|
Globalization: A potential force for good.
I saw John Edwards speak in Minnesota last year while he was campaigning for the Democratic nomination. He spoke first
about the war in Iraq, I thought he was very clear and honest in his criticisms. He next indulged himself in his much used
rhetoric about the "haves and have nots." After those topics were concluded, the purely Democratic audience was
fired up and ready to bring him home with his favorite topic. The one he led into with his "haves and have nots"
talking points at nearly every stump speech he made- sending American Jobs overseas. He proceeded to tell us about a father
working in a factory somewhere in the American south, who had lost his job to an overseas competitor. Then Edwards vowed to
fight job exportation by keeping American jobs in America. He stepped down from the podium and walked toward my friend and
I who were waiting to shake his hand. As we shook hands, my mind was filled with the thought of how isolationist and brash
the closing topic sounded. I wanted to sit down and ask him why an American, with many industries and opportunities at his/her
grasp, deserves that job more than a Mexican man who can now afford to maintain a standard of living without leaving his wife
and children to work in the U.S.(where he would still be taking someones job). But it wouldn't have been in the cards so I
just said "good luck."
There is one large and absolute qualifier for globalization to be a force for good- labor laws. Labor laws are absolutely
necessary for globalization to help rather than to perpetuate the reality of poverty in the world. Anti corruption laws that
bar a corporation from bribing or "rewarding" foreign governments would be necessary. I would even go so far as
to say that corporations must follow American law while operating overseas. We would need to create a minimum wage which would
be based on a percentage in relation to the respective nation's standard of living costs. It is absolute. If this does not
happen, globalization will oppress the world rather than become its lifeline. It is our duty as Americans to ensure the perpetuation
of our sacred, inalienable rights in everything we do. If we enforce fair treatment and pay, than globalization will serve
to grow foreign economies out of poverty, and into the first world.
The cost of living in India is drastically lower than in the United States. A man living in Bombay can make the direct
equivalent of 23,000 dollars a year for a job that pays an American 40,000. The man in Bombay will have a higher standard
of living at 23k than the American would at 40 or even 50k. In the United States, individual purchasing power averages to
41,000 dollars annually (Central Intelligence Agency). In India, individual purchasing power averages to about 3,100 dollars
annually(CIA). That means that the spending power of an American with a 40,000 dollar a year job is 2.25% below the national
average, and the spending power of an Indian making 23,000 dollars is 741.9% above the national average. That translates into
higher relative standard of living for the man in Bombay. So globalization will still be able to be quite advantageous to
companies while simultaneously benefiting foreign workers.
The American market is quite diverse. We have the most diversified economy of any nation in the history of earth. That
means that an American worker has other industries in which they can find valuable employment. If a factory worker gets laid
off, they can go to school and get a two year technical degree in one of the thousands of fields with job opportunities. In
India they don't have that choice. An Indian worker has very few choices of industry for successful employment. If a singe
industry falters in a one dimensional economy, it creates poverty and starvation. If you believe that an American and an Indian
(Mexican, Algerian, etc.) each deserve employment which will maintain a decent standard of living, than foreign investment
into the respective economy is necessary.
In nations where there are not significant natural resources that can sustain an economy, foreign investment is the only
thing preventing pandemic starvation (and when it is absent, nothing is preventing the starvation). Countries that don't have
foreign investment are wasting away. Mauritania is too unstable for companies to invest in it's economy, and without many
natural resources to sustain an economy, they are starving to death. How do we end African poverty? How do we end starvation
in Africa? Foreign investment into African economies. We already have proof of what it can do to an economy. Companies invest
in these countries and their economies are vitalized. They suddenly have spending power which attracts retailers. Those retailers
bring more jobs which drive up the cost of labor for the more specialized jobs. The companies who moved there 15 years ago
now have to move somewhere else to keep labor costs low, but they leave behind an infrastructure and an consumer economy.
With those infrastructures and continued active international investment, starvation will be phased out as a reality
of the past. Economic progress will bring medicine, water and sustainable agriculture. These necessities will nourish nations
who are tragically without them today. We will bring the world into an age of progress. Ensured, will be those self evident
truths that John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson envisioned for all men. The rights of man, life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
View Previous Editorials
|
