As arshad already explainied how the RTA impacted job and wasges of the meixco ppl during dat era it shows that globalization does effect the agricultuy and manufacturing workers

1) Subisidies of corn sector
In 2000, U.S. government subsidies to the corn sector totaled $10.1 billion. These subsidies have led to charges of dumping, which jeopardizes Mexican farms and the country's food self-sufficiency.

2) Globalization and employment
Nafta did deliver as expected: Exports and foreign direct investment tripled from the early 1990s as Mexico became a leading supplier of cars, electronics and a broad variety of industrial parts to the United States. Productivity in Mexican manufacturing rose 80 percent.
But annual economic growth averaged only 1.6 percent per capita between 1992 and 2007 — low even by Mexican standards until the 1980s.
American jobs did move south, particularly into the export sector. The growth in services — new supermarkets, banks, tourism — also created jobs. But overall, Mexico was unable to create enough jobs to make up for all the jobs lost because of competition from imports, particularly purchases of subsidized grains from the United States.
The oversupply of labor, along with government policies that succeeded in keeping wages low, have led to a slight increase in the gap between average wages in the United States and Mexico — precisely the opposite of what Nafta was expected to do.

* Unfair competition among import and domestic market

In many developing countries, the liberalisation of imports has resulted in intense competition from imports that have threatened to displace some of the products of small farmers from their own domestic market. The competition emanating from imports has not been fair, in many cases. This is because imports coming from developed countries are usually heavily subsidized, and thus their prices are artificially cheapened. On the other hand, the farmers of developing countries are usually not subsidized.

Where Inclusive growth is taken into consideration the impact of globalization on Indian economy is severely bad as more than half the population depends on agriculture for their livelihood and due to the low agriculatural growth as a reason of globalization is not making the growth inculusive

The liberalisation of India's economy was adopted by India in 1991. Facing a severe economic crisis, India approached the IMF for a loan, and the IMF granted what is called a 'structural adjustment' loan, which is a loan with certain conditions attached which relate to a structural change in the economy.. These reforms (broadly called Liberalisation by the Indian media) can be broadly classified into three areas: Liberalisation, privatization and globalization. Essentially, the reforms sought to gradually phase out government control of the market (liberalisation), privatize public sector organizations (privatization), and reduce export subsidies and import barriers to enable free trade (globalization). There was a considerable amount of debate in India at the time of the introduction of the reforms, it being a dramatic departure from the protectionist, socialist nature of the Indian economy up until then. However, reforms in the agricultural sector in particular came under severe criticism in the late 1990s, when 221 farmers in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh committed suicide. (The damage done, 2005) The trend was noticed in several other states, and the figure today, according to a leading journalist and activist, P. Sainath1, stands at 100,000 across the country. (Sainath, 2006) Coupled with this was a sharp drop in agricultural growth from 4.69% in 1991 to 2.06% in 1997. (Agriculture Statistics at a Glance, 2006)

The Growth rate in Agriculture declined from 1990’s to 2007. Further, Growth rate in employment in rural areas was also declined during the post-reform period the support of Government for griculture sector development have been gradually declined during the reform period. Thus the impact of globalization on agriculture sector has worsened. Hence, there is need to bring out structural changes for strengthening agricultural sector

IMPLACT ON MANUFACTURING WORKERS IN INDIA
According to an estimate, imports from foreign countries have killed as many as 4 lakh small and medium size industries in India. A large number of industrial units have downed their shutters in Mumbai, Thane, Belapur, Bhiwandi, Aurangabad, Kanpur, Aligarh, Indore and several other towns. As many as 60 per cent of powerlooms are silent in Bhiwandi. In Aligarh, small firms engaged in making locks and other hardware for generations together, are closing down in droves. In Maharashtra, we will find every second factory closed if you pass through the Thane-Belapur complex.

After use of Monsanto’s BT cotton in 2002 the rate of suicide in Indian farmers increased drastically. 90% of Indian cotton farmers changed to Monsanto’s Bt crop hoping that Bt crop are pest resistant and they do not have to buy pesticides. However after a while Bt cotton’s pests resistant quality started fading away and pests adapted so farmers had no choice but to buy and use Monsanto's pesticides. The fact that farmers have to buy new seeds every year, the costly use of GM seeds, use of pesticides and great reduction in crop value have often times left farmers bankrupt and as a result many farmers are falling into the endless cycle of debt, depression, hopelessness and despair and they have no choice but to ends their lives. T As a result of Monsanto’s GM seeds many families of farmers have lost their livelihood and lands and are left on their own to struggle with starvation and misery. 1.1 billion or 60% of Indian population are directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture.. Farmers are forced to buy their seeds, buy their pesticides and buy new seeds every year and every time their crops fail and as a result farmers have no choice but to give up on their farm lands or their lives while Monsanto makes more profit every year.

HAVE TO BUY EVERY YEAR > MORE PRONE TO DIESASE > AND CLAIMS WERE DOUBLE RETURNS > THEY ARE TAKEN SIGN > PEISTICDE R NEEDE TO B BOUGHT