I only partially agree with the textbook's section on the criticism of Globalization. I respect the view that globalization has mostly ignored the social and political concerns, and concentrates on the economic aspect to cater to the profit-mongering multinational companies. My uncle who lives in India still complains about the local McDonald's and Pizza Huts and feels that they are trying to "take over" the traditional and rich cuisine of India. He sincerely believes that there is a conspiracy to "convert" Indians to American cuisine. My uncle's feeling may seem funny, but that sentiment is likely shared by a large number of people in India.
I do not fully agree with the textbook's criticism of globalization, because I believe that social and political issues can be addressed only in the context of economic issues. The global free market has lifted many millions of people from poverty, and will continue to do so for some decades in the future, and hand in hand with economic development comes education with its socio-political ramifications. Presently, economic issues are taking center-stage, but there will certainly be a time for political and social discussions and development.
Streaning Star Trek: Insurrection Full Movie
-
[D'movies *HD*] Streaming Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) Full Movie. Star
Trek: Insurrection can be watch for free registering. Watch Star Trek:
Insurrecti...
6 years ago
3 comments:
Globalizaation has its ups and downs. Companies that decide to outsource to another country may appear to be helping the community by creating jobs, but is it really helping by exploiting workers and paying wages below living standards? Not only that, companies often do not stay in one country permanently because there will always be another country that will offer to work for even less pay. Therefore, when the company transfers their plant to another location, the individuals they leave behind will be worse off than they were before.
"The global free market has lifted many millions of people from poverty, and will continue to do so for some decades in the future"
I agree that expanding global markets does give countries more economic advantages, but I'm not sure that the impovershed are actually rising to the middle and upper classes. My understanding of global economics (even within America) is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Certainly, children and adults in China are allowed to work in factories and provide an income for their families, but at what cost? Many of them are injured on the job. Several are living in horrible conditions. Yet when the health standards rise, corporate America relocates to a different country for a newer and cheaper workforce.
Globalization is bringing countries closer together, but I doubt that the slums of the world are cleaning up their waste and moving into individualized houses. When you look into the negative side effects of globalization, there is a pretty ugly and greedy personality underneath that thrives on capitalism.
I agree with SS and Kristle that for-profit companies are always looking for the lowest bottom line. In the 1960's & 70's cheap merchandise always came from Japan. Once the standard of living improved, and labor costs rose, companies moved to other parts of Asia. After the fall of Communism in Central Europe, companies flooded into Poland and Hungary to take advantage of low cost labor. By the late 90's the boom was over, and the migration shifted to China.
Low cost labor in the US probably ended after WWII, but the worrisome trend is that even moderately skilled (white collar) labor is now being outsourced. Soon the only jobs left will be ones that require the highest level of skill, (well paid), or jobs that involve physical tasks (low paid svc).
Post a Comment