A sweatshop in New York City, 1889

Sweatshop (or sweat factory) is a negatively connoted term for any working environment considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous. Sweatshop workers often work long hours for very low pay, regardless of laws mandating overtime pay or a minimum wage. Child labour laws may be violated. Sweatshops may have hazardous materials and situations. Employees may be subject to employer abuse without an easy way, if any way, to protect themselves.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office defines a sweatshop as an employer that violates more than one federal or state labor law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, worker’s compensation or industry regulation.

History[link]

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (September 2011)

While many workplaces through history have been crowded, dangerous, low-paying and without job security, the concept of a sweatshop has its origins between 1830 and 1850 as a specific type of workshop in which a certain type of middleman, the sweater, directed others in garment making (the process of producing clothing), under arduous conditions.The terms sweater for the middleman and sweating system for the process of subcontracting piecework were used in early critiques like Charles Kingsley's Cheap Clothes and Nasty, written in 1850, which described conditions in London, England. The workplaces created for the sweating system were called sweatshops and variously comprised workplaces of only a few workers, or as many as one hundred or more.

Between 1850 and 1900, sweatshops attracted the rural poor to rapidly-growing cities, and attracted immigrants to places like London, England and New York City's garment district, located near the tenements of New York's Lower East Side. Wherever they were located, sweatshops also attracted critics and labour leaders who cited them as crowded, poorly ventilated, and prone to fires and rat infestations, since much of the work was done by many people crowded into small tenement rooms.

In the 1890's a group calling itself the National Anti-Sweating League was formed in Melbourne, Australia and campaigned successfully for a minimum wage via trade boards. A group with the same name campaigned from 1906 in the UK, resulting in the Trade Boards Act 1909.^[1]

In 1910, the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union was founded in an effort to improve the condition of these workers.

Criticism of garment sweatshops became a major force behind workplace safety regulation and labor laws. As some journalists strove to change working conditions, the term sweatshop came to describe a broader set of workplaces whose conditions were considered inferior. In the United States, investigative journalists, known as Muckrakers, wrote exposés of business practices, and progressive politicians campaigned for new laws. Notable exposés of sweatshop conditions include Jacob Riis' photo documentary How the Other Half Lives and Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle about the meat packing industry.

In 1911, negative public perceptions of sweatshops were galvanized by the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New York City. The pivotal role of this time and place is chronicled at the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, part of the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site. While trade unions, minimum wage laws, fire safety codes, and labour laws have made sweatshops (in the original sense) rarer in the developed world, they did not eliminate them, and the term came to be increasingly associated with factories in the developing world.

In a report issued in 1994, the United States Government Accountability Office found that there were still thousands of sweatshops in the United States, using a definition of a sweatshop as any "employer that violates more than one federal or state labour law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labour, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, workers' compensation, or industry registration".^[2] This recent definition eliminates any historical distinction about the role of a middleman or the items produced, and focuses on the legal standards of developed country workplaces. An area of controversy between supporters of outsourcing production to the Third World and the anti-sweatshop movement is whether such standards can or should be applied to the workplaces of the developing world.^{[citation needed]}

Sweatshops are also sometimes implicated in human trafficking when workers have been tricked into starting work without informed consent, or when workers are kept at work through debt bondage or mental duress, all of which are more likely in cases where the workforce is drawn from children or the uneducated rural poor.^{[citation needed]} Because they often exist in places without effective workplace safety or environmental laws, sweatshops sometimes injure their workers or the environment at greater rates than would be acceptable in developed countries.^{[citation needed]} Sometimes penal labor facilities (employing prisoners) are grouped under the sweatshop label.^{[citation needed]}

Sweatshops have proved a difficult issue to resolve because their roots lie in the conceptual foundations of the world economy.^{[citation needed]} Developing countries like India, China, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Honduras encourage the outsourcing of work from the developed world to factories within their borders in order to provide employment for their people and profits to their employers.^{[citation needed]} The shift of production to developing countries is part of the process known as globalization, but may also be described as neoliberal globalization to emphasize the role that free market economics plays in outsourcing.^{[citation needed]}

Positions on sweatshops[link]

Anti-sweatshop movement[link]

Some of the earliest sweatshop critics were found in the 19th century abolitionist movement that had originally coalesced in opposition to chattel slavery, and many abolitionists saw similarities between slavery and sweatshop work. As slavery was successively outlawed in industrial countries between 1794 (in France) and 1865 (in the United States), some abolitionists sought to broaden the anti-slavery consensus to include other forms of harsh labor, including sweatshops. As it happened, the first significant law to address sweatshops (the Factory Act of 1833) was passed in the United Kingdom at the same time that the slave trade (1807) and ownership of slaves (1833) were made illegal.

