Question About Sweatshops

[Dglgmut]

If sweatshops often pay more than the average wage in the country they happen to be in, why is it that 80-90% of sweatshop workers are female? I have looked all over for an answer to this question and am hoping someone here can enlighten me (if they would like to).

My assumption is that women are valued less than men in these sorts of countries, so I have a hard time believing a man and woman would be together where the woman has a better job--especially when they are denied an education.

Thanks if anyone can make sense of this for me!

[Brant Gaede]

Not enough hard, particular data to support your question. If you'd research it more you'd also likely find your answer in the research.

--Brant

[Selene]

If sweatshops often pay more than the average wage in the country they happen to be in, ...

Excuse me, what is your source for this statement of "facts."

A...

[Dglgmut]

"As I discuss in my forthcoming book, Sweatshops: Improving Lives and Economic Growth, while 77 percent of Bangladeshis live on less than $2 a day – the international poverty standard – and 43 percent live on less than $1.25 a day, workers at the much-demonized Bangladeshi “sweatshops” average more than $2 a day."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/02/sweatshops-in-bangladesh-improve-the-lives-of-their-workers-and-boost-growth/

"Working in the apparel industry in any one of these countries results in earning more than the average income in that country. In half of the countries it results in earning more than three times the national average."

"Even in specific cases where a company was allegedly exploiting sweatshop labor we found the jobs were usually better than average. In 9 of the 11 countries we surveyed, the average reported sweatshop wage, based on a 70-hour work week, equaled or exceeded average incomes. In Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Honduras, the average wage paid by a firm accused of being a sweatshop is more than double the average income in that country."

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html

Those are specific, but there are also many general assertions I've come accross that are not quantified or qualified, that sweatshops pay better than "average". I have not seen anyone break it down into genders, and whenever someone writes that sweatshops pay poorly, it is always relative a "living wage" and not the wages they could earn elsewhere.

[dldelancey]

Random guesses with no support to cite:

• In countries where these jobs exist, traditional gender roles are the norm. It is not manly to sew, would be the thinking.
• These jobs give women a chance at independence and personal growth, an opportunity that is seldom afforded them in those countries. Men, on the other hand, in those countries have other means to achieve those goals.

[Brant Gaede]

Keep researching. You might get somewhere. Since this has been published in Forbes it's essentially to sanction what is going on over there. (Little boys In India are employed in the ship-breaking industry. Since it's outside work it's not "sweatshop.") Women are traditionally employed making clothes for lack of need of physical strength. Their real danger is fire, not sweating in an overly humid country indoors. What Bangladesh probably needs is more "sweatshops" so more women can be exploited. Everything else is rich western sociological academic conceit which, frankly, stinks.

If you haven't seen and gender breakdown, why did you start this tread with your 80 - 90%?

--Brant

[Reidy]

The simple (albeit economically illiterate) conclusion is that these countries discriminate against men.

Thomas Sowell's writings are full of historical and contemporary examples of women or non-whites making more than the competition. One that I remember is 19th century farms in California. They paid a white wage and a Japanese wage. Initially the Japanese wage was lower, but as the Japanese rose to become foremen and farm owners and as their linguistic skills became more valuable, the Japanese wage got to be higher.

Some such answer is available here, too. Maybe it's one of the suggestions earlier in this thread or maybe not. The point to remember is that these are questions of empirical social science and not of theology.

[Dglgmut]

• In countries where these jobs exist, traditional gender roles are the norm. It is not manly to sew, would be the thinking.

This is true, or at least I have seen this written in several different articles/essays that I have found, but another reason is that women don't have to support a family, as well as not having education to get a better job.... it really doesn't add up.

[Dglgmut]

If you haven't seen and gender breakdown, why did you start this tread with your 80 - 90%?

As far as wages go--I have not seen average sweatshop earnings for women vs average earnings for women, neither for men. It's always "more than average jobs", but never, "more than average for women" which would still allow for men to be making more and the whole "women's work" and "no education" not to mention jobs in agriculture are generally claimed to be more dangerous, would then all be reasonable. If men were doing more dangerous work for more money, that would make sense, but for less money???

[dldelancey]

Women don't have to support a family? Regardless of whatever societal customs are in play, the reality is that if a woman has a family, then a woman has to support a family. Whether or not she does so in partnership with, or in spite of, or in defiance of, or by sneaking around the back of, someone else is irrelevant. A mother will attempt to feed her children.

According to the Wikipedia listing for Economy of Bangladesh, "[w]omen's wages are significantly lower than men's wages for the same job with women being paid as much as 60-75% less than what men make." That accounts for the economy as a whole, though, apparently, not just sweatshops.

Many men, even in the enlightened and developed USA, would prefer to make less money than perform a job they consider to be emasculating.

[Dglgmut]

Women don't have to support a family?

It was just one reason I've encountered that men would not take a low paying job while a woman would--given that she is already with a man who makes enough for the family to survive and she is trying to add to that income.

[dldelancey]

Are you talking about people who take jobs in sweatshops, or just people in general? Do you mean people who are choosing between a low-paying job and unemployment or people who are choosing between a low-paying job and a higher-paying job?

