Analysis Of New Rulers Of The World By John Pilger

When it comes to globalization, everyone may have a different vision of it’s outcome. For Marcelo Gleiser, the author of “Globalization: Two visions of the Future of Humanity”, a completely globalized world may result in a dystopia. In contrast, Jeffrey Wasserstrom, the author of “A Mickey Mouse Approach to Globalization” and Tanveer Ali, the creator of “The Subway Falafel Sandwich and the Americanization of Ethnic Food” may think of globalization as other cultures sharing each other’s components to interact on a new level and spurring a more “open-minded” (Ali 27) individual.

That this was also the decade in which globalization came into full swing is more than a minor inconvenience for its advocates” (Rodrick). If globalization is supposed to present an advantage to developing countries, why have there been so many setbacks? Indeed, both sides will have its winners and losers regardless of which side of the development coin they live on, but for the most part globalization has lifted millions out of poverty, improved the standard of living, and increased life expectancy rates all while keeping developed nations relatively competitive to their developing counterparts. Globalization’s value is that it seeks to create an economic equilibrium in the world, where parties are free from barriers and can benefit from one another through a more efficient allocation of resources. This allows all participating nations to contribute to an integrated economy and where all nations willing to embrace globalization have the potential to benefit. Regardless, the path to successful integration to the global economy has not always been easy. There is contention towards globalization as some argue that it is detrimental to developed nations, while many developing countries that were forced to hastily open up their markets and integrate failed. However, if implemented properly, globalization has proven that it can benefit all parties involved and that the potential gains outweigh the losses.

In this paper, I chose to apply the works of Marx to the Nike Sweatshop situation that has been going on for decades. The Nike corporation has been criticized for a long time, ever since there has been evidence linking them to sweatshops that exist in factories all around the world where they have outsourced jobs to for cheaper labor. Individuals who want a job with one of the clothing factories are forced to sign a contract that binds them to work for a certain length of time and forces them to live in the arrangements provided by the factory. In some cases, the workers don’t even know the conditions of their employment as the contracts are written in a different language. The name “sweatshop” has come from the extremely high temperatures that have been reported from inside of the factories that workers are forced to endure every day.

“Women sewing NBA jerseys make 24 cents per garment – an item that will eventually sell for $140 or more”(Brandon Gaille). Our most popular American sports uniforms are mainly produced by Nike, who possess a market cap of $ 90 billion. The question, therefore, becomes, why do immigrant workers from developing countries migrate to the United States to work for brand-name companies, when they don’t receive equitable wages and perform in inhumane working conditions? In,”Who Makes the Clothes We Wear”, Jesse Jackson discusses these conditions and unjust treatment of immigrants. Jackson highlights the extreme manual labor hours, inequitable pay, and rash mistreatment of immigrant workers inside name brand sweatshops. He also provides nationwide examples of unjust labor environments in order to think about the disturbing ethics behind name brand clothing production. When examining why workers endure such horrific environments, it is clear that most originate from developing countries. Due to immigrants attempt to obtain a better quality of life, receive any type of wage that they can acquire in the United States, and their constant struggle with the language barrier which affects job opportunities and daily interactions; immigrant workers endure the mistreatment of name brand companies because they seek the American Dream.

But, omnisciently speaking, both entities faced severe scrutiny and criticism from United States and international citizens for their capitalistic business practices. Furthermore, a vast number of American citizens, mainly teenagers, had been killed over Nike Air Jordan sneakers because of their high price tag, while the cost to produce the shoes were rapidly declining due to Nike’s unprecedented offshore production. Bill Bigelow’s, The Human Lives behind the Labels: The Global Sweatshop, Nike, and the Race to the Bottom accurately portrays this capitalistic mentality when mentioning, “children as young as 6 are ‘sold and resold like furniture, branded, beaten, blinded as punishment for wanting to go home...’ For pennies an hour, these children work in dank sheds, stitching soccer balls with the familiar Nike swoosh and logos of other transnational athletic equipment companies” (Bigelow, 113). What is most disturbing to fans of Nike and Jordan were their comments and proposed remedies on the matter. Essentially, Jordan did nothing to curtail the number of kids being killed for his shoes and, as far as his affiliation with capitalistic Nike, Jordan did not want to cause any kind of rift between himself and the corporation that made him millions

At this point of time, globalization has grown to be a phenomenon that is significantly important economically, politically, and culturally. The amalgamation and incorporation of the world economy around the globe has reshaped business. Not only this, it has created "new social classes, different jobs, unimaginable wealth, and, occasionally, wretched poverty" (Kiggundu 2002, p. 4) by restructuring the lives of the individuals. For some, globalization is associated to modernism and contemporary practices. Others understand it as American domination (particularly those living in Asia). On the other hand, some people believe it to be the emasculation of America (Kiggundu 2002, p. 4).

