a while ago i was looking at the news and i saw this article on bbc and cnn about a controversial punishment to be carried out in iran. an obsessive stalker blinded a woman when she refused to marry him. now this woman, who was blinded by the attack is having the man blinded as punishment. the government offered the woman to have the man imprisoned and/or have the man pay for her suffering but she has insisted that he suffer as she has.
i think this article will be very interesting to discuss when we talk about freedom of fear/harsh punishment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754756.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/19/acid.attack.victim/index.html?iref=newssearch
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Woops...here is my article
I wrote about my article but i forgot to attach it...here it is.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/acropolis/5232/kidlabor.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1020-01.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/acropolis/5232/kidlabor.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1020-01.htm
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
2 interesting articles
http://www.poland.pl/news/article,Poland_asks_EU_to_support_Auschwitz_Fund,id,367618.htm
- I went on the Internet to try and see if there was anything interesting going on in Poland, and I found an article about Auschwitz and how Poland is asking the EU for money to maintain the site.
http://www.poland.pl/news/article,Parliament_debates_on_new_citizenship_law,id,366768.htm
- I also found this article about Poland's citizenship law. Members of Polish communities have been lobbying for a mechanism of restoring lost or renounced Polish citizenship. The Polish Parliament is now working on a new bill.
- I went on the Internet to try and see if there was anything interesting going on in Poland, and I found an article about Auschwitz and how Poland is asking the EU for money to maintain the site.
http://www.poland.pl/news/article,Parliament_debates_on_new_citizenship_law,id,366768.htm
- I also found this article about Poland's citizenship law. Members of Polish communities have been lobbying for a mechanism of restoring lost or renounced Polish citizenship. The Polish Parliament is now working on a new bill.
Globalization: help or hurt?
The passage I chose from The Travels of A T-Shirt in the Global Economy to discuss on is “China had been admitted into the WTO in 2001 and for the first time would be eligible to have its apparel exports removed from quota. Not only did it appear that the Philippines or Sri Lanka or Mauritius would not get a bigger piece of the pie when the quotas were lifted, it appeared instead that China would get everybody’s pie.” (Rivoli, 166)
Globalization is an ongoing part of the world’s economy and helps unify trade between nations. With the trade of goods flowing, every nation from the wealthy United States to even the poorest tribe in Africa have access to goods. However, this access to goods does not equate to progress and prosperity in poorer nation, often the opposite is true. In the Scientific American article ‘Does Globalization Help or Hurt the World's Poor?’ people living in poorer nations often loose jobs and live in poverty. Nations such as China are able to afford to trade goods at a much cheaper price than local goods are sold at. Therefore local industries collapse causing workers to lose their jobs and their income. Globalization, while it helps unify the world and allow easy trade does cause poorer nations, unable to compete with big corporations and cheap prices, to suffer and disappear. Therefore poverty and destitution follows in the wake of globalization for some nations.
While China’s economy thrives today from its enormous amounts of exports to other nations, such as the United States, it has also been buying up the world. In the New York Times article ‘As China Goes, So Goes…’ China has been building up $400 Billion trade surplus in the last 30 years. With this money, China has increased its buying of foreign items, helping spur the world’s economy. However with the current market in a recession, many are looking at China to help stimulate the economy. “As those industrial economies sputter, China is now in a position to pick up some of the slack: selling more of its own goods at home and buying more from the rest of the world.” China’s dominant economy has harmed many smaller nations’ economies, however today, China is the worlds best bet at ending the recession.
As China Goes, So Goes ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27mon1.html
Does Globalization Help or Hurt the World's Poor?http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=does-globalization-help-o
Globalization is an ongoing part of the world’s economy and helps unify trade between nations. With the trade of goods flowing, every nation from the wealthy United States to even the poorest tribe in Africa have access to goods. However, this access to goods does not equate to progress and prosperity in poorer nation, often the opposite is true. In the Scientific American article ‘Does Globalization Help or Hurt the World's Poor?’ people living in poorer nations often loose jobs and live in poverty. Nations such as China are able to afford to trade goods at a much cheaper price than local goods are sold at. Therefore local industries collapse causing workers to lose their jobs and their income. Globalization, while it helps unify the world and allow easy trade does cause poorer nations, unable to compete with big corporations and cheap prices, to suffer and disappear. Therefore poverty and destitution follows in the wake of globalization for some nations.
While China’s economy thrives today from its enormous amounts of exports to other nations, such as the United States, it has also been buying up the world. In the New York Times article ‘As China Goes, So Goes…’ China has been building up $400 Billion trade surplus in the last 30 years. With this money, China has increased its buying of foreign items, helping spur the world’s economy. However with the current market in a recession, many are looking at China to help stimulate the economy. “As those industrial economies sputter, China is now in a position to pick up some of the slack: selling more of its own goods at home and buying more from the rest of the world.” China’s dominant economy has harmed many smaller nations’ economies, however today, China is the worlds best bet at ending the recession.
As China Goes, So Goes ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27mon1.html
Does Globalization Help or Hurt the World's Poor?http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=does-globalization-help-o
Paragraph from the book and article
For my blog the paragraph I chose was on page 90, the last paragraph at the bottom. It discusses the working conditions for Chinese laborers. The paragraph basically makes connections between what the Chinese workers are going through today and what many factory workers went through in the late 1800s and early 1900s in factories. “Like their sisters in time, textile and clothing workers in China today have low pay, long hours, and poor working conditions.” This quote from the paragraph shows the connection.
I chose this paragraph because I found it interesting that while the location of the factory has changed, that the way they are run in China still remains the same as it was over on hundred years ago. It shows that even in today’s world there are still countries that are so driven by money and the need to create exports that they will go to whatever lengths possible to ensure that they meet quotas and demand. It’s not so much quality as it is quantity for countries such as China. The export, especially of textile products such as t-shirts and clothes, is such a huge and therefore important part of their economy that they don’t care what the conditions are like for the people that create the products so long as the products are made and demands are filled. It is sad and just another reason why so many people are calling for reforms of factories and whole industries in countries such as China.
What I also find interesting is the connection between freedom and liberation for many of the factory workers, especially women, and the harsh conditions which they must go through to reach such freedoms. For many of these women, being able to earn a wage means new freedoms in regards to being able to buy new clothes and not having to depend on males for money or a somewhat comfortable lifestyle. The factory is better than where many of the women came from and they have no desire to go back to their former lives. It’s the idea of freedom at a cost and while we, as Americans, may have trouble understanding it, these freedoms are worth it for these women.
I managed to find an article from The New York Times which talks about the working conditions in China and how bad they can be. The article, which is from January of last year, discusses the problems with factory labor in China and how there is little being done to change these conditions. Poor working conditions in China are a major problem and since many western companies get a lot of their products from China, there is outrage amongst human rights groups about these companies making an effort to better the lives of the Chinese workers. The article shows how bad the conditions are, but also how hard it is to improve conditions. Since western companies often demand lower prices from the Chinese factories, but expect the factories to improve working conditions, there is often little that can be done except for the western companies to find other sources of their products besides going through China.
It is interesting to see whether the conditions in China have improved at all since the article was written, but many professionals think it will be years before that happens. I think it is sort of a sign that China is going through this now, it’s like the idea of history repeating itself in that China is doing exactly what America was going through during the industrial revolution. It’s just a matter of whether China will be able to enact change and make conditions better or whether they will stay the same. There is a lot of work to be done in China and it will be good to see what the next few years bring. Also, I would like to know whether the tough economic times have affected human rights efforts to make the working conditions there better. With less money will the factories be able to afford the changes? I think these economic times will make a tough situation for China even harder.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05sweatshop.html?pagewanted=2
I chose this paragraph because I found it interesting that while the location of the factory has changed, that the way they are run in China still remains the same as it was over on hundred years ago. It shows that even in today’s world there are still countries that are so driven by money and the need to create exports that they will go to whatever lengths possible to ensure that they meet quotas and demand. It’s not so much quality as it is quantity for countries such as China. The export, especially of textile products such as t-shirts and clothes, is such a huge and therefore important part of their economy that they don’t care what the conditions are like for the people that create the products so long as the products are made and demands are filled. It is sad and just another reason why so many people are calling for reforms of factories and whole industries in countries such as China.
What I also find interesting is the connection between freedom and liberation for many of the factory workers, especially women, and the harsh conditions which they must go through to reach such freedoms. For many of these women, being able to earn a wage means new freedoms in regards to being able to buy new clothes and not having to depend on males for money or a somewhat comfortable lifestyle. The factory is better than where many of the women came from and they have no desire to go back to their former lives. It’s the idea of freedom at a cost and while we, as Americans, may have trouble understanding it, these freedoms are worth it for these women.
I managed to find an article from The New York Times which talks about the working conditions in China and how bad they can be. The article, which is from January of last year, discusses the problems with factory labor in China and how there is little being done to change these conditions. Poor working conditions in China are a major problem and since many western companies get a lot of their products from China, there is outrage amongst human rights groups about these companies making an effort to better the lives of the Chinese workers. The article shows how bad the conditions are, but also how hard it is to improve conditions. Since western companies often demand lower prices from the Chinese factories, but expect the factories to improve working conditions, there is often little that can be done except for the western companies to find other sources of their products besides going through China.
It is interesting to see whether the conditions in China have improved at all since the article was written, but many professionals think it will be years before that happens. I think it is sort of a sign that China is going through this now, it’s like the idea of history repeating itself in that China is doing exactly what America was going through during the industrial revolution. It’s just a matter of whether China will be able to enact change and make conditions better or whether they will stay the same. There is a lot of work to be done in China and it will be good to see what the next few years bring. Also, I would like to know whether the tough economic times have affected human rights efforts to make the working conditions there better. With less money will the factories be able to afford the changes? I think these economic times will make a tough situation for China even harder.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05sweatshop.html?pagewanted=2
Time to Change?
“In summary, free labor – black or white – was unlikely to be attracted to wage work on Southern cotton farms, because of both the poor functioning of labor markets and the superior alternative available to these workers – the family farm. Slavery, then, allowed cotton farmers both a way to avoid the risks associated with transacting the labor market and a way around the family labor constraint. Slavery also enabled the growers to cultivate greater acreage. The greater acreage, in turn, allowed cotton production to increase… Put simply, large farms were slave plantations, not family farms, and it was the slave plantations that produced most of the worlds cotton by 1860.” (Page 13)
As apparent from this passage taken from, “The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy.” Slavery has played a huge role making American textile plants as powerful as they are. Without slaves would America have the upper hand in the textile industry? Plantation families alone would not be able to conduct business as usually and paid workers would not allow for the same profit margins as textile factories enjoyed. Slaves provided the plantation owner with flexibility to work around the farming schedules. If America hadn’t used slaves to run this industry would other countries have? While reading this novel I have been toying with the notion that the textile industry would not be as nearly as profitable or efficient if it was highly regulated from the beginning. If textile factories had to enforce normal work shifts and working conditions, they would certainly watch their profits fall. In America we used slaves, in China they used weak women who had no other choice but to work back breaking shifts in horrendous conditions for $2 a day. If China instituted strict working conditions and hours could they still compete on a global scale with other countries that employ child labor in sweat shops? Absolutely not. The competitive advantage in the textile industry is cheap, hardworking labor. As stated in the CNN article, “"Farming is really hard. It needs a lot of hard labor," says 22-year-old Tang Hui, who lost his manufacturing job four months ago. "None of the young people want to farm nowadays. The income is extremely low." (Etzler and FlorCruz) What will happen to this industry is people simply refuse to work in these conditions? Hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs in China due to poor economic conditions but as you can see from the past quote some still refuse to do the back breaking labor on a farm. These individuals can barely survive but still refuse to take part in farming. An example of the poverish conditions; “The family's cash earnings have evaporated, snatched away by a manufacturing crash cascading across China caused by falling global demand for its goods.” (Etzler and FlorCruz) This must be a wake up call to the industry! The farming industry must adapt to the dynamic business environment they operate in. In the past a competitive advantage was found with the cheapest labor possible, but in the future may the new advantage be motivation? Would textile industries see the same output from its workers if they treated them fairly with benefits and empowerment? Yes, their operating costs would increase but maybe their output would also increase, which could set off the extra costs. As a management major I understand the importance of motivating and empowering workers so they become stakeholders in the company they work for. This change in management attitude motivates the workers to work to the best of their ability. Not only will they work harder, but more individuals will apply and the companies can then choose the best workers. This may be fantasy talk because this industry has depended on cheap labor for hundreds of years, but maybe the decreasing amount of people willing to work like this will open textile and farming industries’ eyes.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/20/china.economy.family/index.html?iref=newssearch
As apparent from this passage taken from, “The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy.” Slavery has played a huge role making American textile plants as powerful as they are. Without slaves would America have the upper hand in the textile industry? Plantation families alone would not be able to conduct business as usually and paid workers would not allow for the same profit margins as textile factories enjoyed. Slaves provided the plantation owner with flexibility to work around the farming schedules. If America hadn’t used slaves to run this industry would other countries have? While reading this novel I have been toying with the notion that the textile industry would not be as nearly as profitable or efficient if it was highly regulated from the beginning. If textile factories had to enforce normal work shifts and working conditions, they would certainly watch their profits fall. In America we used slaves, in China they used weak women who had no other choice but to work back breaking shifts in horrendous conditions for $2 a day. If China instituted strict working conditions and hours could they still compete on a global scale with other countries that employ child labor in sweat shops? Absolutely not. The competitive advantage in the textile industry is cheap, hardworking labor. As stated in the CNN article, “"Farming is really hard. It needs a lot of hard labor," says 22-year-old Tang Hui, who lost his manufacturing job four months ago. "None of the young people want to farm nowadays. The income is extremely low." (Etzler and FlorCruz) What will happen to this industry is people simply refuse to work in these conditions? Hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs in China due to poor economic conditions but as you can see from the past quote some still refuse to do the back breaking labor on a farm. These individuals can barely survive but still refuse to take part in farming. An example of the poverish conditions; “The family's cash earnings have evaporated, snatched away by a manufacturing crash cascading across China caused by falling global demand for its goods.” (Etzler and FlorCruz) This must be a wake up call to the industry! The farming industry must adapt to the dynamic business environment they operate in. In the past a competitive advantage was found with the cheapest labor possible, but in the future may the new advantage be motivation? Would textile industries see the same output from its workers if they treated them fairly with benefits and empowerment? Yes, their operating costs would increase but maybe their output would also increase, which could set off the extra costs. As a management major I understand the importance of motivating and empowering workers so they become stakeholders in the company they work for. This change in management attitude motivates the workers to work to the best of their ability. Not only will they work harder, but more individuals will apply and the companies can then choose the best workers. This may be fantasy talk because this industry has depended on cheap labor for hundreds of years, but maybe the decreasing amount of people willing to work like this will open textile and farming industries’ eyes.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/20/china.economy.family/index.html?iref=newssearch
ILO standards are they working?
