Sweat Shops – Is saving money really worth it?

After reading chapter two of Global Issues, Local Arguments, I find myself somewhat appalled at the choices society makes. Free trade is basically controlled by the large corporations who are able to make goods for a cheap rate. For other companies trying to compete with the large corporations, they must produce goods at a cheap rate in order to stay in business and many probably do it by any means. Yes, I agree that free trade is good in the sense that it makes everything cheaper, because as a consumer I love to buy things at a cheap price. Consumed with saving money, we often forget to stop to think how the goods we buy were made. As consumers, we always want to buy things that are cheaper in order to save money. Is saving money really worth it though? Peter S. Goodman gives us a clearer picture about what it is like to work in a sweat shop with its workers “living in rat-infest dormitories and being cheated out of their earnings.” As humans, it’s our nature to be somewhat selfish, but I cannot help to imagine if I was working in those sweat shops. Although I would be grateful to have a job, I would probably be angry at the consumers around the world that choose to allow my well-being suffer for some cheap materialistic goods that will eventually be thrown away. If some of the richest countries in the world would stop being so cheap, then maybe those who make our goods could have better working conditions. If Americans will not work in those sorts of conditions, then why is it okay for other people to? We are all a part of the human race living in the same goal, to live a good life in the world. Why should we make it harder for others just to make it easier for ourselves?

Free Trade, Sweatshops, and a Music Video

Wow, what a great chapter! The author does an excellent job of clearly presenting the distinction between free trade and fair trade. I really appreciated the in-depth analysis of free trade and all of its shortcomings. I can definitely understand why it's such a controversial topic. It's disheartening to read about the exploitation of poorer, still developing countries, the sweatshops, and the lack of protection for workers and the environment. Products "tainted with blood from cut-off fingers or hands" sit on the shelves of Wal-Mart or the racks of The Gap. The imagery is certainly powerful, intense, and effective. And though fair trade is a possible alternative to the problem, is it really feasible? At this time in our economy especially, would we, as consumers, be willing to part with the cheap prices we are currently paying for goods? Stop bargain shopping and only purchase fair trade certified items? Perhaps the corporate voices are just too powerful to overcome. It's a complex situation with no easy answers, that's for sure. And as I see it now, there are going to be "winners" and "losers" for a long time coming.

Here's a music video by the rock band Rise Against. Check it out!
Prayer of the Refugee

It's open to interpretations, but I think the message is really clear.

iphonegirl319d0cxi9.jpg hosted at ImageShack.us

Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

CHAPTER 2?!?!?!?!?!

Man this chapter is freakin long! I think that the mess about sweatshops is generally exaggerated. I mean, I’ve never been to one of these places, but it seems like every time something new is found out, the intention was to show how horrible the conditions are in the first place. Like that story by Tiffany Anderson about working at Gap. She contemplated all the horrible conditions and whatever but it was all based on prior knowledge from what the media taught her. And sure there are a bunch of workers in these ‘sweatshops’ who quit because they can’t stand the work, but isn’t that the case with any job? I don’t have any facts or numbers, but my guess is that there are way more workers who are completely grateful for the employment opportunity than those who quit working in the shops to take their chances farming or doing whatever manual labor. Like the ‘iPhone Girl.’ She looks like she’s happy and having a great time. The place doesn't look like much of a 'sweatshop' at all. (And they are using a PC to make Mac products!)

I really like what Johan Norberg has to say. I pretty much agree with everything he said in the interview. Fantastic. The protectionism stuff is quite awesome too. Just shows how greedy and evil America is. Just by reading the introduction, I can tell that I am not going to agree with or like what Mike Shanahan, the environmentalist, has to say. Ok…so who really cares that ocean animals are being killed from ‘by-catch’ or that shrimp are unnaturally farm-grown. I think it’s just another one of those lame green people going crazy about some useless subject that really doesn’t matter. Maybe Shanahan should put some facts about the pro-shrimp farming folks who have been killed by the insane environmentalists.

