Is globalization really so bad???

[Y2A]

If these nations had more foreign investment then they'd have much higher employment rates.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_une_rat

Map & Graph: Labor: Top 100 Unemployment rate
Scroll down for more information Show map full screen

Country Description Amount
1. Zimbabwe 70% (2002 est.)
2. Cocos (Keeling) Islands 60% (2000 est.)
3. Djibouti 50% (2000 est.)
4. East Timor 50% (including underemployment)
5. West Bank 50% (includes Gaza Strip) (2002 est.)
6. Zambia 50% (2000 est.)
7. Gaza Strip 50% (includes West Bank) (2002 est.)
8. Senegal 48% (urban youth 40%) (2001 est.)
9. Nepal 47% (2001 est.)
10. Lesotho 45% (2002)
11. Bangladesh 40% (includes underemployment) (2002 est.)
12. Botswana 40% (official rate is 21%) (2001 est.)
13. Tajikistan 40% (2002 est.)
14. Kenya 40% (2001 est.)
15. Bosnia and Herzegovina 40% (2002 est.)
16. Mayotte 38% (1999)
17. Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of 37% (2002 est.)
18. South Africa 37% (includes workers no longer looking for employment) (2001 est.)
19. Reunion 36% (1999 est.)
20. Namibia 35% (1998)
21. Swaziland 34% (2000 est.)
22. Serbia and Montenegro 32% (2002 est.)
23. Algeria 31% (2002 est.)
24. Marshall Islands 30.9% (1999 est.)
25. Yemen 30% (1995 est.)
26. Cameroon 30% (2001 est.)
27. Libya 30% (2001)
28. Equatorial Guinea 30% (1998 est.)
29. Nigeria 28% (1992 est.)
30. Honduras 28% (2002 est.)
31. Guadeloupe 27.8% (1998)
32. Martinique 27.2% (1998)
33. Saudi Arabia 25% (2002)
34. Vietnam 25% (1995 est.)
35. Nicaragua 24% plus considerable underemployment (2002 est.)
36. Dominica 23% (2000 est.)
37. French Guiana 22% (2001)
38. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22% (1997 est.)
39. Croatia 21.7% (2002 est.)
40. Argentina 21.5% (37377)
41. Cape Verde 21% (2000 est.)
42. Mozambique 21% (1997 est.)
43. Mauritania 21% (1999 est.)
44. Gabon 21% (1997 est.)
45. Syria 20% (2002 est.)
46. Comoros 20% (1996 est.)
47. Mongolia 20% (2000)
48. Ghana 20% (1997 est.)
49. Armenia 20% (2001 est.)
50. Uruguay 19.4% (2002)
51. Morocco 19% (2002 est.)
52. New Caledonia 19% (1996)
53. Sudan 18.7% (2002 est.)
54. Paraguay 18.2% (2002 est.)
55. Poland 18.1% (2002)
56. Bulgaria 18% (2002 est.)
57. Lebanon 18% (1997 est.)
58. Colombia 17.4% (2002 est.)
59. Slovakia 17.2% (2002 est.)
60. Suriname 17% (2000)
61. Albania 17% officially; may be as high as 30% (2001 est.)
62. Venezuela 17% (2002 est.)
63. Georgia 17% (2001 est.)
64. Saint Lucia 16.5% (1997 est.)
65. Iran 16.3% (2003 est.)
66. Micronesia, Federated States of 16% (1999 est.)
67. Azerbaijan 16% (official rate is 1.2%) (2003 est.)
68. Jordan 16% official rate; actual rate is 25%-30% (2001 est.)
69. Panama 16% (2002 est.)
70. Tunisia 15.4% (2002 est.)
71. Jamaica 15.4% (2002 est.)
72. Netherlands Antilles 15% (1998 est.)
73. Bahrain 15% (1998 est.)
74. Guam 15% (2000 est.)
75. Mali 14.6% urban areas; 5.3% rural areas (2001 est.)
76. Dominican Republic 14.5% (2002 est.)
77. Saint Helena 14% (1998 est.)
78. Tonga 13.3% (1996 est.)
79. Cook Islands 13% (1996)
80. Cote d'Ivoire 13% in urban areas (1998)
81. Grenada 12.5% (2000)
82. Lithuania 12.5% (2001 est.)
83. Estonia 12.4% (2001)
84. Egypt 12% (2001 est.)
85. Puerto Rico 12% (2002)
86. French Polynesia 11.8% (1994)
87. Spain 11.3% (2002 est.)
88. Antigua and Barbuda 11% (2001 est.)
89. Slovenia 11% (2002 est.)
90. Trinidad and Tobago 10.8% (2002)
91. Turkey 10.8% (plus underemployment of 6.1%) (2002 est.)
92. Indonesia 10.6% (2002 est.)
93. Israel 10.4% (2002 est.)
94. Greece 10.3% (2002 est.)
95. Philippines 10.2% (2002)
96. Barbados 10% (2001 est.)
97. Brunei 10% (2001 est.)
98. El Salvador 10% - but the economy has much underemployment. (2001 est.)
99. Uzbekistan 10% plus another 20% underemployed (1999 est.)
100. Turks and Caicos Islands 10% (1997 est.)