I'm confused by the assumptions implied in your last post.

[Selene]

Damn, this could get really good...pull up a couch folks...

Hope it is not a draw....

[Brant Gaede]

Calvin still hasn't explained, Adam, how he got that 80 - 90 per cent employment ratio. He merely segued over to wages.

--Brant

throwing another log on the fire to help keep you entertained (I don't really care about the employment ratio)

[Selene]

He still hasn't explained, Adam, how he got that 80 - 90 per cent employment ratio. He merely segued over to wages.

--Brant

Yep, pretty sloppy, however, I have done that lots of times when I am rushing.

A...

[dldelancey]

Brant and Adam,

My own (admittedly hasty) research yesterday supports the 80-90% figure stated in the original post. I think one site may have had it at 75%. Sorry I don't have time at the moment to go back and pull up those sources for citing.

[Selene]

Brant and Adam,

My own (admittedly hasty) research yesterday supports the 80-90% figure stated in the original post. I think one site may have had it at 75%. Sorry I don't have time at the moment to go back and pull up those sources for citing.

Thks D...we can stipulate that number for the sake of this argument.

A...

D's ethos is very high

[anthony]

Patriarchal societies, where women workers are possibly misperceived as being more reliable and skilled at detailed, repetitive tasks, while the men would not stoop to 'women's work' (not so removed from 'gender-equal' societies in which women are hired by quota, while many men see nothing untoward with their wives as sole wage earners).

[Dglgmut]

Calvin still hasn't explained, Adam, how he got that 80 - 90 per cent employment ratio. He merely segued over to wages.

--Brant

throwing another log on the fire to help keep you entertained (I don't really care about the employment ratio)

If I have to cite everything I've already found, which I've only stated to provide context for my question, then obviously I am dealing with someone who knows less about the subject, when I'm looking for someone who knows more. Thank you for the help though, really.

[Dglgmut]

Are you talking about people who take jobs in sweatshops, or just people in general? Do you mean people who are choosing between a low-paying job and unemployment or people who are choosing between a low-paying job and a higher-paying job?

I'm confused by the assumptions implied in your last post.

I am not making any claims, personally, just letting you know what I've come accross. This is all concerning the circumstances surrounding sweatshop workers or people who live in countries where there are sweatshops:

I meant that a woman would be willing to take a lower paying job than a man who would keep looking for a higher paying job--that is likely more dangerous or requires skills/education the woman does not have/has been denied. Again, this is inconsistent with the statistics that show "sweatshop" work as better paying than average work for both men and women, but I have seen this reasoning in articles/essays that focus on the gender issue.

[Dglgmut]

Brant and Adam,

My own (admittedly hasty) research yesterday supports the 80-90% figure stated in the original post. I think one site may have had it at 75%. Sorry I don't have time at the moment to go back and pull up those sources for citing.

Thks D...we can stipulate that number for the sake of this argument.

A...

D's ethos is very high

Who is arguing?

[Selene]

Brant and Adam,

My own (admittedly hasty) research yesterday supports the 80-90% figure stated in the original post. I think one site may have had it at 75%. Sorry I don't have time at the moment to go back and pull up those sources for citing.

Thks D...we can stipulate that number for the sake of this argument.

A...

D's ethos is very high

Who is arguing?

Calvin - arguing to me is not a pejorative term.

There was an argument in my mind about the efficacy and source of your percentages in the opening post.

Now there is an argument about what these numbers mean.

Am I incorrect?

A...

[Dglgmut]

I didn't imply you were using "argument" pejoratively; that's another inference. I did not make an argument. It's as simple as that.

I have a hard time believing that women are making more than men in these countries, not because I think they are less capable or valuable, but because everything points to them having lower social status.

My question is, for anyone here, do you think those women actually do earn more than the men? Or do you think some of the "information" floating around about this (not just on the Internet, but in books) is lies?

[Dglgmut]

"In general the money costs of employing female labour in world market factories do seem to be lower than the money costs of employing men would be. Kreye found that women's wages in world market factories are in general 20%-50% lower than wages paid for men in comparable jobs (Frobel et al., 1979)."

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/journal/v7/n1/full/fr19816a.html

This makes no sense. So they are second class citizens, making less money than men in similar jobs, yet on average they are bringing home more money than their husbands? This article makes it sound like companies specifically look for women rather than men, but focuses on women as being disadvantaged. Why is the fact (if it is true) that they make more money than most men in their area not mentioned anywhere, especially when this is being turned into a gender issue by every feminist approach to sweatshops?

From the same article: "The answers that companies give when asked why they employ women, as well as the statements made by governments trying to attract world market factories, show that there is a widespread belief that it is a 'natural' differentiation, produced by innate capacities and personality traits of women and men, and by an objective differentiation of their income needs in that men need an income to support a family, while women do not."

The bolded was what I referred to several posts ago.

[Selene]

I have a hard time believing that women are making more than men in these countries, not because I think they are less capable or valuable, but because everything points to them having lower social status.

Dude, that is an argument.