(NEGATIVE ) GLOBALIZATION OF RURAL AREAS

RRL # 1 - Cons of Globalization in the rural areas

 It generally makes the rich become rich and the poor to become mired in poverty.
- Globalization is supposed to be about free trade, but the reality of the situation is that
only true globalization which removes national borders can do this. Under our current
planetary structure, there are value-added taxes that can exceed 20% for some
countries, which limits the access that people have to imported products. This means
the rich can access what they want or need to become richer, but the poor get trapped
in poverty because they don’t have the means to access success. 3
 Jobs get transferred to lower-cost areas.
- Jobs can be created through globalism, but they tend to be created in the areas where
labor costs are the cheapest. Even in a world that is completely without borders, the
cost of doing business is going to be cheaper in some areas than in others. Businesses
will transfer or create jobs in these low-cost areas so they can remain competitive.
Instead of it becoming a race to the top, many people in a borderless world could
experience a race to the bottom instead.
 Globalism creates a culture of fear.
- Even in jobs aren’t exported to cheaper areas of the planet, business owners can hold
the threat of doing so over the heads of their current workers to gain salary concessions.
It creates an environment where workers, especially those who would be in the current
Middle Class around the world, would be unable to have any leverage when it came to
their take-home pay or working conditions. People would be forced to either freelance
their skills, create their own business, or accept the race to the bottom of the pay scale
to keep their employment.
 Richer regions will always consume more resources.
- It’s not just the largest corporations and wealthiest people who benefit from
globalization. Regions that are wealthy will also consume more resources under the
guise that they produce more for the rest of the world. This is already happening today.
According to information from the United Nations Development Program, the G20
nations consume 86% of the world’s resources. In comparison, the poorest 80% of the
world consume the other 14%.
 Diseases travel faster in a world that is globalized.
- When people stay within their own regions, there are fewer problems with
communicable diseases. The open access that we have today already increases the
threat of a new disease being spread to all corners of the planet in less than 14 days. If
there were no borders and people could travel freely to wherever they wished to go,
this issue would cause even the most remote parts of the planet to be exposed to
potentially deadly health concerns.
 Social programs that act as safety nets could be removed.
- Many countries today offer their poorest of the poor a safety net for survival. This
includes food stamps, housing provisions, and other benefits that may go away in a
world that has fully globalized. A single country can typically care for its own with a
system of taxation, social benefits, and healthcare. Extend that to the world and the
 sheer poverty that so many people face would make it nearly impossible to have a
meaningful safety net in place.
 Cheating could become a lot easier to do.
- We’re already experiencing a leadership gap in the world today when it comes to the
distribution of resources. According to Oxfam, the world already produces 17% more
food than the current human population requires for a meaningful standard of life, yet
even in the United States, 20% of children live in households that experience food
insecurity. Globally, tens of thousands of children die of hunger annually. If we already
have the resources to fix it, then cheating and corruption is preventing us from doing
it. Eliminating borders will only make it easier to do this because it would create less,
not more, oversight.
 It could lead to greater worker exploitation.
- If there is a race to the bottom for worker wages globally, then there would be nothing
to stop organizations from exploiting workers so that goods could be created cheaply.
Households in such a scenario would be earning less, so they’d be demanding lower
prices. That could mean a change in global laws that could create more prison-based
labor, changes to child labor laws, or changes in worker safety standards to meet the
potential demands.
 It won’t be a level playing field for everyone when it happens.
- A world of open borders might seem like a great idea because of all the globalization
benefits that are possible, but we must look at how the creation of a borderless planet
would come about. The countries of the world which currently have the most input on
global affairs would be the loudest voices at the negotiation table. The smallest
countries that exist today would likely struggle to even get a seat at that table. This
means going borderless would create an uneven playing field that might eliminate
nations, but would still create pockets of people who are more privileged than others.
People are not generally going to give up what they must raise the boats of others to an
equal playing field without receiving some benefit.
 It could have a negative impact on the environment.
- This globalization negative can be seen in two different scenarios. Let’s say that
production levels increase because everyone sees a boost in their economic
circumstances. This would potentially increase pollution levels that could acidify the
air, the ocean, and cause more issues with global warming. Or we could say that fewer
people are buying things because their economic circumstances have worsened due to
lower job salaries. This would create more waste and rot in the world which could also
acidify the air and ocean, leading to more issue with global warming.
 Losing borders could mean losing an identity.
- We often identify ourselves from our nationality, ethnicity, and family background. In
a world that goes borderless, that nationality would merge into a person’s ethnicity.
Larger countries are already experiencing this issue to a certain extent. You might have
been born in Iowa, but most people would call themselves an American before calling
themselves an Iowan. On a planetary scale, this would mean large swaths of culture
would lose their identity and a loss of that culture would be a great loss for humanity.
 There’s a reason why we say that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
- This familiar phrase is attributed to Lord Acton, who was a 19th century politician who
admittedly took the phrase from writers who had expressed a similar thought. When
 only one person holds all the power over a governing body, then it corrupts them. There
are numerous examples of this. Roman emperors even declared themselves to be gods.
Imagine what having one person in control of the entire planet and its unlimited power
would be like using our examples from history, especially if that person had some talent
or skill that made them seem almost supernatural.
https://vittana.org/22-globalization-pros-and-cons