Ultimately, the abolitionist movement split apart. Some advocates focused on working conditions and found common cause with trade unions and Marxists and socialist political groups, or progressive movement and the muckrakers. Others focused on the continued slave trade and involuntary servitude in the colonial world. For those groups that remained focused on slavery, sweatshops became one of the primary objects of controversy. Workplaces across multiple sectors of the economy were categorized as sweatshops. However, there were fundamental philosophical disagreements about what constituted slavery. Unable to agree on the status of sweatshops, the abolitionists working with the League of Nations and the United Nations ultimately backed away from efforts to define slavery, and focused instead on a common precursor of slavery – human trafficking.^[3]

Those focused on working conditions included Friedrich Engels, whose book The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 would inspire the Marxist movement named for his collaborator, Karl Marx. In the United Kingdom the Factory Act was revised six further times between 1844 and 1878 to help improve the condition of workers by limiting work hours and the use of child labor. The formation of the International Labour Organization in 1919 under the League of Nations and then the United Nations sought to address the plight of workers the world over. Concern over working conditions as described by muckraker journalists during the Progressive Era in the United States saw the passage of new workers rights laws and ultimately resulted in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, passed during the New Deal.^[4]

Members of United Students Against Sweatshops marching in protest.

More recently, the anti-globalization movement has arisen in opposition to corporate globalization, a process by which multinational corporations move their operations overseas in order to lower their costs and increase profits. The anti-sweatshop movement has much in common with the anti-globalization movement. Both consider sweatshops harmful, and both have accused many companies (such as the Walt Disney Company, The Gap, and Nike) of using sweatshops. Some in these movements charge that neoliberal globalization is similar to the sweating system, arguing that there tends to be a "race to the bottom", as multinationals leap from one low-wage country to another searching for lower production costs, in the same way that sweaters would have steered production to the lowest cost sub-contractor.^[5]

Various groups support or embody the anti-sweatshop movement today. The National Labor Committee brought sweatshops into the mainstream media in the 1990s when it exposed the use of sweatshop and child labor to sew Kathie Lee Gifford's Wal-Mart label. United Students Against Sweatshops is active on college campuses. The International Labor Rights Fund filed a lawsuit^[6] on behalf of workers in China, Nicaragua, Swaziland, Indonesia, and Bangladesh against Wal-Mart charging the company with knowingly developing purchasing policies particularly relating to price and delivery time that are impossible to meet while following the Wal-Mart code of conduct. Labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO, have helped support the anti-sweatshop movement out of concern both for the welfare of workers in the developing world and those in the United States.^[7]

Critics point out that sweatshop workers often do not earn enough money to buy the products that they make, even though such items are often commonplace goods such as t-shirts, shoes, and toys. In 2003, Honduran garment factory workers were paid US$0.24 for each $50 Sean John sweatshirt, $0.15 for each long-sleeved t-shirt, and only five cents for each short-sleeved shirt – less than one-half of one percent of the retail price.^[8] Even comparing international costs of living, the $0.15 that a Honduran worker earned for the long-sleeved t-shirt was equal in purchasing power to $0.50 in the United States.^[9]

Critics of sweatshops cite high savings, increased capital investment in developing nations, diversification of their exports and their status as trade ports as the reason for their economic success rather than sweatshops^[10][11][12] and cite the numerous cases in the East Asian "Tiger Economies" where sweatshops have reduced living standards and wages.^[13] They believe that better-paying jobs, increased capital investment and domestic ownership of resources will improve the economies of sub-Saharan Africa rather than sweatshops. They point to good labor standards developing strong manufacturing export sectors in wealthier sub-Saharan countries such as Mauritius^[14] and believe measures like these will improve economic conditions in developing nations.^[15]

Critics of sweatshops argue that the minor gains made by employee of some of these institutions are outweighed by the negative costs such as lowered wages to increase profit margins and that the institutions pay less than the daily expenses of their workers.^[16][17][18] They also point to the fact that sometimes local jobs offered higher wages before trade liberalization provided tax incentives to allow sweatshops to replace former local unionized jobs.^[19] They further contend that sweatshop jobs are not necessarily inevitable.^[20][21] Eric Toussaint claims that quality of life in developing countries was actually higher between 1945–1980 before the international debt crisis of 1982 harmed economies in developing countries causing them to turn to IMF and World Bank-organized "structural adjustments"^[22] and that unionized jobs pay more than sweatshop ones overall – "several studies of workers producing for US firms in Mexico are instructive: workers at the Aluminum Company of America’s Ciudad Acuna plant earn between $21.44 and $24.60 per week, but a weekly basket of basic food items costs $26.87. Mexican GM workers earn enough to buy a pound of apples in 30 minutes of work, while GM workers in the US earn as much in 5 minutes."^[23] People critical of sweatshops believe that "free trade agreements" do not truly promote free trade at all but instead seek to protect multinational corporations from competition by local industries (which are sometimes unionized).^[24] They believe free trade should only involve reducing tariffs and barriers to entry and that multinational businesses should operate within the laws in the countries they want to do business in rather than seeking immunity from obeying local environmental and labor laws. They believe these conditions are what give rise to sweatshops rather than natural industrialization or economic progression.

