# data[].attributes.headline
Through Actual Trial, Globalization Isn't Fulfilling Promises

# data[].attributes.subject
Through Actual Trial, Globalization Isn't Fulfilling Promises

# data[].attributes.body
New and better jobs are not being guaranteed by the trend of globalization. There is also letdowns in the wanted reduction of poverty. The current global policies have not been created with this as a major output. While some nations are thriving, other developing countries are succumbing to poor conditions and cheap labor. Employment may rise but the quality of work nullifies that positive outcome. In recent years, real data has been showing economic growth, by GDP, is not directly increasing jobs as well. Another side effect is by changing supply and demand of different leveled jobs, wage inequality is increasing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GENEVA (ILO News) - Global economic growth is increasingly failing to translate into new and better jobs that lead to a reduction in poverty, according to a new report issued by the International Labour Office (ILO) here today. In the report, the ILO points out that within this global trend, different regions show mixed results in terms of job creation, productivity results, wage improvements and poverty reduction.

Taking a global view, the 4th Edition of Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) () says that currently, half the world's workers still do not earn enough to lift themselves and their families above the US $2 a day poverty line.

"The key message is that up to now better jobs and income for the world's workers has not been a priority in policy-making", said ILO Director-General Juan Somavia. "Globalization has so far not led to the creation of sufficient and sustainable decent work opportunities around the world. That has to change, and as many leaders have already said we must make decent work a central objective of all economic and social policies. This report can be a useful tool for promoting that objective."

The study finds that while in some areas of Asia economic expansion is fostering solid growth in jobs and improvements in living conditions, other areas such as Africa and parts of Latin America are seeing increasing numbers of people working in less favorable conditions, especially in the agricultural sector. The KILM also says that for millions of workers, new jobs often provide barely enough income to lift them above the poverty line, or are far below any adequate measure of satisfying and productive work. The total number of working women and men living on less than $2 a day has not fallen over the past decade although at 1.38 billion it is a smaller share of global employment at just below 50 per cent, a decline from 57 per cent in 1994.

The report emphasizes that in many developing economies the problem is mainly a lack of decent and productive work opportunities rather than outright unemployment. Women and men are working long and hard for very little because their only alternative is to have no income at all.

The new KILM paints an in-depth picture of both the quantity and quality of jobs around the world by examining 20 key indicators of the labour market. The KILM covers quantitative topics such as labour force participation, employment, inactivity, employment elasticities, sectoral employment, labour productivity and unemployment, and qualitative issues such as hours worked, wages, employment status, unemployment duration and others.

Economic growth is not leading to job creation

In recent years there has been a weakening relationship between economic growth and employment growth, meaning that growth is not automatically translating into new jobs. The report's "employment elasticities" indicator allows one to look at the relationship between economic growth - measured in GDP - and two of growth's contributory variables, the positive or negative change in employment and productivity. The biennial study found that for every 1 percentage point of additional GDP growth, total global employment grew by only 0.30 percentage points between 1999 and 2003, a drop from 0.38 percentage points between 1995 and 1999.

With employment growing between 0.5 and 0.9 percentage points for each additional percentage point of GDP growth, the most employment-intensive growth has taken place in the Middle East and in Northern and sub-Saharan Africa. A review of other indicators, however, shows that much of the employment growth in these regions is in the category of "self-employment" which includes most women and men in the informal economy where working conditions are often poor. While more jobs are being created in economies where agriculture dominates employment such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, many of the jobs are in the informal economy, at low-levels of productivity, and fail to provide workers enough income to pull themselves or their families out of poverty. For example, the number of workers living on less than US$1 per day increased by 28 million in sub-Saharan Africa between 1994 and 2004.

By contrast, economic expansion in East Asia was sufficient to generate employment growth, productivity growth and a reduction in the high incidence of poverty in the region. Latin America, however, experienced a decline in the employment intensity of growth between 1999 and 2003. At the same time, the number of working poor in the region at the US$1 a day level increased by 4.4 million. In recent years, economic growth in Latin America has been relatively more employment intensive for females than for males, which reflects a substantial narrowing of the labour force participation gap between men and women in the region.

In both Western Europe and North America, the services sector has experienced the most robust growth - both in terms of value added and employment growth. Between 1991 and 2003, for every 1 percentage point of growth in the services sector, employment increased by 0.57 per cent in North America and by 0.62 per cent in Western Europe. However, the report finds evidence of a divergence in employment performance between North America and Western Europe between 1991 and 2003, with the employment intensity of growth decreasing in the former and increasing in the latter between 1991 and 1999, with a further significant reduction in North America and a mild reduction in Western Europe between 1999 and 2003.

Global wage inequality on the rise

The 4th Edition KILM shows that between 1990 and 2000, wages increased faster in high-skilled occupations than in low-skilled occupations globally. Although these findings do not show a general deterioration of the wage position for low-skilled workers, they do suggest widening wage inequality between high- and low-skilled workers during the 1990s.

Rising wage inequality in the developed economies has been mainly attributed to greater demand for higher-skilled labour, which is in short supply and to lesser demand for workers with lower-level education. Other explanatory factors, although of less impact, include increased trade with developing countries and increased immigration of low-skilled workers. In developing countries, factors impacting on rising wage inequality include industry wage premiums resulting from changes in trade policy that favour workers in specific industries, the increasing size of the informal economy, which generally has lower wages and less favorable working conditions, and a shortage of high-skilled workers.

Labour costs and labour productivity bring unequal results in terms of global competitiveness

The report concludes that the competitiveness of a high-wage economy is not immediately threatened by lower labour costs elsewhere, as countries with low labour costs are usually also characterized by lower productivity levels. The report demonstrates how competitiveness is determined by the combined outcomes of elements of the productive process - the cost of utilizing labour (labour compensation) and labour productivity (output per person employed) - and by exchange rate fluctuations. The report's analysis of competitiveness in the "unit labour costs" indicator shows the following:

In the European Union-15, it is not so much high labour costs but lower productivity in the manufacturing sector and appreciation in the Euro that has threatened the competitive position of the region vis-à-vis the United States.

The manufacturing unit labour cost level in Japan has not only been high relative to the United States, but also in comparison with that of the EU-15. However, since the mid-1990s, the gap has decreased due to a moderation in wage growth in Japan, a weakening of the yen-US$ exchange rate in 2005 and an improvement in the comparative productivity performance of Japanese manufacturing.

