On Balance, Economic Globalization is Beneficial

I. Intro I stand firm in my assessment of the resolution that the effects need not be economic. If, for example, an economic policy has positive economic effects but devastating environmental consequences, it is not a beneficial policy. The same logic applies here, as globalization directly causes these issues, and these should be weighed heavily in this debate. However, I'd like to spend less time debating interpretations and more time on the content itself. II. Re: Poverty I will have four responses to the poverty argument. A. Technology One thing my opponent overlooks is drastic technological improvements that happened over the past 200 years. Now, admittedly, such strides could not be made without globalization, but some effects would still have been felt as technology developed independent of globalization. Therefore, the impact is not due solely to globalization, as my opponent would like you to believe. B. China's Poverty I'm really glad my opponent brought up China, because he has fallen into a trap that the World Bank, which was used as his second source, has laid for him. "Poverty" was defined very narrowly, at $1.90 or less per day. This means if you make $1.91/day, you aren't living in poverty, which is clearly ridiculous. My opponent’s own first source contends the following: “It is important to notice that the International Poverty Line is extremely low. Indeed, ‘extreme poverty’ is the adequate name for those living under this low threshold. Focusing on extreme poverty is important precisely because it captures those most in need. However, it is also important to point out that living conditions well above the International Poverty Line can still be characterized by poverty and hardship.” [1] The average income was approximately $8.22 per day [2], which seems like a huge leap. However, income inequality comes into play. Urban Chinese are, on average, making roughly $12.33 per day, while the rural average is only about $4 per day. [2] China has, whether intentionally or not, taken full advantage of the World Bank's definitions. "The urban households aren’t exactly raking it in, but the rural households have not progressed far enough beyond the World Bank’s arbitrary $3.10 to say they have escaped much of anything, and certainly not poverty." [2] Additionally, there’s a disparity between coastal and interior provinces. This income inequality makes it seem like the average Chinese worker is enjoying significantly more wealth than is actually the case. "The problem is that the advancement is not being enjoyed evenly. Even the urban households in many of the interior Chinese provinces are earning far less than the per capita average. Meanwhile, cities like Beijing and Shanghai are doing over 43 percent better than the mean, and urban households in coastal provinces like Zhejiang or Guangdong are also doing extremely well. The contrast is even starker when you look at the map of urban household income beside a map of per capita disposable income by rural household. The rural workers in the coastal provinces are doing far better than their peers in the interior provinces, many of whose per capita incomes per household remain dangerously close to the World Bank’s poverty cut-off." [2] These same principles are therefore extrapolated worldwide. Poverty is reduced, yes, but my opponent's figures are inflated and do not accurately reflect the hardships faced by many of the people living just above the poverty line, and instead show that income inequality has made it seem that the world is better off than it is. C. China's Cheating Finally as a brief note, please realize that China’s GDP figures must be taken with a grain of salt. China has been known to manipulate data for its own benefit [3] and therefore its GDP is not going to be entirely accurate. D. China's Workers' Woes China is also a perfect example of how globalization has created environments that fosters abuse of workers. Cross-apply my arguments from my constructive, and add that legal workers are also abused in nations without ethical labor laws. For example, in Apple factories in China, workers are subject to unpaid labor, 12 hour workdays six days a week, and deplorable living conditions. [4] Worst of all, when working with the hazardous chemicals used in production of electronics, workers are not properly trained. This leads to exposure to lethal chemicals, leading to chronic disease and death. These practices are common across most industries, and therefore the (less than alleged) growth of the Chinese economy has an ugly underbelly which my opponent neglected to inform the voters of. The Chinese economy has not improved solely to globalization, and it hasn't improved nearly as much as my opponent seems to think. What small growth has occurred due to globalization is negated by the fact that developed nations take advantage of developing in order to advance their own agendas. III. Re: Productivity and Efficiency I will have two major responses to my opponent’s arguments on P&E. A. Population Booms "For example, the growth of manufacturing sectors in developing nations such as India, China, Indonesia, and the Eastern Bloc (Post-Soviet Era) has allowed for the movement of labor to manufacturing while maintaining agricultural levels as a result of innovation within the industry, all due to the desire for profit in a cost-efficient manner." -Pro Incorrect. Much, if not most, of this is due to the massive population increases. It makes sense that they can continue to have the increased manufacturing and stable agriculture when they also have more people to employ. B. Bursting Bubble Economies “As many developing nations are trapped in the cycle of endless money recycling within the economy, the eradication of trade barriers creates incentives for foreign investors to tap into these economies.” -Pro This is true, and it causes the economic bubbles I mentioned in the previous round. It is obvious that these economies can easily be destroyed if the speculation ends up being only speculation. Turn this point against my opponent and consider it an argument won by the negative. IV. Re: Income and Economic Growth I will have three major responses to the income and growth argument. (I have a macroeconomics exam tomorrow evening, and the first two arguments I make helped me study, so thank you!) A. Improper Use of Economics Terminology National income and GDP are not interchangeable. My opponent uses them as such. National income is limited to wages, rent, interest, and profits paid to factors of production. GDP includes depreciation and indirect business taxes as well. I ask my opponent to ensure precision of argumentation and to not use these interchangeably from this point onward. That said, it seems my opponent intended to say GDP, so this is where I shall focus my rebuttal. B. Limits to GDP GDP is not a full story of economic growth. It, like nearly all measures, is short in some areas. GDP does not equate to well-being, as it does not account for quality of life or income distribution. I have already discussed China’s problems with income distribution, and India isn’t pretty either. In India, the top 1% controls 58% of the wealth. [5] Just as a frame of reference, in 2014 the 1% controlled 21% of wealth. [6] My opponent talks about increased GDP but leaves out who is actually getting this money. It sure isn’t bettering the average Chinese/Indian worker. C. Abuse of Workers “Globalization has a large benefit for developed nations as well. Investments from developed nations allows for developing nations to grow, but these investments bring profit back to the developed nation, as well as outsourcing labor to nations with a need for better employment opportunities…” -Pro We saw in my constructive that this is one of the biggest harms of economic globalization. The profits being brought back due to outsourcing of labor is a wonderful euphemism for the idea that the rich in the developed nations take advantage of and abuse the rights of the workers in foreign nations, which could not occur in their developed homeland. This is a reason you should be voting Con, rather than affirming the resolution. V. Conclusion I have proven that my opponent’s arguments are largely overstated and that the benefits of globalization are only truly realized by the rich. Marginal increases in income to the average worker with massive increases in the income of the 1% does not outweigh the overworking and systematic abuse of the workers in developing nations. Furthermore, I have cast reasonable doubt on his data and sources, and encourage the voters to take note of this. For these reasons, we must negate the resolution. Thank you. VI. Sources [1] https://ourworldindata.org...[2] http://www.realclearworld.com...[3] http://www.economist.com...[4] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...[5] http://www.globalresearch.ca...[6] http://inequality.org...