Creating New Opportunities for Children in Education

Creating New Opportunities for Children in Education

Word Count: 630

Education is a vast thing to talk about; there are so many areas that can be gone over but we’re going too focused on the difference between education between the US and other countries. The US is behind some countries because our teachers are not as valued as other teachers; the job is actually something to be proud of there. “One of the most important things we do as a society is educating our kids. Opportunity in education is the gateway to opportunity everywhere else -- in our economy, in our society and in our democracy. All children, no matter who they are or where they live, deserve an equal chance to develop their skills and intellect. But today in America, too many kids don't get that chance” (Sen. Randy Paul). This is a very valid point that he brings up, it is not that kids don’t have the opportunity to be educated, but that they are only told information through a lecture style and they can’t learn it that way. Kids need to learn the way that works for them and we need to stop pushing them as much as we have, because while pressure of learning can bring out some top of the line effort, it can cause because of this the child will actually sometimes regress in their learning.

                Sen. Randy Paul goes on to say that the people who are voting for the current education system are the people who have already been educated. The groups that aren’t able to have a real voice in this are the poor, disconnected and, most of all, the children themselves. These are the people who should have the largest voice in the talks on education because they are the ones who are the most affected by the decisions that are made. “Rahila Simzar: Reform movements in education tend to focus on a ‘one size fits all’ approach in attempting to solve educational inequity issues. While universalizing core standards and curriculum does carry some utility in leveling the playing field, it is important to keep in mind that it is not the magic silver bullet that will remedy achievement gaps alone. Support for underachieving students and their teachers, professional development promoting differentiated instruction for diverse groups of learners, and efforts towards building learning communities for teachers, school leaders, and administrators to encourage teamwork and shared responsibility must accompany these movements”(John C. Townsend).

                This seems like the solution that would make sense for us to pursue. The current education system is too difficult for students because of the stress it gives them. As Rahila suggests giving support for underachieving students and their teachers is key. In our current system students that are intelligent and smart are given the extra help, accommodations, and are liked better by their teachers. While this is important for them to be challenged to keep them interested and learning, there needs to be more focus then there already is on children that are underachieving. Most of the underachieving students have the potential to be brilliant but have tremendous obstacles academically. They should be given a teacher that is perfectly suited to fit their learning needs. Although this might require more effort in the long run, it will help more people achieve their dreams.

Work Cited

Lawrence, Lee. "Education Solutions from Abroad for Chronic U.S. School Problems." The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 01 Sept. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Paul, Sen. Rand. "School Choice: Part of the Solution to Our Broken Education System." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 July 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Townsend, John C. "How Should We Rebuild the U.S. Education System?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Solutions to Climate Change: Global and Local

Alejandro Rubinstein-Nadeau

541

Solutions to Climate Change: Global and Local

If the average person was asked to name 10 methods of curbing climate change, it seems likely that they would only name things doable by themselves or others like them: turning off the lights in unused rooms, carpooling, driving less, using energy efficient products, etc. How else can a consumer think? However, the percentage of United States Carbon Dioxide emissions that are from residences and places of business is a meager ten percent. So what are the main ways we're generating greenhouse gases? It must be industrial, right, with the huge amounts of natural gases superheated into plastics and what not? Wrong. Only 14 percent of American CO2 emissions are industrial- and although transportation and electricity are the largest sources of emissions, they each only represent 31 and 38 percent respectively.

The point is not that we shouldn't or can't tackle climate change because it's such a multifaceted issue- just the opposite, in fact. It's that because climate change exists in so many spheres of the way in which we live globally, has so many factors, and so many consequences, our efforts to combat climate change must be equally multifaceted, both grassroots, targeting residential emissions, and top-down, targeting industrial, electricity-generating, and transportation climate change.

We shouldn't ignore residential emissions just because they are a smaller percentage of total Greenhouse Gas emissions, because they are still emitting significant amounts- for instance, buildings contribute 79 percent of New York's total climate change. Excluding transportation, the main cause of residential greenhouse gas emissions lies in the sucking of energy by household appliances, mainly temperature regulating appliances, exacerbated by badly constructed buildings with little insulation, single paned windows, etc. One solution to this is obvious: improving residential (and other) buildings to be more energy efficient (storm windows, increased insulation, etc). Although these are capital heavy investments, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "by 2030, about 30 percent of the projected GHG [Greenhouse Gas] emissions in the building sector can be avoided with net economic benefit," meaning that the energy savings exceed the initial cost.

