When we say that there is not a level playing field, we refer to the fact that wages in China are many times lower than in the United States or other major OECD countries. For example, in a recent paper by a Chinese expert, UN figures are quoted to show that unit labor costs in China are just 2.1% of those in the United States, which is considerably lower than those in India, a fourth of those in the Philippines, and about 1/20th of those in Taiwan.(UNCTAD Trade and Development Report, 2002) It is also common knowledge that China does not have the labor laws that are common in more developed countries, nor the health and safety regulations, nor the environmental protections. All these things are costly for producers in developed countries; they are often as effective as labor differentials in inducing transferring production to China. For a cogent recent discussion of these issues by more knowledgeable observers click here.

We realize that in the very long run, it may be best for everyone to have free and unencumbered trade. These disparities will eventually be ironed out. However, "the long run" and "everyone" are disembodied concepts that do little to resolve the here and now "problems of transition" that are inevitable accompaniments of globalization.

In the short term, globalization means that at least in the developed countries the wealthier get wealthier and the less wealthy get even less wealthy. Capital can make the transition much more rapidly and efficiently than labor. This leads to the apparent anomaly of a rising stock market with stagnant employment.

We are not forgetting that consumers in the developed countries benefit from lower prices on many goods. At first, these lower prices meant lower quality, but increasingly this is no longer so. But we would point out that for the OECD person without a job, or with a drop in wages and prospects due to an elimination of the job he or she had hoped to have, this consumer effect has little meaning.

Beyond economic issues there are many broader issues of globalization. To the extent that the American market becomes dependent on products made in China, the more distinctions between American and Chinese products are erased. The more these distinctions are erased. the more people everywhere will feel they that they must produce the same products in the same way to reach the same markets, and the more they will be compelled by the market into consuming the same products.

A world thoroughly globalized in this way will be a far less interesting place to live in than the fractionated world of the past. If this outcome does not move our readers, perhaps they should consider the fact that much of the cultural progress of the past has been fueled by the borrowing of products and ideas from one another by relatively distinct cultural units. As globalization proceeds, the frequency of this kind of borrowing will soon peak (if it has not already) and then rapidly decline. Whether other kinds of borrowing among non-geographically distinct "units" will take up the slack is yet to be seen. Comparing by analogy cultural diversity to biological diversity, it should be noted that within a biological species, as genetic variation decreases, it is commonly assumed that the danger to the health and continuation of the species increases.