The essay “Where Sweatshops are a Dream” by Nicholas D. Kristof, published in the New York Times, is an unusual stand that you would not hear in everyday life. Nicholas tries to broaden our ideas on sweatshops by narrating the lives of poverty stricken people who have little to nothing in regions like Ghana and Cambodia. He explains that even though the Obama administration and the democrats who favor labor standards and are fighting against sweatshops abroad, that in some places sweatshops are actually a safe haven that bring jobs and protection. Nicholas uses emotion and logic to enhance his argument over sweatshops abroad and how they can help the poor countries labor standards with safety and protection as well as bringing in more jobs to pull people out of poverty. One way you can tell if someone is a credible source is to know where they have been. Nicholas has seen first hand the living standards increase in East Asia because of sweatshop jobs. His wife’s ancestral village in southern China was one of the places that thrived due to the many jobs that sweatshops provided. Knowing that someone has lived through the experience reassures the audience that they know what they are talking about. Nicholas talks to some people at a local dump scavenging through trash looking for sellable items that could provide the little money that recyclers …show more content…
pay per pound in order to survive. Knowing people who have been through poverty and talking to people who are going through it right now helps the audience connect to the writer as he is writing further strengthening his credibility. Working in the elements is never ideal.
Logically one would work indoors out of the heat. Pim Srey Rath, a 19-year-old woman says “I’d love a job in a factory, at least that work is in the shade. Here is where it’s hot” as she scavenges through plastic in the nasty dumps. A simple thing like shade would make all the difference to someone who barely has anything. Protection from the elements, like heat, is a high priority in civilized countries like the US, so why get rid of a factory that provides not only protection from the elements for people like Pim but also for the future generations like Vath Sam Oeun’s 10-year-old
son. Vath Sam Oeun is one of many people Nicholas has talked to. She hopes that one day her son can “[grow] up to get a factory job, partly because she has seen other children run over by garbage trucks.” In the US, factories provide safety laws and sometimes even health insurance, but for Vath it provides a place of security for her son. She is a mother looking out for her child, appealing to the emotional piece of your mind but also has some logic in it. A child is always on top of a parent’s list but also society’s. Nicholas is super effective using emotions and logic to his argument for sweatshops. He narrates these stories in a way that brings out all the emotion that these people are feeling. Throwing in emotion connects the reader to the people so they can better understand what they are going through which strengthens his argument. The logic of safety and protection he makes throughout his essay effectively enhances his argument and pulls his paper together. He shows how sweatshops could bring jobs to poorer countries and help pull them out of poverty. Having the simple logic helps inform the audience quickly and but affectively.
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 individual buying habits?” referring to we can’t end the abuses that those women have by just stopping of buying their products because those women still have to work those long hours because other people are buying their product for less pay or less money. We can’t control and tell what you can buy or what you can’t because that’s up to the person...
Some of the arguments against sweatshops raised by Americans is the they take jobs away from the American people. In the job force it is becoming harder to find an open position any where. Instead of keeping the factories here the companies are shipped over seas, causing millions of job opportunities for Americans to be lost. Some arguments raised by the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) are the poor working conditions, low wages, long hours, and children in the factories. The damp, dark, and cold environment can depress the workers even more than they may be, causing rates in suicide to increase. Low wages is another concern USAS have. The workers barley get enough money to survive.
Look down at the clothes you're wearing right now, chances are almost every single thing you are currently wearing was made in a sweatshop. It is estimated that between 50-75% of all garments are made under sweatshop like conditions. Designers and companies get 2nd party contractors to hire people to work in these factories, this is a tool to make them not responsible for the horrendous conditions. They get away with it by saying they are providing jobs for people in 3rd world countries so its okay, but in reality they are making their lives even worse. These companies and designers only care about their bank accounts so if they can exploit poor, young people from poverty stricken countries they surely will, and they do. A sweatshop is a factory
In his article “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation” Matt Zwolinski attempts to tackle the problem of the morality of sweatshops, and whether or not third parties or even the actors who create the conditions, should attempt to intervene on behalf of the workers. Zwolinski’s argument is that it is not right for people to take away the option of working in a sweatshop, and that in doing so they are impeding on an individual’s free choice, and maybe even harming them. The main distinction that Zwolinski makes is that choice is something that is sacred, and should not be impeded upon by outside actors. This is showcased Zwolinski writes, “Nevertheless, the fact that they choose to work in sweatshops is morally significant. Taken seriously, workers' consent to the conditions of their labor should lead us to abandon certain moral objections to sweatshops, and perhaps even to view them as, on net, a good thing.” (Zwolinski, 689). He supports his argument of the importance of free choice by using a number of different tactics including hypothetical thought exercises and various quotes from other articles which spoke about the effects of regulation business. Throughout the article there were multiple points which helped illuminate Zwolinski’s argument as well as multiple points which muddle the argument a bit.