It seems like all of the articles are very one-sided. So I don’t think that any of them are going to sway set opinions because each only presents facts supporting their side. It’s kind of like the whole vegetarian thing. Vegetarians like to say that it’s healthy and moral to not eat animals or whatever, but ignore the fact that it is actually detrimental to human growth and health. Here’s a website where you can read about people who have died from being vegetarian: http://whatstheharm.net/childvegetarianism.html
The anti-globalization people enjoy making up stories about how Third World countries are being destroyed and whatever, but they pretend that nothing positive is coming out of it. Very rare, extreme cases, of death and punishment are cited, but these are not the case on the whole. In Anita Roddick’s article, she states that when women from Bangladesh asked for one day off a week, the Walt Disney Company pulled its work from the factory. How absurd and ridiculous is that?!?! I truly doubt that is the case…it’s probably just taken way out of context so it looks bad.

And what’s this garbage about child labor? Who has the right to say child labor is immoral and wrong? In any undeveloped country, it is very important to have several children. More children = more work done. No one was complaining that children were working on family farms or whatever back when America was just beginning. There is nothing wrong with child labor and there never was. People should be complaining about the Chinese breeding their young girls to compete in the Olympics or something. America doesn’t need to be imposing its views and ways of life on other countries.

The Wal-Mart arguments are exciting. But how come they have disagreeing ‘facts’? It seems like the authors made up some numbers that make their personal argument look good. Whatever. I think Wal-Mart is freakin awesome…except some of the employees are useless.

Give or Take: Which one will we choose?

I enjoyed the second reading assignment of Global issues, it was definately an interesting approach to pointing out the pros and cons of free trade, alternatives to free trade (such as fair trade) and what we as consumers have to do with all of it!
Free trade is one big give or take senario, to raise wages and working conditions in other contries, we must give up low prices, to lower boundries that control free trade and potentially increase developing countries chances at competing in a global market, we must give up national and local power to global power, to keep jobs in the United states we need to accept the fact that inexpensive goods may not be so inexpensive in the future.
It all comes down to what we're willing to give up. Are Americans ready to give up their greed and obsession with material things for the well being of others? Are you willing to pay more than $50 for a bicycle at Wal Mart for one made by people payed fairly for their labor in the United States?As sad as it is to admit, it's doubtful that this is happening any time soon.
As the book says Wal Mart has buit an empire on bargains, their motto won't let us forget: Always low prices, Always. Should this be our state of mind? Should this be our main priorty? I don't think so. We as consumers have the power to choose what our money supports. I for one am definately uncomfortable with the fact that my money goes towards many situations that can almost be labled as slavery.
Sweatshop work is something that we've all known exist but few have done anything to act. I look foward to finding out what we can do to reduce conditions like this as well as other negative aspects of globalization.


Working with a budget may be tough for us, but what about how tough like may be for the sweat shop workers that made those jeans you wore yesterday.

