1、“全球化”英语作文，
Globalization and Internet （全球化/Internet）
The drawing vividly unfolds …(Describe the picture描述图画)
This phenomenon which this picture points out is one of numerous international phenomena to have become common and already attracted broad attention in the world in recent years. Globalization/Internet, in brief, makes the whole world a small village. Globalization/Internet offers extensive opportunities for every country in the world to develop their economy, improve their regime, enrich their culture, update their technology and so forth, but globalization/Internet is a two-edged sword: it can bring both benefit and harm. (Present state/situation现象描述+ /Meaning含义)
这幅图画指出的这个现象是近几年在世界上众多已经变得普遍并且已经引起了广泛关注的国际/世界现象之一。全球化/Internet，简言之，就是使整个世界变成一个小村子。全球化/Internet给予了这个世界上的每一个国家广泛的机会去发展它们的经济、改善它们的政体、丰富它们的文化、更新它们的技术等等，但全球化/Internet是一把两刃剑：既有利的一面，也有害的一面。
We must first understand the nature of the problem. On the one hand, globalization/Internet offers extensive opportunities for every country in the world. On the other hand, One of the most controversial aspects of globalization/Internet is the global spread and dominance of American culture.
我们必须先要理解这个问题的本质。一方面，全球化/Internet为这个世界上的每一个国家提供了广阔的机会。另一方面，全球化/Internet最具有争议的其中一个方面是认为全球化就是美国文化的全球扩张和一统天下。
I have some suggestions about dealing with this problem. First and foremost, Globalization/Internet can bring benefit. In the past twenty years, in the process of globalization and explosive development of the Internet, China has brought about rapid economic growth, sustained social progress and continuous betterment of people's living standard, so we should accept. Secondly, it can also bring harm. China has been experiencing the collapse of own traditional virtue in the process.
In summary, I am deeply convinced that she, a nation which has civilization for 5,000 years, never loses any good things, physical, intellectual, or moral, till she finds a better substitute, and then the loss is a gain. (Suggestion+conclusion建议+结束语)
关于处理这个问题，我有一些建议。首要地，全球化/Internet能带来利益。在过去二十年，在全球化和Internet爆炸性的发展的过程中，中国已经产生了快速的经济增长、持续的社会进步和人们生活水平的不断改善，因此我们是应该接受的。其次，它也能带来伤害，在全球化和Internet爆炸性的发展的过程中，中国一直在经历着自己传统美德的瓦解。
总之，我深信她，一个拥有5000年文明的民族，决不会丢掉任何好的东西，物质的、精神的或道德的，直到她找到一个更好的替代，那么到那时侯这种丢失就是一种获得。
2、写一篇经济全球化的英语作文。诠释自己的三个观点
Globalization`s al power Globalization has found a significant place in the lives of the people. During the process of globalization, we have made a bridge where ideas and beliefs can cross the borders, and the walls of distrust and the barriers of suspicion between countries have graally disappeared. Though globalization is seen as a sign of a hopeful future by some, there are others who believe that it can cause a horrible disaster for the world economy. Counties benefit a lot from globalization, especially the developing countries. With it, there is a global market for companies to trade their procts which can make the proction sector develop rapidly. This gives lots of options to the manufacturers as well. Besides, competition keeps prices relatively low and it can provide a wider range of options for people, to choose from among the procts of different nations. In addition, there is a sound flow of money, as a result, inflation is less likely to occur. But the disadvantages brought by globalization cannot be ignored. Globalization is causing Europeans to lose their jobs as work is being swerved to the Asian countries. The cost of labor in the Asian countries
is low as compared to other countries which is often argued that poor countries are exploited by the richer countries where the work force is taken advantage of and low wages are implemented. Moreover, companies are as opening their counterparts in other countries which can result in transferring the quality of their proct to other countries, thereby increasing the chances of poor quality. Simply put, globalization is an ongoing process of integration of regional economies into global network of communication which the human being cannot hold back. So we should keep a positive attitude toward it, take good use of it and avoid disadvantages at the same time. Thus there will be a better world where all the people can have a brighter future.
