Photo: imgur
The lone voice of a wildly unpopular view, journalist Nicholas Kristof makes his case for supporting sweatshops.
In his New York Times Op-Ed column championing sweatshops in third world countries, Kristof admits he is “just about the only person in America who favors sweatshops.”
Despite suffering the common criticisms of unhealthy conditions, abuses, low wages, etc., sweatshops, Kristof maintains, “are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty.”
For many citizens in poverty stricken nations, a factory job is a “cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty,” says Kristof. To take that away is more harmful than helpful. To be a garment worker is far from the worst thing out there.
In order for poor countries to pull themselves out of poverty, they must develop their manufacturing businesses. And if this means constructing sweatshops in third world countries, well, as “bad as sweatshops are, the alternatives are worse.”
Kristof makes strong points about looking at sweatshops through the lens of impoverished third world residents and being realistic about what factory jobs, no matter how low the wages in comparison to US standards, can provide.
Though, as Matador member Kelsey Timmerman points out in his comment on the post, “[Kristof's] argument ’sweatshops are good’ is too simple, just as is the one ’sweatshops are bad.’ ”
While Timmerman agrees that such factory jobs are incredibly important to the workers, he worries that Kristof’s column “encourages apathy” among consumers through it’s bottom line.
Rather than taking a black or white, good or bad side on the sweatshop debate, Timmerman feels that what people should be doing is becoming engaged consumers, asking brands where they manufacture their products and whether or not they have codes of social conduct for their factories.
“In my eyes, if an engaged consumer discovers something they don’t like about a brand they are wearing, they shouldn’t just write off the brand, they should pick up the phone and give them a call or drop them an e-mail. They should express what their concern is and see what, if any, action or response the brand is taking to correct it.”
It’s hard to say whether or not such phone calls or emails would have significant impacts on the way companies do business, but what is for sure, what both Kristof and Timmerman can agree upon, is that a general boycott of companies whose products are made in sweatshops is not the answer as it damages the lives of very workers its trying to help by putting them out of work.
What’s your take on sweatshops? Share your comments with us below.
About the Author
More By This Author
- Google To Leave China? (4 comments)
- Bacteria: A New Gasoline Alternative (1 comments)
- Fighting Deforestation In Copenhagen (2 comments)
Related Posts
15 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
I completely agree. In his interview on MatadorLife, Timmerman talks about a buycott in contrast to a boycott (buying products from companies we support to show support).
↵ -
Hey Juliane,
I love that you’ve giving this issue the more balanced exposure it deserves. In the first world we tend to assume that sweatshops are inhumane atrocities, and while that may be true some of the time, there are folks in developing countries who would cherish the opportunity to work regular hours indoors. Are sweatshops good or bad? As stated above, that’s not the right question. Context matters–the work conditions of each factory, the pay, alternative job choices (if any), managerial treatment, and so forth. Thanks for writing this!
↵ -
Thanks Eric. I think in situations as complex as these, context really matters. Without getting a holistic view, we as consumers could be doing a disservice to factory workers by contributing to the removal of their financial opportunities. Thanks for commenting!
↵ -
I think Kristof is absolutely right in pointing out that the “badness” of sweatshops is culturally relative–even some of our poorest people in the U.S. can get expanded basic cable. So it’s unfair–or, at least unrealistic–to compare that level of human rights (”Every American should get HD channels in every room!”) to the level of human rights found in countries with weaker economies (”Sure hope I get to eat tomorrow!”)
What I think a lot of people also forget when talking about “sweatshops” is that America is only one or two generations removed from the same conditions. My grandparents emigrated to southside Chicago, near the “Yards”. They worked sh*tty wages in horrifying conditions, but as immigrants trying to make a better life it presented a marvelous opportunity. Their grandchild would grow up to only know the inside of a factory for two brief stints in his life…at over $9/hour.
