I am writing in reference to last week’s Right
of the Aisle editorial titled “Sweatshops make cents.”The
article typifies the kind of ignorant dribble that passes for journalism
in this country.Feeling an obligation
to respond to the ideological rantings of Mr. Kirwan, the Development Economics
classes submit seven, YES SEVEN, letters to the editor.It
is our sincere hope that you will print all of them to show that
sweatshops indeed make cents, but they certainly do NOT make SENse.In
case Mr. Kirwan misses the reference, he may want to read some of the work
of Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen.
Respectfully Submitted, (On behalf of the ECON 380 Class)
James F. Casey
A
reading of Brett Kirwan’s “Sweatshops Make Cents” left us awed at the blatant
lack of evidentiary support of his apparent thesis that, “It is simply
ridiculous to believe that sweatshops can be eliminated in countries whose
populations are uneducated, unskilled and looking for work.”Though
Mr. Kirwan argues that it is the USAS’s “embarrassing lack of economic
sense” which drives their anti-sweatshop sentiment, it is clear that the
columnist himself has not fully explored this social science, most noticeably
the field of Development Economics.
Kirwan
cites sweatshops as “an important step in a nation’s development” for the
opportunity they provide.However,
Nobel laureate of economics Amartya Sen in his book “Development as Freedom”
argues that the most critical factor in a nation’s development is the availability
of civil, political and social freedoms and the necessary institutions
to protect these freedoms.Clearly
the working conditions, hours of work, and miserly wages existing in sweatshops
not only identifies currently lacking freedoms but also continues to prevent
sweatshop workers from attaining freedoms.
For
instance, children forced to work in sweatshops are deprived from the choice
of education.It is ridiculous to
argue sweatshops are needed to enhance development, because the development
of a country is largely dependant upon education.As
stated by Schultz, “The decisive factors of production in improving the
welfare of poor people are not space, energy, and cropland; the decisive
factors are the improvement in population quality and advances in knowledge.”
The
USAS may not be the naive economist in this case.
Paisley Boney
Scott Hetterman
Jeremy Kirkland
Allison Shank
Having
read Brett Kirwan's editorial entitled “Sweatshops
Make Cents” in last week’s Phi, we were outraged and appalled that a student
at this University could write such an ignorant, unfounded, and entirely
inaccurate paper.Kirwan makes unsupported
claims and sweeping generalizations in the hopes of legitimizing one of
the most dehumanizing business practices on the face of the earth.
And
so where do we begin?As all of this
Phi and next week’s could not accommodate the space needed to dispute each
and every point in this editorial, we will briefly look at the inaccuracy
of this editorial from an economic (and educated, for a change) standpoint.First
of all, sweatshops deprive those who work in them of basic freedoms such
as little to no access health care, education, or social security.In
the long term countless economists (Adelman, Schulz, Psacharopoulos, and
the World Bank) have proven that this directly stunts economic growth.
But
much more importantly, as Dr. Amartya Sen has noted, the achievement of
development – that is to say the development that Mr. Kirwan poorly analogized
through the United States – is thoroughly dependent on the free agency
of people.To paraphrase, what people
can positively achieve is influenced by economic opportunities, political
liberties, social powers, and the enabling conditions of good health, basic
education, and the encouragement and cultivation of initiatives.In
one case or another, these opportunities are perpetually denied by sweatshops.And
in 1998, the Nobel Foundation saw it fitting to award Dr. Sen the Nobel
Prize in Economics for his work on this very subject.
To conclude, Mr. Kirwan’s comment that is it simply ridiculous to believe that sweatshops can be eliminated in countries whose populations are uneducated, unskilled and looking for work is, in all senses of the word, absurd.The economic literature has time and again proven our uninformed editorialist wrong.The removal of those barriers to political, economic, and social freedoms that sweatshops perpetuate is intrinsically necessary for economic growth, development, and the overall betterment of humanity.Sweatshops do not make “cents” and neither did this editorial.
