Introduction
In Defense of “Sweatshops”, Benjamin Powell argues that since sweatshops are better than their alternatives, any reforms aimed at enhancing the lives of workers in sweatshops should not jeopardize jobs that these workers already have. In this article, Powell clearly discusses the economic nature of sweatshops. Powell begins his discussion with a number of images and personal travel stories. He uses these images to demonstrate normal working conditions in developing nations. Nevertheless, Powell does not realize that when he protests against sweatshops, he is contributing to destruction of little opportunities that poor people in third world countries have (Powell). Considering some examples, especially in Cambodia, pressure from numerous corporates to close sweatshops has led to many children either starving or engaging into prostitution. Therefore, it is essential that do-gooders in western countries clearly review lectures such as the one Powell was giving in order to understand their ideas before spreading them globally. As an element that connects different nations in the world, economics is capable of counter intuitive aspects. Therefore, people need to stop guessing that they understand things, which they do not.
Summary
In Defense of “Sweatshops” Powell talks about how wages in sweatshops need not be viewed as negatively as people view them. In the article, Powell states that, “workers in Honduras earn less than $1 to $2 in a day” (Powell). Additionally, Powell reveals the exposure of Kathy Lee Gifford’s sweatshops as well as the reasons to the reactions Kathy gave. He suggests that Kathy`s reactions may not be appropriate. In the Article, Powell uses the phrase “Do no cry for me, Kathy Lee. Instead cry for Hondurans who are not fortunate enough to work in your organization” (Powell). According to Powell, sweatshop workers earn 31% in an hour, and are compared to North America’s standards. However, while this is considerably low, when compared to Honduran average, it is not the case (Jeffery). Powell argues that the working conditions of sweatshops are better than the average. However, Powell does not hold any biases towards any appreciation of sweatshops. He uses statistical data and other essential pieces of information, which are always overlooked by activists and people who live in MDC’s.
Analysis
Powell’s article is contrary to many American and world views, which are based on the overall society stigmas of sweatshops. In this article, it is clear that Powell is defending sweatshops. His arguments are widely supported by logic and reasons. For instance, his first example suggests that sweatshop workers do not have alternatives to earn a living. Powell uses a logical example of a Bangladesh sweatshop factory that closed and left more than 50,000 children with no alternative, but to engage into pornography. Powell has also used this example to suggest that money earned by sweatshop workers in developed countries is higher than what sweatshop workers in developing countries are earning. Additionally, Powell has used the Bangladesh example to argue that there is no systematic alternative to sweatshop factories. Therefore, it will be hard to replace them rather than attempting to reform them. It is essential to note that, Powell presents a well supported argument. He conducted research and came up with information that can be used to sway a radical activist.
Powell discusses economic forces, which are used to determine the working conditions and wages of sweatshop workers. From an empirical data perspective, Powell finds that sweatshops workers earn higher wages compared to non-sweatshop workers in different developing countries. In his conclusion, Powell recommends activists that want to actually aid sweatshop workers.
However, even though Powell`s argument can be used to prove the advantages of working in a sweatshop factory, common facts about sweatshops as exhibited from the article, and in Humboldt State University newspaper provides evidence that sweatshops have harsh working conditions and do not recognize workers rights and safety (Jeffrey). A number of activists have shown great interest in participating on human rights assemblies to fight against sweatshops. However, according to Powell, people work in sweatshops for certain reasons. For instance, people work in sweatshops so as to support and provide basic needs to their families.
Most sweatshops are located in third world countries. This is because their daily wage businesses as well as corporations given to workers are less compared to what the corporation or business receives as gross revenue (Kline). Many people have agreed to this statement and justified it, stating that people living in third world countries are most attracted to the money that is being offered by sweatshop factories. This notion leads to the second statement in Powell’s article; the money that labourers earn on a daily basis is often higher compared to the country’s average wage (Kline). Considering the examples provided in the article, it is proper to argue that support for sweatshops is valid and significant. Even though, they are considered to be the worst places one should work in, they are better than the available alternatives. For instance, it is better for a child to work in a sweatshop than to become a prostitute.
However, despite Powell`s effort to support sweatshops, ethics does not feature in this article. Even though there are happy, Hondurans working in sweatshops and not roaming on streets as prostitutes, Powell forgets to talk about wages that are withheld, violent forces, and rape cases that are common in sweatshops (Kline). To some people, this is not different from exploitation. What Powell did is mask such incidents suggesting that, labourers in sweatshops radically bundle their costs as well as benefits and voluntarily chose to work in such risky environments since it is much better than other alternatives (Clair, p.133).
Response
In response to Powell’s article, one may suggest that workers in sweatshops are better off when earning two dollars in a day and facing sexual abuse or violence offences rather than being unemployed. While this makes sense in Powell’s perspective, it is not easy to comprehend and appreciate sweatshops. Considering human rights, classic liberal argument sounds somehow heartless, even for the love of free markets. Economic approach that is pure attempts to commodify what cannot be commodified, making violence another cost.
In his argument, Powell highlights one key point. He asserts that if a person has chosen to work in a sweatshop, then the sweatshop must be better than available alternative. This argument is backed by a tragic example depicting a famous 1993 case where the US senator Tom Harkin proposed to terminate all imports from nations that employ children in sweatshops. To respond to this ban, a company situated in Bangladesh was forced to lay off more than 50,000 children. While this seemed to be the best thing to do, the alternative for most children was to engage in prostitution.
However, in my point of view, the probability of one’s boss accurately is not possible especially when he or she is points a gun to one`s head so as work overtime. A human being that is rational cannot take a job when he is expecting to face violence or sexual abuse. However, as Powell suggests, it will be hard to eradicate sweatshops. As such, understanding the relationship between sweatshops and human rights is highly essential.
In Powell’s point of view, sweatshop activists forget that they are damaging their cause and not helping it when they bash sweatshops factories. This might be true considering that sweatshops activists should be promoting sweatshop factories so that they can be used as a base for future economic development. From Powell’s Perspective, sweatshops can be used as a stage towards economic development of a country that is trying to transform from agricultural substances to industrialization (Powell). Nations such as Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong are some of the examples that Powell has used to prove that sweatshops can be used to raise people’s living standards.
Conclusion
Considering this article and the example used by Powell, it is true that working in sweatshops is much better than roaming on streets or prostituting. The same case is also essential considering that most sweatshops are situated n third world countries where the population is high and jobs are few. However, the article lacks some form of ethical perspective since it does not recognize employee rights and other safety issues that most workers in sweatshop are going through. As such, I believe it is wrong to think out that someone prefers working in a harsh condition due to lack of alternatives.
Work cited
Clair, Robin Patric. "Engaged Ethnography and the Story(ies) of the Anti-Sweatshop Movement." Sage 12(2) (2012): 132 –145.
Kline, John M. "Michael Morgenstern for The Chronicle; Caption: How Colleges Can Improve the Lives of Sweatshop Workers 1." Chronicle of Higher Education 59(10) (2012): 104 - 104.
MacDonald, G. Jeffery. Is it ethical to keep buying clothes from Bangladesh? 27 5 2013. ISU. 19 7 2013.
Powell, Benjamin. In Defense of "Sweatshops". 2 6 2008. http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html. 18 7 2013.