The paragraph that stuck out to me in the book The travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy was on the bottom of page 100 leading to page 101. In this paragraph, Pietra Rivoli describes how labor conditions in “sweat shops” have gotten notably better but not significantly better enough. Certain standards have been put in place to “serve as speed bumps to the race to the bottom.”
The (ILO) International Labour Organization has approved a set of labor standards. "Ensuring the freedom of association and collective bargaining can go a long way toward promoting labour market efficiency and better economic performance. And there are obvious economic and social reasons for banning slavery and all forms of forced labour."
World Bank, 2004 (Note 1)
Even though there are standards put forth to help the government regulate labour there are still some bad practices. Forced labour is something that is frowned apon universally. The International Labour Organization predicted that in the world, 12.3 million people are victims of forced labour. With 2.4 million of them being forced into human trafficking. It’s hard to believe that in North American and Europe women, men and children are bought and sold into the trafficking industry. They are forced to perform sexual acts against there will.
Things are finally being done against things such as forced labour. The 160 of the ILO’s member states support these developments. According to the ILO website, ratification number 29 prohibits any forced labour. It is defined as “all work or service, which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily." Apparently their needs to be more strict laws prohibiting forced work apon people or harsher punishments.
I hope the more international and US companies abide by the ILO’s standards. It is dishonorable that they just move their business when they get in trouble. Pietra says how the sweatshops still exist because they just move from east to west and don’t change their ways. Under new government I hope we see safer conditions for workers making our products.
http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/InternationalLabourStandards/Subjects/lang--en/index.htm
http://www.ilo.org/wow/Articles/lang--en/WCMS_090028/index.htm
Cotton Ginning and Neoliberalism
The paragraph I chose was on page 41. It says that from the years 1900 - 1990, "the number of gins in operation in the US fell by over 90 percent from 20,214 to 1,513 and the capacity of the typical gin has risen by a factor of 30". This jump started my thinking and brought me back to the wild discussion I had in my QU201 class about neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is basically an economic philosophy that puts most of the money in the hands of a "royal class". The United States is falling victim to this ideology today, and unlike times in history when it has worked, America's current free market ideology and democracy clash with neoliberal ideas. To put it in lamen's terms, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
This decrease in cotton gins is an indication that a select few gin owners saw an opportunity and bought out all the other gins. This leaves many people out of work, and puts all the power in the hands of a few cotton ginners. An IHT article explains that by the year 2004, the wealthiest 1% of Americans controlled 78% of the country's income. It is widely known that this already staggering number is growing even larger, due to the fact that there is nobody to do business with except for these huge players.
In the ginning industry, that means that the average ginner is going to lose a lot of business, and since raw cotton is not a product that consumers demand, this industry is particularly hard to enter into. The 1,500 cotton gins in America likely gin cotton from all over the country, whereas before mass shipping was introduced, smaller gins serviced rural and suburban areas. Today, cotton gins can just have cotton shipped in from locations around the world.
This means that there are only big players left, there is no need for a small operation cotton gin anymore, it is an obsolete industry, think of a wal-mart next door to a mom and pop store. In essence, the cotton ginning industry is the perfect example of neoliberalism, and could be a good indicator of what future industries will look like due to a rise in neoliberalism and globalization.
Neoliberalism article.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/22/opinion/edblond.php
This decrease in cotton gins is an indication that a select few gin owners saw an opportunity and bought out all the other gins. This leaves many people out of work, and puts all the power in the hands of a few cotton ginners. An IHT article explains that by the year 2004, the wealthiest 1% of Americans controlled 78% of the country's income. It is widely known that this already staggering number is growing even larger, due to the fact that there is nobody to do business with except for these huge players.
In the ginning industry, that means that the average ginner is going to lose a lot of business, and since raw cotton is not a product that consumers demand, this industry is particularly hard to enter into. The 1,500 cotton gins in America likely gin cotton from all over the country, whereas before mass shipping was introduced, smaller gins serviced rural and suburban areas. Today, cotton gins can just have cotton shipped in from locations around the world.
This means that there are only big players left, there is no need for a small operation cotton gin anymore, it is an obsolete industry, think of a wal-mart next door to a mom and pop store. In essence, the cotton ginning industry is the perfect example of neoliberalism, and could be a good indicator of what future industries will look like due to a rise in neoliberalism and globalization.
Neoliberalism article.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/22/opinion/edblond.php
Globalization’s Reality: The Wheel That Turns
The passage that I chose out of the book was on page 107:
“Thanks to globalization, the sweatshops, and the race to the bottom, He Yuan Zhi of Shanghai Brightness doesn’t worry about being stuck on the farm anymore. She married when and whom she chose, she makes her own living and her own choices. If current trends are an indication, her income will grow at more than double the rate of that of her Western sisters.”
My interpretation of this paragraph is that He Yuan Zhi is just happy to be out and away from her family’s farm. She is free and loving her own life with out having to listen to what someone else is telling her to do. The factories give some of these people a way to branch out into a new way of life. Although the condition are not good, this is something new to them and it is a way for them to break free from their traditional lives. For example the way I read this passage is that Zhi is happy because she now has the freedom and choice to live on her own, make her own money, marry and also choose who she want to marry. It gives them a chance to change.
The article that I found that relates to the passage that I chose is a perfect example of this. The article brings up both sides of this issue. Like they say it really depends on how you look at it. Some say that it is exploitation or opportunity for these countries. It brings up the point that there are two ways you can interpret this problem. In my opinion I am not opposed to the factories in other countries, because it gives jobs to many people. And thing gives them the opportunity to grow and become better. By I do not agree with some of the ways in which they are treated.
Globalization’s Reality: The Wheel That Turns:
http://select.nytimes.com/iht/2006/11/25/world/IHT-25globalist.html?scp=6&sq=globalization%20in%20china&st=cse
“Thanks to globalization, the sweatshops, and the race to the bottom, He Yuan Zhi of Shanghai Brightness doesn’t worry about being stuck on the farm anymore. She married when and whom she chose, she makes her own living and her own choices. If current trends are an indication, her income will grow at more than double the rate of that of her Western sisters.”
My interpretation of this paragraph is that He Yuan Zhi is just happy to be out and away from her family’s farm. She is free and loving her own life with out having to listen to what someone else is telling her to do. The factories give some of these people a way to branch out into a new way of life. Although the condition are not good, this is something new to them and it is a way for them to break free from their traditional lives. For example the way I read this passage is that Zhi is happy because she now has the freedom and choice to live on her own, make her own money, marry and also choose who she want to marry. It gives them a chance to change.
The article that I found that relates to the passage that I chose is a perfect example of this. The article brings up both sides of this issue. Like they say it really depends on how you look at it. Some say that it is exploitation or opportunity for these countries. It brings up the point that there are two ways you can interpret this problem. In my opinion I am not opposed to the factories in other countries, because it gives jobs to many people. And thing gives them the opportunity to grow and become better. By I do not agree with some of the ways in which they are treated.
Globalization’s Reality: The Wheel That Turns:
http://select.nytimes.com/iht/2006/11/25/world/IHT-25globalist.html?scp=6&sq=globalization%20in%20china&st=cse
Risk or Care?
The paragraph is chose is on page 11. It says, "Slavery was the first significant American "public policy" that served to protect cotton growers from the perils of operating in a competitive market. For a number of reasons, relying on a competitive labor market -- rather than on captive slaves -- was a risk that growers were loath to assume, and it was also a risk that would have likely precluded the explosive growth in American cotton production."
I picked this paragraph because it bothered me. One of the words that bothered me the most was the work "protect." Having slaves didn't protect cotton farmers from a competitive market it was a benefit to be the most competitive market. If they saw the competitive market as a risk more than they saw the slaves as a risk they clearly cared more about the market. I see this in present day with companies like Nike, Reebok and Walmart. In the article that I posted titled, "Kid Labor a Matter of Ethics," it states, "Kathie Lee Gifford says she didn't know her line of outfits, sold by Wal-Mart, were made by Honduran girls paid 31 cents an hour." These big name brands are all over the United States and even many parts of the world. It is all about the money for these brands and the majority of people would agree with me when I say that I feel that these companies care more about being the best, the most competitive, and the most well known than they care about the young children working overseas in their factories. It's dissapointing in this situation how history hasn't changed. From cotton farmers to mega-stores, the similaries are amazing.
Many people have made their concerns visible in articles and documentaries like the one by Pietra Rivoli. Unfortunately cosumers will take sides with Nike, Reebok, and Walmart when respresentatives from those companies say things like, "The truth is these children, who don't live the white, middle-class lifestyle many of us enjoy in the Portland area, would often be losers. They might be homeless. They might go into prostitution. There are all kinds of worse opportunities." I can see where these company owners are coming from. All of those children have parents. They should make the parents work in the factories and at set up a prgram for the children. There has to be other options for these children. Many American are so preoccupied with their own lives that voicing their thoughts of these matters are hardly ever done. Unfortunatley people will settle for what companies say and do as a responce to those Americans who do voice their opinions. Companies will give awards about human rights. The article states, "Reebok International Ltd. gives out human rights awards, and downplays the fact that it uses some of the same factories and child laborers as Nike." Similarly cotton growing slave owners will say the same thing about owning slaves. If they didn't give slaves jobs then the slaves wouldn't eat. It the same as what companies today say.
I wonder how long is will take for the public to respond to the products and brands based on those companies labor choices rather than the actual products?
I picked this paragraph because it bothered me. One of the words that bothered me the most was the work "protect." Having slaves didn't protect cotton farmers from a competitive market it was a benefit to be the most competitive market. If they saw the competitive market as a risk more than they saw the slaves as a risk they clearly cared more about the market. I see this in present day with companies like Nike, Reebok and Walmart. In the article that I posted titled, "Kid Labor a Matter of Ethics," it states, "Kathie Lee Gifford says she didn't know her line of outfits, sold by Wal-Mart, were made by Honduran girls paid 31 cents an hour." These big name brands are all over the United States and even many parts of the world. It is all about the money for these brands and the majority of people would agree with me when I say that I feel that these companies care more about being the best, the most competitive, and the most well known than they care about the young children working overseas in their factories. It's dissapointing in this situation how history hasn't changed. From cotton farmers to mega-stores, the similaries are amazing.
Many people have made their concerns visible in articles and documentaries like the one by Pietra Rivoli. Unfortunately cosumers will take sides with Nike, Reebok, and Walmart when respresentatives from those companies say things like, "The truth is these children, who don't live the white, middle-class lifestyle many of us enjoy in the Portland area, would often be losers. They might be homeless. They might go into prostitution. There are all kinds of worse opportunities." I can see where these company owners are coming from. All of those children have parents. They should make the parents work in the factories and at set up a prgram for the children. There has to be other options for these children. Many American are so preoccupied with their own lives that voicing their thoughts of these matters are hardly ever done. Unfortunatley people will settle for what companies say and do as a responce to those Americans who do voice their opinions. Companies will give awards about human rights. The article states, "Reebok International Ltd. gives out human rights awards, and downplays the fact that it uses some of the same factories and child laborers as Nike." Similarly cotton growing slave owners will say the same thing about owning slaves. If they didn't give slaves jobs then the slaves wouldn't eat. It the same as what companies today say.
I wonder how long is will take for the public to respond to the products and brands based on those companies labor choices rather than the actual products?
