Question

read and comment please

There is an old European maxim.If you are not a socialist before you turn 30, you will have no heart.Even after they are over 30, they have no brains unless they are socialists. An appropriate update also applies to the anti-globalization movement.It was a big hit in Seattle in 1999 and it was a campaign to confuse the U.S. summit in Quebec City this weekend. The fact that globalization is not always beautiful. when someone buys a product made in a third world country It was produced by workers working under harsh conditions at incredibly low wages by Western standards. Those who are not troubled by such facts, at least, have no heart at times. However, this does not mean that the demonstrators are right. On the contrary, I would rather not use and think that anyone who thinks the answer to world poverty is a simple anger against world trade. The anti-globalization movement has already had a remarkable track record of hurting people and has claimed victory. The most glamorous example was last year's election. It's because the stupid voted for Ralph Nader and lost themselves in idealism that the heartless are running the world's strongest country. Even if political action is not behind the scenes, the effects of the movement are often marvellous when it gets what it wants. What's worse than having your child work in a sweatshop, for example? Oh, yes. In 1993, it was discovered that Bangladeshi child workers were producing Wal-Mart clothing, and Senator Tom Harkin proposed a bill to ban imports from countries that employ minors. As a result, Bangladesh's textile factory has stopped hiring children. But did the children return to school? Did they return to a happy home? According to Oxfam, children's displaced workers were forced to work harder and on the streets, forcing quite a few to engage in prostitution. The point is that Third World countries are poor, not because export workers earn low wages, but the other way around the other way around. Because the country is poor, it doesn't look like a bad job at a bad job. It's much better than an alternative. Millions of Mexicans are going to make Naphtha's opponents angry. in order to get a job in low-wage export They move to the north. And those jobs wouldn't exist if the wages were higher.The same factors that make poor countries impoverished -- low productivity, poor infrastructure, and general social confusion -- mean that they can compete in global markets if they pay much less than the wages paid in the West. Of course, those who oppose globalization are listening to this argument and answering it. At last week's meeting, I heard Pairns say that traditional rural lifestyles are superior to modern city life.This is a claim that not only do many farmers see the obvious fact that they run away to urban jobs as soon as possible, but that (for me) I hate cultural condescension. White faces dominate the crowd of demonstrators.(Why don't you live in a village before the Industrial Revolution?) I have also heard that poverty in rural areas of the Third World is largely attributed to multinational corporations.This is a clear mistake, but it is a useful belief if you think of globalization as a bad thing. The most sophisticated answer was that the movement did not want to stop exports.They just want better working conditions and higher wages. But it's not a serious attitude. Third-world countries desperately need export industries.You can't run away into an imaginary rural alcadia. The export industry cannot survive unless Westerners can sell products produced under terrible conditions from workers who receive surprisingly low wages. This is a fact that anti-globalization activists are refusing to accept. Who's the bad guy? Activists get the image they want from the city of Quebec. sit in a fortified enclosure It's protected by thousands of police from the outside world. However, images can be deceptive. Many of the people inside the chained fence are trying to help the world's poor from the bottom of their hearts. And people outside the fence are doing their best to make the poor even poorer, no matter what their intentions are

Answer 1

After reading the passage, I'm able to figure out what essentially it wishes to convey: impact of globalization and worker conditions across different countries. By different countries the passage takes a lot of inferences from third world countries like Bangladesh were the conditions of manufacturing is terrible and the wages are extremely low in comparison to the west. The passage also conveys us how the things doesn't change even if these multinational corporations impose restrictions on child labor. Those children are often the breadwinners of their family, thus they can't afford to go to school at any cost. Many of them take up prostitution as a last resort. The reason this persists in a third world country is that no job is a bad job as long as you earn something and keep the family running. Throwing light on why these third world countries need multinational corporations desperately, the passage examines the contribution of these corporations to the country's economy. In a different note, these export industries have a major advantage in employing low wage workers in third world countries: profits. Apart from this, the passage also glorifies traditional rural lifestyle over modern lifestyle. At last the passage concludes by stating the genuine tendency of people inside the chains to help, but has to overcome the intentions of faction of people who wish to push the poor further more into poverty.

Hope this helps. Do hit the thumbs up. Cheers!