全球化`的双电源全球化已发现在人们的生活中一个重要的地方。在全球化的过程中，我们已经有了一个桥梁，想法和信念可
3、求一篇英语演讲稿。
All the nations are co-existed in one world. But poverty still remains one of the biggest and most difficult issues untackled today. And people are suffering from the disasters that are caused by regional conflicts. The rapid trend of economic globalization has made the world fortune more unevenly distributed. The instrialization of countries leaves a great burden to the environment. So how can we make this world a better place for us human beings? It will not be able to be achieved without love and peace. So let's do our best to contribute to peaceful development of the world.
(98words)
所有国家都共处于一个世界。但是贫穷依然是今天未解决的最大和最困难的问题之一。还有人们正饱受地区冲突所带来的灾难的折磨。经济全球化的迅猛趋势已使世界财富分配得更加不均。各国的工业化留给了环境一个沉重的包袱。因此，我们要如何使这个世界成为我们人类更美好的家园？如果没有爱与和平，这个目标将无法实现。所以，让我们尽自己最大努力来为世界和平发展贡献自己的力量吧！
（英文部分98词。本文为原创，供参考。）
【公益慈善翻译团】真诚为你解答！
4、急需一篇命题为全球化的英文演讲稿。时间一分钟左右，不要太难。内容要有内涵。
global competition
CHINA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER:
Is a new world order in the making? The answer: yes. Up to now, only about 20% of the world's people have attained solid development, growth, and modernity. Now the rest are catching up at an unprecedented speed. This sudden surge in so many late developers suggests a brave new world in the making.
Several Key Changes
Huge changes are happening, within a vastly expanded sphere for all people and nations. We can identify four in particular.
First, wealth making through instrialization and commercialization has become a universal thing. For a long time, procts made in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany dominated global markets. Today, procts made in China, Mexico, Vietnam, and Indonesia, among other developing nations, are increasingly flooding the world, changing the global proction map again.
Behind this changing map, interestingly, many poor nations have rapidly taken on active roles in the global economy. But their biggest weapon remains low-cost labor, which provides a working platform for cooperation and sharing between the rich and poor nations.
Today, most developing nations are extremely limited in resources and strengths. Hence, for them, this cost gap is a survival gap. In fact, other than cheap labor and hard work, they have few advantages. However, it turns out that low labor cost and hard work do make a difference.
For now, manufacturing activities, especially in the low end of the value chains, increasingly shift to the poor nations, while the developed nations focus more and more on a service and high-tech-oriented economy. This giant change, though only beginning, will impact the future world economy even more.
Second, all regional markets are connected to each other. Interdependence is opening up the old national boundaries dramatically. Most profoundly, the flows of capital, technology, goods, and people have reached a new level. Moving from survival of the fittest to rational collaboration and sharing, life on the earth will never be the same again.
Third, wealth making has gained a record-high status. Consequently, old ideology is lost to the new economic waves. This is a truly golden age for capitalists anywhere, who can reach all corners of the world for the first time in human history.