Critics also point to the fact that sweatshops often do not pay taxes and thus don't pay for the public services they use for production and distribution and don't contribute to the country's tax revenue.^[25] In some countries, such as China, it is not uncommon for these institutions to withhold workers' pay.^[26]

Furthermore, critics of sweatshops point to the fact that those in the West who defend sweatshops show double standards by complaining about sweatshop labor conditions in countries considered enemies or hostile by Western governments, such as China, while still gladly consuming their exports but complaining about the quality.^[13] They contend that multinational jobs should be expected to operate according to international labor and environmental laws and minimum wage standards like businesses in the West do.^[28]

Pro-sweatshop arguments[link]

While East Asia has embraced large numbers of sweatshops, sub-Saharan Africa has not. This graph shows that the percentage of the population living on less than $1 per day (adjusted for inflation) has fallen substantially in East Asia, while remaining relatively unchanged in sub-Saharan Africa. The graph shows the 1981–2001 period. Data source: "How Have the World's Poorest Fared Since the Early 1980s?" by Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion. [1] Table 3, p. 28.

In 1997, economist Jeffrey Sachs said, "My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops, but that there are too few."^[29] Sachs and other proponents of sweatshops cite the economic theory of comparative advantage, which states that international trade will, in the long run, make all parties better off. The theory holds that developing countries improve their condition by doing something that they do "better" than industrialized nations (in this case, they charge less but do the same work). Developed countries will also be better off because their workers can shift to jobs that they do better. These are jobs that some economists say usually entail a level of education and training that is exceptionally difficult to obtain in the developing world. Thus, economists like Sachs say, developing countries get factories and jobs that they would not otherwise. Some^[who?] would say with this situation occurs when developing countries try to increase wages because sweatshops tend to just get moved on to a new state that is more welcoming. This leads to a situation where states often will not try to get increased wages for sweatshop workers for fear of losing investment and boosted GDP. However, this only means average wages around the world will increase at a steady rate. A nation only gets left behind if it demands wages higher than the current market price for that labor.

When asked about the working condition in sweatshops, proponents say that although wages and working conditions may appear inferior by the standards of developed nations, they are actually improvements over what the people in developing countries had before. It is said that if jobs in such factories did not improve their workers' standard of living, those workers would not have taken the jobs when they appeared. It is also often pointed out that, unlike in the industrialized world, the sweatshops are not replacing high-paying jobs. Rather, sweatshops offer an improvement over subsistence farming and other back-breaking tasks, or even prostitution, trash picking, or starvation by unemployment.^[29][30]

The absence of the work opportunities provided by sweatshops can quickly lead to malnourishment or starvation. After the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Asia, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution." UNICEF's 1997 State of the World's Children study found these alternative jobs "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production."^[31]

Writer Johan Norberg, a proponent of market economics, points out an irony:^[32]

In the Wal-Mart episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, Professor of Economics Benjamin Powell from San Jose State University is interviewed. Professor Powell argues that sweatshop-type jobs in a developing country are often a significant improvement over other employment options (for example, subsistence farming). He further notes that the United States went through its own period of sweatshop labor during its development.^[33] According to an article in Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context, sweatshops became prevalent in the United States during the Industrial Revolution. As new jobs in factories began to appear, people left the hard life of farming to work in these factories. Although the working conditions and wages in these factories were very poor, the agricultural nature of the economy shifted into a manufacturing one because of this industrialization. Through this new industrialized economy, sufficient wealth was created and a large middle class began to emerge. The labor movement came about with this rise in the average level of income and factory workers began to demand better wages and working conditions. Through much struggle, workers and advocates were able to achieve basic rights for workers, which included the right to form unions, and negotiate terms such as wages, overtime pay, health insurance, and retirement pensions; and eventually they were also able to attain legal protections such as minimum wage standards, and discrimination and sexual abuse protections. Furthermore, Congress set forth to ensure a minimum set of safety standards were followed in workplaces by passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in 1970. These developments were able to improve working environments for Americans but it was through sweatshops that the economy grew and people were able to accumulate wealth and move out of poverty. As Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman states in a 1997 article for Slate, “as manufacturing grows in poor countries, it creates a ripple effect that benefits ordinary people: ‘The pressure on the land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise.’ In time average wages creep up to a level comparable to minimum-wage jobs in the United States.”^[34]

