#Globalisation is not improving everyone's life standards, but only concentrating wealth

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

ebon geyser
#

So the main idea is that globalization was originally marketed as "let's connect everyone by economy, so that everyone's living conditions are better", right?
But what I'm seeing is that globalisation just made it easier to move, so people move where the money/tourism is. Not the money moved to improved people's lives everywhere, but people moved. I had an argument recently with one of my friends about this, so I can post the whole this as well, but I think this is enough to start a conversation. I know it is more of an economic topic, rather than a philosophical one, so feel free to not engage if you don't feel this has no place here.

split wing
#

In strictly financial terms, it's hard to argue against the fact that in the last 70 or so years (the heyday of globalization), living standards have increased worldwide but especially for the poorest. I think the real philosophy question here is: are we actually better off for it?

pastel hinge
#

The goal of globalisation is simply to improve productivity.

If I can produce 100 potatoes OR 150 carrots in a day,

while you can produce 80 potatoes OR 180 carrots in a day,

it would make sense for me to focus on producing potatoes and you focusing on carrots.

#

Also, even if I'm more productive in both products, if I'm 1,7x more productive than you in pencils and 2x more productive than you in erasers, I should still only make erasers while you make pencils... I explained that quickly, but the goal of globalisation is just a better use of rss basically

#

Now, "is globalisation good for everyone's life standard"? Well, not for everyone. It's good for the people benefiting from this but not for the others...I talked about that in another post already, I'll let others discuss this here

radiant niche
#

Extreme poverty went from 76% to 10% in 200 years. Yes, we're definitely better for global connections, which is different than globalism. The problem is where people advocate for giving all your resources away instead of taking care of your own communities. You need to get your own household and town in order before you try to fix someone else, and globalism discourages that mindset. Overall, this leads to much poorer resource management and a lot of unnecessary misery.

ebon geyser
#

Can you expand on this?

radiant niche
ruby summit
# ebon geyser So the main idea is that globalization was originally marketed as "let's connect...

I disagree with the idea that it’s a thing to be opposed. If someone wants to trade with someone else, I don’t really see a reason that I ought to have much of a say(in a legal sense, I have no qualms about social pressure in this matter) in that transaction, barring hiring someone to attack another on their behalf. I think doing so based upon the country they’re trading with doesn’t make sense really.

late nacelle
#

Yes, the global market does what any market does, i.e. give more and more advantages to advantaged groups. It is a way for rich countries, and multinational companies, to exploit people who have worse living conditions in order to make more money for themselves. It does improve living standards in the rich countries overall, because the poor that are needed to service the rich people can now live in other countries not just in poorer parts of the same country. But it hinders the improvement in living standards in the poorer countries. So yes, it is absolutely contributing and indeed enabling the continued increase in inequality around the world.

The poorest people are slowly improving their living standards. The richest people are improving their living standards and wealth much more quickly. It is an unfair and inherently unbalanced system.

radiant niche
#

I dunno how going from 76% extreme poverty to less than 10% extreme poverty in less than 200 years somehow constitutes the poor countries staying poor. Countries improving themselves and trading with other countries ultimately makes everyone better off.

gilded eagle
#

The problem with globalization is the uneven playing field.

Specifically, regional labor laws.

It is often a conversation in the US about losing manufacturing jobs to other countries. Well of course, because even accounting for shipping costs it is cheaper to pay an army of 10 year olds 5 cents an hour with no regulations on how many hours they can work and no regard for their safety.

If everyone had to play by the same rules you would see more of an equilibrium. Some items would still be imported/exported based on the locally available resources, but many items would return to being produced regionally at slightly higher costs.

So basically, we need global labor laws, to at least include safety standards and prevent child exploitation if not also establishing protections like minimum wages and overtime. But good luck with that.

jovial meadow
#

Don't forget governmental cash injections into certain industries in order to increase the competitiveness of that industry in the global market. This essentially creates the same inbalance in the market as cheap labor.

late nacelle
outer oar
#

but there are plenty of laws regarding modern slavery in most developed countries, most notably the US and the UK

#

obviously, there are some creative ways around them, but there are pretty strict standards that every publicly traded company has to adhere to, and it also involves making sure that their entire supply chain, no matter where they are located also adhere to them

outer oar
late nacelle
outer oar
#

Latvia, where I’m from, was basically a complete garbage country between 1990 when we regained independence until the early 2010s. The growth was accelerated enormously by us joining the EU and NATO alongside all the investment that brought.

#

the “scraps” as you call them helped us massively into developing a service-based economy, because until that happened, the only real export we had was cheap workforce.

late nacelle
# outer oar you seriously underestimate the benefits of foreign investment

No I don't. Foreign investment can be very useful. But it always comes with strings attached.

Latvia is one of the fortunate countries that could join the rich-kids club. But the number of countries that can become service-based economies is obviously limited by the necessity of some countries remaining as largely production-based economies, as someone still needs to make the stuff.

In a global market, rich countries benefit from having as much of their needs met as possible by countries offering low worker wages. That keeps the costs down for the richer countries, and allows them to become wealthier as a result. The result of the rich countries working together to approve or sanction other countries is that poorer countries have to compete to offer the most services at the lowest cost, so the richer countries will choose them to supply them. Having created a situation where these countries rely on the richer countries, there is now no way for those poorer countries to escape the dependence on the richest countries without savaging their economies and making life for their citizens much harder. And so they are perpetually trapped providing goods and services for the richer countries while receiving low wages.

outer oar