Outsourcing has shown that the quality of work does not diminish even if someone who lives at the side of the world does the work. This situation is largely dependent on the amount and quality of investment in enriching human capital in the developing world, i.e. through a more relevant curriculum, which matches the needs of the labor market.
Off shoring, on the hand, works differently. Friedman noted that off shoring involves the transfer of one factory to another place that produces the same product, in the very same way, only with cheap labor, lower taxes, subsidized energy and lower health cost. Competition among offshore sites now persists as manufacturing centers are now transferred to the developing countries. In my view, to some extent off shoring has led to a degree of exploitation especially to its low skilled labor sector. Paying its workers on subsistence, multinational companies could opt to transfer its base to another country if it sees it has cheaper labor. Leaving the other country, its low skilled labor force is forced to fend for itself. Off shoring is not about the quality of the workforce; it all boils down on how low the price of labor is. While off shoring may be an attractive approach on the short-term, its long-term effects should be considered, that of its implications to the environment in particular.
Supply sharing is a method of collaborating horizontally among suppliers, retailers and customers to create value. Friedman mentioned the coefficient of flatness -- the fewer natural resources one's company/country, the more you will dig inside yourself for innovations in order to survive. This particular concept brings into mind Rostow's - age of high mass consumption - the rise of consumerism which leveled the globe and is attributed largely to the increasing influence of capitalism. This however, is constrained by the purchasing...
) My opinion Both Friedman's argument and Druicker's perspective have their particular merits. We can well see how Friedman may be correct. After all, there are fewer wars now than in the past; the world is more closely interconnected; resources are sparser; and countries are earnestly concentered about their economic welfare. Friedman's reasoning does sound legitimate enough and it explains why many countries are deterred from fighting. On the other hand, it
The discussion here remains open and this is one of the points where the author is merely raising a question rather than coming with a straight answer. One could argue here in favor of a positive globalization effect involving countries that joined the new economic world after a change of regime, using the example of Nokia. The company first moved with the production from Finland to Germany and this
William Duiker's "fragmentation" argument, found in his Contemporary World History, Fifth Edition (Duiker), acknowledges the fact of globalization and states that Friedman's discussion about the impact of globalization is "stimulating" (Duiker 351). Simultaneously, Duiker believes that there is a reaction to globalization. Duiker believes that societies will react to the globalization trend by trying to preserve: local interests such as local businesses and jobs; their identities; and their senses of
NASA cannot afford to create new technology, and that is a sign of our lack of support of new science and engineering, something that could be critically short in years to come. In conclusion, there are clearly many advantages to the flat world economy that has developed with the advent of the 21st century, and Friedman does a good job of spelling out those advantages quite well. There are disadvantages,
World Is Flat by Tom Friedman From the term "The World is flat," Tom Friedman means the international competitive ground is being leveled. It is now possible for individuals to work together and contend directly with others on different types of work from different sides of the globe and on an equivalent ground than in the world history. Friedman considers that this "flattening" around the globe is the result of ten
World Is Flat: The Impact of Globalization on the United States In the best-selling book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman provides a well-researched series of chapters that detail how globalization and the congruency of cultures is making country-level differentiation more challenging to achieve. His contention is that globalization is being caused by the combination of Internet-based technologies and platforms, combined with low-cost labor and higher educational standards in emerging nations
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now