
The United States of America has boasted a proud and long history of being a major production power house since the industrial revolution. Unbeknownst to the majority of the population, this is a complete façade. The reality of the state of production in this country is that very little of what is sold in stores is produced in this nation. We have a trade deficit of our own unintentional creation, and it has many consequences. Such as, rise in unemployment and an environment in which unskilled, unprotected workers are potentially put in danger, so consumers and big businesses can save a few dollars.  Within this paper, I plan to discuss how exactly the direct connection between the trade deficit and the creation of “Sweatshops” and why this topic is so important for the public to understand.

America has had a trade deficit since 1976. The current deficit is standing steady at $40 billion. This deficit occurs when a nation cannot or does not produce enough to fulfill its citizen’s needs, or when many goods that are sold are produced outside of that country's borders (Amadeo). The products that are responsible for this enormous gap have changed over time. In the beginning, the majority of imported goods were petroleum, then imported cars that were cheaper than their America counterparts.  Consumer products such as clothes and other retail items lead the country for imported goods.  While trade is usually beneficial, with the scale skewed so far in one direction, there had to be an opportunity cost of a large magnitude. The cost for us domestically, is the potential link to unemployment. 

Advocates for foreign trade and production, such as certain economist and numerous politicians, would argue that having access to goods made abroad is simply allowing for a larger marketplace. This pitch appealed to consumers, because by outsourcing, they were receiving goods for cheaper(Busler). However, many Americans are paying the price for this in a different way. Outsourcing and increased imports can be linked to a higher unemployment rate. This happens because when one company moves its production overseas, it can produce the cheapest version of that good. In return, other companies must follow suit and soon an entire industry has been relocated, and once those jobs leave, they are gone for good (Kalmos). Since entering the World Trade Organization in 2001, China has become the powerhouse producer that American once was. They have had their own industrial revolution and as result, they are responsible for $30 billion of our $40-billion-dollar deficit. In 2014, the Economic Policy Institute estimated that the trade with China alone has cost the U.S roughly 3.2 million jobs spanning many industries and spread across all fifty states meaning that no area is left unaffected (Kimball, 15). This cycle of unemployment occurs because when people buy more internationally due to lower prices they buy less domestically which causes raised prices domestically which in turn causes even lower demand for domestic goods which results in an increased demand for imported products. This decreased demand for domestic goods leads to a decrease in demand for labor which translates to a rise in unemployment. While causing demand for labor in our country to decrease we are simultaneously causing an increase in demand in foreign countries. Basically by buying or purchasing goods made in other countries we are eliminating jobs in the U.S while creating jobs in foreign countries and while we have laws and regulations in place to protect the working class of our nation many other countries do not.  

The majority of domestic American jobs that are lost due to outsourcing are low level production jobs that involve a fair amount of risk, especially when they are in factories or "sweat shops" that have very little codes and standards to adhere too. Also many of these countries do not have an established minimum wage meaning that these individuals do grueling work and still are paid little to nothing by large corporations so that we can pay less for the goods that they produce (Parlestien). A documentary made in 2015 titled "Deadly Fashion" showcases fashion bloggers from three European nations as they go to work in a Cambodian sweatshop and the reality is shocking. They reported terrible working conditions including un air-conditioned and unbearably hot workrooms and lunches swarming with flies. A local girl said that as a child her mother died from starvation because what she was paid at the factory was only enough to feed her children, that girl is now working in that same factory because it is the only place she can find work. One of the fashion bloggers cleverly stated that "we are rich because they are so poor" (Goldberg). Numerous major brands that we wear on an everyday basis have been investigated regarding sweatshop scandals these brands include H&M, Walmart, Gap, Victoria's Secret, and Sears. The scandals range from Gap paying workers a heinous and illegal $0.40 an hour to Victoria’s Secret using cotton picked by children and laborers complaining of working 15 hour days. In 2013 a fire due to negligence in a Bangladeshi factory where Disney products are made cost a shocking 114 workers their lives (MacIntryre). These incidents mirror those of the United states’ garment industry in the early 20th century, and when our own citizens were treated as horrifically we rebelled. Since the shirtwaist triangle factory fire of 1911 in which 146 garment workers died the United states has boasted a long and proud history of championing the rights for the blue-collar worker (AFL-CIO). Since that incident, we’ve passed legislation protecting those rights and expanding regulations, why do foreign laborers not deserve the same courtesy. The irony is that a very small proportion of the general public knows of these incidents but some of these companies have received awards for their outstanding ethical practices and consideration of employees, this stellar treatment apparently only applies to the employees that consumers can see with their own two eyes. These companies and more like them claim that they are attempting to make good business decisions, by reducing their costs of production they insist that they are doing their customers a favor (Busler). They maintain that low production costs allow them to sell their products at lower prices, but with profit margins higher than ever it is clear that they are trying to pad their bottom line at the cost of others. 