In an article about a Nike sweatshop in Vietnam, Johan Norberg wrote, "But when I talk to a young Vietnamese woman, Tsi-Chi, at the factory, it is not the wages she is most happy about. Sure, she makes five times more than she did, she earns more than her husband, and she can now afford to build an extension to her house. But the most important thing, she says, is that she doesn't have to work outdoors on a farm any more... Farming means 10 to 14 hours a day in the burning sun or the intensive rain... The most persistent demand Nike hears from the workers is for an expansion of the factories so that their relatives can be offered a job as well."^[35]

According to a November 2001 BBC article, in the previous two months, 100,000 sweatshop workers in Bangladesh had lost their sweatshop jobs. The sweatshop workers wanted their jobs back, and the Bangladeshi government was planning to lobby the U.S. government to repeal its trade barriers so the sweatshop workers could have their jobs back.^[36]

A 2005 article in the Christian Science Monitor states, "For example, in Honduras, the site of the infamous Kathy Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal, the average apparel worker earns $13.10 per day, yet 44 percent of the country's population lives on less than $2 per day... 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's economy."^[37]

On three documented occasions during the 1990s, anti-sweatshop activists in rich countries have apparently caused increases in childhood prostitution in poor countries. In Bangladesh, there was a closure of several sweatshops which had been run by a German company, and as a result, thousands of Bangladeshi children who had been working in those sweatshops ended up working as prostitutes, turning to crime, or starving to death. In Pakistan, several sweatshops, including ones run by Nike, Reebok, and other corporations, were closed, which caused those Pakistani children to turn to prostitution. In Nepal, a carpet manufacturing company closed several sweatshops, resulting in thousands of Nepalese girls turning to prostitution.^[38]

An October 19, 2008 Associated Press article reported about the Chinese citizens complaining about how the current U.S. economic crises had caused them to lose their sweatshop jobs. The article quoted Wang Wenming, who had lost his job at a Dongguan sweatshop, as saying, "This financial crisis in America is going to kill us. It's already taking food out of our mouths."^[39]

Defenders of sweatshops cite Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan as recent examples of countries that benefited from having sweatshops.^[40][41]

Organizations working on the complication[link]

• Clean Clothes Campaign international alliance of labor unions and non-governmental organizations
• International Labor Rights Fund
• International Labour Organization a specialized agency of the United Nations
• National Labor Committee founded to combat sweatshop labor and US government policy in El Salvador and Central America.
• Green America membership organization based in the United States
• United Students Against Sweatshops a student organization in the United States and Canada
• Free the Children A Canadian organization that helps raise awareness and put a stop to Child Labour – Also helps other children in need.
• Reason Foundation Founded in 1968, Reason Foundation is a nonprofit organization advancing "free minds and free markets."
• Not for Sale Campaign

See also[link]

External links[link]

• Between a Rock and a Hard Place: A History of American Sweatshops, 1820–Present An online exhibition from the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution

References[link]

Notes[link]

v t e Fair trade Core topics History of fair trade · Fairtrade certification · Fair trade and politics · Fair trade impact studies · Fair trade debate · Alternative trading organization · Trade justice · Trade Justice Movement · Sweatshops · Body shopping · Worldshop Federations Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International · World Fair Trade Organization · Network of European Worldshops · European Fair Trade Association · FINE · Fair Trade Federation · International Resources for Fairer Trade (IRFT) Certification Fair trade certification · FLO International (standard-setting & producer support) · FLO-CERT (inspection & certification) · International Fairtrade Certification Mark · Fair Trade Certified Mark Labeling initiatives Asociación del Sello de Productos de Comercio Justo · Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand · Fairtrade Mark Ireland · The Fairtrade Foundation · Association Max Havelaar France · Stichting Max Havelaar · Max Havelaar-Stiftung Switzerland · Fairtrade Canada · Fair Trade USA (formerly TransFair USA) Alternative trading organizations Alter Eco · Artisans du Monde · Cafédirect · Ctm altromercato · Divine Chocolate · Equal Exchange · Equal Exchange Trading · Rainforest Alliance  · Gepa The Fair Trade Company · Handcrafting Justice · SERRV International · Traidcraft · Twin Trading · Ten Thousand Villages · Veja Sneakers Campaigns Fairtrade Town · List of Fairtrade settlements · Fairtrade fortnight · Make Trade Fair · No Sweat · United Students Against Sweatshops · World Fair Trade Day Media Black Gold (2006 film) · One Cup (film) · Brewing Justice (book) Category:Fair trade · Fair trade media at Commons

