The Two Sides of Corporate Downsizing Downsizing has become an acceptable part of modern business. The value of the individual worker has faded from view as companies strive to channel all their energies toward greater profits. According to Manning Marable, in his essay “Fighting for a Decent Wage,” presently we have “companies that only are concerned about profits and not people” (376). Unlike Marable, Robert J. Samuelson points out that this focus on profits may actually be beneficial to our economic system. In his essay, “Downsizing Isn’t All That Heartless,” he states, “the anxieties that unsettle people may make them more prudent and more productive in ways that strengthen the economy” (373).
However, production is cheaper if they are made countries where regulations are less strict (Wood 25; Stephanie para 1). Despite the profits made from this technique, it can have some repercussions on the U.S. economy and the environment of nations occupying those factories (Marquis 39; Ahmed 192; Zhang 776). This springs a debate to whether more concern should be held for the outcry of Americans to bring jobs back to the U.S. (Ahmed 192; Stephanie para1) or to the freedoms of the businesses and their right to seek a profit (Salanţă 270). Both sides can agree that outsourcing can be desirable for a business do to the potential profit. It allows goods to be made cheaper, management to run smoother, and money to be made faster (Salanţă 270).
In addition, immigrants seeking to escape to a better life will also be negatively affected. Senator Larry Obhof believes that having more immigration can be helpful because it allows for more labor within the workforce, new human capital to the United States, and give American employees access to a different culture in the workplace. Senator Obhof has some splendid ideas and methods on how immigration should be further legalized in the United States and where it can positively affect the economy as a whole. The native-born population presently working in the economic industry have seen an increase in the efficien... ... middle of paper ... ... remain poor. Immigrants are a huge asset to the nation, and the small costs are for the greater good of everyone involved in the economic system.
When new industries are introduced, trade barriers help to ensure that these businesses become established domestically instead of allowing foreign competition to overtake the new industries quickly. Protecting again foreign countries creating monopolies by selling goods for a price below what other countries can even produce them for is a high priority among many nations. Trade barriers also protect against cheap foreign labor from flooding the market and increases employment domestically. Tariffs generate additional revenue for the federal government, which benefits the economy. Overall, trade barriers, including tariffs, quotas, and subsidies, provide necessary protection in order to maintain a healthy
The North American Free Trade Agreement was created with the intentions of making North America as a whole a more competitive player in the global marketplace. Canada, America, and Mexico all share the same hope that NAFTA will be a strong outlet in supporting economic activity and promoting social cohesion between one another. Has NAFTA done this thus far? Most American’s, specifically economic patriots, would probably say that it has not because in their eyes free trade has taken away American jobs and has put America in a financial downturn. However, have Americans lost themselves in the economic side of NAFTA and forgotten about the social unity that was one of the original intensions of the agreement?
There are many arguments for and against globalization, some pros and cons include: • Pros of globalization: o Free trade reduces barriers o Promotes global economic growth: creates jobs, and the market becomes more competitive for companies, which lowers prices for consumers. o Information is being shared: technology and becoming culturally aware, companies outsource to each other. • Cons of globalization: o Makes the rich richer and the poor poorer o Large companies can exploit tax havens in other countries o Outsourcing of jobs/exploitation of labor: A major problem for developed countries is that jobs are being lost to lower cost countries. Companies outsource to other countries because it’s cheaper, but they usually ignore safety standards to produce
Although illegal immigration is often considered negative, recent studies and social trends suggest illegal immigration has had a more positive impact on the economy through observing the cases of Immigration reform legislation like the Dream Act reduces the deficit, start businesses, and could even provide jobs for Americans. For many guest workers who bring their offspring’s to America, the Dream Act is a strong tool that will ensure guests worker’s offspring’s eligibility to attend college and achieve better jobs. In the left wing of the political view is that “the main argument in support of undocumented immigration is that migrant workers do jobs that Americans do not want to do. Given that most Americans do not compete with undocumented workers for jobs, there has not been a sign... ... middle of paper ... ... undocumented immigrant workers, living in our country do not damage; in fact, they enhance America and its economy, a leader who is willing to provide undocumented workers to a path to citizenship in this country, while making legislation in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. We need a leader who will stand up for the rights of undocumented immigrants, while challenge those who question their contributions to the United States.
Neo-liberal fundamentalism is defined as the maximization of economic growth of developed nations by means of the replacement of national stat directed development strategy with maximal openness of national economy to international markets and domestic free market conservatism. In order to construct a critique of “new-liberal fundamentalism,” both of the works by H. Chang and B. Milanovic will be analyzed. Chang’s paper presents a number of perspectives that clearly illustrate the negative aspects of this idealistic market. Now-developed countries (NDC) benefit through the use of such a market because it also forces developing countries to lower their own tariffs and allow for foreign investment. As such, the market is opened up given NDCs more access to cheaper goods and further strengthen their own economy.
Companies who provide cheaper made products, can cause a deficit for any country by flooding their economy with these exports. Fair trade prevent this and provides developing countries with the opportunity to provide merchandise that is not readily provided to the consumer. Fair trade helps provides jobs in developing countries and protect them from the abuses of monopolization. To solve this problem, there must be a fair exchange for goods and services. If these practices are allowed to continue, we as the consumer, will be paying higher prices at the stores.
This will lead to an Win-Win situation for companies to trade in terms of export and import products. Firms in developing countries produce goods based on technology which was leveraged by developed country having greater global market share. This also leads developing countries using that technology but do not try to innovate the technology. Developing countries who identified and brought new technologies are now making more income for example India leveraged heavy machinery and Information technology, China got leveraged with electrical, office, telecommunication products and data-processing products. This is defined as product classification in paper "How Rich Countries Became Rich and Why Poor Countries Remain Poor: It’s the Economic Structure" by Jesus Felipe, Utsav Kumar and Arnelyn Abdon.