Another sphere of climate change solution deals in larger, more capital heavy solutions. Most of us have heard of CO2 sink solutions, and probably need not hear about the science of it here. What is important, however, is the new way in which the United Nations and it's member states are pursuing these large scale solutions. Using market driven innovation to their advantages, the United Nations is creating profit-driven initiatives for businesses to develop solutions, hopefully catalyzing the deceleration and eventual lowering of greenhouse gas levels.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change said: "Businesses must be heard, leveraged and invited to develop scalable climate change solutions to drive climate action. This can create the political space for more ambition in the UN climate process, which as part of a virtuous cycle can in turn catalyze more business action."

The third sphere of climate change action is limiting emissions and rewarding reduced emissions at a governmental level. Unfortunately, this may be at odds with current corporate practices, and because of rampant corporate influence in politics, firm political action with regards to climate change may be slow, or too late, especially in this country.

"Carbon Dioxide Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html>.

Biello, David. "10 Solutions for Climate Change: Scientific American." www.scientificamerican.com. Scientific American, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=10-solutions-for-climate-change>.

Mohan, Vishwa. "UN bodies explore private-public partnership to find climate change solution." The Times Of India. The Times of India, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-11-19/delhi/44241508_1_climate-action-climate-change-dow-chemicals>.

Give The Money, Not Sweaters.

Word count: 622

Give Them Cash, Not Sweaters.

Cash. Unrestricted cold hard cash is what aid organizations are asking for instead of hand me downs, food, and other consumer items. It is often our instinct to want to help by sending blankets, food, or warm clothes to those affected by natural disasters. But sometimes our instincts can lead us astray. When a disaster strikes, it is better to send cash, than to donate consumer items.

            With the cash sent, relief organizations can pay their staff, buy supplies and fund their projects. It is more realistic and more beneficial for these organizations to buy the supplies such as blankets and food locally, usually for a cheaper price, than having them sent to them from across the world.

It is important that when donating money, it is unrestricted cash that is given. Disasters will often receive a flood of money, but that does not mean that all of it is helpful or of the same value. After the earthquake in Haiti, millions of dollars poured in, but relief for flooding in Pakistan a few months later was severely underfunded. Organizations that were working in both Haiti and Pakistan could not use ‘Haiti money’ to help in Pakistan because it was restricted to Haiti and to specific projects. That is why it is very important to donate unrestricted cash. Tom Murphy, a writer for Humanosphere.org gives a good example of this when he says “When you earmark a donation for certain spending, the organization has to spend it based on what you tell them, not on need. If it costs $75 million to provide aid and relief in the Philippines for organization x and it gets $100 million in donations for the Philippines, that means that the extra money has to be spent and quickly.” This means that even if people are generous with monetary donations, the majority of it had to be used for relief work even if it was no longer needed, or if it could be better used somewhere else in the world.

            Another thing people will often think is a good thing to do is go and volunteer at a disaster site. The truth is, while it can sometimes be helpful, a lot of the time the hassle that the people working in the organizations go through to train the volunteers and get them situated, outweighs the benefits that the volunteers provide. The money that you spend on plane tickets, and other travel arrangements would be better used if you just donated it.

            While giving cash is an excellent alternative to giving consumer items it is very important to make sure that the site that is transferring the money from you to the aid groups, is reputable. If it is an organization, it is good to research if the majority of the money actually goes to helping people or if it goes to paying the CEO. 

CharityWatch.com is a good place to start with your research. It has a list of many different organizations, and gives them a letter grade based on the following criteria: “generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve, and receive "open-book" status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to CharityWatch.” The Red Cross, Goodwill, Save The Children and Action Against Hunger are a few organizations that have been ‘graded’ on this website.

The next time disaster strikes, do not hesitate to donate or do what feels right, but do remember that cash will often be the best choice.  If giving food seems like the only option for you, bring it to your local soup kitchen where it will be better put to use.

           

MLA Citations:

"CIDI." USAID Center for International Disaster Information CIDI. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. <http://www.cidi.org/how-disaster-relief-works/guidelines-for-giving/#.UorUSGTwLh8>.

Ellis, Blake. "Where your donations actually go." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 24 May 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. <http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/24/pf/donations-charities/>.

