Sweatshop Economy - Essay Example

Assignment Ref: Sweatshop May 13, 2006. Sweatshop Economy Introduction “There should be a floor beneath which no one has to live” is a most compelling argument put forth by Tom Hayden and Charles Kernaghan in their article ‘Pennies an Hour, and No Way Up’ which appeared in NYT of July 6, 20021. It is morally and politically impossible to differ with this view. One summons ‘moral and political’ dimensions to the argument since if and when progressive changes are brought about in the conditions of sweatshops, the role of moral and political leaders will be significant for such changes. Corporations are amoral on the one hand and are the pillars of political establishments on the other and the conflict of interests is right in front of us. One has to resolve this conflict, understand the mindset of eastern world before moving to help ease woking conditions in sweatshops. Economic realities Globalization of economies of the world has effectively broken international barriers. As natural as water finding its own level, corporations around the world drift towards cheapest possible resources for their operations. Both raw materials and labor, two of the fundamental factors of production, are available in plenty in the third world countries. End of colonialism in the mid-sixties ensured that the developed countries of the West have to find other ways and means to sustain the high living standards of their citizens. High living standards are made 1. Hayden, T., et al (2002) Pennies an Hour and no Way Up, NY Times. Sweatshops 2 possible by high wages in these countries. Ironically, it is these high and unsustainable wages in the face of competition, that force corporations to look for alternative sources of cheaper labor. Sweatshops in the third world countries are the result of this economic reality. Talking of economic realities, Kristof and WuDunn of NY Times have presented a compelling human story involving the economic and social conditions in a small village in NE Thailand, in their article “Two Cheers for Sweatshops” which appeared in NYT of September 9, 20002. The details are not important for the story, though they are essential for authenticity of the report, but the living conditions, which are interwoven into the story, attract attention. It talks of a decent quantity breakfast at the unimaginable price of 5 cents (albeit with fried beetles and fish bones which can stick in one’s teeth), half clad, unemployed poor men and women in their thirties etc. This scene is typical of many thousands or even hundreds of thousands of villages across the third world countries. India alone has over 600 million rural people living in over 600,000 villages! Most of the poor are either living in rural areas or have migrated to urban areas in search of livelihood. While the official minimum wages for these unskilled poor people is about $2 per day, many have either no work at all or earn as low as $1 a day. In such conditions, any job providing a daily wage at any level is considered a welcome relief, notwithstanding long and arduous hours of work! China is even bigger than India and the conditions in rural China were not much different until late1980s, when that country opened its gates for foreign direct investment and allowed sweatshops on its soil. Kristof and WuDunn made several trips to China from 1987 onwards and found the economic development and increases in the wages even in sweatshops, a pleasantly surprising reality. 2. Kristof, N.D., et al (2000) Two Cheers for Sweatshops, NY Times. Sweatshops 3 Working and living conditions The main objections against sweatshops are not so much against the low and exploitative wages as against the inhuman working conditions imposed by even the enlightened corporations of the first world. Extremely long hours of work, poor or non-existent sanitary conditions, absence of breaks for rest, no weekly off-days, shift work for men and women, lack of medical cover – are typical of the working conditions in sweatshops. These laborers working for famous American corporations produce world famous branded garments, leather goods, toys and many more consumer goods. They are paid piece-rate wages at pitiably low rates, with no guarantee of minimum wages for the hours of work put in. On the other hand, it cannot be forgotten that sweatshops are providing jobs in places where unemployment is chronic and rampant. While this is one side of the picture, for a modern day westerner, accustomed to so much emphasis on materialism and consumerism, it is none-too-easy to appreciate the life styles and living conditions of people, especially of those in the Eastern world. Easterners live frugally, accept ups and downs in life with equanimity, lay much less emphasis on physical comforts or food and find more pleasure in family and community welfare than on self-satisfaction. This reality is brought home to some extent in Kristof and WuDunn’s article, by the way they receive responses from locals to their queries. What is good for the goose may not after all be good for the gander! A Thai worker may look weak and emaciated when compared to his well-fed American counterpart, but the fact is that both manage to get along, with their lives reasonably comfortably; both complain but for different reasons! Does end justify means? From the progressive experience of Taiwan, South Korea earlier and China now, is there Sweatshops 4 a justification for the immoral and sometimes dangerous working conditions prevailing now in other countries? One does not think so. The end does not justify means, in this case. As Tom Hayden and Charles Kernaghan pointed out, it was precisely against such cruel working conditions that reformers like Jacob Riis and Charles Dickens fought and facilitated improvements in the lives of their immigrant ancestors. The present day corporations and law makers should not seek to transplant those terrible working conditions into new territories, they argue. Further, they advocate legislation to put pressure on the corporations by banning purchase of products from sweatshops, meaning, close the sweatshops. On the surface, this is a typical case of cutting the nose to spite the face. Bad jobs are better than no jobs at all! Perhaps there is another underlying fear that prompts such suggestions. Outsourcing is a very sore point and job losses in the western economies is a reality. From garments, toys and leather goods making, the progress to auto-components, industrial goods, and now IT enabled services in all spheres of economic activities are game for outsourcing. From the very low wage, dirty jobs, the needle is slowly but surely swinging in favor of more complex, high wage and clean environment jobs. This development has caused quite a few flutters and protests of its own, in fact much more than the minor altruistic noises on low paying sweatshops. Conclusion Economic factors influence corporation actions. Economic conditions and life styles influence people of the poor countries. Progress from abject working conditions to acceptable standards is taking place, slowly but steadily. This is welcome and should be hastened. In a free world economy, fortunes can change in a matter of few decades and hence enlightened self- interest should govern corporate and government actions. Reference List Hayden, T., Kernaghan, C., (2002) “Pennies an Hour and no Way Up”, NY Times (07/06/2002). Retrieved on May 10, 2006 from http://www.vaxpower.org/~toups/national/1355.html Kristof, N.D., WuDunn, S., (2000) “Two Cheers for Sweatshops”, NY Times (09/24/2000). Retrieved on May 10, 2006 from http://www.eco.utexas.edu/ faculty/Hamermesh/sweatshops.htm Read More