全球竞争
中国和世界新秩序:
是一个新的世界秩序的过程? 答案:是的。 到目前为止,只有约20%的世界人民获得了牢固的发展、增长、和现代化。 其他地区现在已赶上以前所未有的速度。 这麽多晚突然增加的发展商建议的勇敢新世界中作出的。
几个关键的修改
正在发生巨大的变化,在一个领域大大扩大为所有国家和人民。 我们可以确定四个特别是。
第一,财富使通过工业化和商业化已经成为一个具有普遍意义的东西。 长期以来,产品在联合王国、美国和德国,主宰全球市场。 今天,中国制造的产品、墨西哥、越南、印度尼西亚、在其他发展中国家,正越来越多地水浸的世界,不断变化的全球生产再次地图。
这一变化背后地图,有趣的是,许多穷国已迅速采取积极的作用对在全球经济。 但他们最大的武器仍然是低成本劳动力,这提供了一个工作平台,以合作和分享富国和穷国之间。
今天,大多数发展中国家都极为有限的资源和力量。 因此,对他们来说,这一费用差距是一个生存差距。 事实上,其他较廉价劳工和勤奋工作,他们有几个优势。 然而,原来,劳动力成本低和艰苦的工作是有影响的。
现在,制造业活动,特别是在低端的价值链,日益转移到穷国,而发达国家把重点更多和更多的服务和高科技为主的经济。 这一巨大变化,尽管只是开始,将会影响未来世界经济的更多。
第二,所有的区域市场是相互连接。 相互依存是开放的旧国家边界急剧增加。 最深刻、流动方面的资本、技术、商品、和人民达到了新的水平。 从适者生存的合作和交流,合理,生活在地球也永远不会是原来的样子。
第三,财富作出了记录很高的地位。 因此,旧思想是失去了对新经济浪潮。 这真的是一个黄金年龄的任何地方资本家,谁能达到对世界所有角落首次在人类历史。
5、求比尔盖茨在2008瑞士达沃斯全球经济论坛演讲的英文原稿及中文翻译，谢谢！
那个中文翻译跟英文原版不是很一样（太长了，英文在参考资料里）：
这是微软董事长比尔·盖茨今年1月在达沃斯论坛所作的他认为是他最重要的一次演讲。
在人的本性中蕴藏着两股巨大的力量，一是自利，一是关爱他人。资本主义利用了人性中自利的力量，取得了经济进步和社会发展，但这只服务于有钱人。而穷人就只能依靠政府援助和慈善。21世纪的新型资本主义需要对此进行调整，通过市场的力量以及制度创新，来服务穷人。
世界正变得越来越好，而且进步常明显。在未来几十年里，人类还将拥有惊人的新力量，拥有更强大的软件，更精准的诊断手段，更有效的治疗药物，更好的教育以及更好的发展机会，而且会有越来越多的优秀的人才贡献出解决问题的创意想法。这就是我眼中的世界。
我是一个非常乐观的人，但我是个急性子。诚然，世界在越变越好，但在我看来，速度还是太慢，而且世界并非对所有人而言都是越变越好。伟大的进步总会加剧不平等现象。丰衣足食的人可以享受到技术进步带来的改善，而贫苦困顿的人却获益很少，特别是那些一天的生活支出还不足1美元的最贫困的10亿人。
在全球范围内，差不多有10亿人缺乏足够的食物，喝不上清洁的饮用水，用不上电，而这些是我们已经习以为常的生活基本必需品。全世界每年有超过100万人死于疟疾，然而这类疾病得到的关注还比不上治疗脱发的药物。全世界最贫困的10亿人没有享受到全球化的好处，相反他们承受着经济发展带来的弊端。他们被撇在一边。气候变化的成因和他们无关，可偏偏对他们的生活影响最大。
为什么人们的需要总是和他们所能享受的经济发展成果成反比？原因就在于市场激励机制。
在资本主义体系中，一个人的财富增加了，为他服务的经济动力就相应增强；而如果一个人的财富减少，则为他服务的经济动力就减弱，直到完全消失。我们必须得找到一个办法让资本主义的这种为有钱人打工的属性同样也能够帮扶穷人。
资本主义的奥秘就在于它有能力让自利服务于更广大社会群体的利益，它能通过财务回报来推动创新。自利所驱动的资本主义制度催生了许多令人难以置信的创新发明，这些创新改善了很多人的生活。
在我看来，我们需要一个新的制度体系来让自利的动力发挥作用，从而使每一个人都能从中受益。在人的本性中蕴藏着两股巨大的力量，一是自利，一是关爱他人。资本主义利用了人性中自利的力量，让它能持续不断地发挥有益的作用，但只是服务于那些有支付能力的人。而那些没钱买服务的人就只能靠政府援助和慈善。
