The lower the cost of production the greater the profit; this makes cheap labor especially profitable for large corporations. Everyday jobs are sourced to foreign countries for cheap labor, which can be both devastating and marginally helpful. Sending jobs to forightn nations can be negative and sometimes positive to both countries involved. The people who live in underdeveloped areas most likely live below the poverty line. US companies who locate their factories locations really offering them a job or are the looking for a source of cheap labor? The people in underdeveloped locations are in need for money, for them any job is worth the risk, they do not care what wages they are being paid as long as they can support their families. Sweatshops …show more content…
This can be devastating to the economy of both countries. Country A loses well paid jobs and a major asset to the economy while country B has to deal with low wages that can barely support life and foreign companies controlling their work force. It can be a dual edged sword in a sense that those jobs wouldn't be there in the first place. When it comes to cheap labor the clothing industry is one of the biggest powerhouse "The garment industry is part of the global economy, which is ruled by a free trade system. In this system, a powerful country such as the U.S., negotiates trade agreements with poorer developing countries" (women and sweatshop labor, 2014). While both offering money and jobs this type of work degrades the employee, and if the speak up the get fired, sweatshop workers (and any low wage worker in general) are easily replaceable so they tend to keep their heads down and do the work. “On a global scale, the reign of free market ideology has wrought deep changes. Manufacturing jobs in the developed nations are rapidly shrinking while abroad there has been a rise in sweatshop manufacturing, with conditions reminiscent of the worst of the 19th century. The effect has been to widen the gap between the living conditions of the wealthy and those who labor for them.” (Gregory Elich,
In today’s world, increasing big companies open factories in developing countries but many people said it is unethical and the factories are sweatshops. Most of the sweatshops were opened in east Asia and third-world countries and regions. The companies open the sweatshops in order to get more benefits is a kind of very irresponsible behavior. For example, Apple's factories in China are not good and unethical. Audit finds
...hored, individuals, families, and communities suffer the negative economic consequences due to limited job availability. Most people who work in these industry sectors are blue collars, who are not professional or academically qualified to work in other fields, as a result their job choices are limited, especially when the main industry in that community is to work in the stage of manufacturing. When there is massive unemployment within a single community the loss of manufacturing jobs can threaten consumers, creating other problems in the society that result in economic costs. Such problems may spiral into the loss of one's car or home, personal debt, and the lack of economical means to afford a child's education, thus continuing the cycle of economic poverty. These aforementioned consequences are indirect and important economic effects of offshoring American jobs.
Sweatshops started around the 1830’s when industrialization started growing in urban areas. Most people who worked in them at the time were immigrants who didn't have their papers. They took jobs where they thought they'd have the most economic stability. It’s changed a bit since then, companies just want the cheapest labor they can get and to be able to sell the product in order to make a big profit. It’s hard to find these types of workers in developed areas so they look toward 3rd world countries. “sweatshops exist wherever there is an opportunity to exploit workers who lack the knowledge and resources to stand up for themselves.” (Morey) In third world countries many people are very poor and are unable to afford food and water so the kids are pulled out of school and forced to work so they can try to better their lives. This results in n immense amount of uneducated people unaware they can have better jobs and that the sweatshops are basically slavery. With a large amounts uneducated they continue the cycle of economic instability. There becomes no hope for a brighter future so people just carry on not fighting for their basic rights. Times have changed. 5 Years ago companies would pay a much larger amount for a product to be made but now if they’re lucky they’ll pay half, if a manufacturer doesn't like that another company will happily take it (Barnes). Companies have gotten greedier and greedier in what they’ll pay to have a product manufactured. Companies have taken advantage of the fact that people in developing countries will do just about anything to feed their families, they know that if the sweatshop in Cambodia don't like getting paid 2 dollars per garment the one in Indonesia will. This means that there is less money being paid to the workers which mean more will starve and live in very unsafe environments. Life is
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.
