Kelly 1
Kelly Parker
Professor LeQuire
English 1000 – 123
25 February 2015
Sweating Over Sweatshops: An Argumentative Analysis
In his essay titled “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream,” columnist for the New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof tackles the controversial topic of sweatshops that are used, and often
exploited, in our corporate-dominated global economy today. As the piece unfolds, Kristof
addresses the efforts being made to improve or remove sweatshops, while presenting an
argument for the necessity of these facilities in some parts of the world. Although the argument
is lacking in statistical data, it is certainly not lacking in other logical and emotional appeals that
evoke an enlightening, new perspective on the topic. By using graphic language, individual,
provocative accounts of residents in areas where living conditions are far more atrocious without
the employment opportunity that factories provide, acknowledging the opposition to establish
common ground, and presenting a credible foundation for his claim, Kristof paints a vivid picture
of a world where sweatshops are, in fact, a dream for some. However, he leaves the audience
hanging by failing to elaborate on any alternate solutions to the problems he presents.
In the very beginning of the paper, Kristof sets the stage by describing the hellish setting
that those whom he argues are in need of sweatshops are facing. He uses shocking language and
imagery to reel the reader in and depict the gravity of the situation, “This is a Dante-like version
of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke
Kelly 2
from subterranean fire” (Kristof 109). By comparing the setting of the place called Phnom Penh
that he is using as an example in his paper to that of Dante’s well-known Divine Comedy, Kristof
creates a clear mental picture of the circumstances these people are living with, eliciting a strong
initial reaction from his audience.
He continues, “The miasma of toxic stink leaves you gasping, breezes batter you with
filth, and even the rats look forlorn. Then the smoke parts and you come across a child ambling
barefoot, searching for old plastic sups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound” (Kristof
109). And he concludes with the statement, “Many families actually live in shacks on this
smoking garbage” (Kristof 109). In this section, Kristof draws from the audience’s prior
experience and knowledge by describing how the stench of the setting is so potent that even rats,
which we normally associate with filthy environments, struggle to live in this place. The last
description we are given, that of a child stuck in this wasteland searching for something as
simple as cups, strikes every heart string we possess. So, the audience is successfully hooked just
in time for Kristof to make his claim, that “the central challenge in the poorest countries (like
Phnom Penh) is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough”
(109).
Kristof furthers his argument by using various testimonies of those who live in places like
Phnom Penh, expressing how “cherished” the dream of working in a sweatshop is to the
individuals living in these poverty-stricken countries. The accounts include that of a 19-year-old
woman and an older mother who “hopes” her 10-year-old boy gets a better life that sweatshops
would provide him, describing how “she has seen other children run over by garbage trucks” and
how her own son has never received professional medical or dental care, nor has he bathed in
Kelly 3
eight years (Kristof 110). By comparison to their current living conditions, all of the people who
were asked concluded that conditions in a sweatshop would be far greater.
This section of the argument is pure pathos; the audience realizes, from other’s firsthand
experiences, the claim Kristof is making, that sweatshops are a dream to some when compared to
their current living situations, is true. This realization weighs on us throughout the paper.
However, Kristof’s argument lacks any statistical data to support his claim. While the firsthand
accounts do serve as an emotional appeal to the audience, statistics regarding the number of
people living in similar circumstances all around the world, differences in wages of those
working in sweatshops compared to the jobless, the number of countries where this is a reality,
and possibly the death rates due to situational incidents, like the child who was run over by a
garbage truck that the woman described, would greatly strengthen the argument. Statistics would
help the audience gain a better grasp on how wide-reaching this epidemic of poverty truly is,
instead of a centralized view on one particular area, and lend more to the author’s credibility.
Colorful language and emotional appeals are not a substitute for indisputable facts.
