Salam Al Rabadi: Author and Researcher in International Relations
There are no real globalization even the minimum with respect
to the labor market. Although the free movement of goods, services, and capital
but various obstacles and restrictions put in place to prevent workers from
moving freely between countries. Addition to increasing pressure as a result of
the difficult challenges for all countries on the deficit in the government
budget level.
Also, all the efforts of politicians and economists to find
new opportunities and alternatives in all sectors have not achieved the desired
results. And higher the level of trade in goods and services across
international borders freely in return increasing difficulties. Thus it must be
recognized by the fact that free trade is growing away from the labor market.
But it leaves a negative impact on this sector. It must be noted the basic
problem in the modern world on a level relationship between sustainable
development and economic growth are:
The problem of the gap between the rich and the
poor. So do we in the era of the economy for the economy and not for the
community?
Far from theorizing and according to the statistics and data
on the economic gap (If we take into account that the largest percentage of
citizens are workers or employees are gainfully employed), we can say that the
economy is no longer working for the benefit of the peoples. The facts based on
the public interest will remain the primary criterion to evaluate the
successful economic policy. Accordingly, it is obvious that the gap between the
leading entrepreneurs and the owners of wealth on the one hand and the salaries
of the workers, on the other hand, it will growing doubts about the safety of
the community.
So if the Free trade and movement of capital are initiating
the growth and wellbeing and if we able to initiate the World Trade Organization
goals to cancel quantitative restrictions and the unification of all duties and
make the world a free trade area by the year 2020:
Are these policies and objectives will lead to a
deepening of the labor market crisis? Or is it will serve as a point of change
and positive transformation?
Addition to that the competition between countries (Whether
industrial or developing ) to cut wages or salary will lead to disastrous
results. This will not increase the well-being of communities but will increase
the rigidity of the painful social status. The markdown in wages is reflected
in the prices of goods and benefit from it directly to the owner of the
high-income consumer who has not lost a bit of his income as a result of
reducing the cost of production. In contrast, the middle and lower classes are
that you lose part of their income and they are more affected. Based on this we
can not ignore the dialectical:
Who should bear the burden: capital or workers?
Governments increase the tax burden on the responsibility of
the labor sector.Also, the tax exemptions and facilities provided by
governments to transnational corporations resulted a decline in the financial
state revenues which compensated it for by increasing taxes on other social
classes or by reducing the social services and health care. In the past: the
equation was the more reflective of the widening gap between rich and poor
that: The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. But now
under the current list facts, this equation is no longer sufficient to clarify
the picture. Where it is clear the emergence of a new formula based on the
principle:
The rich become richer and the poor are getting poorer and at a faster rate?
The rich become richer and the poor are getting poorer and at a faster rate?
There is surprise or shock when we know there is high-speed
in the provision of money solve the global financial and economic crisis
compared to that there is cautious and stingy when it comes to financing modest
programs for the benefit of humanity.
For example, only we need to tens of
billions annually to eradicate hunger and malnutrition in the whole world. And
the United Nations has endorsed several different programs to achieve this
goal. But this programs still on paper only due to lack of availability of the
necessary funds???
These tragic facts (away from the ideological dimensions in
study and evaluation of the global economy) put us in front of the dialectical
next logical question:
Is the problem lies in the strategic priorities and
options to states? Or Is it, in fact, the problem of the actual
possibilities available to States?
