As I mention in this thread in Cafe Society, I am reading The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman. It is about globalization and the inevitable force it has become since the fall of communism and the rise of web connectivity. I am only about half-way through, so for all I know he gets to the negative stuff, but at this point, he has a few points to make:
the standard of living / quality of life for your average individual in a country who has “signed up” to truly participate in the global economy rises significantly
likewise, any country that wants to truly participate must adopt rules and laws that root out corruption in government and business and demand greater accounting transparency for corporations - both seem like very good things to have
by adopting what Friedman calls the Golden Straitjacket - the set of economic, legal, financial and social disciplines that a country must take on to some degree to truly become a desireable global player - increases the predictability of that country’s performance and its ability to withstand downturns and bad news.
Globalization can reduce the likelihood of sweatshops and other exploitative business practices - presumably even environmental abuse - because individual investors who care about such issues can vote with their stock purchases to avoid companies and countries that follow such practices.
However, there are clearly downsides to globalization, including the homogenization of cultures and societies, the emergence of always-on web connectivity which is a form of totalitarian Big Brother-ism (or at least could be used that way very, very easily), the emergence of almost a “veal class” where some of us are locked in a box, consume and get fat and obliviously happy, but never experience anything outside the box, and we could potentially be sacrificed should it be in the interest of the Many for that to happen (e.g., lose a job, be swept aside).
Should we be hopeful and optimistic - Huxley’s Brave New World is upon us but the messy, rebellious nature of humans is perverting that world so it bends to our will and is a good thing? Or are we like a frog in a pot that is slowly being heated - clueless to the temperature change until it is too late and we lose our ability to take action, and we become plugged in, global veal to the big companies?
Sounds like fear of something that doesn’t exist. The PC (even the connected PC) has turned out to be the opposite of what was envisioned in 1984. As for the “veal class”, who’s doing the locking? Sounds like you fear that some people will not voluntarily experience the things you think they should. So what? Job loses happen everyday in “globalized” and “non-globalized” counties. Additionally, cultures have been changing and homoginizing for thousands of years. Why should we suddenly freeze things as they are now?
Globalization is an inevitable consequence of easy travel and communication. There is no way to reverse it except to isolate yourself from these capabilities. Look at North Korea for an example of a society that has done that.
I don’t see globallization as particular good or bad, but as inevitable. It will be good or bad depending on how you deal with it. Take it as an opportunity to improve and experience new things and it’ll be good. Fear the loss of a job or the influx of foreign ideas (for example), and it’ll seem bad.
In the short run, globalization has made possible the exploitation of labor in cheaper market, thus weakening the efforts of lower-tier laborers to improve their lot through organization and collective bargaining and whatnot. Thus the leftish flavor of a lot of the antiglobalization protesters. In the long run, it is both inevitable and good; it will be easier to argue for parity and fairness and opportunity and appropriate sharing and whatnot in the larger context, for a global audience, than to be perpetually mired in power struggles on ever-changing fronts.
I will be happier when the global economy is accompanied by a formal global politics though, and once again my own government, the self-designated “leader of the free world”, is doing its best to lead the world forward into the 18th Century instead of seizing the day in a useful fashion. ::sigh::
I agree for those situations where sweatshop labor is being exploited. However, on the other hand, there are growing numbers of companies that outsource some jobs, such as call center representatives and tech support, to overseas, to take advantage of professional labor rates as much as 70% lower than the U.S. For the host country - e.g., India, the Phillipines - they get more labor $, a burgeoning middle class (30% of U.S. rates is still very good in those countries, apparently), and a push for increased education so more people can fill those types of positions. Obviously, on the U.S. side, there is an exporting of jobs which is scary - while globalization may make this type of load-balancing inevitable, it affects displaced individuals in bad ways.
My point is that globalization in the near term leads to harmful exploitation of cheap labor (sweatshops) AND constructive exploitation of cheaper labor (“offshore” call centers), which are destructive locally in the short term - but the destructiveness is part of the Darwinian survival process and therefore strengthens the labor market over the long term (i.e., fewer U.S. laborers will train for jobs they know are being exported and instead follow the wages to other roles).
As globalization continues over the next few decades, I wonder what will happen if wages reach an equilibrium around the world? Will that ever happen - or, at least, the differences be so minimal and short term that companies won’t see the value in pursuing them?
