There have been many debates over the topic of globalization. World leaders, businessmen, politicians, and corporation from all over the world have all provided valid reasons as to how globalization has provided opportunities for people and growth for the economy. On the other hand, others have strongly expressed disagreement, suggesting that the economy is the only beneficiary making gains yet the people who are working to help with the progress such as the workers are not being fairly compensated. This issue has caused a fire storm of controversy and people increasingly are expressing their own ideas to prove that globalization truly as its own benefits or drawbacks.

I would omit this sentence, as it is very obvious and doesn't tell us anything we don't know.

This sentence is better than the first because it provides reasons for defending globalization, but it is wordy.

This sentence attempts to state a reason for criticizing globalization, but the sentence is unclear--I don't understand "the economy is the only beneficiary making gains." I would rewrite this sentence as: "Others have strongly disagreed, suggesting that workers are not being fairly compensated."

Again, I would omit this sentence as unnecessary. Now I would have to write two or three more sentences to complete the paragraph.

Globalization has brought into sharper focus the disparities among nations. It has also highlighted the resulting problems of many developing countries in their effort to catch up with the developed nations. Rapid increase in the standard of living and in the accumulation of wealth, especially in the developing countries, serves to highlight the benefits of globalization but the problems which are related to this rapid growth are as equally conspicuous. While globalization has brought prosperity to citizens of both developed and developing countries, it seems to favor the wealthiest sections in these societies. It is worthwhile to examine whether or not globalization is causing greater inequalities than what existed before. If globalization continues in its present from, then it seems that its effects will lead to greater inequalities among and within nations.

Globalization has brought into sharper focus the disparities among nations and highlighted the problems of many developing countries in catching up with the developed nations.

This sentence is very hard to understand and seems to repeat the first two sentences. I would omit it.

Okay.

Omit. Unnecessary.

Globalization has brought into sharper focus the disparities among nations and highlighted the problems of many developing countries in catching up to the developed nations. While globalization has brought prosperity to citizens of both developed and developing countries, it seems to favor the wealthiest in these societies. If globalization continues in its present from, it will lead to greater inequalities among and within nations.

There are at least two very different schools of thought on the issue of income inequality. All of the members of the first of the two schools — this includes populist politicians and a few economists — say that they think the key issue is of economic power. The haves exercise more power over the have-nots. And you can see that as a result of them exercising more power, corporate profits take off and soar, while on the other hand wages just stagnate. Money-drenched, rich politicians push through shareholder-friendly trade deals that benefit shareholders and outsource American jobs while at the same time job insecurity skyrockets to the sky. C.E.O.’s get absurd salaries while the other 99 percent of earners can only enjoy a few benefits if they are lucky from productivity gains. So in the end the unions are weakened while manufacturing wages tumble and then the middle class suffers.

In short, populists give the argument, the market is a broken market. The rules are not fair because they are rigged. The reigning ideology that rules in Washington must be upended. Unions are in need of being revived. Globalization needs to be organized again.

The big problem with this narrative is that it doesn’t really fit the facts. First, if you look at it, workers over all are not getting a smaller slice of the pie of wages and benefits. Wages and benefits have made up roughly the same share of G.D.P. going back for 50 years. And then second there is the fact that offshore outsourcing is not at all decimating employment. It is true according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, outsourcing is itself responsible for only 1.9 percent of the layoffs out there, and the efficiencies it produces create more jobs and jobs at better wages than the ones destroyed by the outsourcing, which means sending jobs overseas, like to China.

\