John Stossel
John Stossel outside Fox Studios after a taping of Stossel, June 9, 2010.
Born	John F. Stossel (1947-03-06) March 6, 1947 (age 65) Chicago Heights, Illinois, U.S.
Education	B.A. in Psychology, Princeton University (1969)
Occupation	Journalist, author, columnist, reporter, TV presenter
Years active	1969–present[1]
Notable credit(s)	20/20 Stossel
Spouse	Ellen Abrams
Website
http://www.johnstossel.com/

John F. Stossel (born March 6, 1947) is an American consumer reporter, investigative journalist, author and libertarian columnist. In October 2009 Stossel left his long time home on ABC News to join the Fox Business Channel and Fox News Channel, both owned and operated by News Corp. He hosts a weekly news show on Fox Business, Stossel, which debuted on December 10, 2009. The show airs in prime time every Thursday, repeating on both Saturdays and Sundays. Stossel also regularly provides signature analysis, appearing on various Fox News shows, including weekly appearances on The O'Reilly Factor, in addition to writing the Fox News Blog, "John Stossel's Take".^[2]

Stossel practices advocacy journalism, often challenging conventional wisdom.^[3] His reporting style, which is a blend of commentary and reporting, reflects a libertarian political philosophy and his views on economics are largely supportive of the free market.^[4]

In his decades as a reporter, Stossel has received numerous honors and awards, including nineteen Emmy awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club.^[5] John Stossel is doctor honoris causa from Universidad Francisco Marroquín.^[6] Stossel has written two books recounting how his experiences in journalism shaped his socioeconomic views, Give Me a Break in 2004 and Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity in 2007.

Stossel began his journalism career as a researcher for KGW-TV and later became a consumer reporter at WCBS-TV in New York City, before joining ABC News as a consumer editor and reporter on Good Morning America. Stossel went on to be an ABC News correspondent, joining the weekly news magazine program 20/20, going on to become co-anchor.^[7]

ABC is reported to believe "his reporting goes against the grain of the established media and offers the network something fresh and different...[but] makes him a target of the groups he offends."^[8]

Early life[link]

John Stossel was born in Chicago Heights, Illinois, the younger of two sons,^[9] to a prominent Jewish family, and graduated from New Trier High School in Winnetka. He overcame a stuttering problem so he could become a reporter, and is now a supporter and advocate for the Stuttering Foundation of America. Stossel graduated from Princeton University with a BA in Psychology in 1969 and was a member of Princeton Tower Club while there. He began his journalism career as a researcher for KGW-TV in Portland, Oregon. Stossel later became a consumer reporter at WCBS-TV in New York City before joining ABC News in 1981 as consumer editor and reporter on Good Morning America.

Career[link]

[edit] 20/20

Stossel was named co-anchor of ABC News' 20/20 in May 2003. He joined the weekly news magazine program in 1981, initially as a correspondent. His "Give Me a Break" segments featured a skeptical look at subjects from government regulations and pop culture to censorship and unfounded fear. The series was spun off into a series of one-hour specials (which, Stossel stated in an interview with ReasonTV^[10] cost ABC half a million dollars per special), beginning in 1994, with titles including:

• "Give Me a Break" – regular segment
• You Can't Even Talk About It – 2009^[11]
• Bailouts and Bull (in association with ReasonTV) – 2009
• Age of Consent – 2009
• John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics – 2008
• Sex in America – 2008
• Sick in America, Whose Body Is It Anyway? – 2007
• Cheap In America – 2007
• Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity – 2007
• Cheap in America – 2006
• Stupid in America: How We Cheat Our Kids – 2006^[12]
• Privilege in America: Who's Shutting You Out? – 2006
• War on Drugs: A War on Ourselves – 2002
• Freeloaders – 2001
• John Stossel Goes to Washington – Spring 2001
• Is America #1? – 1999
• Greed – 1999
• Common Sense – 1995
• Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?
• Junk Science: What You Know That May Not Be So
• Boys and Girls Are Different
• You Can't Say That!
• The Power of Belief

Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network[link]

In September 2009, it was announced that Stossel was leaving ABC News and joining Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network. In addition to appearing on The O'Reilly Factor every Tuesday night, he now hosts a one-hour weekly program for Fox Business Network and a series of one-hour specials for Fox News Channel, as well as making regular guest appearances on Fox News programs.

