Sweatshopping Bunk
Sweatshops
are defined by the U.S. department of labor as a factory violating 2 or more
labor laws.
Just to be
clear, not all "Sweatshops" are actually sweatshops.
Most of you
may agree with one or both of the next two popular opinions:
(the leftist
approach) Making
things overseas is slave labor that forces foreigners to sew together your
shoe's for 15 cents while the company reaps the benefits, don't buy anything
from them if you want to be a good person!
(the
rightist approach) Sweat shops take away needed American jobs and give it to
other countries and we need those jobs, we're in a recession here!
Here's some
reasons why you both may be wrong;
100 years
ago in America, 75% of all the jobs were in the field of food production
(farmers).
Which means
that soon after, 75% of all the jobs in America were gone!
We lost those jobs!
During the
industrial revolution we created new technology and new means of earning an
income! We had steel rails, cars on assembly lines, etc. Had we not "lost
75% of all the jobs" we would literally be a 3rd world country
today.
You would
probably not be reading this right now!
So
(righters) "losing" jobs to poorer countries is good for us, it frees
up the workforce for new types of business and new advancement in technologies
which mean new things to invest in, which means economic growth, higher wages,
and better working conditions!
Why should
poor people have to make all of our stuff so we can stay here and keep getting
rich?
(hypothetical
scenario) Without that shoe factory somewhere in New Guinea, the people of that
nation would have absolutely zero means to purchase clothing, food, and any
sort of housing. By bringing industry to a third world country, we are
completely transforming their landscape. The landscape doesn't look like
America today, but it looks closer to America less than 100 years ago, instead
of an America 500 years ago or more.
Money is
valued differently depending on which country you are in, a country with no
economy basically, a whole dollar goes a lot further than a technologically
advanced economy like America, where we are advanced enough for debt.
So (lefties)
sweat shops paying 25 cents a day to a third world worker is actually
beneficial to their lives and community than if the factory didn't exist at
all!
There is
one issue though:
Working
conditions;
Working
conditions in these factories can be absolutely inhumane similar to America's
working conditions and child labor 100 years ago. With the help of the
industrial revolution, Henry Ford choosing to pay people a livable wage, and
worker's unions, workers in America have certain rights to an environmental
standard. Third world workers do not, while it is not directly "our"
fault that they have poor working conditions but the fault of those richer
people in the country who choose to treat their own workers either well or
poor, it is still something we should consider since we put the factory there
to begin with, that factory is ours and what goes on inside should matter to
us.
Although
there are benefits to third world countries from moving manufacturing overseas,
there are extreme benefits to our own economy and the private businesses that
do so.
It is by
accident that third world workers benefit at all.
Even if the
working conditions in overseas factories are not up to our standards, it's
still way better than their previous working conditions (i.e. working in fields in 100 degree weather for 12 or more hours a day, for half the pay)
In America;
We have a
huge human trafficking and slave labor problem inside the U.S. right now.
We should
absolutely do our best to make sure that working conditions are legal in the
U.S.
As for
overseas factories, we could also do more to improve working conditions as
well.
We have
thousands of sweatshops on our own soil right now, let's deal with those
because in America, there are no worse working conditions than that and we have
certain laws to abide by.
Draw your
own conclusions
Overseas
factories aren't necessarily pure evil but they're not all that altruistic
either.
If you feel
guilty thinking about poor working conditions enough to not buy certain brands
and end up spending more money, that's fine.
If you feel
good about yourself by purchasing that brand knowing that at least some child
is being fed because of it, that's also fine.
No matter
how bad you think they are it is factually an improvement of the situation that
existed without it.
You're both
wrong about why you think what you think. The rest is a matter of opinion.
They benefit
the people and it outweighs the option of not having them, it's just that those
benefits may not be good enough for you and that is when it's a matter of
opinion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment