Are Sweatshops Necessarily Evil?
...wsuit against Levi Strauss & Co. had not yet been settled. On the other end of the argument is Allen R. Meyerson. He, in fact, expresses the point that not only are sweatshops needed to boost the economy of underdeveloped countries, but they are also beneficial to our own economy (Meyerson, pp 257-259, 1997). Another factor that many seem to miss is that, even though the conditions in the sweatshops are substandard, they provide jobs. For many, sweatshops offer a means income. The pay from these sweatshops may not seem fare. In the town of Villa Altagracia, workers can expect to take home forty dollars a week for working 56 hours, hardly enough to support a family (Unite, 2000). However, not all workers complain. In northeastern Thailand, a fifteen-year-old girl works in a factory located in Bangkok. She works six days a week and makes two dollars a day after working nine hours (Kristof, & WuDunn, 2000). Not only did her father approve of her working there, but he worried that the factory would shut down. The conditions she works under are no better than any other sweatshop. In fact, she was injured on the job. Twice she had needles go through her hands. Her father was not “indifferent to his daughter’s suffering; he simply had a different perspective from ours” and was glad that his daughter had the opportunity to work (Kristof, & WuDunn, 2000). Another factory in Dongguan had women working around twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Many of the women “seemed to regard it as a plus that the factory allowed them to work long hours” simply because it gave them a chance to make more money (Kristof, & WuDunn, 2000). When trying to point out that sweatshops are “evil,” Susan Black’s article, “Ante Up,” does not give sufficient reason as to why she feels that way. The main focus in the article was the retailers’ responses of how to resolve the conditions of sweatshops. Many agreed that something should be done; yet none gave a response that would lead to a concrete resolution. In fact the comment made by Cheryl Tiegs shifted the burden of proof onto the consumer by saying, “the customer can’t have its cake and eat it too” (qtd. in Black, p254, 1996). A consumer may buy a product not knowing that it was made in a sweatshop. When a celebrity chooses to endorse a product, he or she should investigate to make sure they know exactly what it is that they are representing. Allen Meyerson, on the other hand, makes his position very clear. He provides sufficient evidence that sweatshops are not only needed, but are an integral part in economic growth. “Economists like Jeffrey D Sachs of Harvard and Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute Of Technology say that low-wage plants making clothing and shoes for foreign markets are an essential first step toward modern prosperity in developing countries” (Meyerson, p.257, 1997). By using impressive statistics as well as professional sources, Meyerson seems to transform the dreary sweatshops into “unsung heroes” of the economically challenged. He does this by selective sampling. Meyerson focuses strictly on the economic side of sweatshops. He stresses that the national incomes of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan “climbed from about 10 percent to 40 percent of American incomes” through the export of products made in sweatshops (Meyerson, p.257, 1997). Here, the key word is “export.” Meyerson’s article concentrates mostly on the benefits these sweatshops have on growing nations. However, he very briefly mentions one other beneficiary: The United States. When speaking of China, Indonesia, and Mexico, Meyerson states, “Corporate America’s manufacturing investments in developing nations more than tripled in 15 years to $56 billion in 1995- not including vast numbers of plants there that contract with American companies” (Meyerson, p.257, 1997). Meyerson reveals the American economic dependence on the survival of sweatshops. As with many debates, the credibility of the debaters can play a serious role. When two presidential candidates debate an issue, those who watch take into account the experience of the two men. Did they serve in the army? Did they hold a seat in the senate? How much experience do they have in politics? Where did they go to school? What type of degree did they receive? Do they have a criminal history? The answers to these and many other questions help the audience to choose what candidate they feel is more suitable for the job. In the case of sweatshops, Susan S. Black and Allen R. Meyerson do not have an adequate amount of experience dealing with the issue. They are not professors, or economists, and neither has won the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize. Susan S. Black is the publisher of “Bobbin Magazine” and Allen R. Meyerson is a journalist who contributes to the “New York Times.” They are simply seasoned writers who choose a topic that interested them. These two writers, however, attempt to convey the reasoning behind their viewpoint. Though Allen Meyerson does not have actual experience dealing with sweatshops, he was thorough in his research. He provided factual statistics and utilized the experience of economists such as “Jeffrey D. Sachs of Harvard and Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology” to support his position (Meyerson, p.257, 1997). Susan Black, on the other hand, did not provide evidence as to why sh...