The program, entitled Stossel, debuted December 10, 2009, on Fox Business Network. The program looks at consumer-focused topics, such as civil liberties, the business of health care, and free trade. His blog, "Stossel’s Take", is published on both FoxBusiness.com and FoxNews.com.^[13][14][15]

Publications[link]

Stossel has written three books. Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media is a 2005 autobiography from Harper Perennial documenting his career and philosophical transition from liberalism to libertarianism. It describes his opposition to government regulation, his belief in free market and private enterprise, support for tort reform, and advocacy for shifting social services from the government to private charities. It was a New York Times bestseller for 11 weeks.^[3] Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel – Why Everything You Know Is Wrong, which was published in 2007 by Hyperion, questions the validity of various conventional wisdoms, and argues that the belief he is conservative is untrue. On April 10, 2012, Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, published Stossel's third book No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed. It argues that government policies meant to solve problems instead produce new ones, and that free individuals and the private sector perform tasks more efficiently than the government does.^[16]

With financial support from the libertarian Palmer R. Chitester Fund, Stossel and ABC News launched a series of educational materials for public schools in 1999 entitled "Stossel in the Classroom".^[17][18] It was taken over in 2006 by the Center for Independent Thought and releases a new DVD of teaching materials annually. In 2006, Stossel and ABC released Teaching Tools for Economics, a video series based on the National Council of Economics Education standards.^[19]

Charity and other work[link]

Stossel often makes public appearances and speeches, advocating his brand of libertarian thought.^[20] Stossel explained at the end of the December 30, 2010 episode of Stossel that he gives away his earnings from these engagements to charity; they contribute 25% of his income. The three main groups he supports with his donations are the The Doe Fund, the Central Park Conservancy (on whose board he sits), and Student Sponsor Partners (SSP), which partners low-income high school students with donors who mentor the students and pay tuition for the students to attend private school (usually Catholic schools), which Stossel says have higher graduation rates than public schools.^[21]

Stossel and his former ABC News colleague Chris Cuomo are silent investors in Columbus Tavern, a restaurant on Columbus Avenue at 72nd Street on Manhattan's Upper West Side.^[22][23][24]

Political and personal beliefs[link]

Contrarianism[link]

Stossel's news reports and writings attempt to debunk popular beliefs. His Myths and Lies series of 20/20 specials challenges a range of widely held beliefs. He also hosted The Power of Belief (October 6, 1998), an ABC News Special that focused on assertions of the paranormal and people's desire to believe. Another report outlined the belief that opposition to DDT is misplaced and that the ban on DDT has resulted in the deaths of millions of children,^[25] mostly in poor nations.^[26]

Libertarianism[link]

Stossel speaking at the Free State Project's New Hampshire Liberty Forum.

As a libertarian, Stossel says that he believes in both personal freedom^[27] and the free market. He frequently uses television airtime to advance these views and challenge viewers' distrust of free market capitalism and economic competition. He received an Honoris Causa Doctorate from Francisco Marroquin University, a libertarian university in Guatemala, in 2008. He told The Oregonian, on October 26, 1994:

I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people. But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market.^[28]

I'm a little embarrassed about how long it took me to see the folly of most government intervention. It was probably 15 years before I really woke up to the fact that almost everything government attempts to do, it makes worse.^[29]

Stossel argues that personal greed creates an incentive to work and to innovate.^[30] He has promoted school choice as a way to improve American schools, because he believes that when people are given a choice, they will choose the better schools for their children.^[31] Referring to educational tests that rank American students lower than others he says:

The people who run the international tests told us, "the biggest predictor of student success is choice." Nations that "attach the money to the kids" and thereby allow parents to choose between different public and private schools have higher test scores. This should be no surprise; competition makes us better.^[32]

Stossel has criticized government programs as inefficient, wasteful, and harmful.^[33] He has also criticized the American legal system, opining that it provides lawyers and vexatious litigators the incentive to file frivolous lawsuits indiscriminately, which Stossel contends often generate more wealth for lawyers than deserving clients, stifle innovation and personal freedoms, and cause harm to private citizens, taxpayers, consumers and businesses.^[34] Although Stossel concedes that some lawsuits are necessary in order to provide justice to people genuinely injured by others with greater economic power,^[35] he advocates the adoption in the U.S. of the English rule as one method to reduce the more abusive or frivolous lawsuits.^[36]

Stossel opposes corporate welfare, bailouts^[37] and the war in Iraq.^[5] He also opposes legal prohibitions against pornography, marijuana, gambling, ticket scalping, prostitution, homosexual activity, and assisted suicide,^[38] and believes most abortions should be legal.^[39] He favors replacing the income tax with the FairTax.^[40]

When President Barack Obama altered federal guidelines in April 2010 governing the employment of unpaid interns under the Fair Labor Standards Act,^[41] Stossel criticized the guidelines, appearing in a police uniform during an appearance on the Fox News program America Live, commenting, "I’ve built my career on unpaid interns, and the interns told me it was great – I learned more from you than I did in college." Asked why he did not pay them if they were so valuable, he said he could not afford to.^[42]

Regarding religion, Stossel identified himself as an agnostic in the December 16, 2010 episode of Stossel, explaining that he had no belief in God, but was open to the possibility.^[43]