I agree. The politics of labor in the industrialized segments is unhappy with globalization because in the short run it means instead of receiving high labor wages here our laborers don’t get those jobs and the jobs go to workers in less industrialized regions who will work for less; then our same laborer here ends up competing for the remaining available jobs here and competition for fewer jobs tends to mean lower wages here for the job the laborer does get. But in the long run the global standard of living rises and benefits laborers worldwide.
I would like to see a bit of “conscience” regulation imposed within the industrial nations on our corporations—not regarding wages, but some fundamental protections regarding working conditions.
Wait, people in underdeveloped countries sign up for jobs from the global market because they don’t have better options, so how are they being exploited? Or are you referring to exploitation of “lower-tier” American workers through loss of bargaining power? Or both?
This “homogenization” is not exactly true. I would recommend a very interesting book, Creative Destruction by Tyler Cowen, which examines the positive effects of globalization on culture.
I’ll try to sum up, but to get the full argument, you need to read the book. Basically, globalization does not harm cultures, it helps them. It allows individuals to have a wider range of cultural products to choose from, and thus enriches their lives.
For instance, take a villager in remote Mexico who has never been exposed to the outside world. When this world starts intruding due to globalization, it’s true that the culture of his village will change. However, the villager will have a much wider range of cultural experiences to choose from. Where he once only knew of a certain type of music, he can now have a wide variety of music to choose from. While that may be bad for people from other cultures who want to “experience” the native culture in this area, it is good for the villagers, since they now have more choices. Globalization increases the choice for individuals, and this is a good thing.
Sorry 'bout that. The people who are unhappy about globalization sometimes describe it as exploitative (as if to do other than pay citizens of nonindustrialized countries the exact same wage as collective bargaining has generated in the US &etc = exploitation). I did not mean to imply that I think it is exploitative of them (indeed, it improves their situation and standard of living markedly). It is, I suppose, “exploitative of the situation”, but in value-neutral ways.
AHunter3, understood. And might I throw out a recommendation for In Defence of Global Capitalism by Johan Norberg. Unfortunately, it seems that it doesn’t come out until September this year. See In Defense of Global Capitalism.
BTW, I got it at a speech by a member of the Cato Institute, apparently before it was released to the general market. Hopefully the translator did a better job on the new version. And my version is spelled “defence,” to pre-empt any spelling trolls.
Seems to me, the global economy is pretty much a closed system. (finite resources, finite population) Right now, there is a fairly uneven distribution of resources among the masses. (I say masses because many of them are overweight). Now, if you eliminate the barriers that enforce this uneven distribution, one of two things will happen.
A. The bottom 95% of the population averages itself out. That means, those who have, must give up something so that those who don’t, can. Now, I’m certainly in the bottom 95, but I do have some stuff, so I’m a little worried about this possibility, selfish though it may be. I’m fairly certain they will figure out a way for everyone to have a TV though.
B. There continues to be an uneven distribution of resources among the 95%, but the top 1% are able to more effeciently manipulate the system. Eventually, it becomes 99 to 1. Still not that pleasant a thought.
Luckily (well, not really luck), B isn’t happening. The Gini coefficient, which measures inequality, has fallen from 0.6 in 1968 to 0.52 in 1997, a period of globalization. 1 is perfect inequality (one person owns all), 0 is perfect equality (everyone owns the same amount)
While we do have finite resources, we are always thinking of new ways to use those resources, thus it’s not like if I gain someone else must lose. For example, sand used to be pretty much a waste product. Now, we have silicon. Similarly, petroleum used to be a waste product, but somone figured out what to do with it, and now our economy is dependent on it.
So don’t think that a global economy will result in some people “winning” at the expense of others. Globalization improves the standard of living for everyone, especially those in less-developed nations.
But whats the point if you can’t win. Everybodies standard of living will increase ,but human nature to date , show that there will be some people more better off than others , more equal than others ,and richer than others.
By flat lining the ability for an average person to get above his/her station in life , it begins to sound more and more communist in nature. I doubt thats what you meant when you wrote that, but thats what it begins to sound like.
As the bronze age , the iron age, steel age , steam and so forth , the global age will be a reality, but I still want the ability to sit on a beach , drink margaritas , while someone in Dehli or london slogs away in some meaningless job. Other wise we become a planet of dolists.
The exporting of jobs IS scary, especially since all recent standardized measures show America to have the worst education system in the industrial world. The extreme of the developiong situation would be atime where no amount of training in America would prepare you for a job paying a living wage, beucase the better educated workers will all be from elsewhere. Those with money will invest it with companies that are showing the biggest profit, which will be those who sepnd it mostly overseas.
