Eurythmics - "Sweet Dreams " 
One for the thumb!
M: 5
The world is flat. FLAT I tell you.
And so does Thomas Friedman. Yes, it took me almost two months to finally finish it, but finish it I did. Firstly, I'm not sure where people got the idea that I'm some huge Friedman follower. I think he's a little too quick to rally behind the idea that bringing modernized ideas of commerce and "work" to different cultures without considering certain cultural ramifications. I think he has a propensity to take a trip, see only what the people organizing the trip want for him to see and then get overly excited about "progress." I also think he's overly optimistic about the future of the American worker over the next half century or so, but that's possibly like looking into a crystal ball, so I let it go.
Friedman spends the first 200 pages of this book explaining to us how the global playing field became flat, which in case you didn't know was a combination of the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War, the dotcom boom and bust, and then a ton of technological advances including the laying of many cables, creation of shared office applications, the internet. All of the obvious things. I'm sure these 200 pages are interesting if you didn't live through all or most of this, but if you were there when you realized that email had changed the game and IM meant somebody 25000 miles away could be right there in the room next to you, then you read those first 200 pages as a way to get to the rest of the book, which is where the interesting parts to you are.
After explaining to the rest of the world how most of us ended up living in a global work environment, Friedman explains how the Indians and Chinese are about to kick our asses. But he does it in such a way that he's just horribly optimistic about it. Like as in (not a direct quote), "But when we source all of the data entry and phone processing and putting things together to places other than the US, we can be left to INNOVATE!!!!!"
And of course I see his point, in theory. In reality, I'm not sure who will be doing all of this INNOVATION he speaks so highly of. I spend a non insignificant amount of time with the teenagers. I'm sure there are some smart kids out there in the US, brilliant even. I'm not sure we're fostering another generation of great innovators. To hear Friedman talk, once we've outsourced all of the "other" work, America will be full of people who have higher level jobs. No janitors! No fast food cooks! No data entry personnel! No Wal-Mart greeters!
Here's a flash: There will always be janitors. There will always be fast food cooks. There will always be data entry folk. There will always be Wal-Mart greeters. What there may not be is enough jobs for the number of peole without the science, math and critical thinking skills needed to "innovate."
Look, let me say, I love the global flat workplace. For Ma.gnolia, the entire team met in the same room exactly once. Many, many months ago. The entire product was created virtually. Meetings were held via iChat. Processes were handled via online project management tools. And I loved it. And it worked. But, the idea that many mid to lower level jobs be leaving the US isn't, you know, we all can't all have innovation jobs. There are lots of people who need to be janitors or data entry people or fast food cooks or Wal-Mart greeters. The real change is going to be in the fact that as those jobs go away, and we can speculate that they won't --- but they will, logic dictates that one of two things, or both things, will happen.
Anybody without a very specialized, needed skill set becomes unemployed.
All of the above who are not unemployed experience wage reduction because the competition for their jobs is so fierce.
And that's going to suck it big.
Friedman talks a lot about a shift that's happened in the last couple of decades, maybe more. In our parents' generation (if you're my age), once you went out into the workforce, you were pretty much guaranteed lifetime employment. If you showed loyalty to an employer, you got lifetime healthcare and a pension. This no longer exists. And not unfairly. The world economy is shifting in a way where skills become obsolete more quickly and sourcing alternatives on a worldwide level make it easy to shift components of a supply chain around without having to make worker concessions as frequently. So Friedman, being at base a softy, suggests a solution of creating lifetime "employability" with different programs for skills enhancement, more easily transferrable 401ks and changes in the current methods of unemployment compensation.
Seems like a good idea. Unless you grew up in the coal mining world and you saw when people got laid off and the coal mines and unions gave them that exact deal and...wait! Most of them drank beer, collected unemployment, claimed disability and sent their wives to work! But I suppose the idea of programs designed for lifetime employability are a good idea even if I doubt the degree to which they would be used. I know that I personally have a very clear understanding that the only person who will put me in a financial position to not have to work until I am 85 years old is me. No employer or state is going to do that for me. But I'm pretty sure the disconnect is that this is not the mindset of much of the nation. And that's not the nation's fault, really, because I'm not sure anybody explained to them that the paradigm of lifetime employement has changed.
There are a lot of inspirational stories about India and China in Friedman's book. Stories about schools for children of Untouchables in India. Stories about children being able to feed their entire families and get higher education while doing telephone service work. In the small print, Friedman reminds you that these stories account for less than 2% of the population in most of the places he's visited, and the rest of the population lives in poverty. Though the argument, I guess, is that that will decrease as more opportunities become available to them.
It's impossible to say that "The world will look like this for sure in 20 years." Friedman's been pretty good in the past at looking at global economic trends and predicting how they'll shake out. And philosophically, I like to agree with his optimism that globalization is ultimately good for me and mine and the rest of the world. Okay. Let's me fair. Globalization HAS been EXTREMELY good for me. Has it been good for mine? For sure not so much at all. The number of people whom I know who have either experienced extensive unemployment time or wage reduction because of globalization are extensive. Has it been good for the world? I'm not entirely sure. I probably don't know enough to know.
Parker - I'm no economist. Chime in here. Did you read it? Your thoughts please?
