Sweatshop cutie

"Three-year-old children who are starving in third world countries make my clothes," I thought to myself. Clutching a Lacoste bag and clad in an IZOD skirt, I sat in class as the professors referred back to the article in the Monday edition of the Indiana Daily Student, "Group attacks unfair labor." Sweatshops in the fashion industry are as quiet as kept; they are the elephant in the living room. If no one mentions it, it doesn't come up. \nThis week, I have been slammed with the subject of sweatshops and, as a fashionista, I don't know what to say or do. So when the subject came up in class, clad in designer gear, I immediately felt threatened and brought up some very insensitive but true points.\nIn my opinion, sweatshops are terrible. But I don't think groups should target one particular industry or group. Everyone thinks it's just top designers or big names that use sweatshops, but smaller and more affordable apparel companies, like Dockers, and technology companies use them as well. Of course, there is nothing I can say to justify the treatment of employees in sweatshops, but I think there is a lot to consider when confronting the topic. \nThe United States' economic system is based on capitalism and, unfortunately, fashion is capitalism's favorite child. In our society, looks matter. People buy clothes from Kmart because they are affordable and people have to look presentable at work. People have to work to make money. Even if you are buying clothes at Kmart, you have to look good, which brings me to my point: The prices we pay for clothing are directly linked to cost of labor.\nWhen the cost of labor goes up, apparel prices go up; as a result, stores that were once affordable become expensive for all. The problem with sweatshops is they are a result of demand. You can live without computers, you can live without cars, but no shoes, no shirt, no service. Yes, the designers get beaucoup overhead from lines of jeans, but in order for us to have those jeans -- from Wrangler to Sevens -- the designers have to live a certain kind of lifestyle. Art supplies cost money, fabrics cost money and advertising and marketing cost money. \nAs I presented the argument to the IDS, I realized people are very passionate about this issue. So, I propose a strategy to attack the value our society places on designer clothes: Attack the shallow-minded employers that won't hire you unless you look good. Attack the governments in those countries for allowing sweatshops to exist. But don't attack the consumer or University clothing that makes up for less than 5 percent of sweatshop labor. Cutting out our 5 percent will not make much of a difference. If the University halts its relationship with these companies, it will cost IU more money, which in turn will cost students more money. Forty-five dollars for a pair of sweats that say "Indiana University" down the side is already too much for me. Ask me why I don't have a pair. \nI hope the sweatshop situation gets better, and when I become a designer, I plan to pay my employees way more than three cents an hour. I plan on making a change, but attacking IU is not the way to go. If you want to make a change, you have to take action. You have to attack the ideal behind the machine, not just IU. Start bigger. Keep in mind: If it's not the 7-year-old child sewing for three cents an hour, it will be you paying $80 for school spirit.