A song relevant to cotton picking
Song of the South
By: Alabama
Chorus
Song, song of the south.
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth.
Gone, gone with the wind.
There aint nobody looking back again.
Cotton on the roadside, cotton in the ditch.
We all picked the cotton but we never got rich.
Daddy was a veteran, a southern democrat.
They oughta get a rich man to vote like that.
Well somebody told us wall street fell
But we were so poor that we couldnt tell.
Cotton was short and the weeds were tall
But mr. roosevelts a gonna save us all.
Well momma got sick and daddy got down.
The county got the farm and they moved to town.
Pappa got a job with the tva
He bought a washing machine and then a chevrolet.
Song, song of the south...
Gone, gone with the wind...
Song, song of the south.
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth.
Song, song of the south.
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth.
Sing it...
Chorus 2x
By: Alabama
Chorus
Song, song of the south.
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth.
Gone, gone with the wind.
There aint nobody looking back again.
Cotton on the roadside, cotton in the ditch.
We all picked the cotton but we never got rich.
Daddy was a veteran, a southern democrat.
They oughta get a rich man to vote like that.
Well somebody told us wall street fell
But we were so poor that we couldnt tell.
Cotton was short and the weeds were tall
But mr. roosevelts a gonna save us all.
Well momma got sick and daddy got down.
The county got the farm and they moved to town.
Pappa got a job with the tva
He bought a washing machine and then a chevrolet.
Song, song of the south...
Gone, gone with the wind...
Song, song of the south.
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth.
Song, song of the south.
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth.
Sing it...
Chorus 2x
T-Shirts vs Cuba
One article that really caught my eye was "No More Doffers". The first paragraph reads "What have been the effects of the dominance of politics over markets in world trade apparel? The stated purpose of the protectionist regime was and remains to protect manufacturing jobs in the western textile and apparel industries and judged against this benchmark the regimes success has been quite limited. But the influence of politics in redirecting trade has had a number of other consequences--mostly perverse and unintended but both positive and negative."
Rivoli made some serious comments regarding how our countries politics deal with our own imports and exports. The central idea that I took from this passage is the possibility of americans getting hurt in the process of blocking these textile gateways. America's business with outside nations play a bigger role on society than we think. When I think of embargo's I immediately think of Cuba. I live in a very dense cuban neighborhood, and the cuban culture is unlike any other. I think of the cuban embargo, and I think of who it supported...and no one has come to mind.
In this CNN article a U.S. politician by the name of Richard Lugar shares a similar opinion. Cubans are a big part of our hispanic immigrant population. We as a country owe a lot to the third world. I feel it is our duty to protect them, and bring their quality of life to a comparable level to us. The embargo was supposed to spread democracy, but it has failed. I feel that new U.S. interest in Cuba can give an economic boost, and help the citizens of Cuba as much as possible...it can actually spread democracy and open up new importing/exporting channels.
I also found a video discussing the travel benefits of Cuba. It's a pretty awesome place.
Here is the CNN Article
Rivoli made some serious comments regarding how our countries politics deal with our own imports and exports. The central idea that I took from this passage is the possibility of americans getting hurt in the process of blocking these textile gateways. America's business with outside nations play a bigger role on society than we think. When I think of embargo's I immediately think of Cuba. I live in a very dense cuban neighborhood, and the cuban culture is unlike any other. I think of the cuban embargo, and I think of who it supported...and no one has come to mind.
In this CNN article a U.S. politician by the name of Richard Lugar shares a similar opinion. Cubans are a big part of our hispanic immigrant population. We as a country owe a lot to the third world. I feel it is our duty to protect them, and bring their quality of life to a comparable level to us. The embargo was supposed to spread democracy, but it has failed. I feel that new U.S. interest in Cuba can give an economic boost, and help the citizens of Cuba as much as possible...it can actually spread democracy and open up new importing/exporting channels.
I also found a video discussing the travel benefits of Cuba. It's a pretty awesome place.
Here is the CNN Article
The Role T-Shirt Imports played in the days following 9/11
A paragraph in Pietra Rivoli’s book The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy, that really caught my attention was in chapter 8 titled Perverse Effects and Unintended Consequences of T-Shirt Trade Policy. The first paragraph under a section called, Wal-Mart Backs Musharraf, Rivoli talks about the role T-shirt imports played in the days following the attack on the World Trade Center. The talks involved President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. The talks centered on Pakistan. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf aligned himself with the United States and along with receiving an aid package asked the United States to lessen trade restrictions on textile and apparel imports to the United States. Rivoli emphasizes, “Textile and apparel represented more than 60 percent of Pakistan’s industrial employment and its exports, and the United States was by far the country’s biggest consumer…apparel and textiles to the United States were restricted by tariffs as high as 29 percent” (159). Maintaining Pakistan as an ally as the United States mobilized itself for the war on terror targeting Pakistan’s neighbor Afghanistan was critical. This paragraph was surprising to read because I was not aware of the extent to which the textile trading industry played in world affairs especially after the 9/11 attacks.
In an article from November 8, 2001 from The New York Times, titled Pakistanis Urge U.S. to Suspend Textile Tariffs, the extent to which the United States changed following 9/11 really had a strong effect on Pakistan’s economy. The article states, “A two-thirds decline in business from United States companies is forcing apparel and textile concerns in Pakistan to lay off thousands of people and could soon close numerous factories, according to a report released yesterday by a Pakistani trade group.” The article continues on explaining that companies such as American Eagle Outfitters and Perry Ellis have stopped ordering goods from Pakistan. American retailers feared that escalating hostilities would prevent their goods from arriving on time. Representatives from the Pakistan Textile and Apparel Group believed the industry needed tariff relief in order to survive. Rivoli mentions a few paragraphs later that Pakistan’s request for tariff relief was completely denied since President Bush knew that such a request would need Congressional approval. The United States did grant quota expansion and more quota flexibility to Pakistan but as this article demonstrates such measures did not do much to help the textile and apparel industry.
Pakistan is still a main player in the United States war with Afghanistan. Just recently the Taliban and Pakistan reached a truce concerning the violence in Swat Valley, Pakistan’s biggest tourist attraction that sits on the border of Afghanistan. This truce has expressed some concern among officials that such an agreement could cede Swat Valley to extremists, however; the main topic of the article found on cnn.com discusses Pakistan’s hope in Obama’s administration’s commit to rid their region of extremists.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E1DE1E39F93BA35752C1A9679C8B63
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/24/pakistan.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch
In an article from November 8, 2001 from The New York Times, titled Pakistanis Urge U.S. to Suspend Textile Tariffs, the extent to which the United States changed following 9/11 really had a strong effect on Pakistan’s economy. The article states, “A two-thirds decline in business from United States companies is forcing apparel and textile concerns in Pakistan to lay off thousands of people and could soon close numerous factories, according to a report released yesterday by a Pakistani trade group.” The article continues on explaining that companies such as American Eagle Outfitters and Perry Ellis have stopped ordering goods from Pakistan. American retailers feared that escalating hostilities would prevent their goods from arriving on time. Representatives from the Pakistan Textile and Apparel Group believed the industry needed tariff relief in order to survive. Rivoli mentions a few paragraphs later that Pakistan’s request for tariff relief was completely denied since President Bush knew that such a request would need Congressional approval. The United States did grant quota expansion and more quota flexibility to Pakistan but as this article demonstrates such measures did not do much to help the textile and apparel industry.
Pakistan is still a main player in the United States war with Afghanistan. Just recently the Taliban and Pakistan reached a truce concerning the violence in Swat Valley, Pakistan’s biggest tourist attraction that sits on the border of Afghanistan. This truce has expressed some concern among officials that such an agreement could cede Swat Valley to extremists, however; the main topic of the article found on cnn.com discusses Pakistan’s hope in Obama’s administration’s commit to rid their region of extremists.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E1DE1E39F93BA35752C1A9679C8B63
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/24/pakistan.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Free Trade comes with a price: Our Jobs
The paragraph in Pietra Rivoli’s which interested me is within Chapter 7. This chapter discusses the power of political influences on the free trade, and the less powerful market influences. The paragraph, second on page 115, speaks about how free trade is having negative, possibly short-term, influences on employment in the United States. Rivoli states “5,000 textile workers lost their jobs on a single day in 2003” (Rivoli, p. 115). The chapter continues on to discuss Auggie Tantillo’s, and the alphabet army’s, influence on suppressing imports into the United States. There are a couple paragraphs that talk about the restriction on imports of which importing countries must abide to, especially China.
After reading this chapter, I began to wonder where the influence of exports of the United States came into play, if at all. In an article titled The High Price of ‘Free Trade, the author Robert E. Scott discusses the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its’ positive and negative influences in the U.S. economy. Since the implementation of this agreement, there has been a displacement of manufacturing countries in the U.S. to foreign countries. This means, that products that would have been exported from the U.S., and employing many citizens, are now coming from other countries where labor and production costs are lower. Maybe I am biased because I have been focused on Rivoli’s book, but I found it surprising that Scott’s article focused more on the influences of Mexican and Canadian exports and imports and not at all on China. Perhaps this is because Scott’s article is about manufacturing displacement in general and not primarily on textile industries.
In the article, Scott states that NAFTA favors the investors, and not the workers. I found this statement comparable to, in Rivoli’s book, Julia Hughes (representative for the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel) arguments for free trade and limited restriction on the apparel imports from China. I feel as though Hughes sees the job losses in U.S. manufacturing industry as a necessity for the development in the autonomy of the women employed in textile industries. However, even though these women are more autonomous, their innate human rights are still being violated. I feel as though their autonomy obscures these violations of human rights.
There were also quite a few interesting facts in Scott’s article. As stated previously, in the year 2003, 5,000 U.S. textile workers lost their jobs in one day. Scott speaks about the ever increasing percentage in imports and the declining percentage in U.S. exports as a major factor in the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. In the beginning of NAFTA, from 1994 to 2000, employments were very high, but since 2001, 2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost. This shows that the problem of free trade is not just a problem with apparel and China, but with all manufacturing. Increased imports = less jobs.
The high price of 'free' trade
by Robert E. Scott
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp147/
After reading this chapter, I began to wonder where the influence of exports of the United States came into play, if at all. In an article titled The High Price of ‘Free Trade, the author Robert E. Scott discusses the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its’ positive and negative influences in the U.S. economy. Since the implementation of this agreement, there has been a displacement of manufacturing countries in the U.S. to foreign countries. This means, that products that would have been exported from the U.S., and employing many citizens, are now coming from other countries where labor and production costs are lower. Maybe I am biased because I have been focused on Rivoli’s book, but I found it surprising that Scott’s article focused more on the influences of Mexican and Canadian exports and imports and not at all on China. Perhaps this is because Scott’s article is about manufacturing displacement in general and not primarily on textile industries.
In the article, Scott states that NAFTA favors the investors, and not the workers. I found this statement comparable to, in Rivoli’s book, Julia Hughes (representative for the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel) arguments for free trade and limited restriction on the apparel imports from China. I feel as though Hughes sees the job losses in U.S. manufacturing industry as a necessity for the development in the autonomy of the women employed in textile industries. However, even though these women are more autonomous, their innate human rights are still being violated. I feel as though their autonomy obscures these violations of human rights.
There were also quite a few interesting facts in Scott’s article. As stated previously, in the year 2003, 5,000 U.S. textile workers lost their jobs in one day. Scott speaks about the ever increasing percentage in imports and the declining percentage in U.S. exports as a major factor in the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. In the beginning of NAFTA, from 1994 to 2000, employments were very high, but since 2001, 2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost. This shows that the problem of free trade is not just a problem with apparel and China, but with all manufacturing. Increased imports = less jobs.
The high price of 'free' trade
by Robert E. Scott
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp147/
Travels Of A T-Shirt
On page 72 of The Travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy, I found a paragraph that caught my eye, the last one on the page. The paragraph reads: “But whether we view China’s dominance in textiles and apparel as a failure or victory, China’s position at the top is strikingly different from the dominance of American cotton producers. While American cotton growers have held their position for 200 years, experience suggest that dominance in the textile and apparel industries has historically been a fleeting moment, a brief stop in the race to the bottom in this intensely competitive industry. To understand China’s victory in the race today, to understand why American cotton travels so far to become a T-shirt and ultimately to decide whether the race to the bottom (or perhaps the top) is a good thing or a bad thing, something to be stopped or facilitated, let us examine the course of the race itself: Where did it start? Where does it end? What happens to the winners and losers? And what about the young woman eating thin rice gruel?”
This got me thinking about how much has changed from when this book was written (2006), compared to now (2009). I feel like within the last 3 years, the world has become even more interdependent and globalized, primarily with the increase in technology and trade among countries, this was a great thing. Now with the Economic turmoil the effects of lessening trade between countries, I’m not sure if being so globalized is actually good. The paragraph in the book talks about China as well and the US’ dominance in the textile industry, which is not really the case today anymore. It’s pretty evident that the Economy in the United States is not good which is having severe negative effects basically everywhere, whether it be the textile industry, the automotive industry, or the rising unemployment rates and layoffs that every company seems to be making. China’s textile industry is struggling as well, due to globalization and the fact that problems in the US directly affect China (as well as other countries) something I spoke about in my previous blog. China even had to initiate a stimulus package to help the industry regain its dominance and convert to more technology based rather than manual labor.