what we can do as consumers to prevent sweat shops

After reading chapter 2 of Global Issues, Local Arguments, I have to say that I feel disgusted and angry at our society! Have we as Americans sunk so low as to willingly by clothes at stores such as Walmart, The Gap, and Old Navy while knowing that places such as these take advantage of laborers by paying them what we consider merely pocket change, placing them in unsafe and hazardous working conditions, and demanding unreasonable hours of work without compensation? It seems the answer to that is...Yes. I know that there are people out there who honestly have no idea that the things they buy and the stores they go to use sweat shops. But there are also people out there who hear rumors of such things but don't bother to research it to find out if it's true. They simply blow off the rumors and keep on shopping at where they want to shop because they like those stores and they've always shopped there. They convince themselves that they know nothing about the company using sweat shops so that their conscious can be clean. I mean, it's all just rumor anyways right? It might not be true. But this scenario is exactly the problem with us consumers! When an issue, as profound as sweat-shop labor is brought up, we shouldn't ignore it just because we don't know if it's true. We are morally obligated to find out if it's true. People's lives are what's at stake here. You might think that it's a little over-kill to say that people's lives are at stake, but is it? The book pointed out incidents where workers were maimed or killed on the job due to the removal of safety guards, which were only removed in order to increase production in order to meet the consumer demands. So yes, lives are at stake. But we can put an end to this or at least make the situation better! I, along with most other people whole heartedly believe that consumer habits of developed nations drive the global competition of corporations. This means that powerful countries such as ours are one of the main causes to the problems. We encourage this type of impermissible behavior by continuing to buy goods made from sweat shops. The only way to end this oppression is to change our consumer habits. The book stated that there is still confusion on how to change consumer habits. Should we "boycott abusive companies, deamand coporate accountability, buy only union-made goods, and be willing to pay higher prices for goods to ensure fair wages for workers?" Ideally the answer should be yes to all these things. But realistically speaking, not everyone may be in a situation or be willing to resort to such extreme measures. So instead, just do your part to try and prevent the continuance of sweat shops by being an informed consumer at the stores you shop at. I know it's hard to do. It might mean never buying another outfit from The Gap even though you love their fall collections; I do too. But remember that as a consumer, you have the "power to influence the improvement of factory conditions around the world." And now may your conscious be truly clean.

Globalization

WOW gotta love the short questions!

I actually did my best to answer myself all 20 questions, and I even looked up Wikipedia, my favorite!, so that took me quite a while. I really hope we go over the 20 questions tomorrow or this morning because I'm dying to find out the answers for some. I think "Is globalization harmful or beneficial?" won't be easily answered anytime soon, as where won't be clear winners or losers in globalization. However, the ideal condition would be the one that everybody is winner.

I've never heard of the term, "neoliberalism" until now. I've looked up and found out that Neoliberalism means liberalism plus free-market capitalism. I don't like the idea of neoliberalism too much, as I don't like anything that starts with "neo" such as neoconservatism.

Global Issues, Local Arguments & Thank You for Arguing Thoughts and Comments

Honestly, after reading the first chapter of both books I've become EXTREMELY more informed on globalization and the art of rhetoric. 

Let's talk about Global Issues, Local Arguments. I felt that the book presented both sides of the spectrum- both the good and bad of globalization. I really haven't formed my own opinion on the subject, but I understand peoples concerns for an ever increasing interconnected world. 

In my opinion, I agreed with Thomas Friedman's definition the most when he defined globalization. I agree that people are becoming more interconnected in terms of technology, business, and culture- but for cheaper prices. Does anyone think this is a bad thing? Is the world becoming more monoculture? 

I understand that people are upset that corporations are sending economic hit men to semi-periphery and periphery countries and just sucking all the economic worth and hardly giving anything back...I mean this is a cause for concern...right??? BUT is this at the hands of globalization or is it just big business? 

The second book, Thank You for Arguing was delightful!!! I loved it and it so reminded me of our professor when I read it. I found it humorous when he compared the food network to the porn industry...classic. It was also cool how he talked about sensuality and seduction as a form of rhetoric- I've never heard of that viewpoint.

I liked the first two chapters of both books- What do you guys think?

The Meaning of Globalization

I can honestly say that coming into this class, I had very limited knowledge of globalization and all of its related issues. To put it more plainly, I had no idea what it meant. However, I found that after reading the first chapter in Johnson's book, the term globalization is not so foreign after all. It's something that I encounter and hear of on a daily basis, but now I know its fancy name. Globalization encompasses not just the internet but also business, culture, economics, and so forth. It's the ever-expanding ways of worldwide communications and interactions. I enjoyed the two exploration exercises the chapter had to offer, because they really got me to thinking. I answered at least half the quiz questions incorrectly and was genuinely surprised at many of the answers. In a way, I felt ashamed that I didn't know the right answers. After getting acquainted with all of the various definitions and view points on globalization, I look forward to a class discussion to hear more about it.