但为了让穷人的生活能迅速改观，我们需要一个制度体系，这个制度体系需要比我们现在的更能够吸引创新者和企业参与。这个新制度有两个使命。一是赚钱赢利，二是让那些无法充分享受市场经济益处的人群生活得到改善。
为了让制度可以有持续性，我们必须用利润来进行激励。而如果企业服务的对象非常贫困，那利润就不大可能产生，那这时我们就需要另一个激励手段，那就是认可(recognition)。企业得到认可就意味着它的知名度提高了，知名度能吸引顾客，更为重要的是，它可以感召优秀的人才前来加盟。这种知名度能够让好的行为得到市场的嘉奖。当企业在市场上无法赢利的情况下，知名度可以是一种替代；而如果可以实现市场利润，则知名度又是额外的激励。
我们的挑战就是设计出一个新的制度体系，让利润和知名度这样的市场激励发挥作用，使企业更加倾向于为穷人服务。我把这种想法称为创新型资本主义(creative capitalism)。通过这种途径，政府、企业及非赢利组织可以进行合作，让市场的作用在更大的范围内发挥作用，从而更多的人可以从中赚取利润，或是得到认可，最终改善全球不平等的现象。
也许有人会反对这种基于市场的社会变革，他们认为如果把感情和自利结合在一起，市场的作用范围不会扩大，相反会缩小。但亚当·斯密，这位资本主义的鼻祖，《国富论》的作者，这位坚信自利对于社会的价值的思想家，在他的第一本著作的开卷部分这么写道：无论把人看成多么自私，在人的本性中明显地存在某些根本原则：一个人对改善别人的命运产生兴趣，将别人的快乐当成是自己的必需，虽然从中他并不能获得什么，只是看见它就感到满足。
创新型资本主义把这种对他人命运的兴趣与对自己命运的关心联系起来，既可以帮助他人，同时也可以提升自己。与单纯的自利行为相比，利己与利他相结合能够惠及更多的人。
创新型的资本主义将商业专长和发展中国家的需要相结合，在发展中国家，市场一直存在，只是没有企业去开辟。有些时候，市场经济的做法在发展中国家行不通，并不是在发展中国家不存在需求，或是他们缺钱，真正的原因是企业没有花足够的时间来研究该市场的需求。普拉哈拉德在他的著作《金字塔底层的财富》中对此有相当精彩的论述。此书对很多公司和企业产生了巨大的影响，它帮助这些企业通过特殊的创新拓展了赢利空间。
在这里我可以举一个例子。世界卫生组织希望在非洲扩大脑膜炎疫苗的接种范围。但它没有直接去和生产疫苗的厂商接触，它先是到非洲了解人们的支付能力。该组织了解到如果要让非洲的母亲为她们的孩子接种脑膜炎疫苗，那疫苗的价格不能超过50美分。随后世界卫生组织要求合作厂商按这个价格标准组织生产。事实上，一家印度的制药企业找到一种新的生产方法，将售价降到了40美分。世界卫生组织允许该企业在未来十年为公共卫生体系提供2.5亿支脑膜炎疫苗，同时允许它将产品卖给私营医疗机构。
另一个例子是有一家荷兰的制药企业拥有一种疫苗的产权。该企业对在发达国家生产该疫苗的企业收取专利费，而免除发展中国家生产该疫苗企业的专利费。结果在越南生产这种疫苗的成本还不到1美元，而且这1美元当中还包含了运费和免疫宣传费用。
因为今天许多重要产品的边际费用已经很低了，软件、医药、媒体作品等等都是如此。这种分级定价的做法能够让没钱的人也可以买得起一些有价值的产品。这种定价方式其实可以在更大的范围内进行推广。
我所举的这些项目能够给我们一点启示。致力于满足发展中国家需要的人要和科学家一起合作，因为科学家知道可以在哪里实现突破，这一点在软件业和医药行业都一样。两方面的人结合在一起就可以找到办法让好的想法在贫穷国家得到实施。
另一个实现创新型资本主义的办法需要政府的直接参与。当然政府在帮扶穷人方面已经做了大量的工作。这就不仅仅是培育市场方面的努力，政府在援助、科研和医疗卫生方面投入了大量财力。这些工作都非常有意义。但我认为政府最能够调动资源的做法是出台政策，通过市场的方式鼓励企业为改善贫困人口生活来做出努力。
布什总统最近签署了一个法案，根据该法案，如果一家制药公司为疟疾或肺结核这样长期受到忽视的疾病开发出了一种新的治疗手段，则该公司高利润的产品，比如治疗胆固醇的药物就可以提早两年上市销售，这种优先权可能意味着上亿美元的市场。
