Unfortunately, although you would not expect it, 14% of Britain are below the poverty line and as the big companies move to places like China and the Koreas, people in Britain loose their jobs.
Recently, a woman called Kelly lost her job from a Burberry factory in South Wales. This was because the company Burberry were moving their factory to China. In China, the laws are more lenient and do not force to give workers good working conditions and there is no minimum wage so the Chinese citizens are desperate for as much money they could get. On the other hand, Burberry argue that their main market is based in Japan. Moving the factory to China reduces the shipping distance helping to make the company greener. This argument implies that globalisation is only good in the point of view of large companies and not to the average person like you or me.
Nonetheless, if globalisation never happened many large companies who choose to sell their goods here will never of been heard of such as Microsoft and McDonalds. Companies like Nike argue that making their goods in TNCs and LEDCs helps boost the countries economy and helps the individual people get money to help feed there families. After all, some money is better that no money. Whereas many “antiglobalisation” groups argue that it is all very well that they have got a job, but they would be spending most of their money on health care to help themselves from the awful injuries they get in the unacceptable working conditions they have to suffer. Transnational companies complain that they get so much abuse when they are not breaking any rules but many people feel that it is unfair and maybe there should be tighter restrictions in countries like China.
Reviewing these arguments I conclude that, to middle class people, globalisation is a great thing which helps us get the best life we want whereas the people below the poverty lines in all MEDCs, TNCs and LEDCs, it could be described unfair and from their point of view, it is only good for the company.
