The nuances of “whom to hire” from both the perspective of the Chinese and the Korean factory owners are thought provoking. For instance, I thought the theories behind immigrant incorporation and their manifestation in the respective hiring preferences was especially interesting. Consider the idea of “opportunity hoarding;” it states, “ethnic groups with access to an economic niche may…be hoarding opportunities” within that niche (92). This might apply to the Chinese garment factories in that Chinese owners typically hired ethnic Chinese as workers, thus consolidating the industry ethnically and closing off those potential jobs to workers of other races and nationalities. It is suggested that because the Chinese ethnic group had enough members willing to work in this industry, this method of hiring was upheld. By contrast Korean garment factory owners hired Ecuadorian and Mexican workers because Korean employees were too few and too expensive to hire. Korean owners preferred immigrants to Americans and skilled workers who did not speak English. Sadly, this is “mostly because Americans and immigrants who know English are more capable of standing up for their rights.” This is not to say that exploitation did not happen in Chinese factories. For instance: “Owners know that Chinese immigrants and undocumented Mexicans and Ecuadorians have limited options and limited ability to complain to authorities. Employers can take advantage of these workers. In general, the employers offer the minimum or just above the minimum wage and only the benefits that the state and federal law require.” (93) This just shows that the garment industry ran in tandem to other factory work throughout history, workers were paid very little and were taken advantage of (at least to some extent) for profit. The fact that most owners, both Chinese and Korean were fluent in English and had a somewhat greater level of education only serves to uphold the traditional hierarchy where the ignorant and the disadvantaged are kept on the bottom rung.