Thomas Friedman professes in Chapter 1 of his
text (2007) that the world is flat, cultural acclimation and emulation
are the byproduct of global innovation. Through these technological advancements have created in
essence a free for all and a level playing field by which unbridled wealth is
now available to the masses in an unprecedented fashion. Friedman concludes
that since countries like India have emulated America by sharing a similar
cultural identity (i.e. name, vanity, fashionable interests, cars, technological
hardware and resort type amenities) that somehow this became possible because innovation
and insurmountable wealth attainment was now available to anyone with an idea
and determination. I believe this misconception can only be
made by looking through global capitalization through a very narrow lens. After
reading both, the Florida article and Chapter 1 of the Friedman text, the
Florida holds more true and considers various societal constraints.
In my original post written over a year ago I
write, ‘A substandard education will always result in a substandard nation’. If
our global economy is viewed through a broader lens it becomes evident that our
world is indeed ‘spiky’ and not flat. Therefore, I do not believe Friedman’s contention
about global opportunities is relevant in 2013, nor do I believe his view had
much viability in 2007. In 2007
when global behemoths like Facebook, Twitter and Zinga, were in their infancy
it was easy to make the assumption that their existence was the result of young
people who believed in an idea, vacated all inhibitions and pursued their dreams
with reckless abandonment. What should be noted is Facebook’s founder Mark
Zuckerberg for example created a venue by which people could openly share their
thoughts and ideas with colleagues and friends utilizing a simple looking
interface. However, what should be known is Zuckerberg was attending Harvard
University, the top ranked university in the country and through only privilege,
narcissism and arrogance elected to drop out and pursue a dream that by any
stretch of the imagination would have been thought to be asinine. Dropping out
of Harvard is a luxury most people do not have or would even consider. Also, dropping
out of college and moving to Palo Alto would be a recipe for disaster if one
was to use conventional wisdom. Zuckerberg’s success is one example of
opportunity meeting good fortune and 99% of the population including Mark
Zuckerburg would not recommend taking such a risk. Further, moving to Silicon
Valley and any other technologically advanced region is a luxury most people
don’t have and millions of people with a dream and no financial backing and
also living in rural areas across the globe continue to live in poverty as a
result.
In 2007, if I were to travel to India, New
York, then to Beijing, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Singapore, Hong
Kong or Sydney I would also make assumptions of the world economy, its abundant
wealth, and its vast opportunities with low hanging fruitful rewards. But
millions of people do not have running or clean water, a bed to sleep on,
immunizations that provide protection from diseases that are nonexistent in civilized
countries, much less a gigantic flat screen television. Millions only dream of
sitting in a classroom and reading a book and obtaining a decent education,
possessing an IPad, holding a teleconference with a distant colleague, utilizing
GPS, to find another town, a car, clean clothes or shoes. Therefore, I must
agree with Florida that the world is spiky, where opportunities do exist but
not for everyone. I agree that fortune, is possible but not for everyone. For
most, the ability to provide the necessities of life to one’s family does exist
in some places but unfortunately not for everyone. The earth is not flat and opportunities are
not only a phone call, a short drive, a smartphone and a laptop away. Especially,
for the millions of people who have never held or seen such a device.
Sources:
Florida, R. (2005). The
World by the Numbers: The World is Spiky. Globalization
has Changed the Economic Playing Field. But Hasn’t Leveled it. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/images/issues/200510/world-is-spiky.pdf
Friedman, T. (2007).
The World is Flat 3.0. A Brief History of
the Twenty First Century. New York. Picador.
I am not sure that it is as dire as you suggest or as easy as Friedman suggests. The truth lies somewhere in between. I would suggest that the world of work is different now than a decade ago due to the internet...and that it will be different in another decade. The costs of education has continued to rise and we may be moving to a free agent workforce that can tap in to the vast storehouse of human knowledge, self-educate, and obtain work based not on a degree but on demonstrated competencies. One of the top finishers in Sebastian Thrun's free massive online course on artificial intelligence was a high school drop-out. His class project of a new way of searching videos online beat anything Youtube or Google had...and he has since been hired by Google.
ReplyDeleteTo me, that is a wake-up call for higher education.
I don’t mean to be too light-hearted about such a serious matter as education but Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg sure make a great case for dropping out of Harvard as the gateway to wealth and influence.
ReplyDeleteI really believe that in the application of technology to educational possibilities, the reality will be…much like in the business sphere…somewhere between Friedman’s “flatness” and Florida’s “spikes.” Wealth and privilege can ease access to the venues and means for innovation, this is unquestionable. The fact that those with such access can often be “first-in” does provide a distinct advantage, to use the language of marketing this is the “first mover advantage.” To counter first-mover advantage, competitors must be superior in some other way than that already established. Access to technology can make development of a competitive solution possible by sources that otherwise would not have had the opportunity.
I think that a danger is equating opportunity with capability. History is littered with instances of great opportunity squandered. History is also filled with instances of capability creating its own level of opportunity. The arguments of Friedman and Florida taken separately do not assure that this will happen; in fact nothing will give that assurance. Taken together their arguments can be construed as predicting the probability of effective innovation will increase with the convergence of the two factors; inexpensive, accessible technology and like-minded people.
All the while I was writing the above I was reminded of some very old song lyrics…from Billie Holiday’s God Bless the Child:
“Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own” ( see link below for full lyrics and reference)
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/billie+holiday/god+bless+the+child_20018000.html
I made the observation in my own blog that Friedman’s title was probably well-considered with the idea that it needed to help sell books. A dissertation-like title of “The Diffusion of Internet-based information technologies and associated socioeconomic implications: an examination of lowered barriers to entry” wouldn’t have been so exciting. With perfect hindsight, I think it’s unfortunate that the two works in question seem to concentrate on business and entrepreneurial innovation. We need only to look at the events in Egypt a year or so ago to understand the true power of available information technology and networks that were available to the disenfranchised. Perhaps more on that later, in a separate discussion.
Cranky Prof,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your caution about equating opportunity with capability. I sincerely believe that capability can and does create opportunity. In contrast, there are always going to be individuals like Gates, Zuckerburg and Rockefeller, Sr. due to the law of large numbers. In my opinion, it does not matter whether the opportunity is oil, software or social media. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., with only 10-weeks of community college, used his inherent capabilities to create and seize opportunity. Technology flattening does level up capability, assuming access to it, while simultaneously strengthening ones ability to seize opportunity.
Hello Humble Bee, thank you for your thoughts regarding both Friedman (2007) and Florida (2007). It is clear that the two authors have clashing perspectives about how the technology world is viewed. Your point about Florida (2007) providing a more accurate representation of the peaks and valleys of opportunity is valid. Florida’s (2007) notion that the world is spiky and where the spikes exist happens to exist are concentrated only in certain areas of the world. Your point about the unequal opportunities with technology is concrete and clear. As a leader, what would you propose to help close this gap? Do you think attempting to close this gap is practical? If not, why? Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteHumble Bee, thank you for your input about the direction of our global economy. I do agree that Florida appears to have a better grasp on the direction of our economy and that the data utilized to back up his claims is more concrete. That having been said, there is some validity to Friedman's claims. Do you think that in some industries, a complete "flattening" will occur where geography has no meaning?
ReplyDelete