The Benefits of Sweatshops - Essay Example

The Benefits of “Sweatshops” Sweatshop is a term that has immense emotional, historical and moral connotations. It induces in the reader’s mind an imagery that includes women and children slaving away long hours in the workplace under adverse working conditions and environment and with a remuneration for their services that is much less than they deserve to compensate for their daily toils. What strikes a stronger and more emotionally deep chord with the audience is how the blame for keeping sweatshops in operation falls completely on the shoulders of the average consumer. The reason for this is that, when a customer buys a product that is manufactured in a sweatshop then he/she is providing economic support to them by inducing demand. Thus, if discourse is to be centered strictly on morals, the average consumer is found guilty in entirety. However, the more important question that should be pondered over is what is the average consumer specifically guilty of? To make this clear, we need to define the term “sweatshop”, however like most subjects of economic discourse that are under hot debate, the very definition of this term remains controversial. Sweatshops use a particular method of production but cannot be completely tied to one type of industry. Sweatshops also have a legal connotation. The U.S. General Accounting Office characterize a sweatshop as “an employer that violates more than one federal or state law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, workers compensation, or industry regulation.” However, this definition is too constricted and not wide enough to be applied to the term as a standard definition. Furthermore, it makes it seem like the attachment of negative moral connotations is inherent to sweatshops. (Zwolinski, M., 2006). In his article “The Case for Sweatshops”, David R. Henderson talks about why sweatshops are actually economically very beneficial and not inherently bad as implied by the people who study it in an isolated moral context. This article cites an instance where a female sweatshop worker when asked during an interview urges people to be more forthcoming in buying the products people like her spend hours making. Where on one side, people who oppose the existence of sweatshops, their working environment and conditions, they forget that on the other side, sweatshops form an important part of economic activity in third world countries by providing jobs in large numbers to people who would otherwise be unemployed and cause a strain on their economy. The author makes a very substantial point here, in that a job whether it is of a high level or a low one is a consensual exchange. The person applying for the job thinks him/her suitable for the job and if the employer agrees then the person is hired. No one is forcing anyone to work in sweatshops, this is not slave labor. These jobs are often the best alternative option available to people like the one cited in this article in third world countries. There are even instances where people in these countries have left lower paying jobs that had even worse working conditions to start work in sweatshops because in their circumstances a job in a sweatshop was a far better option. Sweatshops also form a vital stepping stone in the economic development of third world countries. The first world is very different from the third world, their demographics are different and their economies have different characteristics and thus the issues they face are also completely different in nature and magnitude. Where in first world countries, child labor is considered inhumane; in third world countries the practice of child labor is vital for the economic sustenance of many households. If these children were forced to quit their jobs because the first world thought child labor was unethical and these children should rather be in schools, those that brought about this change should see how far reality is from the first world’s theory for the third world. In Bangladesh, when sweatshop owners were forced to fire underage labor this resulted in a spike in the numbers of children that were forced into prostitution and starvation. This is because their families cannot afford to feed them otherwise and the economies of countries like Bangladesh are not strong enough to take on completely the responsibility for taking care of these children. So in hindsight, working in sweatshops was probably the better option for the majority of these kids. The author claims that in spite of all this, the National Labor Committee remains determined to put legal barriers against sweatshops and to convince the consumers to not buy any products manufactured in the numerous sweatshops set up in third world countries. The author says this is because; they don’t really care about the labor force in third world countries. They are actually only concerned about the unionized American labor force and shutting down sweatshops in third world countries is just a way to eliminate competition on the production end for first world countries. (Henderson, D. R., 2000). Sweatshops are also part of the process for globalization to take place. Disputes and debates that are based on labor practices around the world are central to the discourse about globalization. People who find fault with these working conditions and globalization in general want to erect legal barriers against sweatshops based on their working conditions. On the other hand, the case for sweatshops is built on the fact that by exploiting an economy’s labor force, sweatshops boost that economy’s trade levels. This in turn results in economic growth, which increases the job availability in the economy. If left to market forces, this will act as an incentive to sweatshop owners to improve working conditions of they want to retain and attract employees. If they don’t, the employees will just fond better work elsewhere and until they don’t, their current jobs remains the best available alternative for them. The operation of sweatshops is just a step in the evolution and development of third world economies, it ensures them future prosperity and growth and better working conditions by making it possible to make cheaper goods and exploiting the advantage they have in terms of cheap labor. Jobs, even those at lower levels provide employees with more experience and training and these skills acquired while on the job become a benefit for the whole economy. The benefits from sweatshops therefore are realized when they give rise to economic growth by allowing these developing economies to attract foreign business and investment by using low labor costs to their full advantage. (Hartman, L. P. and Arnold, D. G.). Tony Palmer, at the Cato Institute, a free market Think Tank in Washington D.C. says that parties who oppose globalization and its drivers have “very primitive ideas of economics”. Palmer is a strong advocate of globalization because it strengthens the world economy, minimizes the income and wealth gap and is better for the overall good. Why then, one wonders is there such controversy generated by issues that center on globalization and its drivers, for example sweatshops. One reason for this could be how the first world refuses to acknowledge any benefits gained by this process by the third world and continue to label it oppressive and unfair and to prove their case these people use the working conditions of sweatshops in third world countries as evidence. Tony Palmer is one of the people who see the apparent economic benefits of operating sweatshops. Sweatshops increase the job opportunities available to people in third world developing countries. And sometimes may even offer better wages and working conditions as compared to other jobs available to these people. As a vital component of the process of globalization, sweatshops have great economic value. Globalization has been seen to considerably decrease the absolute poverty level of the world by about 10% in the 12 years leading up to 2003. And countries that remain in absolute poverty are those who refuse to fully embrace globalization and free trade. (Speck, C., 2003). Not many people who belong to the labor force of a first world country would prefer working in a sweatshop operating in a third world country, however it is important to not forget the context in which these jobs are available to the people who work in them. Studies have shown that people in third world countries often prefer to work in sweatshops as compared to alternative employment in the form of agricultural work or street vending. This is because as compared to alternatives which may provide them no or fluctuating income, sweatshops provide them a steady, if low income and in case they better their skill set and find a better more suitable job they can always make that switch. (Skarbek et al.). Works Cited Arnold, D. G. and Hartman, L. P. Beyond Sweatshops: Positive Deviancy and Global Labor Practices. Skarbek, D. et al. Sweatshops, Opportunity Costs, and Non-Monetary Compensation: Evidence from El Salvador. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Speck, C. 2003. Globalization: the Secrets of the Trade. Carolina Review, Vol. 10, No 5. Henderson, D. R. 2000. The Case for Sweatshops. Hoover Daily Report. Zwolinski, M. 2006. Sweatshops – Definitions, History, and Morality. Social Issues in America: An Encyclopedia. Read More