Greg Demetriou 2/13/12 post

Economics of Globalization 

Greg Demetriou 

After this weeks reading, I became most fascinated by the additional newspaper articles and the logic behind the provided information. When the economists cited in Myerson’s (1997) article explain, “low-wage plants making clothing and shoes for foreign markets are an essential first step toward modern prosperity in developing nations.” I immediately thought of my hometown Lowell Ma. All throughout elementary and middle school my classmates and I venture off on numerous fieldtrips to the Mills of Lowell. Although it was many years ago, the frequency of these field trips prevented me from forgetting the unbearable conditions in which these women worked. Whenever the subject of Sweatshops comes up I immediately think back to those field trips and the conditions of the workers. Another similarity that races to the front of my mind is the motives for employment for the respective workers. This was the 1800s in America, a time when women had next to no rights. Consequently, these women would send most of their earnings home to help a family that had, most likely, been a farm family forced into poverty by industrialization. These illuminating similarities to modern Sweat Shops align my beliefs with those of the economist quoted in this article.

            The textile mills of the 1800s could appropriately be identified as America’s sweat shops. When looking back at the history of America, this defining era was a necessary evil in America becoming a world super power. I argue that the presence of these mills and factories was the fuse that set off a bomb of creativity among the American people. The evolution of America is based on the ability of its citizens to improve technologies by making them more efficient and convenient. The progressions America has made are more reflective of the situation in which the industrial revolution occurred. The mills made clothes for Americans, and clothes to export. Because this was a time of immigration the market of these business was exponentially expanding. The situations of the countries these sweat shops are in do not afford them the opportunity to make the same progressions as America.

            My opinion on sweat shops was greater influenced as I read, “Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty.” in Kristof’s (2009) article. I am in no way trying to defend what goes on in sweatshops, or how difficult the experience of working on one would be; I am simply basing my opinions off of America’s weaknesses. That is to say, those who hold positions of power in America have done a nearly perfect job in completely understanding the experience of those stricken by poverty. The racist and sexist public policies created by these elected officials should serve as adequate testament, However to take my point even further I am going to compare it to America’s war on drugs.

            I think it is safe to say that everyone would agree that America is loosing its war on drugs. Additionally, I would say that this is because, like sweat shops, the drug epidemic in America is a symptom of poverty. People often think it is a cause because of the countless dollars spent on these illicit substances, but to more appropriately identify it, drugs are something that is overtly visible and available among poverty-stricken communities. The approach public officials have taken to address this issue has lead to a reoccurrence of the same type of organized crime that plagued America during prohibition. This can be seen by the influence drug trade has on gang culture.

            This comparison is my attempt to articulate the difficulties Americans in power have in relating to the experience of poverty. With this less than stellar track record, American’s should understand the messages of these two articles to truly understand the situation in which these sweatshops and their workers exist. If America were to step in and attempt to rectify sweatshops in a similar manner to its domestic drug epidemic these countries will be in an even worse position. Instead, an adequate understanding of a countries economic situation, and the experience of the workers are what is needed to right the wrongs of sweatshops.

            For those who argue that dealing drugs is a choice, and working in a sweatshop is a necessity, reveal the same ignorance of the policy makers of America. Yes in America there are a plethora of legal occupational opportunities. However, to a poor black teenage boy living in an inner city, these opportunities do not exist because of circumstance. And why would the boy take a job he is qualified for when the government takes half of his paycheck. Obviously the more appealing option is the more profitable one, which he can do on his own time, and keep the money he earns. If history reflects anything it is that the lack of support this boy has in America will inevitably plague those who work in sweatshops if America is to interfere. What I mean is, the circumstance that force a boy to sell drugs in America is not understood by those in power and the boy is given no support or opportunity to improve his situation. The public school systems of America serve as perfect testament to that fact. This lack of understanding will inevitably victimize these workers the same way it has victimized America’s poor.

            I will even argue that Americas influence on sweatshops is more appropriately identified as globalization than their existence in the first place. Kristof’s article explains that these sweat shops are a necessary evil in improving the economy of certain countries. Closing the sweatshops down stifles their opportunity for progression because it terminates the generated income for citizens. What America should focus on is partnering with the officials of these countries in an attempt to improve the working conditions of sweatshops.