Week 4 Response

Mahima Rupakula
913734418
ASA 141

Week 4: Santa's Sweatshop Response

The reading I chose to analyze this week is focused on the conditions that large manufacturing companies impose on subservient workers for less than minimum wage, coined "sweatshops." The conditions that larger companies, American in the focus of this article, allow outsourced manufacturers to operate in create large economic structures that feed off of the sweatshop conditions that force workers to operate. Examples include Disney, ironically, and the harsh conditions they allow for workers in Sri Lanka and Haiti. Conditions in some of these factories are so terrible that drinking water is stored next to toilets. Mattel, another toy manufacturer, does not outsource their manufacturing, however they directly contribute to the problem by treating workers in China as less than minimum wage employees. Women are often dealing with harmful chemicals all day long to make bright pink Barbie products. The most jarring part of the article, in my opinion, was the intense juxtaposition with children's toys and brutal sweatshop conditions. This truly speaks to the consumerist culture of most American households. The pretty products are acceptable for their children, as long as the pain and sweat behind it is hidden.




Figure 1: A cartoon of Disney characters forced to operate in sweatshop conditions, calling blame to be placed on the corporation themselves.

Questions:

1) How do these countries increase minimum wage and better working conditions without irreversibly disrupting their economy?

2) Women are usually more exposed to sweatshop conditions. Does women's access to education have a direct relationship to sweatshops and poor factory conditions in these countries?