Has the flattening of the world exacerbated the global wealth gap?

Re: Does the Globalization Process Exacerbate the Wealth Gap Worldwide?

This is an excellent question, as it touches on one of the core contradictions of our era. In my view, the answer isn't a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Globalization is more like a double-edged sword—it simultaneously produces two seemingly contradictory effects.

On the Positive Side: The Global "Grand Canyon" is Narrowing

If we take a broad perspective and compare nations, globalization has indeed made many poor countries wealthier.

Think of it this way: Before globalization, the world resembled isolated villages. Wealthy villages (developed nations) possessed advanced technology, capital, and knowledge, while poor villages (developing nations) lacked everything and struggled to survive within their small plots of land—a massive gap existed.

Globalization essentially built roads and connected the internet between these villages.

Capital Flow: Money (investment) from rich villages flowed into poor villages to build factories.
Technology Transfer: Technology and management expertise from rich villages followed.
Market Expansion: Goods produced in poor villages (like clothing, shoes, toys) could be sold in rich villages, generating unprecedented income.

The most prominent examples are China, Vietnam, India, and similar nations. Over decades, countless factories sprang up, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty through their participation in global production chains, significantly improving living standards.

From this perspective, globalization has narrowed the average standard of living gap between developed nations and a large group of developing countries. That once seemingly insurmountable "Grand Canyon" is indeed becoming narrower.

On the Negative Side: Domestic "Small Chasms" are Widening

Here's the catch: Even with the roads built, not everyone within the villages benefits. This is globalization's most contentious aspect: it often intensifies wealth disparity within countries themselves.

This manifests in two ways:

1. Within Developing Nations ("Poor Villages")

Who got richer? Those who seized the opportunities brought by globalization. Examples include those with foreign language skills, technical expertise, residents of coastal port cities, factory owners, and those doing business with foreign companies. Their wealth has skyrocketed.
Who was left behind? Farmers in inland areas, ordinary workers without specialized skills, and those in traditional industries. Not only did they miss out on globalization's benefits, but their lives may have worsened due to factory pollution, land expropriation, or competition from cheap imported goods.

The result: Factory owners and young urban white-collar professionals grow increasingly wealthy, while traditional farmers remain stagnant or even regress. Domestic wealth inequality has surged dramatically.

2. Within Developed Nations ("Rich Villages")

Who got richer? Capital owners (e.g., shareholders of large corporations), financial elites, and high-tech professionals. They can relocate factories to lower-cost labor markets for greater profits, or leverage global markets for their high-tech products and services.
Who got poorer? Traditional manufacturing workers (the blue-collar class). Their jobs migrated overseas, leaving them unemployed or forced into lower-paying, less stable work. America's "Rust Belt" is a classic example.

The result: Silicon Valley engineers and Wall Street bankers grow richer, while Detroit auto workers face decline. Societies split into "winners of globalization" and "losers of globalization".

A Simple Analogy

Imagine an entire class (the world) taking a test.

Before globalization: Top students (developed nations) and underperforming students (developing nations) had large score gaps.
Globalization begins: The teacher suddenly announces an "open-book test"! Everyone can consult each other's notes and answers (free flow of capital, technology, information).
- Outcome 1 (Between nations): The underperforming students can finally see the top students' solutions. Their average scores rise significantly, narrowing the gap with the top students.
- Outcome 2 (Within nations): Among the underperforming group, quick-witted, fast-learning students (opportunity-grabbers) see their scores soar, while others who struggle to grasp the notes or learn slowly (those left behind) see little improvement, falling further behind. Even within the top student group, the very best leverage the opportunity to become stronger, while upper-middle students may feel increased competitive pressure.

So, What's the Conclusion?

Globalization itself is neither a "good guy" nor a "bad guy." It's more like an amplifier and accelerator.

It dramatically increases global wealth, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, reducing the gap between nations on a macro level. However, like a high-speed engine, it disproportionately allocates benefits to those already possessing capital, technology, and knowledge, thereby exacerbating wealth inequality within almost every nation on a micro level.

Therefore, the global debate now focuses not on whether to globalize, but on how to manage globalization. Key questions include: How can domestic policies—like taxation, social welfare systems, education, and retraining programs—help those left behind by globalization's tide share in its benefits? This is the crucial area needing solutions.