Who allows them to do this? The answer to that question is simple, we do. As consumers we yield the purchasing power that allows big business to be so morally corrupt, but we also have the power to influence them to change. Why is this not more prominent, publicized issue when it so directly influences just about everyone? It is the opinion of some people and economic experts that the elimination of these jobs in the U.S in a natural progression in an evolved economy, that we have less people willing to preform blue collar jobs so that’s why outsourcing occurs (Bulser). These economists also claim that by providing people in these slightly less developed countries with jobs we are investing in improving their quality of life and in turn when they have a thriving middle class they will be buying goods from us as well. The people that agree with those statements believe that outsourcing causes short- term problems that will resolve themselves eventually. They see numbers and projected earnings but they do not see that some Americans cannot feed their families because they no longer have a job or that in factories that produce goods for Walmart, perhaps the most American brand I can think of, people work 60-70 hour weeks while earning as little as $30 a month (Powell, 266). 

Are we responsible for the loss of jobs and treatment of foreign workers? I am inclined to believe that we are and furthermore I would say that we have an ethical responsibility to change it, we have been complicit in this tragedy for too long. As previously stated we as consumers have the means and opportunity to insist that change occur. In this industry, the statement “the customer is always right” is true and always will be. If we boycott brands that participate in the practice of outsourcing to sweatshops, in order to lower production costs, they will make changes. This can be seen with Nike, after they were caught up with labor scandal in the ‘90s involving managers at a Vietnamese factory making employees run around until they were hospitalized for wearing the incorrect uniform to work, they changed their unethical practices and improved their transparency when came to where and how they produce their goods they even produce reports on inspections of its factories (Nisen). This was only accomplished after an international outcry caused a global campaign to boycott the company. These boycotts work because once consumers start to buy less of something the company takes note and must listen. If people stopped shopping at Walmart due to their unethical practices, then Walmart would have to address this issue they would hopefully either return production to the U.S or perhaps tell the government in Bangladesh that they would take their business elsewhere if working conditions and standards were not improved. The dilemma we then run into is that clothes produced in the U.S are monitored by fair trade organizations that guarantee the humane treatment of their workers are more expensive than the cheap alternative. I would like to believe that most of our country’s citizens would be willingly to compromise quantity for quality in order to have the peace of mind that they do not have blood on their hands. It is my hope that if these issues were more publicized, we could breed a generation of more educated consumers that would make more informed choices about where they shop and what they buy. Once public opinion is firmly against outsourcing and the horrendous treatment of those that foreign factories employee, politicians and those with influence will follow suit the same way that they did when the United States outlawed such treatment of American garment workers in the early 1900s and although sweatshops are still in existence within the U.S they are illegal and those that participate in these practices face hefty fines and possible jailtime. For decades, the U.S has protected its own laborers while ignoring our less fortunate, international counterparts. It is time that we advocate for those who cannot and create a higher manufacturing standard for United States companies and for companies that we do business with.  It is unacceptable that so many are killing themselves to earn a living.     