In the essay, “Sweatshop Oppression,” written by Rajeev Ravisankar, portrays how consumers seem to live in a “low-cost driven consumerism” (para. 2) based society, which unfortunately allows many companies such as Nike, Adidas, Gap, and many more to take advantage of their employees. In addition, Ravisankar uses many both pathos and logo appeals throughout his argument in order to persuade the audience. For example, in paragraph 3 due to the vigorous amounts of labor each employee may work in a sweatshop, “70-80 hours per week making pennies per hour”, (para. 3) the compensation that’s earned at the end of the day does not equate to the intense amount of hours that have been executed. By deliberately offering an extremely low wage to their

In the essay “Sweatshop Oppression”, the writer, Rajeev Ravisankar begins his essay by building a connection with the audience by establishing common ground when he states, “being the “poor” college students that we all are” (Ravisankar, 2006). The problem he identifies is the significantly poor working conditions and slave labor wages that are often the price for cheaper goods from large renowned companies. Ravisankar assumes his readers are college students, and unaware of the reality of and often destitute conditions of these sweatshops. His goal is to not only bring awareness to the reality of sweatshop oppression, but how others, such as USAS have stepped up to bring change, and what

Nike’s sweatshops had many positive effects on the developing countries that they were located even though the workers in the sweatshops were mistreated. The company created jobs and this is one of the main reasons that developing countries welcome the formulation of sweatshops. By Nike opening sweatshops in these countries they pay taxes and provide revenue for the host country’s government. In order for Nike to produce more goods in less time the company has to supply the sweat shops with high-tech machinery which improved the production process and raised productivity levels. The countries that allowed Nike to have sweatshops had no restrictions on the sweatshops or any forms of foreign direct investments so they were able to achieve high rates of GDP growth, reduction of the inflation rate and swell up the country’s trade surplus. Although most sweatshops were thought of as whole sale manipulators, human rights violators, and the work conditions were noticeably poor. The workers suffered from the absence of safety procedures and quality equipment because the sweatshops were not

D. Meyers said in his article, “Moral Duty, Individual Responsibility, and Sweatshop Exploitation”, “Whatever extra we would have to pay for a new pair of sneakers is not comparable to the suffering that could be prevented by giving sweatshop workers a living wage”(Meyers, 2). His statement perfectly sums up the sentiment of this paper. We live in a world where a small percentage of the global population lives in excess, while a larger portion lives in harsh poverty. If those of us who are privileged enough to have been born into a white, First World, industrialized country learned how to get by with less, the poverty-stricken factory workers of the world could be emancipated and free to develop in their own economies. Toni Morison wrote in The Bluest Eye, it is easier to address the “how” than to examine the “why”. I say that it is also easier to address the “what” but not the “how”. If Americans become self aware in our excess and splendor, and consider the oppressed working masses who have allowed us to thrive and live in comfort, how do we create change? We need to fight for American jobs, not because we value American lives more, but because we value them equally. We need to protest companies who exploit cheap labor, and we need to vote for legislation that makes this type of exploitation impossible. Corporations will create American jobs if they have no other choice, and other countries will thrive if they are not being choked by the hand of American consumerism.

During the last decade of the twentieth century, the word ‘globalization’ has become an increasingly prominent feature of political, social, and economic discussion in academic and policymaking circles, as well as in the media. The processes and outcomes of globalization drew attention and debates that had one thing in common. The research shows that nearly everyone agrees that globalization is a trend that is changing the face of the world, and as a result the world society lives in a more ‘globalized’ world. Nearly two and a half decades passed since 1990s, and studies have been conducted to examine the causes and consequences of globalization. Moreover, nearly every person experiences some type of globalization and can testify firsthand the effects it has on their life, society, and the state. The analysis of the effects that globalization dynamics have on the world society indicates that globalization has a significant positive impact via spreading opportunities and wealth across nations, stimulating innovation and productivity, enhancing the economic development of poorer countries, and helping to improve living standards.

In the twenty-first century, it is not a secret that many American companies are actually setting up factories in foreign countries, with the majority located in Asia. Notable examples of this include athletic shoe companies such as Nike, Adidas, and Reebok Additionally, most people know the reason these companies make their products overseas: “cheap labor.” However, what exactly does the term “cheap labor” entail? Moreover, how are international politics and the global economy affected by this outsourcing? While it may seem like a simple question with a simple answer, the cause of such a relationship and its effects on international commerce are deeply complex and morally questionable.

‘Globalization: What’s new? What’s not? (And so what)’, portrays the speed in which globalism has increased through many different factors; economically, military, environmentally and socially. This is an idealist analytic approach, not set in stone. This leads on to

During the late 80s and early 90s Nike was faced with a series of labor strike back at home due to unethical labor practices by its independent countries in third world countries. It is well known for Nike to outsource almost all its production from third world countries at cheap prices and sell them in U.S. market at an abnormal profit. The company began outsourcing its products from Japan where labor was competent and wages were very low. The living standards were raised which prompted Nike to outsource its products from Thailand, Pakistan and Indonesia since wages in these countries were extremely low and labor for these products were competent due to rapid development of the Japanese economy. The outsourcing of footwear products from Asian countries enables Nike to earn high profits and enjoy a competitive advantage over its rivals in the footwear industry. The company invests the high profits realized in marketing its products through celebrities. For instance, Michael Jordan was used to advertise the positive image of Nike Company (Lipschutz and James, pp. 87-96).

“Globalization is not just one impact of the new technologies that are reshaping the economies of the third millennium” (Thurow 19-31). When speaking of globalization, most people will not have a complete understanding as of what it actually means or what aspects of the world it affects. Globalization promotes free trade and creates jobs. The capital markets attract investors, resort cheap labor, and leads to job losses in some areas of higher wage. While all of this is happening, the world economy is being effected: economically, culturally, socially, and politically.