Praise and criticism[link]

Awards[link]

Stossel has won 19 Emmy Awards. He was honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club, and has received the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the Peabody Award. In one year, according to Stossel in his book Give Me A Break, "I got so many Emmys, another winner thanked me in his acceptance speech 'for not having an entry in this category'".^[44] According to Stossel, when he was in favor of government intervention and skeptical of business he was deluged with awards, but in 2006 he stated, "They like me less... Once I started applying the same skepticism to government, I stopped winning awards."^[29] On April 23, 2012, Stossel was awarded the Chapman University Presidential Medal, by the current president, James Doti, and chancellor, Danielle Struppa. The award has only been presented to a handful of people over the past 150 years. ^[45]

Praise[link]

The Nobel Prize–winning Chicago School monetarist economist Milton Friedman lauded Stossel, stating: "Stossel is that rare creature, a TV commentator who understands economics, in all its subtlety."^[46] Steve Forbes, the editor of Forbes Magazine, described Stossel as riveting and "one of America’s ablest and most courageous journalists."^[46] P. J. O'Rourke, best-selling author of Eat the Rich and Parliament of Whores praised Stossel, stating:

... about John Stossel's fact-finding. He seeks the truths that destroy truisms, wields reason against all that's unreasonable, and ... puncture(s) sanctimonious idealism.... He makes the maddening mad. And Stossel’s tales of the outrageous are outrageously amusing.^[46]

An article published by the libertarian group Advocates for Self Government notes praise for Stossel.^[47] Independent Institute Research Analyst Anthony Gregory, writing on the libertarian blog, LewRockwell.com, described Stossel as a "heroic rogue... a media maverick and proponent of freedom in an otherwise statist, conformist mass media."^[48] Libertarian investment analyst Mark Skousen said Stossel is "a true libertarian hero".^[49]

Criticism and controversy[link]

Watchdog groups[link]

Liberal media organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters for America (MMfA), have criticized Stossel's work,^[50][51] for what was perceived by those groups as a lack of balance of coverage and distortion of facts. For example, Stossel was criticized for a segment on his October 11, 1999, show during which he argued that AIDS research has received too much funding, "25 times more than on Parkinson's, which kills more people." FAIR responded that, "In fact, AIDS killed more than 16,000 people in the United States in 1999," whereas Parkinson's averaged "a death toll in the United States of less than 4,000 per year."^[52]

However, the Centers for Disease Control National Vital Statistics Reports do not support FAIR's claim. The CDC reported that HIV/AIDS killed 14,802 Americans in 1999, compared to 14,593 who succumbed to Parkinson's.^[53] The following year the order was reversed, with 14,478 dying from HIV/AIDS, and 15,682 from Parkinson's.^[54]

Accusation of conflict of interest[link]

In a February 2000 Salon.com feature on Stossel entitled "Prime-time propagandist", David Mastio wrote that Stossel has a conflict of interest in donating profits from his public speaking engagements to, among others, a non-profit called "Stossel in the Classroom" which includes material for use in schools, some of which uses material made by Stossel.^[55][56]

Galbraith and Stossel[link]

University of Texas economist James K. Galbraith has alleged that Stossel in his September 1999 special, Is America #1?, used an out of context clip of Galbraith to convey the notion that Galbraith advocated the adoption by Europe of the free market economics practiced by the United States, when in fact, Galbraith actually advocated that Europe adopt some of the United States' social benefit transfer mechanisms such as Social Security, which is the economically opposite view. Stossel denied any misrepresentation of Galbraith's views, and stated that it was not his intention to convey that Galbraith agreed with all of the special's ideas, but re-edited that portion of the program for its September 2000 repeat, in which Stossel paraphrased, "Even economists who like Europe's policies, like James Galbraith, now acknowledge America's success."^[57][58][59]

Organic vegetables[link]

A February 2000 story about organic vegetables on 20/20 included statements by Stossel that tests had shown that neither organic nor conventional produce samples contained any pesticide residue, and that organic food was more likely to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria. The Environmental Working Group objected to his report, mainly questioning his statements about bacteria, but also managed to determine that the produce had never been tested for pesticides. They communicated this to Stossel, but after the story's producer backed Stossel's recollection that the test results had been as described, the story was rebroadcast months later, uncorrected, and with a postscript in which Stossel reiterated his claim. Later, after a report in The New York Times confirmed the Environmental Working Group's claims, ABC News suspended the producer of the segment for a month and reprimanded Stossel. Stossel apologized, saying that he had thought the tests had been conducted as reported. However, he asserted that the gist of his report had been accurate.^{[60][61][62][63][64]}

Frederick K. Price[link]