还有个实现创新型资本主义的办法，那就是帮助贫困国家的企业进入发达国家的市场。明天我会在此宣布一个合作计划，这个计划将帮助非洲农民进入上等咖啡市场。计划的目的是要让这些农民种植咖啡的收入能够增加一倍。它帮助非洲农民种植优质咖啡，帮助他们与需要购买咖啡的企业建立联系。最终计划将使咖啡种植农民和他们的家庭摆脱贫困。
最后，还有一种实现创新型资本主义的最有创意的方式。几年前的一个深夜，我和Bono(U2主唱)在达沃斯小镇上的一个酒吧里闲聊。在小酌了几杯后，Bono变得非常激动，他和我谈起我们要用什么方法让那些具备公益心的企业拿出销售收入的一小部分来帮助改变整个世界。那天晚上，他不停地打电话，把别人从睡梦中叫醒，然后还把电话交给我，让我知道他们对此都很感兴趣。我们用了不少时间才启动这项工作。
但Bono说得对，如果一个人意识到他在购买一件好产品的同时还有机会参与一项他非常重视的社会事业，那他一定会非常乐意购买。红色运动就是这样在达沃斯诞生的。GAP、摩托罗拉、阿玛尼等公司的产品都参与了这项活动。
本周，这些公司的代表在微软相聚，商量下一步的发展。在过去的一年半时间里，我们通过这项运动筹集了1500万美元在全球范围内防治艾滋病、肺结核和疟疾。它的成果便是今天在非洲差不多有两百万人得到了救命的药品。现在世界上越来越多的人认识到，如果有合适的激励方式，那么改变就可以持续进行。因为利润和认可是可以不断更新的资源。
更为重要的是在这个基础上，全世界的企业家不论性别都可以把他们改善生活的想法转化为人们可以购买得起的产品和服务。克林顿总统作为非赢利组织成员，帮助发达国家的生产商和贫困国家的消费者建立联系，他在当中发挥了独特的作用。有的企业还为他们所认为的社会资本主义专门设立了奖项。
我只是举了几个例子来说明世界上对这样的创新型制度体系有了越来越浓厚的兴趣。这会是个全球性的运动，我们每一个人都有能力而且有责任来加速推动这个进程。在座诸位，无论你们是来自企业，还是政府，或是非营利机构，我想请你们在新的一年里一同从事创新型资本主义的活动举措。看看我们是否能够扩展市场经济的影响，我们要做成一些事，无论这会是国际援助的，还是慈善捐赠，或是一项新产品。
各位能否应用这样一个创新型的制度体系，让市场的力量发挥作用来帮助穷人？我希望公司企业可以安排最有创新能力的研发人员拿出一部分时间来考虑这些问题，从而帮助人们一起来推动全球经济。这类贡献会比直接捐赠现金更有价值。你们或许可以给员工放假让他们从事志愿者工作，这样便是让公司集中发挥你们最擅长的优势。这也是创新型资本主义的一种形式，因为这种智慧在让有钱人生活得更好之后，又开始致力改善所有人的生活。
目前已经有许多制药企业，像葛兰素·史克公司，他们让最有创造能力的研发人员开发帮助穷人的药物。日本的住友化工利用他们的专长建好蚊帐工厂后再捐赠出去。其实在食品、高科技、移动电话，以及银行业都有许多这样的例子。事实上我想说的是如果各行业的企业都可以做到像这些公司一样，那世界的不平等现象就会有极大的改观。
我们处在一个非同寻常的时代。如果我们能够在21世纪的前几十年探索到满足贫困人口需要的方式，找到为企业带来利润和认可的办法，那么我们减少世界贫困的努力就可以一直持续下去。这个任务永远都不会结束。能投身这项事业，我内心激动不已。
6、急需全球化是机遇的英语演讲搞
Globalization. It's a new word—so new in fact that my 1997 Microsoft Word program underlines it in red. The term does not stir my emotions, but that bland reaction is obviously not shared by the thousands of demonstrators who appeared in Quebec City last week to protest against a new manifestation of globalization, the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas.
