Task 2 Advantages / Disadvantages Band 6 / 7 / 8 同題三版（全球化）

In recent decades, globalisation has caused many jobs to move between countries. Do the advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages?

Write at least 250 words.

In recent years, because of globalisation, many jobs move from one country to another country. This has good things and bad things. In this essay I will talk about both and give my opinion.

One advantage is that globalisation gives jobs to developing countries. For example, many factories move from America to China, Vietnam or Thailand. This is good for poor people in these countries because they can earn money and feed their family. Without these jobs, they will be very poor. Also, companies can save money because the workers in poor countries want less salary. So the products become cheaper and everyone can buy them.

However, there are also some bad things. When jobs move to other countries, the workers in the old country lose their jobs. For example, many factory workers in America became unemployed when the companies went to China. These workers are usually old and not educated, so they cannot find new jobs. They become poor. Also, sometimes the workers in poor countries work in bad conditions. The factories are dangerous and the salary is still low.

In my opinion, I think globalisation has more advantages than disadvantages. It helps many poor countries to become richer. Yes, some workers in rich countries lose jobs, but the government can help them find new work. Overall, moving jobs is good for the world because it makes everyone more connected and more equal.

Over the past three decades, globalisation has prompted a dramatic relocation of jobs from developed economies to emerging ones. While this shift carries real costs for certain workers, I believe its overall benefits clearly outweigh its drawbacks.

The principal advantage is the lifting of millions out of poverty. Manufacturing roles that have moved from the United States and Europe to countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Mexico have created stable incomes for families who previously relied on subsistence farming. World Bank data shows that the global extreme poverty rate fell from 36% in 1990 to under 9% by 2019, a transformation driven largely by export-oriented employment. In addition, consumers worldwide benefit from lower prices, as goods produced in lower-cost economies translate into affordable clothing, electronics, and household items in wealthier markets.

Admittedly, the disadvantages are real. Workers in the exporting industries of developed countries — particularly older employees with narrow skill sets — often struggle to find equivalent roles once their factories close. The decline of manufacturing towns in the American Midwest and parts of northern England has produced measurable social costs, from unemployment to mental health problems. Furthermore, labour conditions in some receiving countries remain poor, raising ethical questions about how the cost savings are achieved.

However, these drawbacks can be mitigated by government retraining programmes and international labour standards, whereas the poverty reduction achieved is difficult to replicate by any other means. On balance, therefore, the advantages of globalised employment substantially outweigh the disadvantages, provided that adequate support mechanisms are put in place for those displaced.

The cross-border migration of jobs over the past three decades is among the most consequential economic shifts of our era. Though it has produced real hardship in certain communities, I would argue that its net effect — measured honestly across the full set of people affected — is unambiguously positive.

The core benefit is scale. By relocating labour-intensive production to lower-wage economies, globalisation has delivered what almost no domestic policy could: the lifting of roughly a billion people out of extreme poverty, according to World Bank estimates, primarily through export-manufacturing jobs in East and Southeast Asia. Parallel gains flow to consumers in wealthier nations, who enjoy sharply reduced prices on everything from textiles to consumer electronics, effectively raising real incomes even where nominal wages have stagnated.

The costs, though genuine, are narrower than often portrayed. Workers in legacy manufacturing regions — the Rust Belt, parts of northern England, some Japanese industrial prefectures — have indeed borne disproportionate losses, often with inadequate retraining. The hollowing-out of these communities has fuelled political discontent that has, in turn, shaped recent trade policy. Labour standards in receiving nations, moreover, vary wildly, and the most egregious conditions constitute a serious moral charge.

Yet neither objection undermines the overall balance. The displacement is concentrated; the gains are diffuse but vastly larger in aggregate. Moreover, the disadvantages are, in principle, addressable — through wage insurance, portable benefits, and binding international labour conventions — whereas there is no alternative policy lever that replicates the poverty reduction already achieved.

On balance, then, the case for globalised labour mobility holds, provided its losers are compensated with the seriousness the gains deserve. The true failure has not been globalisation itself, but the political neglect of those it left behind.