Next, Kristof addresses opposition to his argument and attempts to establish some
common ground and credibility with his intended audience, stating, “I’m glad that many
Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal
workers in dangerous factories” (110). He acknowledges that sweatshops are, in fact,
problematic, and assumes the best intentions from his audience. Later, he also describes to the
audience his background with the situation, explaining how his position about sweatshops stems
from personal experience while living in East Asia, specifically his wife’s ancestral village in
southern China, where he witnessed firsthand how living conditions improved for residents there
Kelly 4
due to sweatshops. By providing this information, Kristof gains the audience’s trust in his
awareness of the issue and well-intentioned argument; we want to help him.
In the following sections, Kristof combats other oppositions with logical appeals to
support his claim. He concedes the opposition—“Labor standards can improve wages and
working conditions, without greatly affecting the eventual retail cost of goods”—but explains the
negative effects labor standards can lead to, like increasing production costs, therefore driving
stingy companies out of poor countries and into those that are more well off, which does not help
those whose living conditions would be improved by sweatshops (Kristof 110). He also mentions
issues with bribing from management that occur when labor standards are enacted as well as the
economic crisis forcing some factories to close due to the aforementioned higher production
costs and increasing competition within our international market. However, the argument is,
once again, lacking in any statistical data regarding the production costs, bribing frequency, or
the number of businesses forced to close due to these reasons.
The main downfall of the argument occurs as soon as Kristof makes the seemingly
offhanded remark that, “Sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause” (110). He
introduces a completely new idea, that poverty is the main issue, brilliantly broadening the scope
of his argument, and then forces readers to narrow their focus back to what he is arguing—that
we should help perpetuate a mere symptom of the main issue, instead of seeking to solve the real
problem, which he presents himself. This momentary break in focus begs the audience to doubt
whether or not what Kristof is arguing is, in fact, the best course of action.
When addressing the opposition that asks him if he would want to work in a sweatshop,
Kristof responds, “No, of course not. But I would want even less to pull a rickshaw” (110). His
Kelly 5
choice of language, ‘of course not,’ creates a strong, negative association with sweatshops in the
reader’s mind. If conditions in these facilities are so terrible that the author himself clearly would
never want to work there, then our trust in the argument wavers.
Toward the end of the paper, Kristof claims that, “The best way to help people in the
poorest countries isn’t to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there,”
going on to scratch the surface of one possible solution; we could help one country, Africa, by
strengthening a program called AGOA that seeks to encourage African imports and push Europe
to match it (111). Fantastic. But how exactly do we go about accomplishing that? What are the
specific inner-workings, credentials, and goals of AGOA? Kristof never gets around to
elaborating on any of these lingering questions the audience is left with; nor does he offer any
other possible solutions. Not to mention, some of the necessary channels for carrying out these
measures, like the President and Congress, are completely alienated and undermined in as early
as the fourth paragraph of the argument by addressing them as “Mr. Obama and the Democrats”
(Kristof 109). Finally, Kristof concludes his argument with a statement from a 13-year-old girl
who we are told earns less than $1 a day by scavenging in the dump, who is filthy in appearance,
and fears for her sister who lost her hand when she was run over by a garbage truck: “It’s dirty,
hot, and smelly here…A factory is better” (111). Like the rest of his argument, Kristof leaves the
audience with a sorrowful feeling and a desire to act upon it, but does not follow through with
ideas for how we can do that.
Ultimately, “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream” somewhat succeeds in making its
audience aware of extremely impoverished conditions those living in the poorest countries of our
world face on a daily basis, but is not developed well enough to succeed in making its audience
support the author’s argument in favor of sweatshops. As much as the audience is compelled to
Kelly 6
aid the individuals whose accounts are used in the paper, we are not convinced sweatshops are
the best solution to do so. The only thing Kristof’s argument in support of sweatshops truly
accomplishes is painting a no-win, off-putting scenario that does not incite support or action,
only helplessness and disappointment.
Kelly 7
Works Cited
Kristof, Nicholas D. "Where Sweatshops Are a Dream." Practical Argument: A Text and
Anthology (2nd ed.). Kirszner, Laurie G., and Stephen R. Mandell, eds. Boston:
Bedford/Saint Martin's, 2013. 109-111. Print.