In Response to Globalization - Global Issues, Local Arguments

After reading this section in the textbook, I found that the way we make our decisions based on our perception of globalization was very interesting. Everyone has a different stance on what they think globalization really means. Some argue that most problems in countries deal with setback in the global trade system in result of world poverty and hunger, but the more we utilize our resources effectively, we wouldn't have that problem. In doing so, economic and industrial growth would occur.  The other argument concerns people, institutions, and countries interfering with globalization. Barriers such as limitations and restrictions should be put to prevent the interference. What I don't understand is, aren't these two arguments along the same lines? Aren't they the same thing? I don't understand the difference. 

Rhetoric is all Around Us - Thank You for Arguing

In Thank you for Arguing, Heinrich makes learning about the various components of rhetoric fun to read. He incorporates his own personal life experiences while persuading us to use his same tactics. Heinrich not only uses personal experiences, but also interesting sometimes historical references to fully convey his point. The Food Network example was amusing and unexpected. My favorite part of the first chapter is when he subtly persuades his son to go eat at his work, so he can work late. I also, am guilty of making someone do something they do not want to by presenting it as the lesser of two evils. I enjoy how Heinrich makes rhetoric applicable to our life and proves it is all around us. I look forward to continue reading this book.

Globalization: A Whole New World

Before reading chapter one in Global Issues, Local Arguments, I can honestly say I wasn’t very knowledgeable on the matter of globalization. I wasn’t sure but the word globalization in my eyes was very much technology based; a world where technology was advancing by the minute. As a matter of fact, I went online and actually read a couple definitions of globalization before I began reading the chapter. The first of the definitions I came across was in the Webster’s dictionary that defined globalization as “the act or process of globalizing: the state of being globalized”. With that definition alone, my confusion of the matter deepened. So I began to read the first chapter with an expectation to put in plain English to me what exactly globalization is. I must add that Heinrichs did a good job of just that; stating his ideas in the most plain and effective way possible. As I began reading in the textbook, I realized globalization is very much, as I thought before, based on advancement. Not just advancement in technology but even as far as markets, economy, communication, and etc. The deeper I read, the more I realized. As positive as “advancement” sounds, there are always the good and bad to any idea. I even realized that my family was directly impacted negatively by globalization. About a year ago, my single mother of two children was laid off. She was working for one of the largest accounting firms in the world who did business for big names such as Coca Cola and Disney World. As secure as her job seemed, my mother’s “secure” job along with her whole department was relocated to a remote city in India where labor was much less expensive. As positive as the advancement was for the firm and the Indian economy, it was a negative outcome for my mother. From this point I’m excited to further explore the matter…

Thoughts on Thank You so Far

I absolutely loved the first Chapter of Thank You for Arguing. I love the authors style of writing, use of everyday language, and the fact that this books seems like something I could pick off a shelf at Barnes and Noble (aside from the definitions) and not like a textbook at all. I love the fact that in his experiment he failed at almost every attempt he made not to argue. It made him easier to relate to and more human than the average textbook author.
I also enjoyed the fact that he relates methods of arguing to things we can recognize and relate to.
At first I dreaded reading the chapter as I do when I'm about to begin any reading assignment out of a textbook but Heinrichs soon convinced my otherwise.
So far, I've enjoyed what I read and I look foward to reading more as class continues.

Thank you for arguing

I really liked the book Thank You for Arguing. I loved how I could really relate to the context of his writing. I loved the part about the food network using the same techniques as the porn industry! I also learned what a chiasmus was and how much influence it has in an argument. Lastly, I found the "but wait, there's more" pitch very interesting. The most common situation I find that being used in is an infomercial and those seem to work really well.