Commentators have called attention to the diversity of causes and tactics represented at Quebec City and earlier demonstrations. At one end of the spectrum were self-described anarchists who condemned virtually all international economic activity. At the other end were law-abiding groups that could accept liberalized trade and investment, but only if linked to the mandatory observance of meaningful labor and environmental standards.
The interesting thing is that neither of these positions, extreme or moderate, would seem likely to resonate with US voters. The vast majority of Americans are repelled by violence, and only a minority is seriously moved by environmental degradation or poor working conditions in developing countries. Yet ring the last decade US opponents of globalization succeeded in stymieing the Clinton Administration's efforts to win renewed "fast track" authority, now renamed "trade promotion authority," to negotiate trade agreements.
How is this possible if these groups and their agendas do not appeal to mainstream America?
To answer this question, let me begin by defining globalization. My learned colleagues at the Institute for International Economics describe it as "the increased integration of proct and factor markets across countries via trade, immigration, and capital flows." To me, it is simply the increased cross-border flow of goods, services, people, and capital.
Whatever the definition, globalization is certainly a fact for the United States-and has been since 1960.
US imports as a share of gross domestic proct have risen from a scant 2 percent in 1959 to 12 percent in 1999.
Legal immigration has almost trebled from the 1960s to the 1990s, and the addition of illegals would expand current figures significantly. The percentage of foreign-born in the US population has grown from 5 percent in 1960 to 10 percent in 2000.
Foreign direct investment by US firms has increased from 7 percent of GDP in 1982 to 28 percent last year.
As the US economy was becoming increasingly globalized, the gap widened between the wages paid to more-skilled and less-skilled workers as measured by ecational level. In 1979, for example, male college-ecated workers earned 30 percent more than their high school-ecated counterparts. By 1995 the premium for college-ecated workers had risen to about 70 percent.
The effect of this increasing wage disparity among American workers has been compounded since 1973 by a fall in average real wages. US average real weekly earnings peaked in 1973 at nearly $320. They then fell to under $260 by the mid-1990s and recovered to only $280 last year.
You can quickly see the result of an increasing wage disparity and a falling average wage: sluggish to negative real-wage growth for most US workers. The lower the skill level, the greater the fall in real wages. Only workers in the top 10 percent of the overall wage distribution received higher real wages in 1998 than in 1979; earnings for the remaining 90 percent fell or stagnated. This development is radically different than the situation from 1948 through 1973, when family income for the lowest quintile grew faster than that for the highest.
Stagnant or falling wages are bad enough, but there is something even worse-job loss. In a book that will appear this summer, Lori Kletzer of our Institute examines the fates of workers who have lost their jobs in instries most impacted by import competition, such as textiles, apparel, footwear, and motor vehicles. During the 15 years ending in 1994, these workers accounted for about 39 percent of the 4.6 million manufacturing jobs lost.
Kletzer reports that indivial outcomes varied considerably. About one-third of these workers found new jobs at wages equal or better than they previously received, generally in their previous instry of employment. But 25 percent reported earnings losses of 30 percent or more.
Women suffer disproportionately as they are more likely to be employed in and displaced from import-competing instries. Married women are especially disadvantaged as they are seven percentage points less likely than married men to become reemployed. Their towns presumably do not offer alternative employment, and they are unable to relocate when their husbands still have relatively good jobs.
To summarize, then, we have three simultaneous developments. The US economy has become increasingly globalized, wages of most workers have dropped or stagnated, and most workers laid off in import-competing instries cannot find jobs at their previous pay level. Now here's a big question: Have developments two and three been caused by development one? Is globalization the culprit?
