Closing Sweatshops will do More Harm Than Good

Counter-Case: Firstly, Pro makes the case that sweatshops were “undoubtedly” a major large factor in S. Korea's growth. The problem is that he fails to substantiate it with any facts or source, and unfortunately we don’t accept facts simply because one man said it was “undoubtedly”. Pro must either present sources that say S. Korea's growth was largely impacted (in a positive light) by sweatshops, or at the least he must present a reason to assume they were a positive force. Pro says that all these countries have is low wages. I interject to point out that this again ignores that sweatshops aren’t simply low wages, but unethical treatment of the workers as well. Yes sweatshops may provide better wages than some alternatives, but this is a false dilemma, that we must accept one or the other, instead of the third option of providing better alternatives. He also fails to provide proof that policy policies alway (or even have to) provide sweatshop friendly environments. Pro goes on to mention the benefits of “increased wage”, ignoring that low wage is a centerpiece of what makes a sweatshop a sweatshop. The two are contradictory. The increase in wage that these people saw would have come from social policies that fight against sweatshops, as I shown with the source in the prior round discussing S. Korea’s economic growth coming from Government policies. And in fact, Pro completely fails to provide any proper source for how sweatshops were responsible for the increase in income, instead he provides an opinion piece about the opinions of others, without any actual facts or hard evidence. And relying on an opinion is appeal to authority, and therefore null, despite the source. I can show that other economists are against sweatshops, so that counters his appeal to authority. The difference is that mine includes economic arguments, not just opinion {6} Pro presents a complete red herring. The fact that most of these countries don’t provide proper education has no meaning to whether a sweatshop should be closed. Pro also points out that many sweatshops break child labor laws, the fact that he supports keeping them open suggests that he considers breach of child laws acceptable because he thinks they have some benefit economically that can’t be matched by proper treatment of workers and proper wages. Pro ends this paragraph by trying to say that things are worse outside the sweatshop, which means absolutely nothing. It in no way shows why sweatshops should be kept open. It is a complete red herring. And the fact that other places have lower wages mean absolutely nothing, because again, it is a false dilemma. Instead of just accepting sweatshops, we should say no to all work environments which provide horrible wages {7}. Con starts his next paragraph by trying to say they opened up opportunities. As I’ve sourced before, it was government policy against sweatshops that build opportunities, not the sweatshops themselves. The sweatshops closed opportunities by giving the workers too little money to properly advance the economy. The source I presented about low self-esteem works just as much anywhere. Low self-esteem is low self-esteem. Unless of course Pro can give a better explanation than “US isn’t them” Again Pro relies on trying to say that we should accept it only because it is the best option, yet again refusing to acknowledge that the true best option is government policies and investments that provide jobs that pay higher. Pro attempts to claim that companies won’t want to use these countries is they shut down unfair treatment. Pro is basically saying that these countries should let their businesses use their citizens like trash just so they get American business. What Pro fails to remember is that the only nations he has mentioned are doing well despite having far better treatment of their workers. Again, due to policies which did not create sweatshop friendly environments, as my source in the last round pointed out. Yes these companies want to make a profit, the problem is they are willing to do make that profit over the corpses of mistreated workers, which Pro is quite happy with. Most of Pros remaining arguments are built around trying to justify horribly conditions by saying it makes the work cheap, and thus provides profit. However higher minimum wage increases the ability to purchase, which allows inhouse economy. Pro is so concerned about them having an economy built around making things for other nations, he fails to see that true economic success is measured by their people’s situation, now ours. They are not safe building an economy based around making us things. They are safe building an economy based on internal sales and consumerism. This only exists when the workers are paid fair wage. And unfair wage is a central part of what makes a sweatshop a sweatshop. Increased safety is simply a right which we shouldn’t sell for cheap labour, and longer work hours hurt productivity. {8/9} Pro ends his arguments by trying to explain that it’s against logic that sweatshops hurt the economy, however I have shown that it is not against logic. He doesn’t explain how sweatshops help, except for a link which doesn’t even relate. For those who didn’t look at it, it presented a chart showing the correlation between income and life expectancy. Even if it did mention sweatshops, if it is simply a chart without any explanations, then it is cause and correlation (and correlation does not equal causation). {10} His finishing claim that it isn’t logical is based in false causation. Because sweatshops used to exist, and those nations are better today, doesn’t mean that sweatshops caused the better economy. As I have explained, it is because these nations worked against sweatshops that they got better. Essentially to sum up Pro’s entire case, we should allow our companies to walk all over them, because it makes our things cheaper to buy. ==Unitomic== 6] http://www.benjaminwpowell.com... 7] http://www.academia.edu... 8] http://cs.stanford.edu... 9] http://oem.bmj.com... 10] http://rationalwiki.org...