English Research Paper Sweatshop

Scott Welling Professor Cowley English 150 Sec 100 March 20, 2009 The Sweatshop Debate: Morals v. Economics Over the past century, with the introduction of industrialization and globalization, sweatshops have become ever more prevalent around the world. A sweatshop, as defined byWebster’s Dictionary, is “a shop employing workers at low wages, for long hours, and under poor conditions.” Two popular sides of this issue include those that are opposed to the morals, or rather the lack thereof, of sweatshops, while others believe that the economic benefits of these shops are too good to set aside. Activists opposed to sweatshops propose “sweatshop labor ought to be legally prohibited, boycotted, regulated, prohibited by moral norms.” (). On the other side, economists and fellow activists stressing the economic importance of sweatshops attempt to prove that the wages are competitive and that due to consent, the working conditions found withinsweatshops are not amoral. No matter you beliefs about the dilemma of sweatshops, one thing is clear: extremist ideals without compromise will go nowhere. Compromise between the moral and economic aspects of sweatshops is necessary if we wish to improve and maximize the quality of life for workers around the world. One of the largest dilemmas surrounding sweatshops is insufficient, “low” wages. Sweatshop moralists argue that wages, such as the ones fewer than ten cents offered in Bangladesh, could never support a person, let alone their entire family. When considering the wages in foreign countries, it is important to remember that there is a conversion factor involved and that it takes less money to have an adequate life in developing countries. In fact, those who work at sweatshops earn more than the national average and more than those at local factories. Economists Benjamin Powell and David Skarbek performed a study to compare the average wagesof the apparel industry to those places considered to be “sweatshops” in select developing countries. One result shows that “in 9 [of the observed] 10 nations, average apparel industry income exceeds the national average at only 50 hours per week. Apparel workers in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua earn 3 to 7 times the national average”. The concern may be raised that the national average incomes in countries such as Nicaragua, Vietnam, and Bangladesh are not very good in and of themselves. However, the point being argued is not that sweatshops provide an outstanding living. The point being argued is that people working in sweatshops are quite often better off than those around them working in local factories. Another telling result from Powell and Skarbekis that “at 70 hours of work per week, apparel worker earnings in six countries exceed 150 percent of average income per worker, and they more than double the average in three countries”. Solely looking at wages, sweatshop workers are often better off than their counterparts in local industries. In considering a compromise to the sweatshop debate, maintaining these economic benefits should be at the forefront of the argument. Following the wages debate, the next big issue regarding sweatshops is the consideration of the working conditions available to the employees. Complaints of brutal working conditions have been mainstays in the debate over the ethics of sweatshops. Stefan Spath, former executive director of the Foundation for Economic Education, argued that “companies [who] establish factories with appalling work environments don’t stand a chance competing for workers in a free market”. This argument discredits those who claim that poor working conditions are rampant throughout the sweatshop industry. In fact, many sweatshop workers voluntarily agree to work

at these places because they can earn a decent living doing so. When “an agent’s choice, or consent” is given to work in one of these shops, it “alters the normative relations in which others stand with respect to what they may do”. In other words, when someone gives their consent to work in a sweatshop, who’s authority is it to tell them they can’t do so? If it is voluntary, third parties don’t have a lot of say in the matter. Therefore, governments trying to instill regulations in developing countries regarding sweatshops are at a loss. In opposition to this, arguments come that claim just because someone gives their consent to work somewhere, that doesn’t imply the working conditions are adequate, but simply that the financial benefits are good enough to outweigh concerns with working conditions. It is impossible to say that all of the working conditions in these shops are clean and safe for the employees. This is simply not the case. The working conditions of most probably aren’t that great, but keep in mind that the employees give their consent to work there. When considering the compromise between morals and economics, an area of concern is working conditions. Many shops could surely use improvement and this is one area in which those favoring the economic benefits of sweatshops would need to be willing to compromise on.