they pay higher and let you work longer hours than most other available jobs (Wudunn). While people here in the states protest outsourcing to these sweatshops, those working in them are grateful for the jobs they have. Their economies grow because of the additional companies in the workforce, and the United States economy grows as

Sweatshops were never an unusual site in Chinatown, however it was after government action took place against them and the nation’s best media outlets ran in-depth stories, that they gained national attention. People began to hear stories of immigrants working 15-hour days inside filthy garment factories for pay, lower than minimum wages. Over time, sweatshops have gained a negative connotation, which they deserve for the working conditions they have set in place for their employees. To be even rumored of running a sweatshop in New York could destroy your reputation amongst clients as proven by Koichi Utsugi, in an article for the New York Times. After employees from the New York State Department of Labor raided his workplace, Utsugi lost many

By definition a sweatshop is a “negatively connoted term for any working environment considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous. Sweatshop workers often work long hours for very low pay in horrible conditions, regardless of laws mandating overtime pay and or minimum wage”. Many corporations in the United States use sweatshop labor in countries over seas such as China to produce their products at a lower cost. As entailed in the letter from a man born in China, many citizens on these countries resort to factory labor to support themselves to escape other sources on income such as prostitution. Without these corporations usage of oversea sweatshops these employees would be forced to return to self-demeaning jobs such as these.

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.

Some economists believe that sweatshops are ethical and will openly say that they are in support of sweatshop labor. Nicholas Kristof, economist for the New York times writes a story titled “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream”. Kristof travels to Cambodia where he meets several families in the poorest city of Phnom Penh (Kristof). Many of them dream of getting jobs in sweatshops, 19 year old Pim Srey Rath tells Kristof “I’d love to get a job in a factory, at least that work is in shade” comparing it to her current job where she is in the

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