Can Globalization Be Reversed Essay

With the coming of the industrial age, the wheel of progress turned. Factory based mass production replaced independent artisans, who now worked for business firms (Volti, 2009, p. 187). The workers became dependant on businesses to provide facilities to work in, tools to work with, and wages to take home, creating a society of employees (Volti, 2009, p. 187). Since work and income was now dependant on the factories, workers need to find homes in relative proximity, thus leading to higher density of individuals within the urban areas surrounding the manufacturing centers. With urbanization came a need for production and transportation of food to the growing cities. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, this food was generally produced locally on the surrounding farmlands with only the occasional delicacy imported from a foreign land. While factory work was hard and the hours long, people chose it over subsistence farming as it lead to a better standard of living for themselves and their offspring. Bertha Black remembers her family’s move to a mill town: We all went to work, in the Amazon Cotton Mill and we all worked there all our lives. We were all anxious to go to work because, I don’t know, we didn’t like farming. It was so hot from sunup to sundown. No, that was not for me. Mill work was better. It had to be. Once we went to work in the mill after we moved here from the farm, we had more clothes and more kinds of food than we did when we was a farmin’. And we had a better house. So yes, when we came to the mill life was easier (Rivoli, 2009, p. 110). Thus began urbanization which continues to this day, with 50% of the global population residing in urban centers (Satterthwaite, 2010, p. ). This urbanization is directly coupled with wealth, where the â€Å"more urbanized a country, the higher the individual incomes (Satterthwaite, 2010, p. 1)†. The United States, one of the top 20 global incomes per capita (World Bank, 2011, p. 1), supports this, as 82. 1% of the population live in urban centers (Satterthwaite, 2010, p. 2). Urbanization trends have been linked to enhanced democracy, technological innovations, economic progress, and higher living standards (Satterthwaite, 2010, p. 2). Is it any wonder then that â€Å"[n]o matter the path of economic development a country has chosen, urbanization remains an inevitable outcome of this effort across the world (Satterthwaite, 2010, p. 1)†. As the living standards and population densities of urban centers increase, so too do the distance that food needs to be transported. Today, a large urban center, like the greater New York City metropolitan area with a population of over 21 million people (US Census, 2010), has to reach to great distances for its food. This is because 1. acres of arable land are required per person to maintain the diverse diet American’s enjoy (Pimentel & Giampietro, 1994). This translates to 25. 2 million acres of arable land being required to feed New York City. Thus 7% of the US population (US Census, 2010) requires 10% of America’s farmland (USDA, 2012, p. 56). It should come as no surprise then that our agriculture imports exceeded $94 billion in 2011 (USDA, 2012, p. 90). The comparative wealth of the American populace, coupled with their culinary desires leads to a demand for imports of produce and other horticultural items during the off seasons in the US. Put another way, Americans’ desire for fresh tomatoes on their Del Taco tacos in February in the American northeast drives global trade to farmers in Central and South America. The motivation of the labor market, to increase quality of life, explains the willingness of individuals to accept factory work and their desire to progress to better, higher paying jobs. Neo-classic economic theory explains business motivation to achieve maximum profitability through efficiency of production (Weintraub, 2002). Efficiency is maximized through three inter-related and adjustable parameters: technology; labor; materials. Technology, as expressed in terms of facilities and equipment, is a fixed cost of production, whereas labor and materials, including transportation expenses, remain variable costs (Starr, 2008). In achieving the optimal balance, any large discrepancy will heavily weight the calculation. For example, the wages for textile workers in southeast Asia are 7% of the wages in United States (Rivoli, 2009, p. 104). This large of a differential in the variable cost makes it virtually impossible to create an equivalent model through enhanced technology, especially when most technology advances can be applied to factories located in the lower labor cost countries. Thus Rivoli’s â€Å"Race to the Bottom† continues (Rivoli, 2009, pp. 92–104), bringing with it industrialization and urbanization. As with any race, there are winners and losers. The countries acquiring the manufacturing jobs and the companies maximizing their profits through relocating manufacturing to the lower labor cost countries are obvious winners. The employees of the factories being off-shored are initially the losers, until the race progresses to the next industrial sector. A clear example of this is the Carolinas, where many textile worker’s jobs have been lost to southeast Asia, now have opportunities for better paying jobs in auto manufacturing. BMW opened a plant in Spartanburg, SC, the middle of the cotton belt, which generates over $1. 2 billion in wages and salaries annually (Ramsey, 2009). Thus the race continues, moving from industry to industry, as total production cost dominates companies’ decisions on where to locate manufacturing. However, many of those losing their jobs in America raise the cry to stop globalization, reconstitute local manufacturing and local food markets. This would not appear to be a feasible alternative for three reasons. First, the degree of urbanization present in the United States makes it unreasonable to expect food to be produced locally. Similarly, the relative wealth and current lifestyle lead many to expect and demand fresh produce year round. Together, these preclude a shift to locally grown and produced foods. Second, most companies in America today have some aspect of globalization present in their value chain. This can be upstream in their suppliers of materials and/or equipment or downstream in their customers. This is readily apparent in large corporations, such as Nike and WalMart, but it is also present in smaller companies. Rygaard Logging, Inc. out of Port Angeles, Washington is a good example. This small company relies on equipment imported from South Korea and Germany to harvest logs. China has become the largest buyer for timber from the northwest, thus becoming an attractive customer for Rygaard (Springer, 2011). Unwinding these value chains to bring manufacturing back to America may be possible, but would require the will of politicians in Washington to face the public backlash as prices increased, and selections decreased (Rivoli, 2009). Third, the growing population requires more land be utilized for their living and working environment. Current estimates show each person in the US consumes one acre for housing, work facilities, and supporting infrastructure (World Bank, 2011). Further, the current population growth is over 50,000 new people per week (Pimentel & Giampietro, 1994), meaning that over 2. 5 million acres of arable land or bio-diverse forest land is lost annually, increasing the pressure on food production. Plus, these people are generally employed by firms that rely on globalization in their value chain, as described above. Together, these factors make it highly improbable that the US can return to 100% locally produced foods and companies whose value chain resides 100% within America’s boarders without significant changes in lifestyle.