I found an article on the US cotton industry, about a cotton farmer in Southern California who is going to have to shut down his farm after working with cotton his whole life, because of fuel costs and urban centers pushing for a larger share of the state’s water supply. Due to the fact that cotton, is a “water-intensive crop and the fields here are irrigated by canals that draw from the Colorado River, the source of drinking water for much of Southern California.” I understand that that fuel costs would play a major fact into a farm shutting down, however water supply seems weird to me. We take water for granted so much, and the fact that in today’s day and age a farm cannot get enough water to keep on producing just doesn’t seem right. The article also made reference to China, “[b]ut the growth of textile mills in countries like China and India and improvements in mill technology mean buyers new look to lower quality- and less expensive- lint and rely on mills to make up the difference.” With China’s stimulus package aiming to reduce manual labor to more technology labor, the cotton farmers that are still in business in the US are in trouble. The paragraph of the book says, “…dominance in the textile and apparel industries has historically been a fleeting moment, a brief stop in the race to the bottom in this intensely competitive industry,” what this means is that a country cannot stay at the top of a certain industry forever, and this is being illustrated today with the US and China, two textile giants who were once at the top of their game, and now struggling to maintain their title.
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/19cotton.html?scp=1&sq=cotton%20industry&st=cse
This got me thinking about how much has changed from when this book was written (2006), compared to now (2009). I feel like within the last 3 years, the world has become even more interdependent and globalized, primarily with the increase in technology and trade among countries, this was a great thing. Now with the Economic turmoil the effects of lessening trade between countries, I’m not sure if being so globalized is actually good. The paragraph in the book talks about China as well and the US’ dominance in the textile industry, which is not really the case today anymore. It’s pretty evident that the Economy in the United States is not good which is having severe negative effects basically everywhere, whether it be the textile industry, the automotive industry, or the rising unemployment rates and layoffs that every company seems to be making. China’s textile industry is struggling as well, due to globalization and the fact that problems in the US directly affect China (as well as other countries) something I spoke about in my previous blog. China even had to initiate a stimulus package to help the industry regain its dominance and convert to more technology based rather than manual labor.
I found an article on the US cotton industry, about a cotton farmer in Southern California who is going to have to shut down his farm after working with cotton his whole life, because of fuel costs and urban centers pushing for a larger share of the state’s water supply. Due to the fact that cotton, is a “water-intensive crop and the fields here are irrigated by canals that draw from the Colorado River, the source of drinking water for much of Southern California.” I understand that that fuel costs would play a major fact into a farm shutting down, however water supply seems weird to me. We take water for granted so much, and the fact that in today’s day and age a farm cannot get enough water to keep on producing just doesn’t seem right. The article also made reference to China, “[b]ut the growth of textile mills in countries like China and India and improvements in mill technology mean buyers new look to lower quality- and less expensive- lint and rely on mills to make up the difference.” With China’s stimulus package aiming to reduce manual labor to more technology labor, the cotton farmers that are still in business in the US are in trouble. The paragraph of the book says, “…dominance in the textile and apparel industries has historically been a fleeting moment, a brief stop in the race to the bottom in this intensely competitive industry,” what this means is that a country cannot stay at the top of a certain industry forever, and this is being illustrated today with the US and China, two textile giants who were once at the top of their game, and now struggling to maintain their title.
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/19cotton.html?scp=1&sq=cotton%20industry&st=cse
Monday, February 23, 2009
The US economy is not the only one struggling...
http://www.praguepost.com/news/571-weak-economy-hits-rural-bohemia.html
I found this article about how unemployment rates are rising in Czech Republic. According to the article, last month more than 50,000 job losses , raising the unemployment rate from 6 percent to 6.8 percent year on year, according to government figures. This goes to show that our world really is globalized and turmoil with one economy will eventually have hurt other ones as well.
I found this article about how unemployment rates are rising in Czech Republic. According to the article, last month more than 50,000 job losses , raising the unemployment rate from 6 percent to 6.8 percent year on year, according to government figures. This goes to show that our world really is globalized and turmoil with one economy will eventually have hurt other ones as well.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Life on the farm better than working conditions today?
The passage I found was on pg.90 and titled, Sure Beats the Farm, and it read: "Like their sisters in time, textile and clothing workers in China today have low pay, long hours, and poor working conditions. Living quarters are cramped and rights limited, the work is boring, the air is dusty, and the noise is brain numbing. The food is bad, the fences are high, and the curfews inviolate. As generations of mill girls and seamstresses from Europe, America, and Asisa are bound together by this common sweatshop experience - controlled, exploited, overworked, and underpaid - they are bound together too by one absolute certainty, shared across both oceans and centuries: This beats the hell out of life on the farm.
Besides the horrible working conditions in China, I found an article in the NY Times explaining a protest in Harare, Zimbabwe where doctors and nurses are walking the streets demonstrating for better pay and working conditions in the hospital. Working in healthcare institutions, these doctors and nurses are forced to work without the essentials such as drugs, adequate water and sanitation, medical equipment, and safe clothing gear. Basic medicines are absent here in Harare and a new cholera epidemic has struck the country with 565 dead already, and over 12,500 infected. I don't understand how these kinds of conditions could be better than life on the farm? Yes I understand the workers on the farm had to work long hours day after day in horrible heat waves, but these people today working in healthcare facilities don't even have the basic medical supplies to do their jobs. At least the farmers had the tools they needed to complete the tasks at hand. In Zimbabwe, there isn't even clean drinking water; the water is only helping the spread of cholera which used to be an unknown diseases in this country, until now. Cholera is preventable too, but the government cannot even supply the chemicals to purify the drinking water, let alone provide hospitals with equipment to save innocent lives. I think it is safe to say that life on the farm was tough, but things in factories and other working facilities have only gotten tougher for the workers.
Today we constantly hear of laborers in factories in third world countries who work in unsanitary conditions and get beaten for not completing the work. Life on the farm was not the ideal job but at least most of the workers were given tools to work with, some sort of nourishment, and back then there were not as many things to go wrong. Life is more complex these days because our knowledge and technology has grown, giving the opportunity for more people to live without less. We keep developing new medicines and technological devices to make our lives easier, but only few countries can afford these things. Farmers all had the same tools and there weren't many different options as to how the job could get done. I think that the more things we develop and create, the more people have to live without. Zimbabwe doesn't have the basic medicines to cure a disease that is preventable; this must be so frustrating for the doctors and nurses to see people dying day after day knowing that their lives can be saved if the country was only lucky enough to be provided with these medicines and safe drinking water!
It is sad to think that although the world has grown so much since life on the farm that working conditions have still not improved in some countries and that things only get worse for countries, while countries like the United States gets is privileged to have every new development to better our lives even more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/world/africa/04zimbabwe.html
Economic Freedom
Sorry this is late; I had a few technical difficulties.
Much like how my fellow classmates have written, I have never put much thought in the process needed in order for me to purchase my clothes. Much like a carbon footprint our products move through different channels. Rivoli educated myself when she discussed how used clothing was our country’s biggest export.
In her presentation she did a wonderful job to show how people in our world if given the power to write the rules, will usually write the rules to protect themselves. When she acknowledged our nations “cotton tenure” these farmers are protected by government subsidies, which prohibit capitalism and limit competition in the global economy. This is a very interesting concept, which can be translated into many facets of our world, and culture. There are countless examples in our world today where the people in charge write the rules to only protect themselves, or influence the people to write the rules in their favor. Essentially it is lobbying. Everyone who takes part in this in a global economic sense these people who lobby and change the rules are taking their economic freedom into their own hands. In a sense whoever controls the laws prohibit the economic freedom of others.
One subject in the U.S. news is the current situation within the automobile industry. The big three auto companies consist of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. With stock prices below $10 the auto industry was seizing money. In the article here we see how the auto companies received a bailout. This was about 4 months ago. Now almost three months into the New Year we find that they did not manage the bailout money, and need another government handout. They are failing in our economy, and are claiming they need more money to fix their problems. In the end they are just trying to increase their chances of staying in business. However by receiving another government bailout, it will affect every single taxpayer. Our hard earned money is being given out at an alarming rate, and in the end we will only have to pay more taxes. We are in a terrible downward spiral.
Since we are discussing bailouts, I would like to pay attention to a bailout that would have a direct affect on the people who need it most. The housing bailout will help people refinance their mortgages, and give a little bit more freedom to stimulate the economy on their own terms. This Huffington Post article has all of the info. Ravioli’s concept of the tenure professor structure is what I have focused on, and how usually the people lobbying for their own economic freedom prohibit others. In this case with the housing bailout the American people are fighting for their economic freedom, and with this plan they are able to increase their freedom, but not limit anyone else.
Much like how my fellow classmates have written, I have never put much thought in the process needed in order for me to purchase my clothes. Much like a carbon footprint our products move through different channels. Rivoli educated myself when she discussed how used clothing was our country’s biggest export.
In her presentation she did a wonderful job to show how people in our world if given the power to write the rules, will usually write the rules to protect themselves. When she acknowledged our nations “cotton tenure” these farmers are protected by government subsidies, which prohibit capitalism and limit competition in the global economy. This is a very interesting concept, which can be translated into many facets of our world, and culture. There are countless examples in our world today where the people in charge write the rules to only protect themselves, or influence the people to write the rules in their favor. Essentially it is lobbying. Everyone who takes part in this in a global economic sense these people who lobby and change the rules are taking their economic freedom into their own hands. In a sense whoever controls the laws prohibit the economic freedom of others.
One subject in the U.S. news is the current situation within the automobile industry. The big three auto companies consist of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. With stock prices below $10 the auto industry was seizing money. In the article here we see how the auto companies received a bailout. This was about 4 months ago. Now almost three months into the New Year we find that they did not manage the bailout money, and need another government handout. They are failing in our economy, and are claiming they need more money to fix their problems. In the end they are just trying to increase their chances of staying in business. However by receiving another government bailout, it will affect every single taxpayer. Our hard earned money is being given out at an alarming rate, and in the end we will only have to pay more taxes. We are in a terrible downward spiral.
Since we are discussing bailouts, I would like to pay attention to a bailout that would have a direct affect on the people who need it most. The housing bailout will help people refinance their mortgages, and give a little bit more freedom to stimulate the economy on their own terms. This Huffington Post article has all of the info. Ravioli’s concept of the tenure professor structure is what I have focused on, and how usually the people lobbying for their own economic freedom prohibit others. In this case with the housing bailout the American people are fighting for their economic freedom, and with this plan they are able to increase their freedom, but not limit anyone else.
website
the website didn't get posted again:
Work Cited:
"Met is 'no longer racist'" BBC.com. 22 Feb. 2009. The BBC. 22 Feb. 2009
.
Work Cited:
"Met is 'no longer racist'" BBC.com. 22 Feb. 2009. The BBC. 22 Feb. 2009
Travels of a Tshirt Special Passage
After reading Travels of a Tshirt, I have come across passages that I have feel are important and deserve to have a second look at.
“So as the divide between labor and capital yawned wider, the Communists gradually and secretly infiltrated the cotton mills, where thousands of workers were locked in a steamy hell, ripening for revolution.”(Rivoli, Page 64, Line 8). The Chinese government not only did nothing to help the workers of the cotton factories, but only added to the treacherous conditions. Young women, especially, were forced to work every day of the week for 12 hours each day earning as little as 12 cents an hour. The country started to thrive off the business of cotton factories and did not care what the cost was to its people. Traditional family structures and even some cultures were being muffled and disappeared because the emphasis of life became to work. At this point in China’s history, there was just the wealthy that ran the factories, and the poor who worked them. I feel that the “middle class” vanished all together and would not appear in the least until after more advancement from the West would transpire. The United States was responsible for affecting the lives of Chinese migrant laborers just as much as China. Seeing as how the cotton came from Lubbock, Texas and Eli Whitney was the creator of the cotton gin, the U.S. held some reigns over production.
“The spinning jennies gave rise to the factory system and to an entirely new economic order. Factory employment meant not only that workers gave up their domestic textile activities, but also that they gave up their agricultural activities and moved from farms to the new urban areas.”(Rivoli, Page 75, Line 22) Because of technology, laborers had to migrate from the farms to the city and learn how to use machines to support their livelihood. The culture of the Chinese working class was forced to change for the greater good of the country.
“So as the divide between labor and capital yawned wider, the Communists gradually and secretly infiltrated the cotton mills, where thousands of workers were locked in a steamy hell, ripening for revolution.”(Rivoli, Page 64, Line 8). The Chinese government not only did nothing to help the workers of the cotton factories, but only added to the treacherous conditions. Young women, especially, were forced to work every day of the week for 12 hours each day earning as little as 12 cents an hour. The country started to thrive off the business of cotton factories and did not care what the cost was to its people. Traditional family structures and even some cultures were being muffled and disappeared because the emphasis of life became to work. At this point in China’s history, there was just the wealthy that ran the factories, and the poor who worked them. I feel that the “middle class” vanished all together and would not appear in the least until after more advancement from the West would transpire. The United States was responsible for affecting the lives of Chinese migrant laborers just as much as China. Seeing as how the cotton came from Lubbock, Texas and Eli Whitney was the creator of the cotton gin, the U.S. held some reigns over production.
