Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on sweatshops
Advantages to sweatshops
Advantages to sweatshops
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on sweatshops
The thesis statement of this essay is that the use of sweatshops is a complicated and complex issue with no right or wrong answer. In paragraph 2, the topic sentence is that the definition of sweatshops confirms her opinion that the use of sweatshops is unethical. The author also uses Uzbekistan as an example to support her first main topic “thousands of children must pick 10 to 40 kg of cotton per day, earning a wage of 38 cents for their efforts” she also explains how these children carry pesticides in plastic bottles resulting in skin burns when the toxins splash onto their skin. In paragraph 4, the topic sentence is that the issues involving sweatshops are not easy issues to form a solid opinion on, as there are more than one side to the debate. The author supports the main topic in paragraph 4 by using examples from reliable research papers such as Arnold and Hartman and Sachs. For example, “They allow developing countries to expand their exports and consequently to improve their economies.” Another example Garyfalakis uses is “By working in sweatshops, women make a small income, learn about business practices, and benefit from the improved social and economic conditions that come with economic growth.” Both quotations are from expert research papers on the topic of sweatshops and therefore supports the main topic in paragraph 2 …show more content…
The author uses information from reliable expert sources to support her topic ideas. For example, in paragraph 8 Garyfalakis an example from Labor behind the label that states, boycotts “normally result in job losses for workers, thus only adding to the injustice because it is not the workers but the employers whom consumers want to punish.” The authors use of reliable sources support the idea that boycotts raise complex issues. Because consumers do not wish to punish unscrupulous company employees, but the companies and employers
It is often said that products made in sweatshops are cheap and that is why people buy those products, but why is it behind the clothes or shoes that we wear that make sweatshops bad? In the article Sweat, Fire and Ethics by Bob Jeffcott is trying to persuade the people and tell them how sweatshops are bad. 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.
The controversial issue of sweatshops is one often over looked by The United States. In the Social Issues Encyclopedia, entry # 167, Matt Zwolinski tackles the issues of sweatshops. In this article Matt raises a question I have not been able to get out of my head since I have begun researching this topic, “ are companies who contract with sweatshops doing anything wrong?” this article goes on to argue that the people who work in the sweatshops willingly choose to work there, despite the poor environment. Many people in third world countries depend on the sweatshops to earn what they can to have any hopes of surviving. If the sweatshops were to shut down many people would lose their jobs, and therefore have no source of income. This may lead people to steal and prostitution as well. this article is suggesting that sweatshops will better the economy by giving people a better job than what they may have had. Due to this the companies contracting with sweatshops are not acting wrong in any way. This was a deductive article it had a lot of good examples to show how sweatshops are beneficial to third world countries. Radly Balko seemed to have the same view point as Matt Zwolinski. Many people believe the richer countries should not support the sweatshops Balko believes if people stopped buying products made in sweatshops the companies will have to shut down and relocate, firing all of the present workers. Rasing the fact that again the worker will have no source of income, the workers need the sweatshop to survive. Balko also uses the argument that the workers willingly work in the current environments.
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.
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
Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn are Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalists who spent fourteen years in Asia doing research on the country as well as the sweatshops of that country. In their article "Two Cheers for Sweatshops" they sum up clearly the misunderstanding of sweatshops by most of the modern world. "Yet sweatshops that seem brutal from the vantage point of an American sitting in his living room can appear tantalizing to a Thai laborer getting by on beetles." The fact of the matter is that sweatshops in the eyes of the actual workers are not as bad as they are made out to be, by many activists. Though many organizations that oppose sweatshops and their labor practices try to make the point that sweatshops do not have to exist. But one must consider the fact that, the companies that use sweatshops are creating at least some type of jobs for people that gladly accept them.
We Americans demand for cheaper goods and cheaper goods result in a thing called “sweatshops”. Sweatshops are places where they have workers in foreign places working for cheap money because they know they will work for anything to be able to making a living.
As a major contributor to the global economy, Mexico’s sweatshops have contributed to the United States’ wealth and economic growth. It is the unfortunate truth that many individual workers have suffered as a result of this prosperity. The sweatshops, known as maquiladoras, are in debate because of the ethical and lawful reasoning behind their existence and conditions. How can we, as a First-world nation, allow such industries to exist where people are denied basic and fundamental human rights? What, if any, laws and regulations are put into place for the maquiladoras? Are these laws and regulations hindering, harmful, or helpful? Are they enforced emphatically? If not, how does this affect development? After finding an answer to the first question, I began to realize why it is so important to answer the latter questions. As a First-world nation, we allow such industries to exist because as consumer-citizens, we benefit greatly from such industries as the maquiladoras. Subsequently, it is imperative that individuals understand the point of views of the Mexican and United States Governments on such industries and what is being done, or not being done, to stop or prevent the existence and growth of the maquiladoras. From the stance within a pro-worker discourse, the conditions in the maquiladoras are dangerous, hazardous, and harmful to the safety, well-being, happiness, and development of these workers- the majority of whom are female.
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
Globalization and industrialization contribute to the existence of sweatshops, which are where garments are made cheaply, because they are moving production and consumption of those cheap goods. Industrialization has enabled for global distribution, to exchange those goods around the world. They can also set apart the circumstances of consumption and production, which Western countries as mass consumers, are protected from of producers in less developed countries. These factories are usually located in less developed countries and face worker exploitation and changes in social structures. Technological innovation allows for machines to take the place of workers and do all the dirty work instead of workers doing hours of hard work by hand.
Spruce, Hannah. "Methods Of Human Trafficking: Modern Slavery Guidance." High Speed Training Hub. N. p., 2017. Web. 14 Nov. 2017.
Sweatshops, when left to operate without government intervention, are the most efficient way out of poverty especially in developing countries. This argument may feel far fetched, but when examined in the context of those working at sweatshops and the locations sweatshops are most often constructed in, the reason why this is true is apparent. The benefits of sweatshops can be found by examining how they increase living conditions, examining the locations where sweatshops are constructed, and looking at how government regulations on factories don’t help anyone.
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight, and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived, and died in cotton fields, and sweatshops.”- Stephen Jay Gould. Sweatshops exploit people, and children. They take advantage of their poverty, and there need, for a better life. Sweatshops are one of the worst things that ever happened to the business world, and poor people around the world. Sweatshops should be stopped, and ended.
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
Mayer, Robert. "Sweatshops, Exploitation, and Moral Responsibility." Journal of Social Philosophy 38.4 (2007): 605-619.Wiley Online Library. Web. 4 Jan. 2012.