Maya McKeever

The Dark Side of Globalization

Look at the photo above this text. At first glance, you may innocently assume that this is
a normal construction building. I would urge you to look closer. Do the windows look like they
are ever opened for fresh air? More importantly, look at the yellow nets. Why are there nets
hanging from a building? What would the purpose be? The gruesome truth of this picture is the
solution that Apple allotted to workers at a plant in China. Inhumane working conditions that
blistered skin and choked individuals with poor air quality drove some people to ending their
own lives. The nets were meant to catch people that attempted to commit suicide by jumping out
of the windows or off of the roofs of the factories. Instead of immediately hearing the workers’
concerns and needs and adhering to them, they put a safety net so that people could not fatally
jump. Instead of keeping workers from feeling suicidal, they placed safety nets outside of
buildings as if it made the working conditions any more bearable. This is the reality that many
people lived and still continue to live.
While globalization has the ability to positively connect the world, it also has the power
to tear it apart, individual by individual. People are being exploited at home and abroad, with
inhumane working conditions and time commitments. Individuals are remaining poor while the
wealthy business owners gain prosperity. Globalization brings our society further apart through
the wealth disparities that it perpetuates through unequal wage and economic prosperity
distribution worldwide.
 The map above shows economic demographics of the United States by color. Although
this map only shows the United States, seeing one country’s major wealth disparity allows one to
imagine the wealth disparities worldwide. The United States is one of the wealthiest countries,
yet the country holds extreme inequality. Looking at the map, the orange marks households that
make below $25,000, the pink shows $25,000 to $50,000, the purple shows $50,000 to $100,000,
and the blue shows over $100,000. The dots get larger as the tract becomes more populous and
brighter as the predominant income group’s concentration heightens. As you can tell, the amount
of blue lights is incomparable to the amount of orange and purple lights present across the
country. In the pie chart below, the percentage of millionaires in 2017 were differentiated by
country. The United States held 43% of the world’s millionaires last year, yet there are major
portions of the country with households that make under $25,000 annually. Despite the
inequalities found in the U.S., the wealth being hoarded in the U.S. negatively impact those in
other countries that are being exploited in order for those to maintain wealth for others.
 Globalization increases the ease and commonality of trade. Historically poorer countries
are unable to advance economically due to the wealthier countries and corporations that have the
ability to exploit them. Transnational production networks take advantage of the power of global
capitalism by allowing the corporations to conveniently bypass nationally based trade unions and
workers’ organizations. In order to maximize profit, transnational corporations often take
advantage of the workers that are most vulnerable and most cost-effective for the benefit of their
business. These workers include young people in poorer countries like China, India, Bangladesh,
Vietnam, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Haiti, and more. These individuals work fourteen or more hours
per day while enduring dangerously low wages and terrible conditions. Nike used to be a
common example of sweatshop labor when the company was exposed for their inhumane
conditions and low wages that surrounded those that produced for them. Globalization has
increased the breadth and depth that corporations can interact in different countries, but these
interactions are not always beneficial or safe for both parties. This exploitation also keeps people
from obtaining real wealth and spreading it within their country. Social immobility keeps wages
stagnant and the wealth gap increasing as rich countries and corporations gain capital at the
expense of low-income workers.
Not all people view capitalism as detrimental or oppressive. Some disagree that
capitalism reinforces inequality or causes and increases poverty. Capitalism’s supporters can
argue that capitalism eradicated poverty and increased prosperity. People could also resist the
notion that sweatshops and low wages exist due to a potential mistake in comparison. For
example, comparing the average daily wage to someone in a capitalist country to someone in a
Communist, socialist, or feudal economy is invalid since their social structures and perhaps
social needs are different. Therefore, my previous mention of Nike would be proven irrelevant if
workers in Vietnam are making $416 a year through Nike in comparison to $250 through other
work avenues. Those that hold this view can argue that instead of blaming capitalism for
poverty, you could blame dictatorial regimes that are the reason for their citizens’ oppression.
Even if one did note the inequalities still present in our world, they could argue that the gap is
narrowing in comparison to before, or that the world overall has more wealth than previously
visible.
While the points addressed in the sentiments above hold a level of viability, since
capitalism is extremely widespread through globalization, we cannot disregard the ideology’s
ability to oppress groups worldwide. While some major countries like China and the United
States have enjoyed some of the largest economies in the world, not all countries have enjoyed
the same economic prosperity. Capitalism is based off of a system of winners and losers, where
certain groups gain capital at the expense of other groups losing resources. Since Capitalism is
based on a power difference, not everyone can enjoy wealth; there must be an inferior class to
keep the system working. We can see this play out nationally and internationally. Nationally, we
can look at a corporation and compare a CEO’s salary to a factory worker’s salary. While both
parties have different skill sets and obligations, are the major wage disparities fully reflective of
that, or do CEOs potentially make too much and factory workers too little? Internationally, we
can look at the owners of transnational corporations and compare their wealth to the wealth of
their workers worldwide. Globalization promotes international interaction and business, but does
it simultaneously promote fairness and equity?