“The spinning jennies gave rise to the factory system and to an entirely new economic order. Factory employment meant not only that workers gave up their domestic textile activities, but also that they gave up their agricultural activities and moved from farms to the new urban areas.”(Rivoli, Page 75, Line 22) Because of technology, laborers had to migrate from the farms to the city and learn how to use machines to support their livelihood. The culture of the Chinese working class was forced to change for the greater good of the country.
The issue that I am addressing has to do with Chinese working conditions. Conditions remain unsafe for workers and unfortunately little pay still accompanies those conditions. In reading an article from The New York Times online, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05sweatshop.html?_r=1, the horrible conditions are made evident. Workers are forced to drag around barrels of highly toxic chemicals that are extremely harmful to consumers, so why should an employee be exposed to them? Another thing that is a common trend in the chinese labor force is losing fingers. 40,000 fingers are lost or broken in a YEAR in chinese labor forces. That's 8000 hands! [yes, I did the math].
American companies like Disney, Dell and McDonalds are affected by the chinese labor force as they have often been entangled in problems like child labor, 16 hour work days and less than minimum wage salaries. It is interesting to see how as soon as unfair working conditions are seen in the media the companies must make a fast decision how to handle it and either severe relations with that manufacturer or force them to change.
The unfair and unsafe conditions of labor forces in China truly are skewing generation upon generations of Chinese families and creating very low-income, poverty stricken areas. I feel that if working conditions were fair and safe, perhaps both the businesses and the workers would flourish and produce better quality products.
Racism Yesterday and Today: More Similar Than You Would Think
On page 47 in The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy, there is a section that talks about the cotton farmers bring into town their cotton bales to be sold to a buyer. Ned Cobb, an African-American cotton-farmer from the mid-20th century, that the author has been periodically checking in with throughout the book, talks a bit about his own experiences with trying to sell his cotton in town: “Ned Cobb remembered selling cotton, too, hitching up the mules and taking a bale into town. But he tried not to take his cotton right to the buyer. He let a white friend do that as he found that this made a big difference in the price: ‘[C]olored man’s cotton weren’t worth as much as white man’s cotton less’n it come to the buyer in a white man’s hands’” (Rivoli 47). This section struck me as an infringement on the rights of Cobb to get equal treatment for his work as a white person doing the same work. I understand that the time period in which this happened; the country had yet to go through the Civil Rights Movement. Reading this section makes me think that that way of thinking is so old and outdated. However, you look in the news today, and there are still people that are close-minded and racist.
From the BBC’s website, BBC.com, I found an article that emphasizes the point that racism still is around today. It may not be as common place as it once was, but sadly it is still around. In the article, the Metropolitan Police (in London), have been deemed ‘no longer institutionally racist’ by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw. The fact that it is 2009 and institutions are just now being announced as not racist is sad. It’s been over 40 years since the Revolutionary Sixties and Martin Luther King, Jr. For me it’s hard to believe why any individual would be racist still to this day, which makes this article very hard for me to believe because it’s a whole institution—police officers to add to it! Mr. Straw talked about how he thinks that as a whole institution and going with majority that racism is gone from the Metropolitan Police. However, he says that, “If you ask me, do I believe that it’s [Metropolitan Police Institution] perfect as an institution and that black and Asian people, and indeed women, have the same opportunities in practice as white males, I think the answer is – probably not in some areas” (“Met”). This is completely unacceptable as a society. It links back to Cobb selling his cotton to buyers but making sure that he wasn’t the one that the buyers saw. The inequality that exists today, as it did back in Cobb’s time as well is horrible. To base any decision upon the color of a person’s skin is inhumane. Everyone is equal and if two people of different races are doing identical work, then they deserve identical compensation. Cobb deserved the same amount of money that was given to his fellow-cotton farmers who were white. It’s unfortunate that people still need to be reminded of this concept in today’s world.
Work Cited:
"Met is 'no longer racist'" BBC.com. 22 Feb. 2009. The BBC. 22 Feb. 2009
.
From the BBC’s website, BBC.com, I found an article that emphasizes the point that racism still is around today. It may not be as common place as it once was, but sadly it is still around. In the article, the Metropolitan Police (in London), have been deemed ‘no longer institutionally racist’ by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw. The fact that it is 2009 and institutions are just now being announced as not racist is sad. It’s been over 40 years since the Revolutionary Sixties and Martin Luther King, Jr. For me it’s hard to believe why any individual would be racist still to this day, which makes this article very hard for me to believe because it’s a whole institution—police officers to add to it! Mr. Straw talked about how he thinks that as a whole institution and going with majority that racism is gone from the Metropolitan Police. However, he says that, “If you ask me, do I believe that it’s [Metropolitan Police Institution] perfect as an institution and that black and Asian people, and indeed women, have the same opportunities in practice as white males, I think the answer is – probably not in some areas” (“Met”). This is completely unacceptable as a society. It links back to Cobb selling his cotton to buyers but making sure that he wasn’t the one that the buyers saw. The inequality that exists today, as it did back in Cobb’s time as well is horrible. To base any decision upon the color of a person’s skin is inhumane. Everyone is equal and if two people of different races are doing identical work, then they deserve identical compensation. Cobb deserved the same amount of money that was given to his fellow-cotton farmers who were white. It’s unfortunate that people still need to be reminded of this concept in today’s world.
Work Cited:
"Met is 'no longer racist'" BBC.com. 22 Feb. 2009. The BBC. 22 Feb. 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
This week's blog assignement
From the book The Travels of a T- Shirt in the Global Economy select a paragraph that gained your special interest, and briefly describe what meaning the idea included in the paragraph holds for you personally. Using reputable news sources, find an article that relates to this idea and discuss it with connection to the book.
This assignment is due Wed. midnight.
By Friday’s class, read at tleast two posts by your classmates and comment on them. The comments do not have to be long (one paragrah is enough,) but they should be thoughtfull.
This assignment is due Wed. midnight.
By Friday’s class, read at tleast two posts by your classmates and comment on them. The comments do not have to be long (one paragrah is enough,) but they should be thoughtfull.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
What Will Obama's Economic Stimulus Package Result In?
Prior to reading Rivoli’s, The Travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy, I never really put much thought into the history and background of my clothes. I, like many others simply go the mall or store, and pick out what I like, never really giving much consideration into the long journey that the article of clothing I’m holding had already been on prior to my purchasing of it. Nor do I put any thought into where/how my money would be divided up across many thousands of miles. Today I decided to take a look at the tag of the sweatshirt I put on, made in China, and it made me wonder about who helped to make my sweatshirt, what type of salary do they make, what are the working conditions like, where in China was it sewn, where did the materials come from, and how long did it take for all of this happen.
Pietra Rivoli examined all of these questions about the T-shirt she purchased over a 5-year period. During this period she traveled from a Texas cotton field to a Chinese factory, from trade negotiations in Washington DC to a used clothing market in Tanzania, Africa. Her travels exemplified many lessons about the globalization of countries around the world and demonstrated the impact that it has on many of those countries, both rich and poor. The travels of her T-shirt are a perfect illustration of exactly how globalized the world economy is. With the economic turmoil in the US, it is greatly affecting other countries, specifically the Chinese Textile Industry. I found an article about the stimulus package that China is instituting to try and revive their Textile Industry. According to the article, “[c]hina has been the largest textile manufacturer and exporter in the world and enjoyed an overwhelming advantage over other countries amid fierce international competition,” this was until recently when the global economy has severely weakened. “In the context of the global economic crisis, nearly 70 percent of the country's textile enterprises, however, suffered a 0.19 percent decline in profits in the second half of last year, with two-thirds suffering business hardships to varying degrees.” This is a clear example of how globalized the economy is, especially between the US and China and how turmoil in one country directly affects the other country. The stimulus plan has a lot of emphasis on technological innovations. Because the Textile Industry is the oldest labor-intensive industry that closely relates to ordinary people's livelihoods, a switch to more machine driven is going to dramatically affect China. Will my future clothes now be made by machine, if so, who is going to operate the machines? Although “hands-on” work may no longer be required, are workers still going to have to work long-hours for little pay, or will they be gotten rid of entirely? Will the workers who helped to make my sweat shirt be out of jobs and forced back to the rural countryside of China? These are questions that I cannot answer, however I feel that with the movement from manual labor to machine driven labor the workforce of china is going to be dramatically changed.
The textile industry in China is not the only industry that has been affected by the weakening global economy. China also instituted a number of stimulus plans for other industries, including auto, steel and shipbuilding. US Congress just passed an 800 billion dollar stimulus package to help out our countries economy; this will affect the economies of other countries as well. It’s going to be interesting to see what the effects Obama’s stimulus package has, not only in the US but in countries overseas like China. If things improve in the US, things will surely improve elsewhere, specifically in China.
Sources: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-02/18/content_7486153.htmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-progress-report/obamas-stimulus-package_b_155279.html
Pietra Rivoli examined all of these questions about the T-shirt she purchased over a 5-year period. During this period she traveled from a Texas cotton field to a Chinese factory, from trade negotiations in Washington DC to a used clothing market in Tanzania, Africa. Her travels exemplified many lessons about the globalization of countries around the world and demonstrated the impact that it has on many of those countries, both rich and poor. The travels of her T-shirt are a perfect illustration of exactly how globalized the world economy is. With the economic turmoil in the US, it is greatly affecting other countries, specifically the Chinese Textile Industry. I found an article about the stimulus package that China is instituting to try and revive their Textile Industry. According to the article, “[c]hina has been the largest textile manufacturer and exporter in the world and enjoyed an overwhelming advantage over other countries amid fierce international competition,” this was until recently when the global economy has severely weakened. “In the context of the global economic crisis, nearly 70 percent of the country's textile enterprises, however, suffered a 0.19 percent decline in profits in the second half of last year, with two-thirds suffering business hardships to varying degrees.” This is a clear example of how globalized the economy is, especially between the US and China and how turmoil in one country directly affects the other country. The stimulus plan has a lot of emphasis on technological innovations. Because the Textile Industry is the oldest labor-intensive industry that closely relates to ordinary people's livelihoods, a switch to more machine driven is going to dramatically affect China. Will my future clothes now be made by machine, if so, who is going to operate the machines? Although “hands-on” work may no longer be required, are workers still going to have to work long-hours for little pay, or will they be gotten rid of entirely? Will the workers who helped to make my sweat shirt be out of jobs and forced back to the rural countryside of China? These are questions that I cannot answer, however I feel that with the movement from manual labor to machine driven labor the workforce of china is going to be dramatically changed.
The textile industry in China is not the only industry that has been affected by the weakening global economy. China also instituted a number of stimulus plans for other industries, including auto, steel and shipbuilding. US Congress just passed an 800 billion dollar stimulus package to help out our countries economy; this will affect the economies of other countries as well. It’s going to be interesting to see what the effects Obama’s stimulus package has, not only in the US but in countries overseas like China. If things improve in the US, things will surely improve elsewhere, specifically in China.
Sources: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-02/18/content_7486153.htmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-progress-report/obamas-stimulus-package_b_155279.html
In Certain Countries Sweatshops have a Place
In Pietra Rivoli’s book, A T-Shirt in the Global Economy, Rivoli discusses factories in China and the women who work in them. In a chapter titled, “Sisters in Time: From the Farm to the Sweatshop and Beyond,” and in her UCSB talk, Rivoli talks about her encounters with individuals working in the sweatshop and their positive views about their situation. During her UCSB talk, she mentions meeting this one young woman who was all dolled up for a day a work in the factory with a pair of extremely high heeled boots on. This young woman was so proud of her boots because she was the one who decided to purchase them and was able to do so with her own money. The factory offers Chinese women the opportunity to earn their own money and spend it how they choose; an opportunity that would not be offered to them on the farm. Rivoli writes, “As generations of mill girls and seamstresses from Europe, America, and Asia are bound together by this common sweatshop experience – controlled, exploited, overworked, and underpaid – they are bound together too by one absolute certainty, shared across both oceans and centuries: This beats the hell out of life on the farm” (90). Rivoli sheds light on the fact that not all aspects of the factory systems are bad. Nicholas D. Kristof, a writer for the New York Times, also sees some of the positives to factories in his article “Where Sweatshops are a Dream.” His article uses the unspeakable conditions in Phnom Penh, Cambodia to demonstrate the potentially uplifting consequences of building a factory in Phnom Penh. The article mentions President Obama intention to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad, however Kristof explains, “while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.” Mothers in Phnom Penh can only hope that their children land factories job oppose to the alternative of digging through trash and looking for plastic cups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound. The article also mentions while manufacturing can provide millions of jobs, sweatshops are often going to the better off countries with more reliable electricity than to the poorer countries that could really benefit from factory jobs. An example of a country that should not have sweatshops is the UK but as an article from BBC explains, investigators found a sweatshop linked with Primark in Manchester. While minimum wage is 5.73 Euros, the workers were being paid 3.50 Euros to work in cold, cramped, unsafe conditions. There is no benefit to working in a sweatshop for factory workers in a highly developed country.
2$ a day and back breaking work: The grass isnt always greener on the other side
Pietra Rivoli’s speech was based on her discoveries while scribing the novel, “The Travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy.” In this speech she dives into the major issues plaguing the textile and cotton industry from a global perspective. She is an equal opportunity textile industry basher for all countries from the US to China. While some of the technology has changed throughout the textile time period, one factor remains static, labor. Pietra Rivoli mentioned that machines and even monkeys have tested to replace humans but none have succeeded. From American slaves to Chinese women with no other choices, the textile industry has been sucking the life out of its workers. Miss Rivoli speaks about the oppressive slave masters in America and the sweltering hot conditions of Chinese textile industries. But even at the current time when these factories conditions are way sub par, I wonder, are these atrocious conditions better than the next best alternative? The current economic conditions in the US have had a direct and profound impact on the textile industry in China. As a result demand is down and over 700,000 jobs have already been lost according to the wsj.com article. These indivudals, “, mainly women, earn about $2 a day.” (Sheth wsj.com) Now, I would never in the world think about working an hour, let alone a day for $2, but to these women it is better than nothing. The quality of living is lower in China and many people can survive on this low pay for backbreaking work. Now that they lost their jobs, who knows what will happen and if they cant afford to put meals on a table that may not exist any longer. These individuals are longing for the opportunity to command their stations in the textile factories. I understand that the conditions and pay are horrendous, but they are employing millions of workers who otherwise may not have any source of income and that cannot be a bad thing. The textile industry “contributed 4% of India's gross domestic product in the year that ended March 31.” (Sheth wsj.com). These workers and this industry is the backbone of the Chinese economy. Yes these workers should be paid more and yes they should have better working conditions, but I ask you what is the next best alternative for these workers? Also, while activists and celebrities in America scoff at the idea of cheap labor, they are the ones purchasing name brand clothing produced by children and sweatshops. “The decisions they made – shifting textiles to low-wage nations, using some lower quality fabrics, laying off employees, and moving to less expensive warehouse and office space – are the sorts of decisions that businesses all over the world are making these days. The most agile will survive. The effects will ripple around the world economy” (Binkley wsj.com). According to Binkley, vast ranges of designers are seeking out cheap materials to keep the prices of their clothes down. These activists who think they are holier than tho point fingers at the companies and at people who purchase these goods, but the thing is they are too! This epidemic cannot be escaped. I do not necessarily think people should embrace these conditions but they should take a look at the alternatives because the grass isn’t always greener on the other side. At the end of the day I believe there should be more strict regulations concerning textile factory working conditions and pay but I also am realistic and can understand that the other options for these millions of workers are not much better than what they have now.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990332938125097.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/runway/2009/02/11/trimming-more-than-fabric-to-stay-afloat/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990332938125097.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/runway/2009/02/11/trimming-more-than-fabric-to-stay-afloat/
Made in where?
Do you ever wonder where your clothes are made? Have you ever read the "Made in ..." tag on your clothes? Many of you, including myself will most likely respond with a no. I don't think many people even look at the tags of where their clothes are made when they are out shopping. The movie brings up many interesting points: some being globalization, history, power, and working conditions of sweat shops. What caught my attention the most and what I plan on focusing on in my blog is working conditions of factories outside of the United States. I don't feel that anybody in the United States reads where their clothes are made before they purchase them.
One might think that working conditions in the textile industry in America would be much better than in lower class countries. We have stricter regulations,better innovation and an all around higher standard of living. What was stated in the movie and a theme of the book that causes problems with working in textile in American is competition. It's all about the money. We could produce T-shirts here but why would we want to do that when we can produce the raw materials and then have them shipped over to countries where the products are made? This is cheaper on our part. I have mixed feelings about this. It is good on the part of the consumers in America because we eventually get T-shirts and other clothing at a cheaper price. On the other hand the places that we send our raw materials are typically poorer countries with harsh working conditions. Then again even with the harsh working conditions we are creating jobs. Unfortunately to make the textile industry even cheaper on the United States we are now importing from major agricultural countries, one more recognized importer being China. I say unfortunately because the textile industry in the United States is slowly coming to a demise. This all takes me back to the idea of recognizing where your clothing is made. I ask this because we can slowly make a difference. I think it's wrong that America's textile industry, with strict regulations and job opportunities is slowly closing to textile industries in China with working conditions that are unheard of in the US.
Working conditions in Chinese textile factories are harsh. Children as young as twelve years old are working as much as sixteen hours a day. Unfortunately in poorer areas of the country parents allow their children to go out and work because they need the money for the family. In an article from the China Labour Bulletin a reporter from Guangzhou's Southern Metropolis Newspaper went into a textile factory in China. That is where he saw the young twelve year old children working. The article states that, "When he asked where they slept they replied that the cramped 200-square meter workshop was it, and that at night they slept on or under their worktables." These type of working conditions are not uncommon. A reason why our costs of importing into America are so cheap is because factories, such as this one in China can produce so much for such a little cost. Every time your put on a T-shirt look at the tag. Made in China? Think about where clothes are produced. I sometimes think if it is possible for conditions like this to ever end. For children to go to school and for factories to have strict regulations. I wonder if it will ever change.
http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516766/
(this is about India but it is interesting... anybody wear GAP clothes?)
One might think that working conditions in the textile industry in America would be much better than in lower class countries. We have stricter regulations,better innovation and an all around higher standard of living. What was stated in the movie and a theme of the book that causes problems with working in textile in American is competition. It's all about the money. We could produce T-shirts here but why would we want to do that when we can produce the raw materials and then have them shipped over to countries where the products are made? This is cheaper on our part. I have mixed feelings about this. It is good on the part of the consumers in America because we eventually get T-shirts and other clothing at a cheaper price. On the other hand the places that we send our raw materials are typically poorer countries with harsh working conditions. Then again even with the harsh working conditions we are creating jobs. Unfortunately to make the textile industry even cheaper on the United States we are now importing from major agricultural countries, one more recognized importer being China. I say unfortunately because the textile industry in the United States is slowly coming to a demise. This all takes me back to the idea of recognizing where your clothing is made. I ask this because we can slowly make a difference. I think it's wrong that America's textile industry, with strict regulations and job opportunities is slowly closing to textile industries in China with working conditions that are unheard of in the US.
Working conditions in Chinese textile factories are harsh. Children as young as twelve years old are working as much as sixteen hours a day. Unfortunately in poorer areas of the country parents allow their children to go out and work because they need the money for the family. In an article from the China Labour Bulletin a reporter from Guangzhou's Southern Metropolis Newspaper went into a textile factory in China. That is where he saw the young twelve year old children working. The article states that, "When he asked where they slept they replied that the cramped 200-square meter workshop was it, and that at night they slept on or under their worktables." These type of working conditions are not uncommon. A reason why our costs of importing into America are so cheap is because factories, such as this one in China can produce so much for such a little cost. Every time your put on a T-shirt look at the tag. Made in China? Think about where clothes are produced. I sometimes think if it is possible for conditions like this to ever end. For children to go to school and for factories to have strict regulations. I wonder if it will ever change.
http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516766/
(this is about India but it is interesting... anybody wear GAP clothes?)
For my blog I have decided to focus on China, because I feel that was an important part of the book and also an important part of Pietra Rivoli’s speech at UCSB. I found it interesting how the speech coincided with the book, but also added new information that further enhanced my understanding of the topics of the book and how Rivoli did the research for those topics. I felt as though China was really the heart of the matter with the book. It is the place where Rivoli seems to have done the most research and also it appears as the place where most of the products come together. The thread and many of the shirts are made in China and it is the gathering point for the cotton. I think it is safe to say that it is the most important part of the travels of a t-shirt in the global economy.
While focusing on China, Rivoli brought up a few important topics that mirrored some of the book. She spoke of what a factory life meant for many people, especially women, in China and how it gave them freedom and liberation that they had never experienced. While they were being exploited in the factories to make the products, for many of the women that was a step up from where they came from and it meant a salary and the freedom to buy products and merchandise that they would otherwise not be able to afford. Rivoli also spoke about how conditions on the factories and sweatshops were improving compared to what they were even just a few years ago. Workers are now given more breaks, they have higher safety standards, and the bosses have become less demanding.
For my articles involving the topics that Rivoli discussed I found two articles in the NY Times. They stood out for me because they discuss capitalism in China and the standards that Chinese industries are still having in keeping up with health and safety standards when it comes to their products. The first article talks about how capitalists in China invested more in America in 2008. I thought this was an interesting sign of the growth and liberation of China because they are allowing more and more capitalism. I like the fact that a communist country can allow capitalism in the first place and that it continues to allow such practices to grow and continue at a steady rate. This fits in with Rivoli’s idea of liberation in China. The liberation of the factory workers goes along with the liberation of the markets to be capitalist. Capitalism allows for growth when used properly and that growth allows for more people to make money and improve their standards of living.
The other article focuses on a recent problem with baby formula in China that caused the illness of children throughout the country. This reflects the idea that while China is growing as an industrial and economic might there still is a lot of work to be done regarding standards and the safety of the products being made. This goes along with Rivoli’s point that standards in the factories need to be increased so that workers are kept aware of problems and that the pressures of being overworked do not affect workers’ ability to create a good and safe product. Chinese factories have a habit of still employing unscrupulous bosses and making the work quite boring and monotonous. This in turn makes the workers less alert and interested in what is going on in the factory.
The Rivoli speech was interesting and really added some context and understanding to the book and the global economy. I think the articles support some of her claims and add to the meaning of the book and the speech.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/venture-capital-investment-climbs-in-india-china-and-israel/?dbk
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/world/asia/13milk.html?scp=10&sq=China&st=Search
While focusing on China, Rivoli brought up a few important topics that mirrored some of the book. She spoke of what a factory life meant for many people, especially women, in China and how it gave them freedom and liberation that they had never experienced. While they were being exploited in the factories to make the products, for many of the women that was a step up from where they came from and it meant a salary and the freedom to buy products and merchandise that they would otherwise not be able to afford. Rivoli also spoke about how conditions on the factories and sweatshops were improving compared to what they were even just a few years ago. Workers are now given more breaks, they have higher safety standards, and the bosses have become less demanding.
For my articles involving the topics that Rivoli discussed I found two articles in the NY Times. They stood out for me because they discuss capitalism in China and the standards that Chinese industries are still having in keeping up with health and safety standards when it comes to their products. The first article talks about how capitalists in China invested more in America in 2008. I thought this was an interesting sign of the growth and liberation of China because they are allowing more and more capitalism. I like the fact that a communist country can allow capitalism in the first place and that it continues to allow such practices to grow and continue at a steady rate. This fits in with Rivoli’s idea of liberation in China. The liberation of the factory workers goes along with the liberation of the markets to be capitalist. Capitalism allows for growth when used properly and that growth allows for more people to make money and improve their standards of living.
The other article focuses on a recent problem with baby formula in China that caused the illness of children throughout the country. This reflects the idea that while China is growing as an industrial and economic might there still is a lot of work to be done regarding standards and the safety of the products being made. This goes along with Rivoli’s point that standards in the factories need to be increased so that workers are kept aware of problems and that the pressures of being overworked do not affect workers’ ability to create a good and safe product. Chinese factories have a habit of still employing unscrupulous bosses and making the work quite boring and monotonous. This in turn makes the workers less alert and interested in what is going on in the factory.
The Rivoli speech was interesting and really added some context and understanding to the book and the global economy. I think the articles support some of her claims and add to the meaning of the book and the speech.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/venture-capital-investment-climbs-in-india-china-and-israel/?dbk
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/world/asia/13milk.html?scp=10&sq=China&st=Search
The Travels of a T-shirt in a Global Economy
The Book "The Travels of a T-shirt in a Global Economy" brings up many important issues that we as ordinary people would not think twice about. After reading and watching the short video in class, it made me wonder about the clothing I own. We as a society are so caught up in labels and brand names; we are not looking at the truth behind these labels. In her speech Pietra Rivoli, brings up many of the issues and problems she went through and discovered while traveling with her T-shirt. The two, which interested me, were when she was talking about Exploitation and the Tenure for teachers.
The First article that I read was titled “Nike Acknowledges Massive Labor Exploitation in its Overseas Sweatshops”. The article discusses their involvement and exporting their goods to other countries, to be manufactured at a less expensive cost. The product is then shipped back to the states to be sold to end-user suppliers. These suppliers then mark up their price to the end-user so as to gain a profit margin. This is a perfect example of what rivoli was talking about, how these companies send their products to other countries and they think do not take responsibility for the conditions and ways that these workers are treated, and getting paid little for the work they are doing.
