Going through my files now, and I've found some more essays and such from high school. Enjoy.
Globalisation is the label given to the process of exapnding trade and seeking equilibrium of labour bases throughout the world. It has good points and bad points, but of course only the bad points have received any publicity recently, mainly because of the violet protests of students who don't actually know why the term means or involves.
I'll list here some of the factors of globalisation:
1) Foreign trade. Nations who can not trade for each other's required or desired resources have been going to war with each other for thousands of years. The way they avoid such wars is by trading with each other, swapping the raw materials and luxuries they want, buying them off each other. The more nations are involved in some internetaional standard of economic co-operation, the few chances there are of wars for resources being fought. That is a very simple concept.
2) Unions drive up labour costs, thus labour in areas/nations without unions is generally cheaper.
3) Larger companies which can afford to relocte their labour bases ten to want the cheapest efficient labour combined with the lowest transport costs for moving the products from that labour base to the market.
4) Relocation of labour to poorer nations where unions are less likely to be organised, if they exist at all, stimulates the local economy, providing jobs in that new region. And of course any economic stimulation is a good thing, as it allows for better health care and education, which in turn through increased expertise further stimulates the economy.
5) Relocation of labour away from more industrialised places of course costs jobs in those places, and results in the first world nations gradually becoming nations of consumers with minimal production capabilties of their own.
In brief, the major points are:
- Foreign trade stops wars.
- Unions drive up labour costs in more developed nations.
- Relocation of labour to less developed nations is good for business.
- Relocation of labour to less developed nations is good for those nations.
- Relocation of labour costs jobs in first world nations and turns them into pure consumers.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that relocation of the labour base to less developed nations is not done by large companies for the purposes of helping those countries. They do it to save money, to increase the profit margin. Unfortunately, because those nations don't have unions, the workers are employed in conditions which would be illegal in nations with effective unions. The result is that, while in the long term the relocated economic activity is good for the less developed nations and their people, in the short term those people will most likely be screwed for some time.
Last edited by a moderator: