Thomas Schrader - Economic Globalization - 2.20.2012

            It seems that what this week’s readings and video on economic globalization and mainly sweatshop/factory work, go against the popular Westernized idea that this type of work is completely negative. The ABC News special really showed a misinformed majority when it comes to discussing Third World issues that are often more complex than we accept. Seeing the self-righteous attitudes of the college students was really empowering at first, only to find out that they had failed to do the work and investigate the issue of sweatshops while they were reflecting their personal Western values on the system. I don’t think it is wrong for them to want to improve the conditions of the sweatshop workers, but the root of the problem is not happening within the factories; rather, the other articles shared that this way a life is an almost necessary result of the political and economic structures that these factories rest on. 

           Another article by ABC News that I recently stumbled on was the first glimpse into an Apple (Foxconn) factory, where many of the same harsh conditions and issues of boredom and fatigue are echoed. This report follows a recent suicide by workers from the factory complex, assumed a result of the working conditions. It might be worth a read for anyone who has time. It dives into the complexity of the issue a little bit more. Read here: http://news.yahoo.com/trip-ifactory-nightline-gets-unprecedented-glimpse-inside-apples-001926196--abc-news.html

              I found the chapter by Diane Wolf on “Factory Workers and Their Families in Rural Java” the most interesting, because the author seemed to really consider personal accounts from the factory workers and their families. What was most interesting from the article was that factory work actually seemed like more of a stepping-stone into nicer jobs, higher wages, and better lifestyles. The mere ability to get a job in a factory and make some money inspired a sense of privilege among workers. So while worker exploitation was occurring to some level, it seems that workers are actually saving most of the time for some sort of “productive investment” (Wolf:41). 

           Wolf’s calculations show that factory wages in Java for the female workers, who make up the majority, are not even subsistence-level. She finds that this is manly a result of the traditional gender hierarchies, the presence of the family, and the rural-agrarian locations of the factories. As a result of these factors, male factory workers tend to make forty percent more than the women, the women remain somewhat economically dependant on their parents, and the women, who are less educated because of the rural location, are less likely to protest for higher wages. Wolf disagrees that all is entirely bad in this system, though past researchers have made claims that female workers must support their families. Actually, very few of those interviewed gave much of their money to their families, mostly spending the savings on cash or food or long-term improvements to their homes.

            The Leslie Salzinger article on gender meanings in Mexico’s export-processing industry, introduce a public narrative on sex-differences, which put into context the these localized gender meanings in factories. There is a consistent view, within public narratives at least, that female workers are assumed to be more reliable as workers, while men seem to be increasingly considered less dependable. Women seemed to reflect such expectations, fulfilling most the jobs at the factories, as we saw in the Maquilapolis documentary. 

           Looking at three different factory locations, interactions between genders varied significantly. It was interesting, how factory floors were set up so differently. In some of the factories, there was an expectation that the female workers came in dressed a certain way and acting a certain way to encourage attention from the minority of male workers. Male workers would often make flirtatious comments at workers, and were allowed to as well. These differed very differently the final factory that was discussed, the Androgymex, where women still outnumbered men, but all workers dressed the same and were basically unidentifiable by their sex.

            Reading the New York Times article by Allen Myerson, I was surprised by the statement that there are “too few sweatshops.” (I’m sure that made some of those college students protesting cringe). As Myerson pointed out, places like Hong King, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, have been able to lift themselves out of economic distress and eventually help many of the poor. The other NYT article by Nicholas Kristof further exposed that factory work was actually safer and more pleasant than some others types of work that could be done. More agricultural jobs leave a higher level of risk when the product is determent on weather and other conditions. What the article also pointed to, is that the bigger problem is that of poverty. Improving labor standards and “living wages” also has a negative impact on production costs and factory sustainability. 

            What the main takeaway of this week for me is that if the issue of poverty can’t be solved, in the short-term at least, then the next best thing is opening more factories and getting people into any types of jobs. Something is therefore better than nothing it can be argued. Part of me just can’t help but feel like a battle is being lost if multinational corporations continue to win big as the result of increasing sweatshops. Again, is there any right answer as to what can be done?