The second article related to the issue of tenure, and was titled “CUNY Chief Gives Tenure To Professor In Brooklyn”. The article is involving Robert D. Johnson a professor who was to be promoted in his job and therefore was to get tenure. The college wanted to argue that this professor should not get this promotion. Tenure is a great idea in theory, but there are many negatives that come along with giving teacher tenure. It binds the school to the employee and gives that employee the ability to have an easier and less stressful career then a teacher with out tenure, due to the fact that they cannot get fired. It binds the employer to the employee until they complete their tenure term.
1.) http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/nike041505.cfm
2.)http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE6DD163CF936A15751C0A9659C8B63
The First article that I read was titled “Nike Acknowledges Massive Labor Exploitation in its Overseas Sweatshops”. The article discusses their involvement and exporting their goods to other countries, to be manufactured at a less expensive cost. The product is then shipped back to the states to be sold to end-user suppliers. These suppliers then mark up their price to the end-user so as to gain a profit margin. This is a perfect example of what rivoli was talking about, how these companies send their products to other countries and they think do not take responsibility for the conditions and ways that these workers are treated, and getting paid little for the work they are doing.
The second article related to the issue of tenure, and was titled “CUNY Chief Gives Tenure To Professor In Brooklyn”. The article is involving Robert D. Johnson a professor who was to be promoted in his job and therefore was to get tenure. The college wanted to argue that this professor should not get this promotion. Tenure is a great idea in theory, but there are many negatives that come along with giving teacher tenure. It binds the school to the employee and gives that employee the ability to have an easier and less stressful career then a teacher with out tenure, due to the fact that they cannot get fired. It binds the employer to the employee until they complete their tenure term.
1.) http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/nike041505.cfm
2.)http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE6DD163CF936A15751C0A9659C8B63
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Cost of Economic Freedom
To me, economic freedom means open markets and a nation’s choice in participating in trade. As illustrated by Rivoli, in the case of China, the beginning of their open market policy came at a cost to the human rights of the citizens of China. In her speech, Rivoli spoke of the high demand that we as United States citizens have for cheap goods, specifically cotton garments. We are oblivious to what is done to other human beings in order to get our T-shirts at the price that we want. In order to come close to meeting our demand, China must produce garments at a low cost of production. Labor costs must be low. In the past, the United States was able to stay out of the labor market in the production of, unfortunately through slavery and at the cost of immigrants. This has now changed because of the advancement of technology and equipment. China does not use slaves or immigrants, but what they do take advantage of is the Hukou, which is a system of house registration. Individuals of rural hukous are move to the urban hukous to work in the textile industries, but cannot bring their familes. These individuals, “floaters” are also paid less than individuals from urban hukous. These are migrant workers. There is much wrong to these migrant workers. They are taken advantage because they are in need of the work, the docile work. Not only are the working conditions and environment bad, but they do not benefit from government assistance as urban hukous do. There is worry that the current economic crisis will bring harm to these individuals. This economic crisis may “amplify existing human violations”. (China: Economic Crisis Increases Risks for Migrant Workers, http://www.webnewswire.com/node/44860 ).
These hukous cause other problems as well. There are individuals, from rural hukous, who have gotten a higher education and desire to put their education to use. These individuals are qualified to hold higher jobs than in textile factories. In the past, there have been a large number of restrictions on members of rural hukous. It was very difficult and expensive for an individual gain access to reside in the larger cities. These individuals seek employment in the cities and cannot do so unless they reside there. Presently, there is a call for reform of the Hukou, allowing college graduates to easily move to the cities (Time is Right for “Hukou” Reform, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/17/content_10835973.htm ). I just find both of these articles very interesting, and the hukou very interesting. They seem like a clear violation of natural human rights and I believe there are many individuals in the U.S. who are oblivious to these sorts of injustices.
These hukous cause other problems as well. There are individuals, from rural hukous, who have gotten a higher education and desire to put their education to use. These individuals are qualified to hold higher jobs than in textile factories. In the past, there have been a large number of restrictions on members of rural hukous. It was very difficult and expensive for an individual gain access to reside in the larger cities. These individuals seek employment in the cities and cannot do so unless they reside there. Presently, there is a call for reform of the Hukou, allowing college graduates to easily move to the cities (Time is Right for “Hukou” Reform, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/17/content_10835973.htm ). I just find both of these articles very interesting, and the hukou very interesting. They seem like a clear violation of natural human rights and I believe there are many individuals in the U.S. who are oblivious to these sorts of injustices.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
the continuing reality of a t-shirt in the global economy
Colleen Fitzgerald
2/18/09
QU301
The Continuing Reality of a T-shirt in the Global Economy
In Pietra Rivoli’s book, A T-Shirt in the Global Economy, Rivoli brought up two clear points that help explain the meaning of economic freedom. One of Rivoli’s points was that economic freedom includes freedom from exploitation. Rivoli as well as myself live in the United States where we see and benefit from economic freedom, however this is not the case for many nations. One such nation who has suffered for over 500 years is the continent of Africa. During the slave trade millions of Africans were hunted down and sold as slaves to Europeans. While slavery has been abolished in many countries, Africa has fallen victim once again to exploitation, this time Africa’s resources are the target. In the Final Call news article, The Exploitation of a Continent, Ashahed M. Muhammad and Brian E. Muhammad explain how companies are abusing their powers and hurting the African economy and its peoples. Some of the key resources in Africa are oil, coltan used in electronics, cobalt and natural gas just to name a few. Ashahed M. Muhammad and Brian E. Muhammad explain that companies are “financially exploitative relationship using child labor” and “without paying proper taxes to the government.” In Rivoli’s book, she explains exploitation of a weaker state or government by powerful nations or companies. In her book, the United States cotton growers have an unfair advantage in the world market that is exploitative for other cotton growers across the world.
Another key point Rivoli makes in her book is the problem of the ‘tenured professor’ where people with power make laws and rules to keep themselves in power. One such example of this was shown in the New York Times article, Chávez Looks Beyond 2013 as He Faces Serious Challenges, by Simon Romero. Just recently Chavez pushed a motion forward that would enable the presidency to be a life term. Chavez had tried in the past to pass this motion but had lacked votes, however this past week Chavez succeeded. Rivoli would point to Chavez as a tenured professor trying to keep his power and wealth by creating laws to protect himself. With this consolation of power, Chavez can now look to gaining more prestige and wealth for himself and his country through the exportation of oil. Both these examples show the truth behind Rivoli’s book about the exploitation and mis-use of economic freedoms. However with these injustices out in the open, knowledge can be gained with the hopeful result of change.
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_5661.shtml
by , Ashahed M. Muhammad and Brian E. Muhammad of the Final Call
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/world/americas/17venez.html?ref=world
by Simon Romero of the New York Times
2/18/09
QU301
The Continuing Reality of a T-shirt in the Global Economy
In Pietra Rivoli’s book, A T-Shirt in the Global Economy, Rivoli brought up two clear points that help explain the meaning of economic freedom. One of Rivoli’s points was that economic freedom includes freedom from exploitation. Rivoli as well as myself live in the United States where we see and benefit from economic freedom, however this is not the case for many nations. One such nation who has suffered for over 500 years is the continent of Africa. During the slave trade millions of Africans were hunted down and sold as slaves to Europeans. While slavery has been abolished in many countries, Africa has fallen victim once again to exploitation, this time Africa’s resources are the target. In the Final Call news article, The Exploitation of a Continent, Ashahed M. Muhammad and Brian E. Muhammad explain how companies are abusing their powers and hurting the African economy and its peoples. Some of the key resources in Africa are oil, coltan used in electronics, cobalt and natural gas just to name a few. Ashahed M. Muhammad and Brian E. Muhammad explain that companies are “financially exploitative relationship using child labor” and “without paying proper taxes to the government.” In Rivoli’s book, she explains exploitation of a weaker state or government by powerful nations or companies. In her book, the United States cotton growers have an unfair advantage in the world market that is exploitative for other cotton growers across the world.
Another key point Rivoli makes in her book is the problem of the ‘tenured professor’ where people with power make laws and rules to keep themselves in power. One such example of this was shown in the New York Times article, Chávez Looks Beyond 2013 as He Faces Serious Challenges, by Simon Romero. Just recently Chavez pushed a motion forward that would enable the presidency to be a life term. Chavez had tried in the past to pass this motion but had lacked votes, however this past week Chavez succeeded. Rivoli would point to Chavez as a tenured professor trying to keep his power and wealth by creating laws to protect himself. With this consolation of power, Chavez can now look to gaining more prestige and wealth for himself and his country through the exportation of oil. Both these examples show the truth behind Rivoli’s book about the exploitation and mis-use of economic freedoms. However with these injustices out in the open, knowledge can be gained with the hopeful result of change.
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_5661.shtml
by , Ashahed M. Muhammad and Brian E. Muhammad of the Final Call
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/world/americas/17venez.html?ref=world
by Simon Romero of the New York Times
didn't post a website...
don't know why it didn't put up the other website i got the obama story from! sorry!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7895078.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7895078.stm
Economic Freedom: Different Views on the Same Topic
On BBC.com I came across this article about President Obama’s plan of getting us started in the right direction with our economy and pretty much fixing it. Near the end of this article however, after it discusses the two different parties views on President Obama’s decision to a $787 billion dollar economic stimulus plan, it talks about how other nations around the world, particularly the one’s which we trade with, feel about the plan. It talks directly about Brazil and how their Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, is very mad about this whole decision because in a clause in the document there is a line that states, “Buy American” (Obama). This would obviously not be something pleasing to the faces of foreign trading partners with the United States for obvious reasons.
The article goes on to talk about ‘protectionism and how Brazil in particular is addressing this plan with the use of this economic idea. Protectionism is, “the theory, practice, or system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations” (Protectionism). So pretty much it’s saying that in the United States case, we would be protected from competing with other countries to produce certain goods but putting certain numbers allowed in on foreign imports. No wonder other nations are upset with this fact. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also stated the following, “Now they [the United States] had created a crisis they should not turn to the protectionism which had so often held the world back” (Obama). I feel that President Lula is nicely saying that we just have to ‘roll with the punches’ and try and get out of this economic slump without taking away business from other countries that the U.S. does business with.
I thought it was interesting to think that if this happened in the case of the t-shirt international trade system what might occur? If for some reason China told the cotton growers in Lubbock, Texas that they weren’t going to take cotton from the United States anymore, but instead from their own Chinese cotton-farmers, how would the United States, particularly the cotton farmers handle that?
Another article from a website off of bbc.com, comes from the middle of January of this year and discusses sweatshop conditions in a UK factory. Some of the complaints by the investigator of the story, as well as the employees were that the environment they were working in was too cold, too cramped, and had safety hazards throughout it (i.e. boxes blocking fire exits) (Primark). Not only were the working conditions in the actual factory not very safe or very pleasant for the employees, but the workers hours were in the proximity of 12 hours a day for seven days a week. In this article child labor is also talked about. It talks about how Primark, the company being investigated, gets the clothing it works on in the sweatshop in question from a factory in India that has children working for them. It doesn’t seem like Primark can catch a break in this case (Primark).
The most interesting part of this story to me is that we aren’t discussing a far away nation who is in the ‘sweatshop business.’ But, instead we’re talking about the UK! I’ve been to the UK! I think it’s a little bit easier to live with the idea of children and workers going through these horrible working conditions when we know that they live in a far away country like India and China. I’ve never been to either one of these countries, and not that they don’t exist but in my mind they don’t really hit me because I’ve never experienced either country. If this is happening in the UK who’s to say that in some small town or big city in our own country something like this isn’t happening?
This directly relates to the talk given in the video in the previous class because the author talks about child labor and horrible conditions that some of these workers have to work in. For example, the women in China who are all set up in rows and simply do the same job over and over again, making the task at hand probably very boring. I’m sure the people involved in the sweatshop in the UK are working (or worked) in very similar conditions.
Work Cited
"Obama signs $787bn Stimulus Plan." BBC News. 17 Feb. 2009. BBC. 17 Feb. 2009
.
"Primark linked to UK sweatshops." NewsRound. 13 Jan. 2009. BBC. 17 Feb. 2009
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7820000/newsid_7826500/7826559.stm>.
"Protectionism." Protectionism. 17 Feb. 2009
.
The article goes on to talk about ‘protectionism and how Brazil in particular is addressing this plan with the use of this economic idea. Protectionism is, “the theory, practice, or system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations” (Protectionism). So pretty much it’s saying that in the United States case, we would be protected from competing with other countries to produce certain goods but putting certain numbers allowed in on foreign imports. No wonder other nations are upset with this fact. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also stated the following, “Now they [the United States] had created a crisis they should not turn to the protectionism which had so often held the world back” (Obama). I feel that President Lula is nicely saying that we just have to ‘roll with the punches’ and try and get out of this economic slump without taking away business from other countries that the U.S. does business with.
I thought it was interesting to think that if this happened in the case of the t-shirt international trade system what might occur? If for some reason China told the cotton growers in Lubbock, Texas that they weren’t going to take cotton from the United States anymore, but instead from their own Chinese cotton-farmers, how would the United States, particularly the cotton farmers handle that?
