Globalization can be a net negative depending on the reasons. Globalization can be a good thing because it is helping the world "shrink", or get closer together. Manufactured goods are shipped almost anywhere across the world, the accessibility of information from nearly every country can be reached via the splinternet, and the outreach of companies can benefit multiple businesses and have greater participation. Unfortunately, the increase in participation for the global economy has contributed to the amount of loss from the 2008 financial crisis. The losses has led to numerous people to take bad jobs for their health out of desperateness. Jobs became outsourced overseas to cut costs. Furthermore, the increase in participation of investors has led to jobs becoming more demanding to churn out higher profits. Globalization is a good for those that benefit from it, and bad from those who do not. I'm going to focus on how globalization affects poor people. In a study conducted by economists Chris Blattman and Stefan Dercon to see what low-wage jobs add to a country's economy, they found mixed results. Most of the jobs created were technically bad jobs. They studied five companies in Ethiopia as they hired workers at random as they studied how the jobs affected their incomes and health. They found that, even though the jobs were technically awful due to poor health and lack of regulation, workers desperately took them. The creation of jobs for workers that desperately need them is not inherently a bad thing, which is why I am mixed on the issue of globalization. The problem, I argue, is not that bad jobs were created for poor workers. It is that jobs like these need to be regulated, and the health of these workers need to be maintained. Companies, of course, argue that setting the requirements would result in costs, and thus force them to retract creating those jobs since they are not obtaining the profit that investors seek. But the health of its workers is what companies must prioritize if it wants to obtain the benefits of establishing their presence in developing countries. Globalization for companies is a net positive because they are helping the populations of developing countries obtain any source of income, but they need to address the health of those very workers. The benefits of globalization must be maintained, while the detractions of it must be addressed. CITATIONS: Beauchamp, Zack. “Is Globalization Bad for the Global Poor? This Study Ran an Experiment to Find Out.” Vox, 29 Sept. 2016, www.vox.com/2016/9/29/13096580/globalization-poverty-experiment-blattman-dercon. Manyika, James, et al. “These Charts Show How Globalization Has Gone Digital.” HuffPost, 7 Dec. 2017, www.huffpost.com/entry/charts-digital-globalization_b_9431880.

Globalisation is undeniably a net positive. Globalisation has not only improved trade, increased labour and capital mobility and improved technology but has also benefitted from this improved trade, increased labour and capital mobility and improved technology, and thus is ever evolving. Globalisation, has successfully led to economic and trade advantages in developing countries, such as China and India through the exportation of neoliberal policy. Not to ignore the disadvantages of globalisation, including worsened inequalities within poor nations, but when considering them against the positive implications, they are significantly outweighed.

**TL;DR Globalisation is net negative because it operates in such a way that it only benefits the richest countries of the world, allowing them to continue to dominate the world trade market and prevent developing countries from benefiting in any way.** The main issue with globalisation than proves it as a net negative system is because it makes workers in developing countries have to settle for poor working conditions and bad pay compared to the workers in first world, richer nations. This is because globalisation does not aid developing countries in any way and the only way for these countries to have a chance of creating a successful globalisation market is to create a cheaper labour market. There are many statistical examples of this. The garment industry in Bangladesh, for instance, employs an estimated four million people, but the average worker [earns less in a month](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/effects-economic-globalization/12th-grade/) than a U.S. worker earns in a day. It appears that globalisation simply enables the rich to become richer and exploits the less fortunate. According to [Luke Martell](https://www.e-ir.info/2020/03/22/the-impact-of-globalisation-on-poverty-and-inequality-in-the-global-south/), a professor of political sociology, globalisation is ‘the integration of poor countries into a world economy of open competition’ – and I’m inclined to agree with this. With all the damage that globalisation causes to developing countries it appears that it remains net negative until it becomes a fair trade system for all.

**TL;DR: Globalisation has, in particular, economic and environmental benefits, however it also has disadvantages in these exact areas.** Through globalisation there is larger access to consumers meaning that poorer regions can make more money. This economic advantage of trade further improves society as it becomes unlikely that a country will attack or go to war with another country. Moreover, countries can work together to achieve goals such as climate change. However, globalisation has created a surge in demand meaning the environment suffers because for supply to keep up then natural resource must be used before they have had time to regenerate. Furthermore, the economic effects can also be negative as competition creates a great fluctuation in prices.

**TL;DR: The relationship between globalization and inequality remains more complicated than portrayed.** Many here have argued that globalization increased economic inequality. That argument seems very plausible in theory as multinational corporations become richer, more monopolistic, and more exploitative. However, correlation does not equal causation. Globalization may not serve as the main factor of growing inequality, since many other variables exist. One main reason for growing inequality comes down to corporate executive control. Studies have shown that many corporate CEOs have actively sought to secure more favorable contracts and unreasonably increase their pays over the years. This trend has resulted in CEOs getting over-compensated. The gap has accumulated into growing inequality over the years. This factor does not seem directly associated with globalization, since CEOs would likely have sought these compensations regardless. The second reason concerns the rate of returns. This argument sees some high-level employees as fundamentally more productive than before and thus deserving of disproportionately high pay. Globalization does play a role in this argument. It expands the market so skilled workers can reach more customers. As a result, their labor becomes deserving of more rewards. However, even under this framework, more significant variables exist. Technology-related skills stand out as the primary ones. Without technological proficiency, multinational companies and their employees would not have the capacity to reach the globalized market. Hence, globalization represents only one piece of this puzzle. Has globalization contributed to growing inequality? Likely yes, but the jury may still be out. Furthermore, if more significant variables do exist, blaming inequality on globalization seems entirely misguided and simplistic.