Steven Rattner shines a light on concerns about globalization that resonate closely with the ideological assumptions of the anti-Globalization movement. In his piece, “What’s Our Duty to the People Globalization Leaves Behind?” Rattner openly acknowledges Globalization as a double-edged sword; having undoubtedly benefitted the United States and the world, but at a price. Despite Globalization incorporating many positive changes economically, it is also our moral duty to recognize its drawbacks and take steps to help the people affected by it.
In a room, full of individuals who are pro-Globalization, Rattner goes against the tide to bring to light the potential loss of jobs and decline in wages in manufacturing jobs as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Such trade policies that dominate the market tend to favor big,
…show more content…
From the depths of the crisis in 2009 through 2013, employment in the auto manufacturing sector in the United States rose by 23 percent, to 690,000 from 560,000. That sounds pretty good, I said, except that employment in the Mexican auto sector rose to 589,000 from 368,000 during the same period, an increase of 60 percent. I’m happy that 221,000 more Mexicans got jobs, but let’s be honest: Absent open borders, many of those jobs would have been in America. (Rattner, 2)
It is made clear that despite the increase in the United States, there was a more substantial increase in the Mexican auto sector by comparison. This is where the discussion of morality comes into play. At the heart of the editorial lies the ideological assumption that bestows importance to human decency above all. Moving such a large number of jobs lost to another country for the sake of paying lower wages and gaining higher profits is immoral towards the losers of globalization, leaving them behind as the economy progresses and the one percent gains power and gets stronger