The Republic of Korea has shown rapid improvement in labour productivity relative to the United States, but unit labour costs in the country have increased due to rapid wage increases during the early 1990s.

Productivity has weakened in Mexico, but because labour compensation levels are lower, unit labour costs have also remained lower than in the United States.

The United States continues to show the highest labour productivity levels measured as value added per person employed. Despite faster productivity growth rates in some European Union countries, especially the new EU Member States, the productivity gap, measured in value-added per person employed, between the United States and most developed economies continues to widen. One exception is Ireland where this measure of the productivity gap with the US has been steadily narrowing since1980. A slightly different picture emerges if productivity is measured by value-added per hour. This shows that some European countries are more productive than the US and for others the gap is less wide. However, most Europeans work shorter hours and have longer holidays than their US counterparts.

In Central and Eastern Europe, the transition to a market economy led to an increase in productivity but a fall in employment. The new EU Member States show a significant advantage in terms of international competitiveness with unit labour cost levels at approximately 70 per cent of the US level. Increased competitiveness, however, is not benefiting the population in terms of job creation and wages. The region shows some of the world's highest unemployment rates and many of those not working have simply given up the job search, as reflected in the region's high inactivity rates.
In other key findings, the KILM shows that:

Women are continuing to catch up to men in terms of participation in labour markets throughout the world. Nevertheless, women continue to be disproportionately engaged in low-wage, low-productivity and part-time jobs, and in many regions such as the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, women's participation in the labour market still lags far behind.

While the most severe working poverty is growing in Africa, it is declining in Asia and Central and Eastern Europe.

Youth unemployment rates are typically at least twice as high as adult rates and are sometimes much higher. However, in most countries, the illiteracy rates of adults are higher than those of youth, suggesting that young people are increasingly better prepared for the labour market.

Developed economies and the European Union are faced with a growing number of "underutilized" labour resources, including the unemployed and involuntary part-time workers looking for a full-time job. In both France and Italy, the rate of "underutilized" labour reached 21 per cent in 2004, up from 17 per cent in 1994 in France and 12 per cent in Italy.

Note 1 - Key Indicators of the Labour Markets, 4th Edition, ILO, Geneva, 2005, CD-ROM version;

ISBN: 92-2-017568-1. The print version will be available in April 2006. For additional information visit http://kilm.ilo.org/2005/press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Globalization failing to create new, quality jobs or reduce poverty: ILO report sees wide gaps in wages, productivity gains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global economic growth is increasingly failing to translate into new and better jobs that lead to a reduction in poverty, according to a new report issued by the International Labour Office (ILO) here today. In the report, the ILO points out that within this global trend, different regions show mixed results in terms of job creation, productivity results, wage improvements and poverty reduction.

# data[].attributes.body
Globalization is lowering wages for non-educated workers and increasing highly educated workers' wages. Jobs requiring labor are transferring to developing nations and being taken away from America. In 2011, it was noted that non-college educated workers' wages have shrunk by 5.5% due to international trade. Globalization always brings attention to macroeconomic problems such as the value of the dollar and America's trade deficit. Even though opening up to a global economy may help solve these problems, these policies ignore the workers losing pay. These workers are now being forced into other sections which raises the demand and competition, consequently lowering wages again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While trade's impact on the American economy is a frequent topic in Washington, much of the debate centers on the macroeconomic effects of the trade deficit on GDP. However, trade has also had an important microeconomic effect. Growing trade between the United States and developing countries, particularly trade with China, has reduced wages for non-college educated American workers while increasing the wage premium earned by college-educated workers.

In Using standard models to benchmark the costs of globalization for American workers without a college degree, EPI Research and Policy Director Josh Bivens examines this less-discussed but important impact of trade. The paper finds that as labor-intensive industries move to developing nations, demand for labor in the United States decreases, thus reducing wages for non-college educated workers. At the same time, globalization increases demand in the United States for professionals, skilled labor and capital, thereby increasing incomes for college-educated workers and widening the gap between the rich and poor.

The paper finds that in 2011, international trade depressed wages for non-college educated workers by 5.5 percent, costing the average worker $1,800.

As a point of comparison, growing trade with poorer countries has cost the typical worker more than would result from recent proposals to make the Bush-era tax cuts permanent and to finance them with across-the-board cuts to transfer such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and food stamps.

"While much of the debate over globalization has focused on the macroeconomic challenges of an overvalued dollar and a persistent U.S. trade deficit, there are other impacts of trade that are worth exploring," said Bivens. "Even if the value of the dollar reaches a sustainable level and we succeed in reducing or closing the trade deficit, working-class Americans will still face lower wages as a result of globalization. Policymakers should pay close attention to the effect of trade on wages. We need a trade policy that supports American workers."

Trade's impact on wages is made worse by an overvalued U.S. dollar, which acts to make imports cheaper and exports more expensive. Moreover, this effect extends beyond workers in tradeable sectors, since foreign competition drives workers out of sectors like manufacturing and into non-tradeable sectors, such as service jobs and construction. Increased competition for these jobs leads to further reductions in wages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Globalization has lowered wages for American workers, new EPI study finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While trade's impact on the American economy is a frequent topic in Washington, much of the debate centers on the macroeconomic effects of the trade deficit on GDP. However, trade has also had an important microeconomic effect. Growing trade between the United States and developing countries, particularly trade with China, has reduced wages for non-college...

# data[].attributes.body
When countries open up their trade, poverty decreases. Those who are poor will now have higher incomes and be able to provide nutrition, care, etc. Demonstrated when Vietnam opened their economy to globalization, poverty went down significantly without increasing income inequality. Not only individual improvements, but the country starts growing much quicker. While interacting globally exposes the nation to harmful diseases and products, countries will create better health policies. The problem is not in trade policy, but health policy. That counters the negatives from trade and increases health either way. Developing countries will benefit medically. Research on diseases will stretch out to the poorer countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A nova interface de operação das coleções nacionais e temáticas da Rede SciELO oferece experiência visual contemporânea e se caracteriza pela rapidez de resposta. O desenvolvimento da interface fez uso de tecnologias de programação, processamento e integração eficientes, flexíveis e de alta segurança.

