In a debate of global economic practice, it is apparent that two main arguments develop. While some argue that our global economy is self-correcting and eventually all will balance out, others dispute that while some countries continue to climb the global economic ladder of success other less developed nations continue to sink and suffer from poverty, oppression, and economic failure. I personally believe the latter of the two. Such poverty stricken, economic plunders should be provided with some kind of help from the more advanced, economically stable nations. In a global economy where technology and trade hold enormous amounts of mass in the weight of ones economy, it remains equally apparent that such under have neither the resources nor the education to fight such an economic battle.
Thus meaning, if advancement and evolution require a steady increase in technology, education and trade, the underdeveloped countries incapable of such industrial progress will continue to sink in economic status. One possible solution for such a crisis remains the closer integration of countries through trade. Brought about by enormous decreases in transportation and communication costs as well as the break down of many artificial barriers of trade, globalization of industry provides developing countries with the resources and capital to aide economic problems. By “increasing the integration of national economies into expanding international markets (Todar o 796),” less developed countries are provided the opportunity to advance through the outside purchase of technology and industry as well as the trade that follows. In essence, successful American industries have found it extremely profitable to produce goods abroad where labor, the primary cost of production, is far less expensive. Some may argue that because globalization takes jobs with industries abroad, we are detrimental to our own economy.
I agree that while Joe Smith, who depended on his $5. 50/hour at Sylvania, no longer has a job may be in some trouble, he does not however have to fight for his own survival and continue to feast on miniscule rations of bread and milk. While Joe Smith may need to shack up with an old pal in an apartment or motel for a week, he is afforded the opportunity to seek additional education or another occupation elsewhere with little to moderate effort. True, globalization will take jobs from our homeland abroad, but in the grand scheme of things, I find it economically and ethically right to provide for those with nothing even if it creates a week long headache for people like Joe Smith. Others argue that while globalization remains the least expensive method of production for many industrial hounds, none are helping the economic plunder abroad because they continue to pay the minimum wage of the nation rather then a living wage for the society. In this particular case I would have to agree that in order for globalization to be an effective method of recovery, industrial tycoons must provide workers abroad with an appropriate living wage.
However, I would also argue that this is not a problem created by globalization but rather by policymakers of the nation abroad. By simply bartering a more appropriate but not outrageous living wage for outside industries, production will remain less expensive while employees earn enough to build a more appropriate lifestyle. In addition to my initial argument, I also contend that the relocation of such technology and communication abroad will provide many local entrepreneurs the resources to develop new commodities for the global market. Without US industrial intervention, the cost of relocating and introducing equipment would be entirely too great for local industrialists to afford. It is apparent to me that globalization, through careful government intervention abroad, has the potential to drastically aide struggling foreign economies. Although some may argue that my opinion does not reflect those of blue collar workers who are losing their jobs to foreigners; in the grand scheme of things I believe the impairment of a high school educated, technologically efficient Joe Smith does not compare to the grievance experienced by the illiterate, poverty stricken and hungry citizen of Bangladesh.
Globalization affords less developed countries with the opportunity to not only provide citizens with jobs but also the resources to further their economic potential.