Globalization: The Positive Side

After reading chapter one in Global Issues, Local Arguments, I began to see globalization as a give-and-take situation. I also found it interesting and true how groups and corporations use pictures to convey specific messages. Overall, I believe the purpose of globalization is positive. There are, although, benefits and losses involved with globalization. For example, while one individual loses their job in a developed country, another individual overseas in an undeveloped country now has a job. The increase in jobs in the undeveloped country will decrease unemployment, benefiting that country. Unfortunately, the global economic system is flawed. The intention of businesses involves control and profits. This intention is even depicted on page seven. I think the arguments over globalization come down to the reality that globalization is abused by controlling businesses and people. I believe, although, steps have been made in the right direction in keeping the government out of trade and allowing markets to compete with each other.

Globalization: A bad thing?

The first chapter of Global Issues, Local Arguments made me think about globalization in a different way. I have never before thought of globalization having any negative characteristics. My views of globalization have always been much like those of the supporters mentioned in the first chapter. The "sharing of knowledge ad technologies" and the "improvement in the standard of living" this knowlege has created, has always seemed to greatly outway any negative impacts globalization could have. After reading this chapter, I have contrastly learned that there are a number of negative aspects. One critic of globalization, David Korten, believes that the increase of economic growth and consumption are not beneficial to the entirety of the world. He instead believes that reducing consumption, perserving the environment and working for social justice are the key elements that will help end world hunger and poverty. Another critic, Gustavo Esteva, also has interesting views on globalization. He believes that "global forces have threatened local spaces". I agree with this to some degree. If we are tampering with people and areas of the world we do not understand, then how are we benefiting them? On the other hand, being open minded there is no way that I can completely agree that people should only think and act locally. Looking at both extremes on the issue, I can honestly say that I am a moderate critic. I believe that globalization has many benefits, but I also believe that there is a severe "unequal distribution of benefits" being seen around the world. I feel that in order to make a solid opinion I need to learn more about the pros and cons of globalization.

Global Issues Local Arguments; First Reading

I thought the first chapter of Thank You For Arguing was very interesting and I enjoyed reading it. Heinrichs gets right to the point and makes his arguments very clear. He uses everyday language that we would use in conversations with friends, family, or colleagues, but uses it so well that it still sounds sophisticated in his writing and explanations. I like how this book doesn't sound like a textbook, especially with its allusions to such modern popular issues and media. It seems like a quick read so far, and the way the inserts on each page that highlight important definitions or ideas is very helpful. Heinrichs' style reminds me of a book I read during high school called How to Read Literature Like A Professor by Thomas Foster. Will Heinrichs actually look at arguments of Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson as the cover claims? He has already made references to Aristotle. Does Heinrichs try more "experiments" in future chapters with references to his own life?

Globalization: friend or foe?

When I think of "globalization" I think of the world as becoming more and more high tech. Which is nice because globalization allows you to communicate with people all over the world, just like in those tv commercials with people from different places all talking to each other via the computer screen. I also imagine small villages in some far away land, maybe Africa, recieving it's first hospital and school. So in the general view of things, globalization is a good thing; updating the old with the new, raising the standard of living, and ultimatley connecting people and culture everywhere. But then I recall some of the points brought up by opponents of globalization in chapter one of Global Issues Local Arguments. Their reasons for protesting globalization are good ones, which include saving the environment, creating an equal distribution of the benefits of globalization, reducing consumption, fighting for social justice, etc. When I think of all these things that are the effects and costs of globalization I start to think that maybe the ends are not worth the means. In conclusion, I think that globalization has tremendous potential to do good for all the people of this world, unfortunately, there are a number of people who would take advantage of its power in order for self-gain. The only logical way to solve this would be to place regulations on certain aspects of globalization. I think that like many other systems, globalization has to be regulated. It seems that without regulation, globalization "enriches the few at the expense of the many, replacing democracy with rule by corporations and financial elites, destroying the real wealth of the planet and society to make money for the already wealthy..." (David Korten)