It doesn’t make sweatshops “right”–at the end of the day, I’d rather see Americans working in bad conditions for sh*tty wages–but I think it makes it significantly more gray than we’ve previously accepted.
on a side note: While I admire the changes that “fair trade” practices are making in our overrall concept of economic thought, I abhor any program that seeks to set prices at some level that they “should” be instead of what the market is willing to pay. From everything I’ve seen (read: strong union wages for GM workers…you know, the one’s still employed) this is utterly unsustainable. Price increase comes as the economy of the source nation improves…otherwise, there will always be someone willing to sell coffee beans for just enough to feed their starving family.
↵ -
Actually some people in the US can’t get expanded basic cable. Recently released statistics on hunger in American are terrible, especially amongst children. We here in America have made a choice to abandon those less fortunate and thier children.
↵ -
Yup. I agree that it’s unrealistic to demand certain lifestyles for other nations based on only what we know or believe from our own cultural perspective. Though, while I think Kristof is brave for stepping out there with his unpopular views, Kristof’s blanket support of sweatshops is a bit extreme for me. This issue is very much significantly more gray than we’ve previously accepted. Thanks for commenting!
↵ -
I don’t think there are any arguments against workshops that generate employment for the poor. The problem revolves around the horrendous working conditions, the well below minimum wage salaries and the outright exploitation of labour that takes place in these sweatshops. Job creation doesn’t justify exploitation, especially given the profit margins most of these brands register annually.
↵ -
I agree, Neha. That’s exactly the point I would make in this discussion.
↵ -
I definitely agree Neha. I think that what Kristof is trying to emphasize (albeit a bit insufficiently) is that there shouldn’t be one universal idea of exploitation as each culture/nation has its own standard of doing things and to take away sweatshop job opportunities from developing countries is actually doing them a bigger disservice. To be honest, I’m torn on this issue. I do, however, very much appreciate Timmerman’s stance. His response to Kristof’s column is sensitive and intelligent.
↵ -
As you say, it’s definitely beyond a “good vs. bad” issue. When you look at the economies of first world nations (e.g. Japan and the US, to name a few), it’s a miracle more of their citizens aren’t in the same state as sweatshop workers, as though that initial leg-up in world economics is enough to support its status as a prosperous nation for all time… at least, I’m sure some people hope so.
Banning them in other countries would have the same effect as shutting down a major chain store in the US: more unemployed, and fewer jobs to go around.
Where is the grey on this issue? Is there a way for both sides to have what they want, sweatshops shut down without adversely affecting their workers? It’s hardly the first time western nations have stepped into impoverished nations’ affairs, spouting moral agendas and disregarding the practicalities. Take banning DDT: as much as we’d like to say there were medical risks and such (and there are), never was there such a cheap and effective way of reducing the risk of mosquito bites. For you, that may just be the small inconvenience of itching. For many more, that means preventing malaria.
↵ -
You make some good points, Turner. I especially agree with you on the ‘banning them in other countries’ point (We still let Walmart run rampant here in the US despite what their workers have said). I don’t think an overall ban is the answer, though, much like everyone else, I also don’t agree with horrific sweatshop working conditions. Thanks for commenting!
↵ -
Great article that raises some important points. I read an Op Ed in the NY Times a few years ago that took a similar position to Kristof’s, arguing that in one country (I don’t remember which exactly) children were offered lunches in sweatshops that they weren’t offered in school and that oftentimes this was enough of an incentive to leave schooling in favor of work. The article felt that rather than fight against sweatshops, people should work to provide greater resources for education, including free lunches. I think I take a similar position. While I don’t support the oppressive tactics of sweatshops and agree that we should use our consumer power to communicate that point, I think that until there are better educational resources, professional opportunities for all (including women), and opportunities for people of third world countries to own their own businesses, it’s not going to make a huge difference. At the end of the day, corporations care about the bottom line, and not the people.
↵ -
“…until there are better educational resources, professional opportunities for all (including women), and opportunities for people of third world countries to own their own businesses, it’s not going to make a huge difference. At the end of the day, corporations care about the bottom line, and not the people.”
* Stands up and starts clapping *
↵