[Dirty Commie]

Globaliztaion being defined as??? If you mean total unrestricted trade, than unemployment wouldn't be a problem because people would be forced to work as slaves or not to work at all.

Globalization defined as instant communication between Zaire and Albania, buisinesses that pay their workers the same, fair wages across the globe would begin to alleviate these problems.

[LSD]

...um....

Maybe I'm missing something, but basically you just posted the list of countries with the highest unemployment.......

..........and then asserted that globalization would help.


So.....I've got to wonder.....WHY???

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2004, 08:52 PM
...um....

Maybe I'm missing something, but basically you just posted the list of countries with the highest unemployment.......

..........and then asserted that globalization would help.


So.....I've got to wonder.....WHY???
I mean that if they had more foriegn companies investing in these countries they would have lower unemploment rates. Globalization gives people jobs.

[LSD]

I mean that if they had more foriegn companies investing in these countries they would have lower unemploment rates. Globalization gives people jobs.

Yah, I figured that was the intent, I was just wondering why you posted that list of countries? What use did that serve other than to fill space? I doubt that the list actually had any impact on those you were trying to convince.


But on the issue itself, employment is not everything. Globalization might imcrease emplyoment (itself a debatable point), but not neccessarily employment at decent level. Thereby while it does destroy state measures of security such as social programs or natural subsistance economies, it does not offer alternatives that match the required income for survival.

People will still starve, but the statistics will look better.

Yay for globaliztion.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2004, 09:01 PM

I mean that if they had more foriegn companies investing in these countries they would have lower unemploment rates. Globalization gives people jobs.

Yah, I figured that was the intent, I was just wondering why you posted that list of countries? What use did that serve other than to fill space? I doubt that the list actually had any impact on those you were trying to convince.


But on the issue itself, employment is not everything. Globalization might imcrease emplyoment (itself a debatable point), but not neccessarily employment at decent level. Thereby while it does destroy state measures of security such as social programs or natural subsistance economies, it does not offer alternatives that match the required income for survival.

People will still starve, but the statistics will look better.

Yay for globaliztion.
I put the nations with high unemployment rates to show that this could be prevented.

Also, the idea that "people will starve" is ridiculous. People are starving as it is, globalization, properly regulated, will only result in higher employment rates and will inevitibly give the working populus the ability to unionize for higher wages and better working conditions.

[GUTB]

Marx was pro-globalization. Not because he believed it was in the best interests of the working class, but because:

1) It was inevitable given the nature of capitalist modes of production.

2) It would help to accelerate the world revolution as it helped to draw the line between the worker and the owner and throw them into greater polorization.

[Sabocat]

I put the nations with high unemployment rates to show that this could be prevented.

Also, the idea that "people will starve" is ridiculous. People are starving as it is, globalization, properly regulated, will only result in higher employment rates and will inevitibly give the working populus the ability to unionize for higher wages and better working conditions.