The answer is a qualified no. Most economic research indicates that technological change favoring skilled workers has been the main cause of wage and job loss in the US economy. Unskilled workers are less needed as proction processes become more efficient, and therefore their relative wages drop. This is not to say that imports, proction outsourcing, and immigration have had no effect, only that the influence of these globalization factors is substantially less than that of technological change.
But there is an even bigger question, measured in political terms: Do Americans believe that globalization is responsible for wage and job loss? The answer to this question is provided in Globalization and the Perceptions of American Workers, a book recently published by our Institute. The authors, Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter, analyzed a wealth of polling data on this question, breaking down the responses by the skill levels of the respondents as measured by ecational achievement or average wage, in addition to other factors.
According to Scheve and Slaughter's findings, large majorities of Americans think that trade generates the benefits predicted by economics. (Good news for economists.) However, nearly 90 percent claim that imports destroy American jobs. What's more, when asked a question that mentions both the benefits and costs of trade, a plurality or majority of respondents emphasized the costs, not the benefits. Even when a pollster explained that the cost of saving a job in the apparel instry was more than $50,000 and the 1997 average wage in the instry was $18,000, nearly two-thirds of the respondents still said the cost was worth it. Similarly, a plurality or majority of Americans want fewer immigrants coming into the country and less foreign direct investment because of perceived labor-market costs.
Further analysis of these data proces even more interesting results. Scheve and Slaughter found that preferences about trade and immigration policy divide strongly across skill levels without regard to instry. Less-skilled indivials, measured in terms of ecation or wages, are much more likely to oppose freer trade and immigration than their more-skilled counterparts.
Even more intriguing, there is no strong evidence to support several pearls of conventional wisdom. For trade, instry of employment is not systematically related to a worker's attitude toward trade policy. Workers in "trade exposed" instries like textiles and apparel are not more likely to oppose freer trade than their equally skilled counterparts in other instries. For immigration, people living in gateway communities in California are not more or less likely to oppose freer immigration than other Americans.
Let me try to pull all this together. Most Americans appreciate the overall economic benefits of globalization. However, they also understand that increased trade, investment, and immigration proces losers as well as winners, even though the gains outweigh the losses. Workers at lower skill levels empathize with the losers, even when-and this is important-they themselves are not likely to be losers because of their instry of employment or area of residence. These perceptions seem chiefly responsible for American concerns about globalization-not the demonstrators' demands for improved labor and environmental standards abroad, except insofar as these international humanitarian objectives are understood to be proxies for domestic economic goals.
If this analysis is correct, supporters of freer trade, investment, and immigration would be well advised to find ways of assisting less-skilled workers threatened by a changing economy. Core labor and environmental standards-the demands of many antiglobalization protesters-may be important in themselves, but they will not allay the visceral concerns of Americans about jobs and wages. Globalization is a positive-sum game, but means must be found for American winners to share their gains with American losers or the play cannot continue.
In this regard, Lori Kletzer of our Institute and Robert Litan of Brookings have proposed a new safety net of health and wage insurance for displaced workers-regardless of the reason for their job loss. All full-time displaced workers would be eligible for health insurance coverage for up to six months until they found a new job. In addition, eligible workers would receive some portion of their wage loss for up to two years following the date of job loss, but would start receiving that benefit only when they found new jobs. The limitations on these benefits are intended to encourage rapid reemployment, even in trainee positions where the displaced worker would initially take a pay cut. Their cost would be surprisingly low-only $3.6 billion in 1997, when the national unemployment rate averaged 4.9 percent, if the program covered half the loss in wages.
The Kletzer-Litan proposal offers a partial solution to our current political quandary, but additional measures will probably be required. The point is that we must begin to see the opportunities and challenges of globalization as they are and deal realistically with them. Demonstration and denial are not adequate responses. Instead, we must reason together across age, class, and party lines to craft solutions that will benefit all Americans.
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=408