Globalization: Who decides if the world is flat or spiky?
Friedman (2005) and Florida (2005) present opposing ideas on the effects of globalization on America and international countries. Friedman (2005) believes that the world is flat; barriers dissolved and allowed communication between countries on one side of the world to another because of access to cyberspace. Friedman (2005) is claiming that everyone who has access to digital technology are equal and no one has an unfair advantage over the other. Florida (2005) disagrees that the world is flat. He found various locations with different types of structures he calls the “economic landscape” which are “spiky” not flat (p.48).
In their writings on globalization, both Friedman (2005) …show more content…
Florida (2005), believes that the flat world theory does not belong in the discussion of globalization, believing that the flat world is more appropriate in the discussion of economic development of the rich and the poor countries (p.51). Friedman (2005) asserts that there is a history of globalization starting with Christopher Columbus’ trip to India. This voyage identified by Friedman (2005) as Globalization 1.0, because of the discoveries made during this time this led to acceptance that the world was smaller than previously imagined (p.3). Globalization 2.0 (Friedman, 2005) proved that the world was not as large as it appeared because of changes made from agriculture to producing commodities and services (p.3). During the year 2000 (Friedman, 2005), Globalization 3.0 started with populations all over the world having access to digital technology (p.3). Because of this development, Friedman suggested this era of globalization was different, everyone was equal, and in this age of technological advancement, people had more control over the decisions in their lives (p.3). Friedman’s (2005) theory on how the world became flat is the result of 10 events that happened over a 10-year period, he called flatteners (p. 6). The first event was the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and then “Microsoft Windows 3.0 …show more content…
Florida (2005) did provide some statistical data but his study could have continued into other areas. Friedman (2005) did not offer any scientific reasoning to back his information, other than telling readers where he has traveled and who he contacted. Friedman (2005) finishes his article by discussing that America needs to become more involved and aware of problems that concern society if they want to continue being a global power. Men and women are needed to be more involved in studies of “science and engineering” (Friedman, 2005, p.11). Young adults are not graduating with degrees in these areas, causing a gap in productivity and creation of new ideas; Friedman’s (2005) view is that United States citizens have become lazy (p. 12). Friedman (2005) is saying that if schools, children, and society do not change their attitude and willingness to succeed, American could be in trouble (p.13). While Friedman (2005) thinks young adults have no drive or willingness to get off the coach, Florida (2005) thinks that cities need to be more appealing to attract talented people so their knowledge and enthusiasm can be used to continue with innovation. Continued advancement in production and new ideas requires people who want to make changes; to keep cities going strong or cost-effective measures will have to be taken.
Friedman (2005) and Florida (2005) present opposing ideas on the effects of globalization on America and international countries. Friedman (2005) believes that the world is flat; barriers dissolved and allowed communication between countries on one side of the world to another because of access to cyberspace. Friedman (2005) is claiming that everyone who has access to digital technology are equal and no one has an unfair advantage over the other. Florida (2005) disagrees that the world is flat. He found various locations with different types of structures he calls the “economic landscape” which are “spiky” not flat (p.48).
In their writings on globalization, both Friedman (2005) …show more content…
Florida (2005), believes that the flat world theory does not belong in the discussion of globalization, believing that the flat world is more appropriate in the discussion of economic development of the rich and the poor countries (p.51). Friedman (2005) asserts that there is a history of globalization starting with Christopher Columbus’ trip to India. This voyage identified by Friedman (2005) as Globalization 1.0, because of the discoveries made during this time this led to acceptance that the world was smaller than previously imagined (p.3). Globalization 2.0 (Friedman, 2005) proved that the world was not as large as it appeared because of changes made from agriculture to producing commodities and services (p.3). During the year 2000 (Friedman, 2005), Globalization 3.0 started with populations all over the world having access to digital technology (p.3). Because of this development, Friedman suggested this era of globalization was different, everyone was equal, and in this age of technological advancement, people had more control over the decisions in their lives (p.3). Friedman’s (2005) theory on how the world became flat is the result of 10 events that happened over a 10-year period, he called flatteners (p. 6). The first event was the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and then “Microsoft Windows 3.0 …show more content…
Florida (2005) did provide some statistical data but his study could have continued into other areas. Friedman (2005) did not offer any scientific reasoning to back his information, other than telling readers where he has traveled and who he contacted. Friedman (2005) finishes his article by discussing that America needs to become more involved and aware of problems that concern society if they want to continue being a global power. Men and women are needed to be more involved in studies of “science and engineering” (Friedman, 2005, p.11). Young adults are not graduating with degrees in these areas, causing a gap in productivity and creation of new ideas; Friedman’s (2005) view is that United States citizens have become lazy (p. 12). Friedman (2005) is saying that if schools, children, and society do not change their attitude and willingness to succeed, American could be in trouble (p.13). While Friedman (2005) thinks young adults have no drive or willingness to get off the coach, Florida (2005) thinks that cities need to be more appealing to attract talented people so their knowledge and enthusiasm can be used to continue with innovation. Continued advancement in production and new ideas requires people who want to make changes; to keep cities going strong or cost-effective measures will have to be taken.