John Cimina, Kyle Ulep
Kathryn Shain and Deeksha Prakash
Dear
Editor:
Lacking
statistical evidence supporting any of his assertions, we were wondering
if Brett T. Kirwan could live on 28 cents a day.In
his article, Brett seemingly supports sweatshops without mention or apparent
concern for their negative economic effects.As
students of economic development we feel that Brett should consider the
work of Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen, along with many other sources of empirical
evidence.According to the Nobel
Prize winner Theodore Schultz, investing in the improvement of population
quality can significantly enhance the prosperity and welfare of poor people.The
sweatshops act to deny poor people the chance to pursue education and improve
their lives.For someone who has
never experienced what it is like to work under oppressive conditions for
a ridiculous wage, Brett's statements advocating the continuance of sweatshops
are rather bold.Sweatshops deny
people the capability and freedoms in life to escape the enslavement of
unjust labor institutions.According
to William Cowper:
Freedom
has a thousand charms to show,
Wogan
Bernard
Dear Editor,
The claim that “sweatshops, and the opportunity they provide, are an important step in a nations development,” fails to draw a distinction between development and growth.“Sweatshops Make Cents,” by Brett Kirwan, equates income provided by sweatshops to laborers as opportunity to lead a life that is valued.While incomes are an indicator of economic growth, growth is an inadequate measure of overall well-being.Nobel-Laureate Armatya Sen reminds us that economic development is more than simply economic growth.Economic development encourages, and is a measure, of rising education, health, nutrition, and reduction of poverty.Economic development leads to a better quality of life.How can you claim, especially with no cited evidence that working in sweatshops leads to a better quality of life in the United States?
Economists Peter Hess and Clark Ross write that, “The sweatshop-type factory…is an example of industrial conditions that need to be remedied by government intervention.”Sweatshops perpetuate populations who are uneducated, unskilled, and lack the freedom to live the life they value.Working in a sweatshop is a trade-off between income and quality of life and to equate income with opportunity to live a valued life is wrong.
Sincerely,
Doug Aldridge
We are writing to you in response to Brett Kirwan’s article, “Sweatshops Make Cents.”First, we are confused by Mr. Kirwan’s argument that sweatshops are a means for development, and his failure to address the presence of sweatshops in developed countries such as the U.S.We find it ironic that you link solidarity with communism, when Lech Walesa spoke in Lee Chapel about solidarity and democracy.Kirwan fails to provide any sources to back up his argument (perhaps none exist?).Nobel prize winning economist, Amartya Sen has much to say against sweatshops as the means for development.Sen sees Freedom as the means and ends of development.Surely sweatshops reduce one’s freedom.He says “28 cents beats zero any day of the week” but do these workers have a choice?The United States has a minimum wage, but these developing nations do not have such laws – should the U.S. provide minimum wage to workers that its companies employ abroad?Would we as Americans be willing to pay a couple of extra dollars on clothes in order to assure that sweatshops are eliminated and people have wages they can live on?
In response to the article “Sweatshops make Cents” by Mr. Kirwan we would like to emphasize the distinction between economic growth and economic development, an issue that Mr. Kirwan does not seem to grasp.Mr. Kirwan claims “sweatshops and the opportunity they provide, are an important step in a nation’s development. “ However, according to the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, development is the ability to live the life you value afforded by economic, political and social freedom, transparency guarantees and protective security.Which of these freedoms do sweatshops foster?While sweatshops do provide workers with a meager income they do not provide “the opportunities” that Mr. Kirwan suggests.
The opportunities of development include not only income but also opportunities for advancement including improved education and health. According to Schultz in his Nobel Prize winning speech “Investing in People,” poor people “within their small, individual, allocative domain are entrepreneurs tuning so subtly to economic conditions that many experts fail to recognize how efficient they are.”Even though sweatshops are a huge detriment to development, if they are the only choice these poor workers have, they will be forced to accept it to ensure their own survival.
As opposed to providing a means for development, sweatshops are actually a roadblock trapping people in an environment where choices for personal investment are not present.Furthermore, renowned economists Peter Hess and Clark Ross assert that sweatshops require government intervention to alleviate this moral travesty.While sweatshops may serve an economic purpose they are immoral institutions that do not contribute to development.
Sincerely,
Karly Shallow, Lee Lester, Claire Smith, and Burke Duncan
Income is an important measure of country’s movement towards development, but is by no means the only measure of how a country has progressed.In developing countries high levels of absolute poverty and income inequality are the norm.A corporation establishing a basic textile operation in a developing country may in fact bring factory work to the impoverished, but this does not improve their situation as the author argues.Nobel-Prize winning economist Amartya Sen describes development as, “A process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy.”Sweatshops do not provide opportunities for expanded freedoms, and do little more than provide the equivalent to subsistence level agricultural labor.A child toiling in a sweatshop can easily be seen as worse off because they are sacrificing an opportunity for education.True development for these poor people is not forcing menial and transient work on them, but as former president of The American Economic Review Theodore Schultz states, is “improvement in population quality and advances in knowledge.”
Wade Eybel