Globalization is a hard topic. If we are talking about big buisnesses from around the world colaborating to control the world, then yes, I think it is a bad thing. But if we are talking about Globalization as a culmination of humanity as one race, then perhaps it is for the better. Either way, global society has much to overcome before we can rise up to be one planetary collective.
I agree that because people have unequal faculties and abilities, as well as unequal opportunities, there will always be inequality. I wasn’t trying to say that globalization will make everyone the same level. All I was trying to say is that globalization will allow more people to have better lives than they have now. Sure, some will benefit more than others, but, to make a broad generalization, globalization is good for all.
The percentage of American GDP accounted for in the 500 largest corportaions fell from around 59% in 1980 to around 36% by 1993 (sorry, that’s the most up to date I have). Regardless, I don’t think we need to worry about a few huge companies “colaborating to control the world.”
Source: Edwards, James Rolph, “The Myth of Capital Power,” in Liberty, January 2001.
True, perhaps statisticaly it doesnt seem that way, but lobyists for oil, logging and mining companies are probobly more pwerful than the political fugures themselves. Thus, American Politics today are almsot entirely run my private and/or corporate interests. I worry that “Globalization” might become “Americanization”, that is what i meant.
While this is a common perception, I believe it’s completely false. The perception that American politics is run by corporate interests and that these lobbyists have so much power is one which is perpetuated by the media and certain self-serving politicians (yes, I’m talking about that camera-hungry self-promoter, John McCain), but it really has no basis in fact. This can be seen by examining the political situation closely.
Let’s take the example of Senator Robert Byrd. He has a well-won reputation of being friendly to the coal companies, and people say this is because he’s “bought off” or “in their pockets.” However, this sort of superficial political analysis really does not hold up under examination. If Byrd is “bought off” by coal companies, it stands to reason that he could be “bought off” by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. So why don’t these groups start contributing huge amounts to him in order to “buy” his vote? Because it wouldn’t work. Why not? It’s not that Byrd is bought off, but because he’s representing his state which has a lot of people employed by the coal industry in it. He wants his constituents to have jobs, and if the coal industry is hurt, then his constituents are out of jobs. Plus, America needs coal to power our electricity. He is motivated by these concerns and naturally supports policies which the coal companies support. Thus, the coal companies want to keep him in Congress, so they help his re-election campaign.
The same can be said of mining or timber interests. Why do Western Congressmen support “the timber industry.” It’s not because of contributions, but because this industry employs a lot of people out West. Why did Western Republicans fight a lot of so-called “environmental” policies during the Clinton years? It wasn’t because their corporate benefactors were calling the shots, it was because these policies would hurt their constituents.
Cynicism about politics may make one feel good, but one should not pretend its actually a valid form of political analysis. It’s a crutch that our nation would be well-served to discard.
While this is a common perception, I believe it’s completely false. The perception that American politics is run by corporate interests and that these lobbyists have so much power is one which is perpetuated by the media and certain self-serving politicians (yes, I’m talking about that camera-hungry self-promoter, John McCain), but it really has no basis in fact. This can be seen by examining the political situation closely.
Let’s take the example of Senator Robert Byrd. He has a well-won reputation of being friendly to the coal companies, and people say this is because he’s “bought off” or “in their pockets.” However, this sort of superficial political analysis really does not hold up under examination. If Byrd is “bought off” by coal companies, it stands to reason that he could be “bought off” by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. So why don’t these groups start contributing huge amounts to him in order to “buy” his vote? Because it wouldn’t work. Why not? It’s not that Byrd is bought off, but because he’s representing his state which has a lot of people employed by the coal industry in it. He wants his constituents to have jobs, and if the coal industry is hurt, then his constituents are out of jobs. Plus, America needs coal to power our electricity. He is motivated by these concerns and naturally supports policies which the coal companies support. Thus, the coal companies want to keep him in Congress, so they help his re-election campaign.
The same can be said of mining or timber interests. Why do Western Congressmen support “the timber industry?” It’s not because of contributions, but because this industry employs a lot of people out West. Why did Western Republicans fight a lot of so-called “environmental” policies during the Clinton years? It wasn’t because their corporate benefactors were calling the shots, it was because these policies would hurt their constituents.
Cynicism about politics may make one feel good, but one should not pretend its actually a valid form of political analysis. It’s a crutch that our nation would be well-served to discard.