# data[].attributes.headline
Globalization is Hurting Americans Workers

# data[].attributes.subject
Globalization is Hurting Americans Workers

# data[].attributes.body
Statistics are clearly showing globalization's negative impacts on America. First of all, jobs are being lost to cheaper labor. Also, the U.S. importing much more than their exports. This deficit is decreasing and the United States is losing many factories. The standard of living is falling along with this. Many are going unemployed and cannot find any more jobs. The growing dependence on foreign oil is a problem as well. That is raising oil/gas prices hurting residents even more. Overall, the U.S. is losing economic power on a global scale. China especially has been gaining from America's spending and may take the upper hand over us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted on Nov 11, 2010 in Blog, Editorials, & Thoughts

Every day there is more depressing news about the U.S. economy. For example, it has just been announced that Harley-Davidson has decided to open a shiny new assembly plant in India. Meanwhile, formerly great American manufacturing cities such as Detroit have turned into rotting hellholes.

The American people are not being told the truth. The following are 20 reasons why globalization is wrong for America:

#1 American workers are being merged into a global labor pool where they must directly compete for jobs with workers on the other side of the globe that make less than ten percent of what an average American worker makes. In such an environment, it is inevitable that jobs are going to flow away from areas where labor is expensive and to areas where labor is cheaper.

#2 Globalization has caused the U.S. trade deficit to absolutely explode. In 1985, the U.S. trade deficit with China was 6 million dollars for the entire year. In the month of August alone, the U.S. trade deficit with China was over 28 billion dollars.

#3 Today, the United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that China spends on goods from the United States. This represents a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to China.

#4 According to a new study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, if the U.S. trade deficit with China continues to increase at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.

#5 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001.

#6 The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

#7 Even high technology industries are leaving America. Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

#8 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of all U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented only 11.5 percent.

#9 As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time that less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.

#10 With so much manufacturing leaving the United States, is it any wonder why people can't find jobs? The "official" unemployment rate in the United States has been at nine and a half percent or above for 14 consecutive months.

#11 Today, there are at least 1.5 million "99ers" - those Americans that have completely exhausted all 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and that still do not have jobs.

#12 Our dependence on foreign oil also represents an absolutely shocking transfer of wealth from the American people to the oil exporters of the Middle East. Back in 1980, the United States imported approximately 37 percent of the oil that we use. Now we import nearly 60 percent of the oil that we use.

#13 Energy imports account for about approximately one-fourth of the U.S. trade deficit.

#14 In states such as Mississippi, people spend approximately 6.35 percent of their incomes just on gasoline, according to a recent report by the National Resources Defense Council.

#15 Americans end up paying to support American workers one way or another. Either they buy American-made products and services that provide jobs for American workers, or they pay to support unemployed American workers on welfare. Today, over 42 million Americans are on food stamps. A record number of Americans are receiving long-term unemployment benefits. One way or another, Americans are going to pay to take care of American workers.

#16 The U.S. trade deficit is running about 40 or 50 billion dollars a month in 2010. The United States spends 40 to 50 billion more on goods and services from the rest of the world each month than they spend on goods and services from us. That means that by the end of the year, approximately half a trillion dollars (or more) of our wealth will have left the United States for good.

#17 All of this wealth leaving the United States is having a huge impact on the standard of living of average Americans. Ten years ago, the United States was ranked number one in average wealth per adult. In 2010, the United States has fallen to seventh.

#18 It is now just a matter of time until India is going to pass us as an economic power. In fact, the economy of India is projected to become larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2050.

#19 It is now being projected that China will soon dwarf us as an economic power. One prominent economist now says that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040. According to one recent study, China could become the global leader in patent filings by next year.

#20 China has been accumulating a gigantic mountain of dollars from all of the wealth we have been sending them each month, and they have been lending massive amounts of money back to us. Over the past few decades, the communist Chinese have been able to accumulate approximately $2.5 trillion in foreign currency reserves, and the U.S. government now owes them close to 900 billion dollars. We constantly have to send top government officials over there to beg them to continue to lend us money. This is a direct threat not only to our financial system, but also to our national security.

So, in light of all of those facts, can anyone out there possibly defend Barack Obama's position that globalization is good and that we should be happy that we are being merged into a one world economy?

Sadly, there are very, very few politicians in either major political party that will even talk about the negative effects of the emerging one world economy. It is almost as if there is an unspoken consensus that globalism is the future and that it is a good thing for America.

But it is not a good thing for America. Unless fundamental changes are made, America will continue to bleed wealth, will continue to bleed factories and will continue to bleed jobs.

The American people need to wake up and starting saying "NO" to globalization. If we continue to vote for politicians that support merging our economy with economies that allow workers to be paid slave labor wages, then we are going to see even more waves of horrific unemployment and we will continue to see the standard of living of middle class Americans diminish.

This is not a drill. America is being deindustrialized. The greatest economic machine in the history of the world is being dismantled.

Eventually, all of our cities are going to end up looking just like Detroit if we allow this to continue.

Is that what you want?
Tiny URL for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3g3ojrn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 Reasons Globalization is Wrong for America | Truth is Treason

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American people need to wake up and starting saying "NO" to globalization. If we continue to vote for politicians that support merging our economy with economies that allow workers to be paid slave labor wages, then we are going to see even more waves of horrific unemployment and we will continue to see the standard of living of middle class Americans diminish.

# data[].attributes.headline
Large Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Due to Globalization

# data[].attributes.subject
Large Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Due to Globalization

# data[].attributes.body
Often ignored when talking about climate change, the transportation used in global trade is releasing major amounts of gases. This transportation, such as trains, ships, and trucks, is using a majority of the world's oil and alongside, releasing carbon dioxide. It's more than just importing the final product. Using a bottle of ketchup as an example, the tomatoes are grown in one nation, processed in another country, poured into bottles from across the continent... and you see how much transporting is actually underway. It is also noted that countries will ignore fuel efficiency and aim for profit in terms of types of transportation. Another energy usage factors method of farming. Some countries will use greenhouses while others stick to organic agriculture. Either way, policies need to address the environment when considering globalizing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anyone interested in big picture solutions to climate change must eventually confront the inconvenient truth that one of the major forces stoking the greenhouse is globalization. The infrastructure of global trade - ships, trains, cars, trucks, and aircraft - all produce global warming gasses.

