Sweatshops: A Synonym for Success
At first glance, sweatshops seem like terrible, horrible, inhumane markets. The term “sweatshops” has a negative connotation and directly implies appalling working conditions. While sweatshop conditions cannot be justified (aside from cutting costs) there are other points of view to consider. The conflicting points of view of three scholars from different background all support sweatshops in one form or another.
The first article I will discuss is Improving the Conditions of Workers?. Within the first paragraph of this article, Harrison and Scorse immediately argue a popular justification for low wage workers. They state that the idea of sweatshops remedying the condition of poor people in developing countries …show more content…
He holds an unpopular opinion and understands that his views may be seen as immoral or naïve in the eyes of people who do not consider his point of view. The most common view is that big wig capitalists are the sole beneficiaries of globalizations and the transfer of technology to third world countries. Krugman argues that not only to the capitalists’ benefit, but the low wage workers benefit as well. Unfortunately, workers in the factories are paid very little and work in terrible conditions as a result of the business. The businesses behind these factories cut costs by paying workers very little and can continue to do so because workers so desperately need money and jobs (Krugman, 1997). When looking at statistics, the cities that have low wage job are growing significantly more rapidly than city that do not (Krugman, 1997). The growth of manufacturing has a ripple down effect on the rest of the city and removes stresses from other areas such as the physical land resources. There is a less intense desire for work once jobs are more readily available and this results in more satisfied and independent citizens. The alternative to low wage jobs is scavenging and living in dumps and landfills. Overall, these low paying jobs are better than the alternative (Krugman, 1997). Why not simply pay the workers more? The working class makes very …show more content…
The article begins by stating many different ideas and points of view. It goes back and forth between the positive and negative effects of sweatshops. The article also addresses how big corporations and powerful governments (like the United States) can help to combat sweatshops and low wage workers. As the article progresses an anti-sweatshop theme develops as a result of a one-time success in Indonesia. Paul Krugman uses his article, In Praise of Cheap Labor, as an occasion to shed light on sweatshops and low wage jobs. He provides an unpopular point of view and supports it with many facts. There are many considerations to be made when discussing sweatshops and while the individual’s well being is incalculably important there is another big picture at play- the nation’s economic status. Sweatshops are an important part of a thriving and growing economy for many developing and third world countries. Without sweatshops, there would be no way for the poorest of the poor to have a fighting chance. At the very least, sweatshops give people who are uneducated and untrained the opportunity to provide for themselves and become more self sufficient than they have ever been in their
At first glance, sweatshops seem like terrible, horrible, inhumane markets. The term “sweatshops” has a negative connotation and directly implies appalling working conditions. While sweatshop conditions cannot be justified (aside from cutting costs) there are other points of view to consider. The conflicting points of view of three scholars from different background all support sweatshops in one form or another.
The first article I will discuss is Improving the Conditions of Workers?. Within the first paragraph of this article, Harrison and Scorse immediately argue a popular justification for low wage workers. They state that the idea of sweatshops remedying the condition of poor people in developing countries …show more content…
He holds an unpopular opinion and understands that his views may be seen as immoral or naïve in the eyes of people who do not consider his point of view. The most common view is that big wig capitalists are the sole beneficiaries of globalizations and the transfer of technology to third world countries. Krugman argues that not only to the capitalists’ benefit, but the low wage workers benefit as well. Unfortunately, workers in the factories are paid very little and work in terrible conditions as a result of the business. The businesses behind these factories cut costs by paying workers very little and can continue to do so because workers so desperately need money and jobs (Krugman, 1997). When looking at statistics, the cities that have low wage job are growing significantly more rapidly than city that do not (Krugman, 1997). The growth of manufacturing has a ripple down effect on the rest of the city and removes stresses from other areas such as the physical land resources. There is a less intense desire for work once jobs are more readily available and this results in more satisfied and independent citizens. The alternative to low wage jobs is scavenging and living in dumps and landfills. Overall, these low paying jobs are better than the alternative (Krugman, 1997). Why not simply pay the workers more? The working class makes very …show more content…
The article begins by stating many different ideas and points of view. It goes back and forth between the positive and negative effects of sweatshops. The article also addresses how big corporations and powerful governments (like the United States) can help to combat sweatshops and low wage workers. As the article progresses an anti-sweatshop theme develops as a result of a one-time success in Indonesia. Paul Krugman uses his article, In Praise of Cheap Labor, as an occasion to shed light on sweatshops and low wage jobs. He provides an unpopular point of view and supports it with many facts. There are many considerations to be made when discussing sweatshops and while the individual’s well being is incalculably important there is another big picture at play- the nation’s economic status. Sweatshops are an important part of a thriving and growing economy for many developing and third world countries. Without sweatshops, there would be no way for the poorest of the poor to have a fighting chance. At the very least, sweatshops give people who are uneducated and untrained the opportunity to provide for themselves and become more self sufficient than they have ever been in their