In a March 2007 segment about finances and lifestyles of televangelists, 20/20 aired a clip of Rev. Frederick K. Price, a TV minister, that was originally broadcast by the Lifetime Network in 1997. Price alleged that the clip portrayed him describing his wealth in extravagant terms, when he was actually telling a parable about a rich man. ABC News twice aired a retraction and apologized for the error.^[65][66] In August 2010, a lower court's dismissal of the minister's defamation suit against ABC, Price v. Stossel, was overturned by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.^[67]

"Sick Sob Stories"[link]

In an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal in September 2007 called "Sick Sob Stories", Stossel described the case of Tracy and Julie Pierce that was explored in Michael Moore's film, Sicko.^[68] Julie Pierce criticized Stossel, saying her husband would have been saved by the Canadian health care system, and she thought Stossel should have interviewed her and her doctor before writing about them.^[69] Stossel expressed sympathy, but said she had been misled to believe the treatment was routinely available in Canada. He said that the treatment is also considered "experimental" in Canada, and is provided there even more rarely than in the U.S.^[70]

Global warming[link]

He challenges the notion that man-made global warming would have net negative consequences, pointing to assertedly warmer periods in human history.^[71] Central to his argument is the idea that groups and individuals get much more public attention, donations, and government funding when they proclaim "this will be terrible" than groups that say "this is nothing to worry about." He points to groups like the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and to activists such as Rachel Carson and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore as examples of environmental scaremongers.^[72]

In 2001, the media watchdog organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting criticized Stossel's reportage of global warming in his documentary, Tampering with Nature, for using "highly selective...information" that gave "center stage to three dissenters from among the 2,000 members of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which recently released a report stating that global temperatures are rising almost twice as fast as previously thought."^[73]

In a 2006 discussion hosted by the Fraser Institute, Stossel stated that he accepts that global warming has occurred in the past century, that it has been about one degree Celsius, and that man-made emissions "may be part of the cause." Nevertheless he groups environmental groups with astrologers and psychics in his second book, Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity. He stated that the "myths" come in with the debate about proposed solutions to reduce global warming, which he argues will not solve the problem at all and will restrict people's freedom.^[5]

David Schultz incident[link]

On December 28, 1984, during an interview for 20/20 on professional wrestling, wrestler David Schultz struck Stossel after Stossel stated that he thought professional wrestling was "fake". Stossel stated that he suffered from pain and buzzing in his ears eight weeks after the assault.^[74] Stossel sued and obtained a settlement of $425,000 from the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). In his book, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, he writes that he has come to regret doing so, having adopted the belief that lawsuits harm hundreds of innocent people.^[75][76] Schultz maintains that he attacked Stossel on orders from Vince McMahon, the head of the then-WWF.^[77]

Personal life[link]

Stossel lives in New York City with his wife, Ellen Abrams. They have two grown children.^[78]

Stossel's older brother, Thomas P. Stossel,^[9] is a hematologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital,^[79] and a professor at Harvard Medical School. He has served on the advisory boards of Merck, Biogen Idec and Dyax,^[80] as a senior fellow at the free-market Manhattan Institute,^[81] and as a trustee of the American Council on Science and Health.^[82]

Stossel's nephew is the journalist and magazine editor Scott Stossel.^[83]

See also[link]

• List of newspaper columnists

References[link]

Further reading[link]

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: John Stossel

• Official website
• John Stossel at the Internet Movie Database
• Harper Collins (Publisher) – Biography at Publisher's website
• American Justice Partnership (December 12, 2005). "Special Interview...Steve Hantler (of) John Stossel" (17 minute MP3 audio). http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/Interviews/Stossel_Hantler_Interview.html. Retrieved October 14, 2007. 

Biographies and articles about Stossel[link]

• ABC News Biography
• Johnson, Peter. "Stossel's evolution from activist to contrarian angers some of his fans", USA Today, April 30, 2006
• "John Stossel: Myth-Buster", FrontPageMag.com
• Sullum, Jacob. "Risky Journalism: ABC's John Stossel bucks a fearful establishment" Reason, April 1997.

Articles by Stossel[link]

• John Stossel's 20/20 Web Page
• John Stossel's Newspaper Columns
• John Stossel's contributions to Reason Magazine
• "Confessions of a Welfare Queen: How rich bastards like me rip off taxpayers for millions of dollars" is an excerpt from his first book.
• John Stossel's Column on Creators.com

De Staat
Background information
Origin	Nijmegen, Netherlands
Genres	Alternative rock, Electronic rock, Experimental rock
Years active	2006 (2006)
Website	www.destaat.net
Members
Torre Florim Vedran Mircetic Jop van Summeren Rocco Bell Tim van Delft

De Staat is a Dutch alternative rock band, formed in Nijmegen in 2006.