Driven by globalization, transportation's appetite for oil has increased dramatically since 1973. Transportation now consumes nearly 60 percent of the world's oil, and demand is anticipated to grow 2.5 percent annually - faster than any other sector of the world economy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates the global transport system belches out about 22 percent of the world's ice-cap melting CO ₂ emissions.

Thanks to globalization, the US imports meat from Brazil and fish from Thailand. Onions grown in Mexico are shipped to Ireland, and iceberg lettuce is flown from L.A. to London. The Worldwatch Institute estimates that "dining globally" can burn up to 17 times as much oil as feasting locally. Even within the US, the Organic Consumers Association estimates that some produce can log 1,500 to 2,500 miles from farm to fridge.

The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology recently examined the life cycle of a bottle of tomato ketchup. They found that tomatoes grown in Italy were sent to Sweden for processing before being poured into bottles imported from Britain made with ingredients sourced from Japan, Belgium, and the US. By the time the bottle traveled to a grocery store and finally to a kitchen table, the process had consumed 4,190 more units of energy than was contained in the ketchup. And it generated more than 5,000 pounds of CO ₂.

In 2003, Salon.com writer Kumar Venkat criticized globalization's reliance on "trucks and airplanes at the expense of slower and more efficient trains and ships" and proposed global agreements to cap emissions and reduce travel distances. Unfortunately, Venkat reported, the World Bank and World Trade Organization "are silent about the links between trade, transportation, and climate. There are no policies or plans in place for the enormous task of replacing the world's freight transportation infrastructure with a cleaner, low-emissions version."

In this context, the locavore's motto of "eat local" makes exquisite sense. But look what happened when Britain's Tesco markets introduced a new "food miles" label. Environmentalists' initial whoops of euphoria were quickly drowned out by the anguished cries of African farmers who had spent years learning to grow organic produce designed to meet the demands of the European Union.

Fortunately for Africa's farmers, in a global market, "local" doesn't always mean "fuel-efficient." Researchers from the UK's Cranfield University found it took less CO ₂ to import organically grown roses from sunny Kenya than to purchase roses raised in chilly Holland, where flowers are cultivated in energy-hogging hothouses. And because many Third World crops already have a "carbon credit" built in (they don't use petroleum-based fuels or pesticides), "ecological outsourcing" can save money and reduce negative environmental impacts. It's a form of carbon trading that benefits the grassroots, not the corporate treetops.

In March, Britain's Institute of Science in Society reported that shifting to organic agriculture could cut world energy use by 16.5 percent and reduce greenhouse gases by 29.5 percent. In April, the UN Agricultural Assessment meeting in Johannesburg reached a similar conclusion, calling for an end to fossil fuel-based agriculture and a return to natural, low-impact, sustainable farming.

Ultimately, our survival may require that all farms convert to organic practices. And when this happens, it will undermine the trade-based dreams of poor farmers in Africa, Asia, and South America who have staked their futures on the false hope of globalization.

In the short term, we need to pay heed to the carbon footprint of globalization. In the long run, globalization's gas tanks will run dry, leaving the industrial North to collapse like a punctured balloon. Localization must re-emerge around the planet as the human community is compelled to rely more on available resources. Our future survival will depend on the energy sources that sustained us long before the Age of Oil - sun, wind, river, and wave. And the traditional farmers of Africa, Asia and Latin America may become our best teachers.
Gar Smith is editor emeritus of Earth Island Journal and the editor of the online investigative Web site, www.the-edge.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anyone interested in big picture solutions to climate change must eventually confront the inconvenient truth that one of the major forces stoking the greenhouse is globalization. The infrastructure of global trade - ships, trains, cars, trucks, and aircraft - all produce global warming gasses. Driven by globalization, transportation's appetite for oil has increased dramatically since 1973.

# data[].attributes.headline
Economists Ignore Game Changing  Flaws in Globalization

# data[].attributes.subject
Economists Ignore Game Changing  Flaws in Globalization

# data[].attributes.body
Many economists see globalization as the answer to everything but ignore some major things that happen in real life. First, as countries become globalized, such as China, they starts using more finite resources, especially coal. Related to coal consumption, more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere/environment. Oil prices are also rising. The supply of oil is steady and reaching limits while the demand rising because of globalization increasing production. Rising, developing countries will also need oil now. Similarly, jobs are spreading to developing countries which will likely have cheaper production costs such as low wages. Businesses will want to move where production is cheapest and corporate taxes will have to be relocated onto citizens. Lastly, nations will start to depend on each other and interruptions may ripple through all the connections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Globalization seems to be looked on as an unmitigated "good" by economists. Unfortunately, economists seem to be guided by their badly flawed models; they miss real-world problems. In particular, they miss the point that the world is finite. We don't have infinite resources, or unlimited ability to handle excess pollution. So we are setting up a "solution" that is at best temporary.

Economists also tend to look at results too narrowly-from the point of view of a business that can expand, or a worker who has plenty of money, even though these users are not typical. In real life, the business are facing increased competition, and the worker may be laid off because of greater competition.

The following is a list of reasons why globalization is not living up to what was promised, and is, in fact, a very major problem.

1. Globalization uses up finite resources more quickly. As an example, China joined the world trade organization in December 2001. In 2002, its coal use began rising rapidly (Figure 1, below).

In fact, there is also a huge increase in world coal consumption (Figure 2, below). India's consumption is increasing as well, but from a smaller base.

2. Globalization increases world carbon dioxide emissions. If the world burns its coal more quickly, and does not cut back on other fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions increase. Figure 3 shows how carbon dioxide emissions have increased, relative to what might have been expected, based on the trend line for the years prior to when the Kyoto protocol was adopted in 1997.

3. Globalization makes it virtually impossible for regulators in one country to foresee the worldwide implications of their actions. Actions which would seem to reduce emissions for an individual country may indirectly encourage world trade, ramp up manufacturing in coal-producing areas, and increase emissions over all. See my post Climate Change: Why Standard Fixes Don't Work.
4. Globalization acts to increase world oil prices.
The world has undergone two sets of oil price spikes. The first one, in the 1973 to 1983 period, occurred after US oil supply began to decline in 1970 (Figure 4, above and Figure 5 below).