"Want to help the Philippines? Give unrestricted cash | ." Humanosphere RSS. N.p., 12 Nov. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. <http://www.humanosphere.org/2013/11/want-help-philippines-give-unrestricted-cash/>.

The Solutions

 Practically, there will probably never be a solution to terrorism. It is partially an effect of people being unhappy and really, as long as there are at least two people, they are not always going to see eye to eye. This of course is a very scaled down version but essentially, when there is a disagreement or any given entity is frustrating another, they will in whatever way, retaliate. And just as war will always be around, terrorism will go right along with it. Would it not make sense that if there was a solution to terrorism it would start being complimented as lives are being lost at an exponential rate every year to terrorism. That is not to say that people and governments are not trying. there has been a vast amount of money, proportional to the increase in terrorism, being spent each year by many countries around the world.

If there was a strategy other than the “let make everyone happy and therefore would have no reasons to be terrorists” dream, then it would be so inconveniencing to the general public it would be hated despite the safety benefits. Think about it, if the increase in security in airports caused so much anger in the population, would a additional increases not make things crazy in addition to the general decrease in the countries general productivity. But this could significantly reduce the terrorist rate. However, this would be relatively implausible because of the money it would take to man, monitor and fix all of the new anti terrorist systems. It seems that only with near infinite amounts of money could a world truly without terrorism exist.

There are things people have said about the elimination of the underlying causes of racism. This though, is just like saying the way to get rid of gang violence is to get rid of racism which is totally ridiculous, at least in the foreseeable future. There are however other different theories about how to get rid of terrorism but anything short of something that is on par with something from the movies “The minority report” there is no immediate course of action that is plausible. There are some extremists theories that can “solve” terrorism in plans that sum up to pull out of Iraq, invade and obliterate Iran and Saudi Arabia and once things are destroyed, drop propaganda leaflets explaining what can and will happen when the United States gets threatened.

Other extremest acts such as nuking them all have brought up but indeed, this actually causes more problems than it solves. First, right off the bat the whole world would respond in a very negative war and as soon as the first unfriendly nuclear capable country saw our nukes coming, it would be a safe bet to say that theirs would not be far behind coming towards us. Second, because of all of the destruction, wherever we nuked would not be habitable for quite some time and there would be refugees and victims everywhere and the death toll of the innocent would be skyrocketed. Aside from the amount of hate from the rest of the would that we would receive, there would also be drastic environmental problems. Radiation would go up into the atmosphere and anywhere near where we nuked would be polluted for a long time too. Assuming that we wouldn’t not also get blown up, there would be a total disregard for loss of human life or living area and our environmental conscious went out the window, at last, we would be blowing up an area that is rich in resources precious to the United States and so all of these reasons show why it would not be a good idea to “nuke them”.

As I have demonstrated, there is no clear viciously effective way to get rid of terrorism. The most it seems that we can do is being done by continuing to finance counter terrorist organizations. It is possible that a militaristic withdraw could help but then that leads into other issues such as whether we are protecting people and other things of this nature. So basically, we can keep trying and hopefully eventually, there will be a clear system to eliminate all terrorist threats.

Souncres:

http://www.cpsglobal.org/content/solution-terrorism

http://www.politics.org.nz/webapps/cid/23106/44861/vote/vote-debate.html?questid=258

http://store.cato.org/books/terrorizing-ourselves-why-us-counterterrorism-policy-failing-how-fix-it-hardback

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2006/08/how-to-solve-americas-terrorism-problem-in-5-easy-steps/

A US Attack on Syria

757

In September 2013, it looked like the United States was about to become militarily involved in Syria. The introduction of chemical weapons had crossed a boundary of some sort, a line that most citizens of the US didn’t understand. Suddenly President Obama was going to Congress, asking them to weigh in on the possibility of a declaration of war. British Prime Minister Cameron went to parliament for the same reasons. Israel continued to test missiles by the border, and the rest of the world held its breath.  Then everything was put on hold. Russia convinced Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, an act the government had previously refused to adhere to. The likelihood of the US and other countries joining the war in Syria diminished greatly, and citizens everywhere breathed a sigh of relief.

Since the beginning of the war, the White House and Congress have given warnings of intervention, making threats of red-lines and statements about Americas need to assert itself as a protector of human rights. Throughout all, constituents have steadfastly rejected any possibility of militant involvement in Syria. The cry seems to be: “Oh no! Not again!” It is well-agreed upon that US involvement in Syria would not be effective in ending the war, and would be unnecessarily costly. What would a world involvement in Syria really look like? What are the reasons for taking a stand, and why are they so forcibly opposed?

