In a research paper entitled No Sweat?, Garyfalakis (2017) states that the sweatshop controversy is an intricate web of issues with exploitations committed by clothing companies, and the economic impact and social benefits these sweatshops bring to third world countries. Garyfalakis uses various articles, books, journals, and websites to write her inconclusive paper to show the pros and cons of sweatshops, but could utilize a few more strong sources to solidify her stance on the matter.
Despite Garyfalakis attempts to diligently discuss the issue, she is unsuccessful in clearly prompting readers to put a stop to this perplexing sweatshop dilemma, and does not distinctly define the intentions of the entire paper.
Garyfalakis (2017) introduces sweatshops as an issue that is difficult to navigate and solve. She believes that sweatshops are means to exploit women and children. She also mentions that poverty plays a bigger role in this convoluted scenario. However, she contradicts her view as she enumerates the positive effects that sweatshops can bring to these employees as they generate income in a community where jobs are hard to come by.
Soon after, Garyfalakis weighs on a possible solution to stop this exploitation by buying from local outfitters. Although sweatshops are vital for manufacturing businesses to lower production costs by employing cheap and abundant labor supply, consumers are indirectly supporting the ongoing exploitation by shopping for clothing from these companies. Garyfalakis finally concludes that sweatshops are only a small part of a bigger problem too messy to speak about.
There are a few points that the author could have improved on to persuade the readers to take action against sweatshops. Garyfalakis lays out a good number of views on the subject, but does not strongly commit to any of them as a final conclusion. Initially, she uses the first person instead of the third person which makes the readers suspicious of the authors intention. The use of the first person in the sentence I began my research believing that sweatshops were unethical. (Garyfalakis, 2017, para. 2) hints that the essay was written with subjective content rather than objective. In a scholastic paper, facts, not emotions, should be the center of the writing and using the third person enables to redirect the focus on the facts. Writing in the first person makes the paper look like it was a first-hand experience. The technique of writing in the third person makes it more believable and credible. Next, the essay also lacks statistical data to support some of its claims such as there are effective actions we can take (Garyfalakis, 2017, para. 1). The author gives only two suggestions to solve the sweatshop problem namely: to support locally made products instead on sweatshop produced clothing and to create codes of conduct to protect the sweatshop employees. Obviously, there are more solutions to this problem, however challenging they may be. Next, she needed more credible statistics to prove that employers could afford to pay their workers more (Garyfalakis, 2017, para. 3). There are no financial data such as sweatshop companies financial reports to specifically show that clothing companies have enough resources to pay their employees. Subsequently, the author also utilizes data only from two countries namely Uzbekistan and Bangladesh. Garyfalakis needs to gather more information from several countries to make her research more credible. She should have included more third world countries like Indonesia, Cambodia, India, Vietnam, Thailand, Honduras, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Pakistan and the Philippines, which allow sweatshops to operate with the idea of economic growth. Similarly, she lacks the first-hand information from the women and children who actually work in sweatshops although she uses several works to write her essay. Her paper is only based on other authors research and statistics. She does not have an authentic personal encounter with a woman or child who actually works in a sweatshop which can drive her beliefs and persuade the readers to consider her claims. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that she uses a complex issue to do her research on since not everyone is confident enough to tackle a challenging topic. She manages to impregnate the readers minds of the how sweatshops operate and how they are viewed as a saving-grace for these women and children.
The essay No Sweat? leaves the readers to ponder on their own moral standards regarding socioeconomic problems. She let the readers view it in different perspectives and leaves it for them to act on. The author fails to outline more specific solutions to the problem but succeeds in planting a seed in peoples minds to take action in certain problems that are plaguing humanity. That is a good way to start the fire of change.