After 1983, it was possible to bring oil prices back to the $30 to $40 barrel range (in 2012$), compared to the $20 barrel price (in 2012$) available prior to 1970. This was done partly by ramping up oil production in the North Sea, Alaska and Mexico (sources which were already known), and partly by reducing consumption. The reduction in consumption was accomplished by cutting back oil use for electricity, and by encouraging the use of more fuel-efficient cars.

Now, since 2005, we have high oil prices back, but we have a much worse problem. The reason the problem is worse now is partly because oil supply is not growing very much, due to limits we are reaching, and partly because demand is exploding due to globalization.

If we look at world oil supply, it is virtually flat. The United States and Canada together provide the slight increase in world oil supply that has occurred since 2005. Otherwise, supply has been flat since 2005 (Figure 6, below). What looks like a huge increase in US oil production in 2012 in Figure 5 looks much less impressive, when viewed in the context of world oil production in Figure 6.

Part of our problem now is that with globalization, world oil demand is rising very rapidly. Chinese buyers purchased more cars in 2012 than did European buyers. Rapidly rising world demand, together with oil supply which is barely rising, pushes world prices upward. This time, there also is no possibility of a dip in world oil demand of the type that occurred in the early 1980s. Even if the West drops its oil consumption greatly, the East has sufficient pent-up demand that it will make use of any oil that is made available to the market.

Adding to our problem is the fact that we have already extracted most of the inexpensive to extract oil because the "easy" (and cheap) to extract oil was extracted first. Because of this, oil prices cannot decrease very much, without world supply dropping off. Instead, because of diminishing returns, needed price keeps ratcheting upward. The new "tight" oil that is acting to increase US supply is an example of expensive to produce oil-it can't bring needed price relief.

5. Globalization transfers consumption of limited oil supply from developed countries to developing countries. If world oil supply isn't growing by very much, and demand is growing rapidly in developing countries, oil to meet this rising demand must come from somewhere. The way this transfer takes place is through the mechanism of high oil prices. High oil prices are particularly a problem for major oil importing countries, such as the United States, many European countries, and Japan. Because oil is used in growing food and for commuting, a rise in oil price tends to lead to a cutback in discretionary spending, recession, and lower oil use in these countries. See my academic article, "Oil Supply Limits and the Continuing Financial Crisis," available here or here.

Developing countries are better able to use higher-priced oil than developed countries. In some cases (particularly in oil-producing countries) subsidies play a role. In addition, the shift of manufacturing to less developed countries increases the number of workers who can afford a motorcycle or car. Job loss plays a role in the loss of oil consumption from developed countries-see my post, Why is US Oil Consumption Lower? Better Gasoline Mileage? The real issue isn't better mileage; one major issue is loss of jobs.

6. Globalization transfers jobs from developed countries to less developed countries. Globalization levels the playing field, in a way that makes it hard for developed countries to compete. A country with a lower cost structure (lower wages and benefits for workers, more inexpensive coal in its energy mix, and more lenient rules on pollution) is able to out-compete a typical OECD country. In the United States, the percentage of US citizens with jobs started dropping about the time China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

7. Globalization transfers investment spending from developed countries to less developed countries. If an investor has a chance to choose between a country with a competitive advantage and a country with a competitive disadvantage, which will the investor choose? A shift in investment shouldn't be too surprising.

In the US, domestic investment was fairly steady as a percentage of National Income until the mid-1980s (Figure 9). In recent years, it has dropped off and is now close to consumption of assets (similar to depreciation, but includes other removals from service, such as removals because manufacturing has moved overseas). The assets in question include all types of capital assets, including government-owned assets (schools, roads), business owned assets (factories, stores), and individual homes. A similar pattern applies to business investment viewed separately.

Part of the shift in the balance between investment and consumption of assets is rising consumption of assets. This would include early retirement of factories, among other things.

Even very low interest rates in recent years have not brought US investment back to earlier levels.
8. With the dollar as the world's reserve currency, globalization leads to huge US balance of trade deficits and other imbalances.
With increased globalization and the rising price of oil since 2002, the US trade deficit has soared (Figure 10). Adding together amounts from Figure 10, the cumulative US deficit for the period 1980 through 2011 is $8.6 trillion. By the end of 2012, the cumulative deficit since 1980 is probably a little over 9 trillion.

A major reason for the large US trade deficit is the fact that the US dollar is the world's " reserve currency." While the mechanism is too complicated to explain here, the result is that the US can run deficits year after year, and the rest of the world will take their surpluses, and use it to buy US debt. With this arrangement, the rest of the world funds the United States' continued overspending. It is fairly clear the system was not put together with the thought that it would work in a fully globalized world-it simply leads to too great an advantage for the United States relative to other countries. Erik Townsend recently wrote an article called Why Peak Oil Threatens the International Monetary System, in which he talks about the possibility of high oil prices bringing an end to the current arrangement.

At this point, high oil prices together with globalization have led to huge US deficit spending since 2008. This has occurred partly because a smaller portion of the population is working (and thus paying taxes), and partly because US spending for unemployment benefits and stimulus has risen. The result is a mismatch between government income and spending (Figure 11, below).

Thanks to the mismatch described in the last paragraph, the federal deficit in recent years has been far greater than the balance of payment deficit. As a result, some other source of funding for the additional US debt has been needed, in addition to what is provided by the reserve currency arrangement. The Federal Reserve has been using Quantitative Easing to buy up federal debt since late 2008. This has provided a buyer for additional debt and also keeps US interest rates low (hoping to attract some investment back to the US, and keeping US debt payments affordable). The current situation is unsustainable, however. Continued overspending and printing money to pay debt is not a long-term solution to huge imbalances among countries and lack of cheap oil-situations that do not "go away" by themselves.

9. Globalization tends to move taxation away from corporations, and onto individual citizens. Corporations have the ability to move to locations where the tax rate is lowest. Individual citizens have much less ability to make such a change. Also, with today's lack of jobs, each community competes with other communities with respect to how many tax breaks it can give to prospective employers. When we look at the breakdown of US tax receipts (federal, state, and local combined) this is what we find:

The only portion that is entirely from corporations is corporate income taxes, shown in red. This has clearly shrunk by more than half. Part of the green layer (excise, sales, and property tax) is also from corporations, since truckers also pay excise tax on fuel they purchase, and businesses usually pay property taxes. It is clear, though, that the portion of revenue coming from personal income taxes and Social Security and Medicare funding (blue) has been rising.