Official news from the White House is that “the purpose of an attack will be to deter the Assad regime from using chemical weapons against its citizens while ‘degrading’ its future capacity to do so.”(Klare, Nation). But those who favor an attack have cited various other reasons as well. One is the re-establishment of the US’s role of being a major world power in the perception of other countries. The US has helped out in many situations with civilian casualties and human rights concerns in the past, and many supporters of US involvement see this as being a priority. Other reasons are to reassure US allies in the region, make sure that the opposition doesn’t turn into an extension of al-Qaeda, and the need to protect the US’ geopolitical needs in the Middle East.

What would an attack on Syria look like? Most likely the US would begin with utilizing drone warfare. The US wouldn’t want to strongly support one side because the sides are so convoluted, instead they would start by attacking technology bases instead of military personnel. Before Syria agreed to surrender their chemical weapons, the US would locate and destroy them using the highly-accurate Tomahawk rockets. It is incredibly unlikely that the US would send troops overland, instead relying on aerial attacks. Primarily targets would be individual scientists and leaders. This could be effective because the US could take out members of the Assad government it deemed dangerous, as well as terrorist members of the opposition forces.

At best, the US majority is hesitant about anything other than a humanitarian involvement. A survey conducted on September 10^th by the New York Times to over a thousand US adults found that 62 percent of the people believed that the US should not take a leading role among all other countries in the world in trying to solve international conflict. Citizens seem to think that what we’ve learned from Iraq is that the US should not try to change dictatorship or democracy, and should mind its own business. The majority of people believe that chemical weapons have been used by the government of Syria, and that this poses a threat to American security. We believe that crimes against humanity have been occurring in Syria. But the drawbacks far outweigh the merits of a war in Syria. 79% of Americans feel that the Obama administration has not explained goals clearly enough (NewYork Times) Many believe that though an aerial attack would be somewhat effective, it would lead to a lengthy and costly larger issue,that would become a more widespread war with other parts of the Middle East.

Talks of a US attack on Syria have been put on hold since the Assad government agreed to turn over their chemical weapons. Even if they had not, it is doubtful that any declaration of war would have passed through Congress with such little support from US constituents. According to the majority of the US, military involvement in Syria is not the solution.

"American Views on Intervention in Syria." New York Times Online. New York Times and CBS, 10 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Klare, Michael T. "Why the Push for Syrian Intervention Is About More Than Just Assad | The Nation." Syria| The Nation. The Nation, 10 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Tracy, Marc. "The New Republic." New Republic. New Republic, 8 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

GMOs: What Should We Do?

Word Count: 624

There are a lot of different views in the ongoing debate over both the risks and benefits of food crops produced using biotechnology. There are those in favor of GMOs and those against GMOs, both sides holding many different reasons for their stance. Some of the biggest issues those against GMOs have right now are labeling laws, safety of GMOs, effects on the environment and economy—especially in developing countries—and the profit hungry companies behind GMOs. Some people want GMOs to be banned all together. Others want to know when the food they’re eating contains GMOs and if there are any long-term health effects of consuming GMOs, something which there has been much speculation on. Many just want more information, something the big companies aren’t currently providing.

            Whether or not foods containing GMOs should require labels has been a hot topic recently. At least twenty-one countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling. But in the United States, mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs has only been proposed, not enacted at the national, state, or local levels. Mandatory labeling is necessary because consumers have the right to know what’s in their food, especially when it comes to products that have raised health and environmental concerns. Mandatory labeling is also important for consumers who need to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems or that—for religious or ethical reasons—they want to avoid eating, such as animal products, including animal DNA. Opponents of labeling use the expense and logistical difficulties of labeling along with their claim that no significant differences have been found between genetically engineered (GE) and conventional foods as reasons they’re against labeling laws. This issue could be easily addressed by enacting a mandatory labeling law for foods containing GMOs.

