[SOC100-L:515] final 	When Americans hear the term ï¿½sweatshopï¿½ they automatically assume the 
worst.  And if God forbid you think differently or you see the positive side 
of the issue, you are rudely stared at, mocked behind your back, not to 
mention that you will be labeled a heartless person that agrees with the 
suppression of less fortunate countries.
	According to Websterï¿½s Dictionary, the meaning of sweatshop is, ï¿½A shop 
where employees work long hours at low wages under poor working conditionsï¿½. 
  In this essay we shall use this term to mean American owned factory 
located in third world countries.  The conditions, wages, and working 
conditions are not necessarily poor nor abusive.
	When I started research on this topic, I realized that everywhere you turn 
you find negative media advertising.  Even if the topic you search was 
clearly ï¿½Pros of Sweatshopsï¿½, you find three links that are in fact pros 
followed by 1,163 links about all the horrors and terrors that sweatshops 
are.  Seems rather biased to me.  All of America sees all the negatives on 
the news.   Harvard students are screaming about the injustices.  But I 
donï¿½t see trendy American women complaining when they can buy that cute 
blouse for eight dollars.
	When I started reading about modernity and the theories related to it, my 
reaction was ï¿½no no no we canï¿½t have thisï¿½ I went as far as to believe to go 
backward into traditional society then to go forward into modernity.  But 
alas it is not possible, and the more we studied modernity, the less 
horrible it seemed.  Then when the sweatshop issues came up, I felt 
completely torn.  While I disagree with the modernity theory, I realized 
that some sort of compromise must be reached not only between the global 
economies of the world but also within my own beliefs.
	Firstly, the people that work at sweatshops are not being kept there 
against their will. Itï¿½s not as if they were shanghaied and are being held 
at gun-point at these factories.  That would require a lot more workers now 
wouldnï¿½t it?  These people, if they were not working in a factory, would be 
working in fields, perhaps harder labor and poorer wages.
	Sweatshops actually improve working conditions in third-world countries.  
For example, women were working in fields in Malaysia could get up to $180 a 
month, however if they went to work for Motorola, they could get up to $300 
a month.  In addition, the women started to view themselves in a different 
light.  They decided that they wanted to get an education and go into 
business.  They had the opportunity to escape their traditional society, 
which is patriarchal and ascriptive.
	Next, if you think about the rules of economics, if there is a problem with 
the economy, and it is affecting profits, then businesses will automatically 
correct themselves.  If these factories were really bad for the countryï¿½s 
economy, then proper steps would be taken  by the citizens, lawmakers and 
business men to fix it, or to make the factories more efficient.
	Also, Americans think or perceive sweatshops as ï¿½badï¿½ because they are 
comparing third world countries conditions to conditions in America, which 
is a first world country.  I think it is rather arrogant that Americans have 
this belief that every other country in the world wants to be exactly like 
the United States.  In fact, most countries are just fine and dandy 
following their own culture, and keeping their own cultural traditions.  It 
is not the place of the people of America to correct the laws of other 
countries.  If foreign third world countries find that their laws leave 
something to be desired, then they themselves will correct them as part of 
the transition from traditional to a modern society.
	Next, a lot of people who are against sweatshops complain about how big 
business or corporate America abuse people in the factories.  But even if 
these abuses are going on, the only reason it becomes possible is because of 
a lack of laws in that particular country.  This also means that if there is 
abuse going on in American owned factories abroad, the very same abuses are 
going on in the rest of the country.  The laws are inefficient and, as I 
said before, it is not Americaï¿½s place to correct these laws, and when that 
particular country is ready, they will restructure the laws and fix what is 
wrong.
	These factories give families, in poor countries, income.  This is very 
helpful because too many third world countriesï¿½ or the primary sectors of 
economy have very large families.  Especially since the average wage of 
these countries is so poor that most people canï¿½t afford proper medical 
attention or receive education on how to care for themselves. So many of 
these American companies are doing a favor for the people of this country.  
They also improve the standard of living.  Thereï¿½s one case in China where 
the people, all rice farmers, were starving because the cost of rice was 
very low.  Then came Company A and set up shop.  Workers signed a contract, 
meaning that they agreed to all the existing conditions, and then they got 
to work.  Company B came along because they saw how well Company A was 
doing, they needed to compete with Company A so obviously the conditions, or 
the pay, or the working hours had to be a lot better to lure the workers or 
attract the workers to come and work for them instead of working for Company 
A.  In addition, the people who stayed in the fields also did better, since 
so many left to work in the factories, the price of rice went up, which 
meant that the standard of living for the rice farmers also improved.  This 
proves that some factories have improved, and will most likely continue to 
do so, the living conditions and lifestyles because of the presence of the 
so-called horrible sweatshops 
(http://www.mcspotlight.org/cgi-bin/zv/debate/campaign/messages/479.html).
	Sweatshops have actually improved the standard of living of American 
citizens... sort of?  Because people in third world traditional societies 
are doing all the ï¿½dirty workï¿½.  American people who rarely have to stoop 
down to perform the intensive type of work that the people of third world 
countries have to do in order to gain enough wages to survive in their harsh 
world.  It goes along with the globalization theory that says that each 
country should produce what they are best at.  For example, you would never 
ask Japan to round up a bunch of laborers to produce a bunch of cheap 
t-shirts with Hawaiian Pride logos slashed all over the front and back of 
the loosely woven T-shirts.  On the other hand, you wouldnï¿½t even try to 
round up a bunch of aspiring techies in Malaysia to try to produce high - 
quality standard computer hardware for the fanatical and obsessed youthful 
population of America who is now enjoying the next video game craze.  Each 
country should produce whatever is cheaper for that country.  Then each 
country trades all products that they have  made with one another.  It would 
be illogical for a country to spend extra money producing particular items 
that are economically inconvenient because they lack the resources and 
technology to do it cheaper.
	American buyers are hypocrites.  They complain and protest about the 
injustices all around the world, and the media has a lot to do with it.  The 
media screams and yells about all the ï¿½badï¿½ things but they fail to mention 
all the positive aspects of the situation.  In addition, as Iï¿½ve mentioned 
before, Americans protest but they see nothing wrong when they are able to 
purchase an article of clothing for under $10 at their local department 
store.
	Even if the situation has regressed to an unbearable state, the workers 
themselves will see to it that the working condition laws will be revamped 
as soon as possible.  They will protest, rebel, strike, do what ever is in 
their power to change the working conditions until it is satisfactory to 
them.  If America is so arrogant to think that they like to be in a 
situation that will harm them or their families then we, as a country, 
insult their intelligence, third world jokes aside of course.
	The debate of sweatshops is ongoing and sometimes the lines between right 
and wrong blur, as most moral issues tend to do.  But speaking from the 
position of a girl that grew up in a third world country, the benefits of 
sweatshops greatly outweighs the media -induced negative aspects of this 
issue.


ï¿½Campaigns,ï¿½  
http://www.mcspotlight.org/cgi-bin/zv/debate/campaign/messages/479.html

Guralnik, David B.  Websterï¿½s New World Dictionary, New York, Simon and 
Schuster, 		1982.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