I showed that high oil prices seem to lead to depressed US wages in my post, The Connection of Depressed Wages to High Oil Prices and Limits to Growth. If wages are low at the same time that wage-earners are being asked to shoulder an increasing share of rising government costs, this creates a mismatch that wage-earners are not really able to handle.
10. Globalization sets up a currency "race to the bottom," with each country trying to get an export advantage by dropping the value of its currency.
Because of the competitive nature of the world economy, each country needs to sell its goods and services at as low a price as possible. This can be done in various ways-pay its workers lower wages; allow more pollution; use cheaper more polluting fuels; or debase the currency by Quantitative Easing (also known as "printing money,") in the hope that this will produce inflation and lower the value of the currency relative to other currencies.

There is no way this race to the bottom can end well. Prices of imports become very high in a debased currency-this becomes a problem. In addition, the supply of money is increasingly out of balance with real goods and services. This produces asset bubbles, such as artificially high stock market prices, and artificially high bond prices (because the interest rates on bonds are so low). These assets bubbles lead to investment crashes. Also, if the printing ever stops (and perhaps even if it doesn't), interest rates will rise, greatly raising cost to governments, corporations, and individual citizens.

11. Globalization encourages dependence on other countries for essential goods and services. With globalization, goods can often be obtained cheaply from elsewhere. A country may come to believe that there is no point in producing its own food or clothing. It becomes easy to depend on imports and specialize in something like financial services or high-priced medical care-services that are not as oil-dependent.

As long as the system stays together, this arrangement works, more or less. However, if the built-in instabilities in the system become too great, and the system stops working, there is suddenly a very large problem. Even if the dependence is not on food, but is instead on computers and replacement parts for machinery, there can still be a big problem if imports are interrupted.
12. Globalization ties countries together, so that if one country collapses, the collapse is likely to ripple through the system, pulling many other countries with it.
History includes many examples of civilizations that started from a small base, gradually grew to over-utilize their resource base, and then collapsed. We are now dealing with a world situation which is not too different. The big difference this time is that a large number of countries is involved, and these countries are increasingly interdependent. In my post 2013: Beginning of Long-Term Recession, I showed that there are significant parallels between financial dislocations now happening in the United States and the types of changes which happened in other societies, prior to collapse. My analysis was based on the model of collapse developed in the book Secular Cycles by Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov.

It is not just the United States that is in perilous financial condition. Many European countries and Japan are in similarly poor condition. The failure of one country has the potential to pull many others down, and with it much of the system. The only countries that remain safe are the ones that have not grown to depend on globalization, of which there are probably not many today-perhaps landlocked countries of Africa.

In the past, when one area collapsed, there was less interdependence, so it was possible to let cropland "rest" and deforested areas regrow. With regeneration, and perhaps new technology, it was possible for a new civilization to grow in the same area later. If we are dealing with a world-wide collapse, it will be much more difficult to follow this model.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Twelve Reasons Why Globalization is a Huge Problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Globalization seems to be looked on as an unmitigated "good" by economists. Unfortunately, economists seem to be guided by their badly flawed models; they miss real-world problems. In particular, they miss the point that the world is finite. We don't have infinite resources, or unlimited ability to handle excess pollution.

# data[].attributes.body
In today's world, countries must consider the world economy. It is noted that more globalized nations grow the economy, lower inflation, and raise incomes. Less globalized nations suffer from inflation and a slow economy. More globalized countries averaged, from 2001 to 2003, at 2.3 percent inflation rate. The less globalized nations reach 10 percent inflation. As nations become more globalized, trade barriers are lessened and money may flow easily. They are also less likely to impose harmful taxes on businesses. Other policies are improved such as technology policies encouraging innovation. Embracing global economy and policies that push growth are certainly connected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
DALLAS - The protests in France over job security for young workers have exposed the fault lines between globalization and public policy. On the one hand, the French government has recognized that the country's labor laws are uncompetitive and a drain on the economy. The public reaction, however, shows the depth of misunderstanding regarding the realities of our globalizing economy.

Nations can no longer sit within their borders and pursue policies incompatible with an increasingly integrated world economy. The types of services, manufacturing and entrepreneurship that generate national wealth are more mobile than ever, and they will forsake countries that shackle business and labor with unnecessary burdens.

With this in mind, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas set out to document the connection between globalization and public policy. We found that the more globalized nations tend to pursue policies that achieve faster economic growth, lower inflation, higher incomes and greater economic freedom. The least globalized countries are prone to policies that interfere with markets and lead to stagnation, inflation and diminished competitiveness.

For our study, we began with research by Foreign Policy magazine and A.T. Kearney, a management consultancy firm, which ranked 60 countries by degree of globalization. Singapore, Ireland, the United States and other countries at the top of the rankings are far more integrated into the world economy than the insulated nations at the bottom like Iran, Egypt and Bangladesh. We divided the countries into four groups and looked at how each faction performed on policies that shape economic performance.

Take inflation. In a world where investment capital can flit anywhere in the world with the click of a computer mouse, nations should see the virtue of price stability and preserving the value of money. And they do: The more globalized countries we studied had an average inflation rate of 2.3 percent from 2001 to 2003, compared with 10 percent for the nations in the least globalized quarter.

This pattern is repeated in more than a dozen aspects of effective public policy, as measured by the World Bank, Harvard University, the Heritage Foundation, Transparency International and the Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy group. (Although these groups used various ranking systems to portray their data, we took the liberty of converting each to a 1-to-10 scale, with 10 being the most successful, for the accompanying graphs.)

The gist is clear: As nations become more integrated into the world economy, they tend to maintain fewer barriers to trade and the movement of money. They are less likely to impose punishing corporate taxes and onerous regulations. Their technology policies are more favorable to innovation. Nations more open to the world economy score above the less globalized countries in respect for the rule of law and protection of property rights. More globalized countries also offer greater political stability.

Not all policies fit neatly into this framework. We found that more globalized counties do no better in limiting the size of government, which we consider vital to economic prosperity. They are worse than the less globalized in containing public entitlements and subsidies, which must be paid for by higher individual income taxes. Perhaps it is because they are richer and have the means to spread those riches through their societies.

