Is old money really so great?

This past week in class we discussed the topic of new money vs. old money. This whole topic really interested me, especially the fact that old money looks down upon those of new money. You would think it would be the opposite. These people with old money were born rich, and didn't have to do anything for the wealth they now possess. It was simply inherited because someone before them made enough to share. Whereas new money had to work hard for what they now have. They rose above the odds and earned their way to riches. Looking at the definitions it seems obvious that the latter should be the one to praise. This whole topic emphasizes the fact that society has flaws, and old traditions are hard to break.

I decided to research a little on the topic, and I wasn't suprised to see Paris Hilton pop up on my computer first. She seems to be the young face of old money. As the great granddaughter of the Hilton Hotel Founder, she was born into money. She is an actress, model, singer, and icon. She seems to be all over the Hollywood circuit. With Paris as the covergirl, I can't help but question what is so great about old money? What separates them from the average person? Paris parties, she has been arrested, and has even served jail time. She makes mistakes just like anyone else, but I thought people of old money were the classy and dignified ones. Atleast, that is what they seem to argue when comparing themselves with new money. I think that since these young teens and even adults were born into money, they don't fully understand the reprecussions of their actions. They never have to worry about losing their jobs or hurting their chances for success. They will always have their money to fall back on. I am not saying that all people of old money act like this or feel this way. I just think that old money shouldn't consider themselves superior to new when they are far from perfect.

The sweatshop debate

After having talked about sweatshops and brutal working conditions in class this past week, I decided to do some extra reading on the topic. In class, we learned that these situations are extremely harsh and very much detrimental to the people that work in it. That is why I was very surprised to come across an article arguing the opposite.

In the article The Case for Sweatshops, David Henderson argues that these sweatshops really aren't that bad. The conditions of the factories in these third-world countries are actually much better than the agricultural jobs they would be working in otherwise. Countries like Malaysia and South Korea used to use sweatshops as primary providers, but now about forty years later, no longer rely on them. The reason being their workers now have developed individual skills and earned capital. The sweatshops aren't used in South Korea and Malaysia anymore. They weren't forced to discontinue, but instead grew better on their own. We as consumers, Henderson explains, shouldn't discourage sweatshops, but instead we should continue to buy from them, and then let them develop on their own.

Henderson goes on to even speak highly of child labor. He thinks that the sweatshops keep children out of trouble. Without the work to keep them busy and making money, they would live on the streets as prostitutes or starving for food.

Having heard one opinion about sweatshops for so long, it was hard for me to read this article and agree. I see the point that Henderson is making, and I also see the point of opposition argued by many as well. I think in terms of sweatshops, we should try to find a middle ground. The idea of sweatshops as a system that provides jobs to many should remain constant. It is the conditions that need to change. They need to become safer and cleaner. The workers need to be treated more like people.