The safety of GMOs is also in question. Though mostly done in Europe, Russia, and other countries, there’s a growing body of scientific research showing that diets containing GE corn or soy cause serious health problems in mice and rats. Though some scientific studies have been done for Monsanto by universities, most of them were concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops. These studies, of course, found GMOs safe for the environment which to them also means safe to eat. These studies need to be taken more seriously. Government agencies need to replicate them instead of relying on studies paid for by the biotech companies. Monsanto’s genetically modified corn and soy plants that are all over our society are registered as insecticides. Insecticides that have not been tested for safety by FDA. There are no long-term studies that demonstrate the claims companies like Monsanto make that engineered corn and soy are safe. What we have are the scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food died prematurely. Scientific literature has studies showing that engineered corn and soy contain toxic or allergenic proteins due to the damage done to a protein under biotechnology.

The biggest thing that needs to be done right now concerning GMOs is more research and more communication. The public doesn’t trust the big companies—the only ones conducting research right now—for good reason. They appear to care more about a profit than about addressing issues that many people have brought up with their products. The first step is a enacting a mandatory labeling law, then people can at least choose whether or not they want to consume GMOs. If there are enough people that have a mistrust of GMOs, then a lot of them will stop buying them and this will cause the companies to have to address the issue. Step one being more research, and explaining their research to the public.

Works Cited-

"10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs." Institute for Responsible Technology. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs>. 

Byrne , P. "Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods." A division of the Office of Engagement. Colorado State University , n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html>. 

Vrain, Thierry . "Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food - Food Revolution Network Blog." Food Revolution Network Blog. Ocean Robbins, 11 May 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://www.foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/>.

Supply and Demand

 Word count: 619

Supply and Demand

Human trafficking is the third largest international trade in the world; follow by illegal drug trade and arm trade. Human trafficking occurs in factories, fields, and mines, in offices, restaurants, and homes, and on the streets of nearly every country in the world. There are 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international border annually. There are 2.5 million of people being trafficked around the world by human trafficker in any given time. Human trafficking has been skyrocketed in the past few years. Human trafficking is a multi-billion enterprise. According to ILO (International Labour Organization) it can make approximately 32 billion profit per year, which is more than Nike, Google and Starbucks combine. How come human trafficking is one of the biggest industries in the world nowadays? Why is human trafficking growing exponentially? The reason why human trafficking is growing bigger is due to demand of the consumer and employer.

For instance, in China there is more man than women due to the one child policy. Every 117 man in china; there are 100 women. By the time it goes to 2020, there will be 30 million single Chinese man facing “ bride shortage” against 24 million woman. Therefore, the market of human trafficking emerged. Lots of Chinese men started to get bribe from Southeast Asia. Particularly Kachin women have become the target for the trafficker. Since they are a profitable source for the trafficker. The highest price for a Kachin wife is up to 6500 dollars. Therefore, Chinese businessman will be the typical buyer. This example exemplified that because the demand of wife from the consumer urges the human trafficking industry.

Yet, the human trafficker still aren’t satisfy, they found out that average Chinese worker couldn’t afford high price Kachin woman. Therefore, human trafficker decided to offer these average Chinese men women from Myanmarese families struggling on a dollar a day. Furthermore, buyer usually pays 150 dollars or even less as the dowry for the wife’s family. This example demonstrates that the fact that consumer wanted a bride but a cheaper one led to the prosperity of human trafficking industry.

Another example that demonstrate that the demand of consumer promote human trafficking industry is that there are human trafficker traffick children to Thailand. Usually these children have been rented out from their parent. Three months old toddler to ten years old is the typical age to be rent out, since the employers believe they are the most appealing in that age. Brokers generally offer 100 to 224 dollars a month for their children. Yet, a children could make 15 to 100 dollars a day which is why this is so tempting for the buyer, since buyers have high returns. Because of the high returns that buyer can get, they are more likely to employ (rent) a child rather that an adults. This is exactly why human trafficking making mass amount of profit out of the consumer.

This is like the ongoing cycle, due to the demand of consumer; the traffickers supply these human resources to the buyer. The unwillingness of buyer paying minimum wage to an adult makes the human trafficker find the opportunity to make profit out of it. The unbalance of boys and girls in china led to more purchase of foreign bride. People who can’t afford expensive bride can still purchase cheap bribe from some poor family who can hardly made a dollar a day. Overall, the only way to prevent children from working nonstop for the employer or the bride getting beat up or disrespect by her husband is all depend on the buyer action. If the buyers stop showing demand of cheap labor or bride, human trafficking will inevitably discontinues.