The French contretemps illustrates why labor policies are less sensitive to globalization than factors like taxation and trade barriers. As long as workers refuse to acknowledge that they are competing in a world economy, they will petition a wealthy government to protect their jobs. This in turn slows job growth and raises unemployment, creating a greater demand for expensive and expansive safety nets for idle workers.

Still, globalization may yet alter labor policies. France, Germany and other countries are beginning to recognize that their labor rules are uncompetitive, and the timing of change is a political question, not an economic one.

So, do our statistics show that globalization is necessarily the cause of good policies? That would be overstating it - our data simply show the two trends are complementary. But it is clear that countries with solid policies will be more successful in the global economy. The chicken-and-egg debate shouldn't detract from the fundamental fact that globalization and good policies go together.

Globalization's critics argue that a more open world economy sets off a race to the bottom by encouraging countries to jettison protections for consumers, workers and the environment. In reality, the opposite is true. If our data demonstrate anything, it is that globalization prompts a race to the top by pushing countries to abandon policies that burden their economies in favor of those that fuel growth and economic opportunity.
(Richard W. Fisher and W. Michael Cox are, respectively, the president and the chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DALLAS - The protests in France over job security for young workers have exposed the fault lines between globalization and public policy. On the one hand, the French government has recognized that the country's labor laws are uncompetitive and a drain on the economy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Open Movemnt of People and Stuff is Beneficial

# data[].attributes.subject
Open Movemnt of People and Stuff is Beneficial

# data[].attributes.body
By studying life expectancy and infant mortality, it is seen life quality is improved by globalization. While thought competition would drive nations to exploitation, such as child labor, studies show child labor has decreased. Countries that have opened their economies have grown to the top of the world. There is also a major decrease in poverty noted in these countries. In wealthier countries, environment is a concern while deforestation and pollution grows in poor countries. Because of globalization, the poor nations gain wealth and develop environmental policies. Global trade brings about peace as the transfer of goods effects good terms between nations. Lastly, economies will gain from immigrants being able to work in more efficient factories, increasing production opposed to low efficient workplaces.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How important is the open exchange of goods to the spreading of prosperity? This important: Since 1950, world trade in goods has expanded from $600 billion (in 2015 dollars) to $18.9 trillion in 2013. That's a more than 30-fold increase, during a period in which global population grew less than three-fold.

This massive increase in trade was kicked off in 1948 by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which began the liberalization process of lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers. As a result, autarkic national economies became more integrated and intertwined with one another. The World Bank reports that openness to trade-the ratio of a country's trade (exports plus imports) to its gross domestic product (GDP)-has more than doubled on average since 1950.

Immigration has also contributed significantly to economic growth and higher wages. Today some 200 million people, about 3 percent of the world's population, live outside their countries of birth. According to the Partnership for a New American Economy, 28 percent of all U.S. companies started in 2011 had immigrant founders-despite immigrants comprising roughly 13 percent of the population. In addition, some 40 percent of Fortune 500 firms were founded by immigrants or their children.

All of this open movement of people and stuff across borders pays off in many measurable ways, some obvious, some more surprising.
Longer, Healthier Lives
A 2010 study in World Development, titled "Good For Living? On the Relationship between Globalization and Life Expectancy," looked at data from 92 countries and found that economic globalization significantly boosts life expectancy, especially in developing countries. The two Swedish economists behind the study, Andreas Bergh and Therese Nilsson, noted that as Uganda's economic globalization index rose from 22 to 46 points (almost two standard deviations) over the 1970-2005 period, average life expectancy increased by two to three years.

Similarly, a 2014 conference paper titled "The long-run relationship between trade and population health: evidence from five decades," by Helmut Schmidt University economist Dierk Herzer, concluded, after examining the relationship between economic openness and population health for 74 countries between 1960 and 2010, that "international trade in general has a robust positive long-run effect on health, as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality."
Women's Liberation
A 2012 working paper by University of Konstantz economist Heinrich Ursprung and University of Munich economist Niklas Potrafke analyzed how women fare by comparing globalization trends with changes in the Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI), which was developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). SIGI takes several aspects of gender relations into account, including family law codes, civil liberties, physical integrity, son preference, and ownership rights. It's an index of deprivation that captures causes of gender inequality rather than measuring outcomes.

"Observing the progress of globalization for almost one hundred developing countries at ten year intervals starting in 1970," Ursprung and Potrafke concluded, "we find that economic and social globalization exert a decidedly positive influence on the social institutions that reduce female subjugation and promote gender equality." They further noted that since globalization tends to liberate women from traditional social and political orders, "social globalization is demonized, by the established local ruling class, and by western apologists who, for reasons of ideological objections to markets, join in opposing globalization."
Less Child Labor
A 2005 World Development study, "Trade Openness, Foreign Direct Investment and Child Labor," by Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Indra de Soysa of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, looked at the effects of trade openness and globalization on child labor in poor countries. Their analysis refuted the claims made by anti-globalization proponents that free trade induces a "race to the bottom," encouraging the exploitation of children as cheap laborers. Instead the researchers found that the more open a country is to international trade and foreign investment, the lower the incidence of exploitation. "Globalization is associated with less, not more, child labor," they concluded.
Faster Economic Growth
A 2008 World Bank study, "Trade Liberalization and Growth: New Evidence," by the Stanford University economists Romain Wacziarg and Karen Horn Welch, found that trade openness and liberalization significantly boost a country's rate of economic growth.

The authors noted that in 1960, just 22 percent of countries representing 21 percent of the global population had open trade policies. This rose to 73 percent of countries representing 46 percent of world population by the year 2000. The study compared growth rates of countries before and after trade liberalization, finding that "over the 1950-98 period, countries that liberalized their trade regimes experienced average annual growth rates that were about 1.5 percentage points higher than before liberalization" and that "investment rates by rose 1.5-2.0 percentage points."
Higher Incomes
Trade openness boosts economic growth, but how does it affect per-capita incomes? A 2009 Rutgers University-Newark working paper, "Trade Openness and Income-a Re-examination," by economists Vlad Manole and Mariana Spatareanu, calculated the trade restrictiveness indices for 131 developed and developing countries between 1990 and 2004. Its conclusion: A "lower level of trade protection is associated with higher per-capita income."
Less Poverty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How important is the open exchange of goods to the spreading of prosperity? This important: Since 1950, world trade in goods has expanded from $600 billion (in 2015 dollars) to $18.9 trillion in 2013. That's a more than 30-fold increase, during a period in which global population grew less than three-fold.