Another article from a website off of bbc.com, comes from the middle of January of this year and discusses sweatshop conditions in a UK factory. Some of the complaints by the investigator of the story, as well as the employees were that the environment they were working in was too cold, too cramped, and had safety hazards throughout it (i.e. boxes blocking fire exits) (Primark). Not only were the working conditions in the actual factory not very safe or very pleasant for the employees, but the workers hours were in the proximity of 12 hours a day for seven days a week. In this article child labor is also talked about. It talks about how Primark, the company being investigated, gets the clothing it works on in the sweatshop in question from a factory in India that has children working for them. It doesn’t seem like Primark can catch a break in this case (Primark).
The most interesting part of this story to me is that we aren’t discussing a far away nation who is in the ‘sweatshop business.’ But, instead we’re talking about the UK! I’ve been to the UK! I think it’s a little bit easier to live with the idea of children and workers going through these horrible working conditions when we know that they live in a far away country like India and China. I’ve never been to either one of these countries, and not that they don’t exist but in my mind they don’t really hit me because I’ve never experienced either country. If this is happening in the UK who’s to say that in some small town or big city in our own country something like this isn’t happening?
This directly relates to the talk given in the video in the previous class because the author talks about child labor and horrible conditions that some of these workers have to work in. For example, the women in China who are all set up in rows and simply do the same job over and over again, making the task at hand probably very boring. I’m sure the people involved in the sweatshop in the UK are working (or worked) in very similar conditions.
Work Cited
"Obama signs $787bn Stimulus Plan." BBC News. 17 Feb. 2009. BBC. 17 Feb. 2009
"Primark linked to UK sweatshops." NewsRound. 13 Jan. 2009. BBC. 17 Feb. 2009
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7820000/newsid_7826500/7826559.stm>.
"Protectionism." Protectionism. 17 Feb. 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Economic Freedom
After seeing the video on The Travels of a T-shirt in a Global Economy, I realized how long of a process it is for products to be made and distributed to their destinations. Now that I think about it, it is not surprising that one particular t-shirt was all over the world. It is incredible to think that our products and consumer goods start out on one side of the world and wind up in our house. But with this idea, comes the concept of outsourcing which can be good for our economy and bad at the same time. With t-shirts it might be a little different because the book talks about how the United States had one of the biggest exports of cotton. But with other things for example, people in China are making our consumer goods which takes away from jobs that citizens in the United States could have.
On the other hand, trade is very much essential for globalization to occur. Globalization interconnects our countries together politically, socially, and economically. Trade allows us to purchase goods and services that we wouldn't normally be exposed to, or be able to trade our goods that we no longer have any use or need for. Free trade is essentially the meaning of economic freedom. We are allowed to buy and sell the goods and services almost anything between states, countries, and continents. There is no limit to whom we can trade with. In the article, (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123008314776232087-lMyQjAxMDI5MzEwNjAxODYzWj.html), it talks about how globalization and trade help countries liberalize markets, which was something they talked about in video. The article also explains that because of the expansion of global trade, wages have seem to done a little bit better than they previously had. And wages are particularly an important topic of concern, because like we heard in the video, most people are underpaid and don't get the amount they work for, in addition to horrible working conditions (sweatshops).
Although we have economic freedom as of right now, things could be changing in the near future. But recently, the newly approved economic stimulus package might be limiting our economic freedom, and this would mostly affect other countries that the United States normally purchases from. An article from CNN.com, (http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/buy_american/index.htm), talks about House of Representatives and the Senate are soon to vote on provisions that limit materials used in public works projects, paid for by the stimulus package, to only products made in U.S. factories. This doesn't sound like a huge problem, but it is. The "Buy American" provisions, however, won't break any existing trade agreements which means that these projects can still purchase equipment from Canada and the European Union; this could possibly start a trade war because now any country not included in the trade agreements is now allowed to trade with the U.S. for such projects. This is taking away the economic freedom of companies in the U.S. who wish to still trade with other countries, and the other countries being limited from trade. This could drastically affect the exports of other countries who usually sell steel and pipes to the United States.
On the other hand, trade is very much essential for globalization to occur. Globalization interconnects our countries together politically, socially, and economically. Trade allows us to purchase goods and services that we wouldn't normally be exposed to, or be able to trade our goods that we no longer have any use or need for. Free trade is essentially the meaning of economic freedom. We are allowed to buy and sell the goods and services almost anything between states, countries, and continents. There is no limit to whom we can trade with. In the article, (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123008314776232087-lMyQjAxMDI5MzEwNjAxODYzWj.html), it talks about how globalization and trade help countries liberalize markets, which was something they talked about in video. The article also explains that because of the expansion of global trade, wages have seem to done a little bit better than they previously had. And wages are particularly an important topic of concern, because like we heard in the video, most people are underpaid and don't get the amount they work for, in addition to horrible working conditions (sweatshops).
Although we have economic freedom as of right now, things could be changing in the near future. But recently, the newly approved economic stimulus package might be limiting our economic freedom, and this would mostly affect other countries that the United States normally purchases from. An article from CNN.com, (http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/buy_american/index.htm), talks about House of Representatives and the Senate are soon to vote on provisions that limit materials used in public works projects, paid for by the stimulus package, to only products made in U.S. factories. This doesn't sound like a huge problem, but it is. The "Buy American" provisions, however, won't break any existing trade agreements which means that these projects can still purchase equipment from Canada and the European Union; this could possibly start a trade war because now any country not included in the trade agreements is now allowed to trade with the U.S. for such projects. This is taking away the economic freedom of companies in the U.S. who wish to still trade with other countries, and the other countries being limited from trade. This could drastically affect the exports of other countries who usually sell steel and pipes to the United States.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Travels of a Tshirt & Economic Freedom
After watching Rivoli in the YouTube video about her book "Travels of a Tshirt" it was clear that she discusses a rights and freedoms that relate to economic freedoms citizens and countries alike across the world. One very important economic freedom that can affect the supercountries of the world like the U.S and China is trade policies. Trade policies are rules and regulations the countries set up in relation to what products from different countries can come in and out of theirs. For example, in the United States, we have had a trade embargo on Cuba for over 40 years now. This means that the United States will not accept any products from Cuba or have business dealings with them. Yet somehow the United States is the 7th largest imported country in Cuba. Back to the idea of trade policy, it is thought that because of trade in general, globalization has occured. Due to new products/services being brought from country to country, cultural diffusion and new ideas have been brought about as well as the spread of information. The Travels of a Tshirt book is a perfect example of how one, what may seem insignificant, product is important to so many countries than just the one in which it is bought. In her speech, Rivoli shows a map of where the Tshirt was " born" and all the different countries that brought it to life and even where it ends up being bought and " dies". All in all the tshirt travels to 5 different places, over 3 different continents. Rivoli explains that it may sound easy for a tshirt to be brought from one country where the raw material is to the other where it is sewn together, but it must pass through a " maze" of laws surrounding trade in each country it goes to. Thinking about how one simple little tshirt must travel all over the world before ending up in some gift shop makes me realize how this one shirt affects many lives. Without this tshirt, this product, workers in many places would be out of a job. From the farmer that cultivates the cotton to the underpaid laborers in China who sew it the piece of clothing together, this shirt becomes a part of their livelihood. In an article from CNN, ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/15/g7.summit.world.economy/index.html?iref=newssearch) it is made clear that trade and the policies surrounding it are vital to the global economy. If major countries start shutting their doors to certain imports/exports they will be affecting not only the people of their own country, but really the whole world. The 7 most powerful economies in the world met and their financial ministers stated, " An open system of global trade and investment is indispensable for global prosperity." The world has become one big game of dominoes. If one country starts to fall, especially if it's a super power, the others will begin to tumble as well. The affects are felt in the ways of jobs lost, houses foreclosed, a rise in crime and mouths unfed. It is necessary to keep the doors of each powerful country open to products and ideas of others in order to keep the finances in each country sustained and growing back to being strong. Because of globalization, we must now depend on each other, each country, in order to make the world a stronger and better place.
Another big issue was a major concern in Rivoli's "Travels of a Tshirt" was the exploitation of labor, sweatshop conditions. Rivoli traveled around the world and saw how people, especially women were being exploited for cheap labor because there is a constant demand for cheaper and cheaper goods and it ends up costing workers their quality of life. As Rivoli put it, " the demand for cheaper and cheaper goods puts a downward pressure on the quality of the works lives." She uncovered that some workes make as little as $100 a month and have jobs that she descrives as " deathly boring." There are good factories as well as bad ones but the majority of the places that Rivoli visited, she only witnessed horrific and unfair conditions that people endure only because in their country, they have no other option. In reading an article from CNN.com, (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/23/garment.workers/index.html?iref=newssearch), it is clear that even in the United States sweatshop conditions are still possible, yet shut down a lot faster due to zero tolerance and media buzz surrounding companies that are caught using sweatshop laborers. This one particular sweatshop underpaid it's workers a total of 2.5 million dollars. That's ridiculous! People were earning as little as 22 cents per garment and working 70 hour weeks! I can not believe that this particular factory owner had it's employees[ if you can even call them that and not practically slaves] memorize lies to tell to investigators at a moment's notice! The lengths to which people will go to to earn more money and cheat people out of their proper pay is astounding. Is is unfortunate, yet happens everyday and is harder to beat and conquer when it occurs in countries in the far east where the government is different than the United States and the whole way of life and culture does not look to save citizens in that type of situation. It is clear to me that in order for economies to grow and the quality of life to be ranked better in a great deal of countries, the globalization error of the development of sweatshops needs to be abolished and abandoned completely. This is something that may not ever be completely gone, but efforts need to rise up globally in order for a stop to be put to this.
Another big issue was a major concern in Rivoli's "Travels of a Tshirt" was the exploitation of labor, sweatshop conditions. Rivoli traveled around the world and saw how people, especially women were being exploited for cheap labor because there is a constant demand for cheaper and cheaper goods and it ends up costing workers their quality of life. As Rivoli put it, " the demand for cheaper and cheaper goods puts a downward pressure on the quality of the works lives." She uncovered that some workes make as little as $100 a month and have jobs that she descrives as " deathly boring." There are good factories as well as bad ones but the majority of the places that Rivoli visited, she only witnessed horrific and unfair conditions that people endure only because in their country, they have no other option. In reading an article from CNN.com, (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/23/garment.workers/index.html?iref=newssearch), it is clear that even in the United States sweatshop conditions are still possible, yet shut down a lot faster due to zero tolerance and media buzz surrounding companies that are caught using sweatshop laborers. This one particular sweatshop underpaid it's workers a total of 2.5 million dollars. That's ridiculous! People were earning as little as 22 cents per garment and working 70 hour weeks! I can not believe that this particular factory owner had it's employees[ if you can even call them that and not practically slaves] memorize lies to tell to investigators at a moment's notice! The lengths to which people will go to to earn more money and cheat people out of their proper pay is astounding. Is is unfortunate, yet happens everyday and is harder to beat and conquer when it occurs in countries in the far east where the government is different than the United States and the whole way of life and culture does not look to save citizens in that type of situation. It is clear to me that in order for economies to grow and the quality of life to be ranked better in a great deal of countries, the globalization error of the development of sweatshops needs to be abolished and abandoned completely. This is something that may not ever be completely gone, but efforts need to rise up globally in order for a stop to be put to this.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
UN Report Slam Violation of Indian Minorities' Religious Rights
http://www.dawn.com/2009/02/05/top8.htm
Burma/India End Abuses in Chin State
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/28/burmaindia-end-abuses-chin-state
(this is a really good article)
http://www.dawn.com/2009/02/05/top8.htm
Burma/India End Abuses in Chin State
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/28/burmaindia-end-abuses-chin-state
(this is a really good article)
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Just A Dream
One of the articles that caught my attention the most is Article 25. It states: “1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” I found this article very interesting because as some of us stated in class, these articles sounds ideal on paper but articles are all that they are. We could call them dreams too. I say this because I believe that a majority of the world, when showed this article will tell you that not everybody is living an adequate lifestyle and many of them will probably tell you that they could only dream that poverty was no longer a problem. There are millions of people around the world living in poverty at this moment. According to cbsnews.com there were 37.3 million Americans living in poverty in 2007. Yes according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights every person and their families has the right to a standard of living that includes good health, food, clothes, etc but it is only an article. I can’t go on a rampage about how this article is bogus because there is nothing that states that everyone will be guaranteed to live an adequate lifestyle. It is simply that they have the right to.
The fact that the economy is in a recession will only lead to an increase in poverty. There is an article (that you can access at the bottom of the post) from cbpp.org that states that because of the recession there will most likely be a chance that a large percentage of people will face poverty and those that already facing poverty will be pushed into poverty deeper. All of these people have the right to a better lifestyle but who do they blame when they are faced with economic challenges? When they can no longer afford health care? When it is hard for them to put food on the table, or buy their children new clothing? They can’t blame this article. I don’t even have the answer. When I read over this long sentence of Article 25 I thought about the large percentage of Americans who are loosing their jobs at this moment. “…the right to security in the event of unemployment,” is what stuck out the most. According to AARP.com applicants can receive unemployment benefits for us to 26 weeks. The chance of an unemployed person living in the
It’s comforting to see that the
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/26/national/main4384762.shtml
http://www.cbpp.org/11-24-08pov.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