MLA citation:

Carasso, S. C.. N.p.. Web. 11 Nov 2013. <http://fightslaverynow.org/why-fight-there-are-27-million-reasons/economics-and-human-trafficking/>.

 “UN Says Human Trafficking Appears To Be Worsening” Radio Free Europe., February 13, 2009

<http://www.rferl.org/content/UN_Says_Human_Trafficking_Appears_To_Be_Worsening_/1492561.html>

Asma, Masood. Foreign Policy Journal, 06 Jul 2013. Web. 11 Nov 2013. <http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/06/the-economics-of-human-trafficking/>.

Solution for Human Trafficking

Solution for Human Trafficking

Word count: 623

Human trafficking occurs around us everyday. In fact, modern-day human trafficking is ten times greater than trans-Atlanta slave trade was in the 19th century.. This is the third largest trading industry in term of profit in the global. 700,000 to 2,000,000 women and children are trafficked yearly worldwide and approximately 2,000 to 6,000 women and children are trafficked in daily basis. Ultimately, how do we solve this worldwide tragedy?

Some people advocate that countries who have human trafficking issues should work together with neighbor country to fight human trafficking. Yet, this isn’t pragmatic. For instance, China and Vietnam decided to fight this crime together, but they’ve had limited success. The Chinese have only rescued 1,800 Vietnam trafficking victims on the China-Vietnam border between 2001 and 2005 meaning only 450 victims were rescued a year. There are far more victims who haven’t been rescued from the government than who have. Moreover, prosecuting trafficker with neighbor country isn’t the ultimate way to solve this issue, since there will be numerous other human traffickers trafficking other victims while we prosecute one human trafficker.

The ultimate ways to solve this controversial issue is by educating these victims and creating better job opportunities for them. Since the victims of human trafficking are typically teenagers between the ages of 15 to 17. Therefore, we should definitely go into high schools and educate high school student about human trafficking to raise awareness of human trafficking. However, human traffic education wouldn’t just be limited to teenagers; women factory workers need to be educated as well. Since women factory workers have limited wages to survive on, human trafficker usually coax these workers with a better job in another country, yet they usually end up sold by human trafficker to factory owner as a slave. For instance, Moe, lives in Hinthada Township, comes from a family who struggles to survive on only $2 a day. She was persuaded by a neighbor to work in China in order to support her family financially. Yet, she ended up being sold by a human trafficker to a factory owner for 5,000 dollars. This example demonstrates that this victim clearly didn’t have enough knowledge about human trafficking. According to Nwe, director of Best Industrial Company Ltd, "We warn them that many perpetrators of human trafficking are close to their victims. They may be relatives or their neighbors." If she learned the fact that human traffickers are usually people that you trust or someone like your neighbor, she wouldn’t necessary trust that neighbor and set her up in that situation.

In addition the other way to solve this issue is to make sure everyone have a decent job. "Human trafficking happens when there are no decent jobs. We need to create decent jobs for them here in the country", said Nwe. Human trafficker usually target people with limited of wealth and people who aren’t satisfy with their current job. Victims of human trafficking tended to be people from poverty country. Often time these victims are receiving limited wage or even unemployment which is why they are more likely to be coax by human trafficker if they offer a better job opportunity in other country. Therefore, the most pragmatic way to solve this issue is providing people with a better job. If people have a decent job that pay off their living, people less likely to believe human trafficker when they tried to coax them with a better job opportunity.

Lastly, human trafficking is inevitably a global issue that worth our attention. Tremendous amount of people are suffering in tragic. The only two ways to prevent human trafficking are educating potential victims about human trafficking and creating better job opportunity for these potential victims.

MLA citation:

Iris, C. Gonzales. "Myanmar Garment Factory Tries to Mend Trafficking." Women's eNews. Women's eNews, 28 Aug 2013. Web. 21 Nov 2013. <http://womensenews.org/story/prostitution-and-trafficking/130827/myanmar-garment-factory-tries-mend-trafficking

Carasso, S. C.. N.p.. Web. 11 Nov 2013. <http://fightslaverynow.org/why-fight-there-are-27-million-reasons/economics-and-human-trafficking/>.

 “UN Says Human Trafficking Appears To Be Worsening” Radio Free Europe., February 13, 2009

Asma, Masood. Foreign Policy Journal, 06 Jul 2013. Web. 11 Nov 2013. <http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/06/the-economics-of-human-trafficking/>.