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.
Some people of North America know about these sweatshop workers, they feel bad and some also protest. They set up NGOs, send funds and donations but they never try to break the tradition of sweatshop working. They all assume that this is best for the society. An Idea can be drawn from William
Some companies have acceded to public pressure to reduce or end their use of sweatshops. Such firms often publicize the fact that their products are not made with Anti-globalization activists and environmentalists also deplore transfer of heavy industrial manufacturing (such as chemical production) to the developing world. Although chemical factories have little in common with sweatshops in the original sense, detractors describe them as such and claim that there are negative environmental and health impacts (such as pollution and birth defects, respectively) on workers and the local community.
There has always been negative attributions attached to the term “sweatshops” or “sweat factories” and there are many legitimate reasons for this. Sweatshops are considered to be any work environment that involves intensive labour and sometimes child labour receiving compensation that is unfair in which the employee’s can hardly survive on. These labourers work for exceedingly long hours in hazardous conditions that
Most sweatshops have been known to be unlawful, but yet it doesn’t stop them to still be around today. Workers working in sweatshops are known to be getting paid small amount of money while working long tiring shifts, sometimes without being allowed to take a break. Many corporations have their products produce in third-world countries such as Guatemala, Pakistan, Vietnam, etc. where it costs them less to produce goods since they are paying their workers almost nothing. It is believed that it
"Samsung Electronics said it has found "evidence of suspected child labour" at a factory of its Chinese supplier Dongguan Shinyang Electronics. The firm conducted an investigation into the supplier after New York-based campaign group, China Labor Watch, accused it of hiring children." - - - BBC - 14 July 2014
Nicholas D Kristof was born in 1959 in Yamhill. He is an American journalist and political commentator. He has traveled different countries in the world. The author begins his essay titled.” Where Sweatshops are A Dream” by talking about as image of what look outside of the sweatshop. The problems he recognizes is that even though Americans want to fight back with these sweatshops. Although the argument is lacking in statistical data, it is certainly not lacking in other logical and emotional appeals that evoke an enlightening new perspective on the topic. He tries to convince his audience, Obama and his team that sweatshop are better opportunity and a way-out poverty. Nicholas gives evidence of how living standards are important
This fact alone implies that a factory job is no where near the worst working situation. As Matt Zwolinski points out in “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation” published by Business Ethics Quarterly, “For the most part, individuals who work in sweatshops choose to do so. They might not like working in sweatshops, and they might strongly desire that... they did not have to do so. Nevertheless, the fact that they choose to work in sweatshops is morally significant” (Zwolinski 2).
Sweatshop is a common term used to refer to factories that typically produce apparel; that have very low wages by modern U.S. standards, long working hours, and unsafe or unhealthy working conditions; that often don't obey labor laws; and that would generally be considered
Globe Trotting Trainers Article on Exploitation of Workers in Lesser Economically Developed Countries The article 'Globe Trotting Trainers' is intended to persuade readers to complain about the exploitation of workers in lesser economically developed countries. The writer tries to persuade the reader to do something about it. The piece is written for teenagers or young adults. I know this because the title of the magazine is 'Young People Magazine.'
These concerns typically include the rights of the children, the responsibility of the parents and employers, and the well-being and safety of the children. In Stefan Spath’s “The Virtues of Sweatshops,” it is made very clear that he, like many others, feel that the general public is highly misinformed on what sweatshops are and what they actually contribute to their respective communities. In the eyes of someone from a developed country, sweatshops and child labor that takes place in them seem primitive and are interpreted as simply a means by which companies can spend less money on employers. He states that when labor unions claim that companies which establish operations in developing nations create unemployment in America, they aren’t really explaining the whole story. The author claims that those who are adamantly protest sweatshops are only telling half the story with a claim like this. He points out in this part that the American people can rest assured that high skilled jobs will not be taken over to developing countries because “– high-skilled jobs require a level of worker education and skills that poorer countries cannot