# data[].attributes.headline
Globalization Positively Affects World Economy

# data[].attributes.subject
Globalization Positively Affects World Economy

# data[].attributes.body
Often considered negative, globalization has powerful positive impacts. Markets will become efficient. Businesses may lower their prices by purchasing cheaper supplies or raise prices and use the excess profit for higher wages or projects. Both are economically favorable outcomes. Consumers will benefit from international competition. Businesses will strive to increase quality and watch prices of other producers. Relationships between countries are improved. When trading and depending on others, war is less likely to break out. Wealth and corresponding standard of living becomes spread globally. Certain industries may be harmed in the United States but that is minimal and insignificant when compared to the growing economies of many developing countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's a small world, after all. This saying has never been more true, and if trends continue to develop the way they are, the world may continue to shrink.

In light of advanced technology, higher demands from markets and faster turnaround times, globalization has become a staple for world commerce.

In the U.S., the term globalization often has negative connotations. For many, it represents a threat to their jobs, livelihood and way of life.

Though many Americans think of it as a dirty word, "globalization," actually has been a catalyst for positive change as well.

Related:
K-State promotes globalization by offering Swahili courses

Here are four ways that globalization has had a positive impact on the world economy:
1. More efficient markets
Efficient markets should be what every economy strives for. Essentially, the sign of an efficient market is where there is an equilibrium between what buyers are willing to pay for a good or service and what sellers are willing to sell for a good or service.

If you can improve the way you produce a good or service by doing things such as outsourcing certain processes or buying from an overseas supplier that offers discounts, you can then afford to lower your selling price which results in increased demand and affordability.

Even if businesses don't lower prices, they can make additional profits and then reallocate that excess profit into doing things like increasing wages, taking on more investments or even creating more expansion projects.

Related:
3 negative impacts of globalization on the United States
2. Increased competition
Anytime that you have multiple producers competing for a hold of the economy, that's a good sign for consumers, as the quality of goods and services often goes up as a result.

When businesses started to venture across international borders, what they often did was introduce a new standard into the global marketplace. Consumers then had more options to choose from.

With more competitors to fight over market share, each company has to constantly look to improve their goods or services or create more value for their customers.

This means better products and sometimes lower prices, which is always a good thing for buyers.

When your economy depends largely on another country's economy, it is hard to imagine either one of the countries attacking the other. In a weird sort of way, globalization helped heighten world security.

Although this may seem kind of twisted since there is so much violence that still goes on in the world, the fact remains that globalization has halted many conflicts that could have turned ugly if their country's financial health didn't depend on the other.

4. More wealth equality throughout the world

Although many Americans contend that their standard of living has gone down because of globalization, the flip side to this is that hundreds of thousands of people around the world now have jobs, have started their own businesses and can provide comfort for their families.

Living in the U.S., we take things like clean water, shelter and plentiful food for granted. Our standard of living is so high compared to many nations that when we can no longer buy frivolous luxuries, we claim that we are poor.

Globalization may have stopped you from buying another flat screen TV, but it also helped countless people in developing countries put food on their table for their families.

See? There is a silver lining to it all.

Andy Rao is a junior in finance and accounting. Please send comments to news@kstatecollegian.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 positive impacts of globalization on world economy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's a small world, after all. This saying has never been more true, and if trends continue to develop the way they are, the world may continue to shrink.In light of advanced technology, higher demands from markets and faster turnaround times, globalization has become a staple for world commerce.In

# data[].attributes.headline
Globalization is Beneficial Due to Higher Efficiency and GDP Growth

# data[].attributes.subject
Globalization is Beneficial Due to Higher Efficiency and GDP Growth

# data[].attributes.body
Developing countries are gaining wealth, based on GDP growth, and globalization increases the rate of growth. There's also more political stability as free markets shows democratic and capitalistic philosophies. There will be an general improvement in standard of living meaning more jobs, innovation, and equality. Because of trade, goods, services, and culture spread. Some demonstrations include music, sports, food, clothing, and availability to travel better individuals life. Consumers will have a larger variety of products available. From culturally significant items such as food to universal technology, consumers have more choices. On the other side, businesses will now be making more sales.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Empowering families to navigate the immigration system more confidently, rapidly, and affordably.

We are a team of immigrants and experts who have struggled with our own journeys through the complex, high-stakes U.S. immigration system. Just like millions of other families, we've had to choose between paying thousands of dollars in legal fees or spending months trying to figure out how to do everything ourselves. We knew there had to be a better way. That's what we're building, after hundreds of conversations with families, immigration lawyers, and government officials - a trusted partner and guide for your entire immigration journey.

Boundless guides you through the entire marriage green card process for a flat $750 fee. Here's how it works:

Answer simple questions online
No more stress with paperwork - just answer some clear and simple questions at your convenience.

Easily organize your documents
Understand what documents you need, and keep them all together securely online.

Enjoy concierge service
Steer clear of common mistakes - a dedicated Boundless team member will help make sure your forms and documents are ready for attorney review.

Engage your attorney
Get the peace of mind that comes with having an independent immigration attorney who answers your confidential questions and reviews your entire green card application.

File your complete application
Leave the printing to us - you'll receive the entire printed package at your doorstep, with clear instructions on how to sign and send it to the government.

Prepare for success
Know that Boundless is with you until the finish line - helping you respond to government questions and prepare for your green card interview.

Learn more about how we can help you, or get started today!

Want to make a meaningful difference in people's lives? Join our team!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Empowering families to navigate the immigration system more confidently, rapidly, and affordably. We are a team of immigrants and experts who have struggled with our own journeys through the complex, high-stakes U.S. immigration system. Just like millions of other families, we've had to choose between paying thousands of dollars in legal fees or spending months trying to figure out how to do everything ourselves.

# data[].attributes.body
These sources argue that globalization has made the world better

# data[].attributes.body
These sources argue that globalization has made the world better