The injustice that transpires within these workspaces evoke disparate responses from concerned citizens. From reading Bob Jeffcott’s article “Sweat, Fire, and Ethics,” the reader is challenged to urge their governments and educational institutions to condemn the exercise of exploitation of sweatshops be demanding evidence of improvements in working conditions. In Jeffrey D. Sachs excerpt “Bangladesh: On the Ladder of Development,” the working conditions of the women factory workers in Bangladesh is revealed yet the reader is persuaded to support these sweatshops because it is the only opportunity that these women have to gain a better life for themselves and their families. Upon reading both pieces, it is evident that sweatshops do not necessarily need to end completely, yet the business strategies employed within these facilities that negatively affect the workers must be monitored and addressed by the government in order for these companies to abandon labor
USAS is a group of college students who want to either do away with sweatshops completely or use governmental policies to improve them to their standards. In an interview with John Stossel of ABC News, they tried to explain to him their reasons for opposing sweatshops. One of the main leaders of USAS said, “Workers have no choices about what their lives are, they have to go to work in these factories. The workers themselves have come to us and said ‘You benefit from our exploitation, give us back something.’” The young man was talking about sweatshop workers and workers around their university, but the main idea applies to all sweatshops. Is this true? Do the workers in these poor Third-World countries feel like they are being
Linda Lim, a professor at the University of Michigan Business School, visited Vietnam and Indonesia in the summer of 2000 to obtain first-hand research on the impact of foreign-owned export factories (sweatshops) on the local economies. Lim found that in general, sweatshops pay above-average wages and conditions are no worse than the general alternatives: subsistence farming, domestic services, casual manual labor, prostitution, or unemployment. In the case of Vietnam in 1999, the minimum annual salary was 134 U.S. dollars while Nike workers in that country earned 670 U.S. dollars, the case is also the similar in Indonesia. Many times people in these countries are very surprised when they hear that American's boycott buying clothes that they make in the sweatshops. The simplest way to help many of these poor people that have to work in the sweatshops to support themselves and their families, would be to buy more products produced in the very sweatshops they detest.
Corporations seek out countries with cheap labor forces to lower their production costs. Consequently, they will engage in practices, such as banning labor unions and selecting a passive labor force, which frequently consists of young women, to ensure their policies on low wages are met with little or no resistance. Ultimately, in order to attract investments of multinational corporations, governments in third world nations must compete against each other to exploit their own labor force to supply the cheapest products. Furthermore, instead of sharing the profits with the workers, corporations spend most of the money saved from the labors on advertising and celebrity spokespeople.
The U.S government should oppose global sweatshops because of the many labor injustices done to those workers such as unfair wages, inequities among workers, the working conditions in those sweatshops, and much more that will be discussed in this essay.
I. Introduction A sweatshop is a workplace where individuals work with no benefits, inadequate living wages, and poor working conditions (Dictionary.com). Sweatshops can be found all around the world, especially in developing nations where local laws are easily corrupted: Central America, South America, Asia, and in certain places in Europe (Background on Sweatshops). China, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Bangladesh are the main places where most sweatshop products are made (McAllister). Often, sweatshop workers are individuals who have immigrated and are working in other countries.
Americans do not realize the amount of clothing we wear on a daily basis is actually made in Cambodia, such as Adidas and even the Gap. The women that work for these sweatshops in Cambodia sew for 50 cents an hour, which is what allows stores in America, such as H&M to sell inexpensive clothing (Winn, 2015). The conditions these Cambodian workers face are a noisy, loud, and extremely hot environment where people are known for having huge fainting attacks. When workers were on strike a year ago, authorities actually shot multiple people just because they were trying to raise their pay. There is plenty of evidence of abuse captured through many interviews of workers from different factories, and is not just a rarity these places see often or hear of. Factories hire children, fire pregnant women because they are slow and use the bathroom to much, scream at regular workers if they use the toilet more than two times a day, scam hard working employees with not paying them their money they worked for and more, and workers are sent home and replaced if 2,000 shirts are not stitched in one day. Expectations are unrealistic and not suitable for employees to be working each day for more than ten
...orking environments for their factory employees. Even with international groups and organizations keeping a constant watch on companies who outsource work to impoverished countries, there is often little that can be done to control these companies. Lack of local enforcement and overlooked international law makes it easy for money-hungry companies to get away with morally wrong behavior. By bringing attention to these types of situations and not supporting companies who do not treat their workers fairly, executives will be hit where it hurts them the most, their pockets. When their profits decrease, they will be forced to look for alternatives to manufacture their products.
Large corporations seeking the extra dollar to pocket are willing to spend whatever it takes to reduce the cost of production and increase profit margins. Doing whatever it takes in some instances can help men moving operations overseas to developing countries who are glad to be working. These developing countries unemployment rates are extremely high, so any job that pays is great to have. Americans lose jobs to foreign workers because the American economy is one of the largest in the world and its citizens enjoy great standards of living, when juxtaposed with a city of the same size in Taiwan. Labor costs play a huge and crucial role in corporations, which in turn pay the profits to the corporate giants who run, manage, and own the businesses.
...every corner of the globe. When those low costs occur as a result of inferior, and even illegal, working conditions, then sweatshops are a major global problem. A possible solution would be to change, or at least modify, the conditions under which sweatshops continue to function. Universal workers rights, with minimum age and minimum wages could be a solution. Still, certain countries will always have the advantage of low cost labor and will exploit that advantage in the international marketplace. However, the disparity between the great differences in labor cost can be lessened, but it can best be done by continuing to promote world free trade and continuing to improve the quality of life in developing nations, where low cost labor is most abundant.
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