Anyway, I think you should read the book. Just because you don't agree with him or a lot of things about him, doesn't mean that much of the content of the book isn't valid. I mean, except for that part where he argues that Al Quaeda are Marxists. That's just...I mean. Wow.
Also, as a closer, let's not read into it that I'm following up The World is Flat with Atlas Shrugged. It's a bookclub thing.
Friedman spends the first 200 pages of this book explaining to us how the global playing field became flat, which in case you didn't know was a combination of the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War, the dotcom boom and bust, and then a ton of technological advances including the laying of many cables, creation of shared office applications, the internet. All of the obvious things. I'm sure these 200 pages are interesting if you didn't live through all or most of this, but if you were there when you realized that email had changed the game and IM meant somebody 25000 miles away could be right there in the room next to you, then you read those first 200 pages as a way to get to the rest of the book, which is where the interesting parts to you are.
After explaining to the rest of the world how most of us ended up living in a global work environment, Friedman explains how the Indians and Chinese are about to kick our asses. But he does it in such a way that he's just horribly optimistic about it. Like as in (not a direct quote), "But when we source all of the data entry and phone processing and putting things together to places other than the US, we can be left to INNOVATE!!!!!"
And of course I see his point, in theory. In reality, I'm not sure who will be doing all of this INNOVATION he speaks so highly of. I spend a non insignificant amount of time with the teenagers. I'm sure there are some smart kids out there in the US, brilliant even. I'm not sure we're fostering another generation of great innovators. To hear Friedman talk, once we've outsourced all of the "other" work, America will be full of people who have higher level jobs. No janitors! No fast food cooks! No data entry personnel! No Wal-Mart greeters!
Here's a flash: There will always be janitors. There will always be fast food cooks. There will always be data entry folk. There will always be Wal-Mart greeters. What there may not be is enough jobs for the number of peole without the science, math and critical thinking skills needed to "innovate."
Look, let me say, I love the global flat workplace. For Ma.gnolia, the entire team met in the same room exactly once. Many, many months ago. The entire product was created virtually. Meetings were held via iChat. Processes were handled via online project management tools. And I loved it. And it worked. But, the idea that many mid to lower level jobs be leaving the US isn't, you know, we all can't all have innovation jobs. There are lots of people who need to be janitors or data entry people or fast food cooks or Wal-Mart greeters. The real change is going to be in the fact that as those jobs go away, and we can speculate that they won't --- but they will, logic dictates that one of two things, or both things, will happen.
Anybody without a very specialized, needed skill set becomes unemployed.
All of the above who are not unemployed experience wage reduction because the competition for their jobs is so fierce.
And that's going to suck it big.
Friedman talks a lot about a shift that's happened in the last couple of decades, maybe more. In our parents' generation (if you're my age), once you went out into the workforce, you were pretty much guaranteed lifetime employment. If you showed loyalty to an employer, you got lifetime healthcare and a pension. This no longer exists. And not unfairly. The world economy is shifting in a way where skills become obsolete more quickly and sourcing alternatives on a worldwide level make it easy to shift components of a supply chain around without having to make worker concessions as frequently. So Friedman, being at base a softy, suggests a solution of creating lifetime "employability" with different programs for skills enhancement, more easily transferrable 401ks and changes in the current methods of unemployment compensation.
Seems like a good idea. Unless you grew up in the coal mining world and you saw when people got laid off and the coal mines and unions gave them that exact deal and...wait! Most of them drank beer, collected unemployment, claimed disability and sent their wives to work! But I suppose the idea of programs designed for lifetime employability are a good idea even if I doubt the degree to which they would be used. I know that I personally have a very clear understanding that the only person who will put me in a financial position to not have to work until I am 85 years old is me. No employer or state is going to do that for me. But I'm pretty sure the disconnect is that this is not the mindset of much of the nation. And that's not the nation's fault, really, because I'm not sure anybody explained to them that the paradigm of lifetime employement has changed.
There are a lot of inspirational stories about India and China in Friedman's book. Stories about schools for children of Untouchables in India. Stories about children being able to feed their entire families and get higher education while doing telephone service work. In the small print, Friedman reminds you that these stories account for less than 2% of the population in most of the places he's visited, and the rest of the population lives in poverty. Though the argument, I guess, is that that will decrease as more opportunities become available to them.
It's impossible to say that "The world will look like this for sure in 20 years." Friedman's been pretty good in the past at looking at global economic trends and predicting how they'll shake out. And philosophically, I like to agree with his optimism that globalization is ultimately good for me and mine and the rest of the world. Okay. Let's me fair. Globalization HAS been EXTREMELY good for me. Has it been good for mine? For sure not so much at all. The number of people whom I know who have either experienced extensive unemployment time or wage reduction because of globalization are extensive. Has it been good for the world? I'm not entirely sure. I probably don't know enough to know.
Parker - I'm no economist. Chime in here. Did you read it? Your thoughts please?
Anyway, I think you should read the book. Just because you don't agree with him or a lot of things about him, doesn't mean that much of the content of the book isn't valid. I mean, except for that part where he argues that Al Quaeda are Marxists. That's just...I mean. Wow.
Also, as a closer, let's not read into it that I'm following up The World is Flat with Atlas Shrugged. It's a bookclub thing.