A couple of problems however. Most if not all the countries involved with a "globalized market" are paying these workers less than a living wage for their labor, so as stated, rather than unemployed starving population, they'll be employed starving population.

As far as unionizing is concerned, just ask the Coca Cola workers in Latin America. They routinely target and assasinate union leaders and organizers.

[LSD]

Also, the idea that "people will starve" is ridiculous. People are starving as it is, globalization, properly regulated, will only result in higher employment rates and will inevitibly give the working populus the ability to unionize for higher wages and better working conditions.

Unionize??
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of yes, they're all unionizing in China!


I put the nations with high unemployment rates to show that this could be prevented.

...so...... how?

[Y2A]

Your telling me there are not third world unions?

As for the Coca Cola corporations treatment of latin american trade unionists, most notably Columbian labor. I don't think that anyone supports that. That is why I think that Corporations that engage in such actions must be severly punished.

"...so...... how?"

Foriegn investment perhaps?

[Wenty]

Look at Argentina. During the 80's (when the next round of Globalisation took off) it was encouraged to open up its market and make trade that much more free to the open world. The IMF and World Bank lent them huge loans to help out with this process but required mass privatisiation of industries at the same time (something uncommon in latin america where neo-liberalism is rife). Although for a short amount of time Argentina was hailed as a success story by the IMF it was only realised in 1999 they were 80 Billion dollars more in debt than in 1989. Also, to quote Naomi Klein, "thanks largely to layoffs at privatised firms, unemployment had soared from 6.5% in 1989 to 20% in 2000"

Also, "The wealth flowing in 1990s Argentina was a combination of speculative finance and one-off sales: the phone company, the oil company, the rails, the airline. After the initial cash infusion and greased palms, what was left was a hollowed-out country, costly basic services and a working class that wasn’t working"

The only way to get out of debt is to get more in debt for the time being, the IMF will only give more loans if they know they are going to pay them back; which means they insist on more privatisation and more cuts in public services which inevitably means more unemployment.

read, 'Open World:The Truth about Globalisation' by phillipe legrain and 'Fences and Windows' by naomi klein for both sides of the debate.

[Y2A]

Anyway, I gotta go guys.

Later.

[El Che]

If these nations had more foreign investment then they'd have much higher employment rates.

Employment is slavery.

[BuyOurEverything]

If foreign workers could unionize and demand fair wages, what would be the benefit of moving jobs offshore?

[Osman Ghazi]

Personally I support globalization because it is the only way to make an international working class. Unless you guys have a better way?
I mean, did fat cats profit off of the industrial revolution? Hell yeah, but they created the weapon of their own demise. Face it, there can never be an international working class revolution without an international working class.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I support globalization, but not the kind of capitalistic rule.

Anyway, a higher employment rate doesn't necessarily mean more wealth.

[fernando]

The globalisation the Western nations try to force on us all is one in which they are free to go where ever they want and suck the reast of the world dry...

They want to produce cheaper, a safe factory which doenst completely the enviroment costs too much, so they put a cheap factory which might kill all the workers and the land around it in some third world country.

They go to poor countries and exploit the bad working conditions there so the Western Nations could make more money.

And then they try to force it on everybody...killall resistance, just look what they did in Chiapas! :angry:

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:09 PM
Marx was pro-globalization. Not because he believed it was in the best interests of the working class, but because:

1) It was inevitable given the nature of capitalist modes of production.

2) It would help to accelerate the world revolution as it helped to draw the line between the worker and the owner and throw them into greater polorization.
The argument could have ended with this post. Globalisation is where the world is going. I firmly believe it's inevitable - as is the GLOBAL workers revolution. We've proved that trying to create a segregated Communist state has a tendency to lapse back into capitalism (China's done it, CCCP did it and Cuba were made to do it to some extent).

[lucid]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 12 2004, 09:56 PM

If these nations had more foreign investment then they'd have much higher employment rates.

Employment is slavery.
Only to people with social disorders.

[M.L]

Allso when the countrys are in debt they are forced to abolish their subventions. With them abolished they have no chance to protect whatever natrual resources they might have.