Globalization above all!

This cartoon by John Backderf shows the negative effects of unlimited globalization controlled by corporate America in the Americas. The title "globalization Über Alles," meaning globalization above all, and the reference to "out benevolent lords and masters" depict globalization as an extreme and totalitarian effort by rich corporates to make a lot of money and exploit the rest of the world. Brazil is Home Depot's lumber yard, Argentina is a source for Whoppers and Big Macs for Burger King and McDonald's, and countries below Mexico in Central America are places for 27, 25, 24, 23, and 22 cents a day wages. These countries and many others have lost their true names and are labeled by what they are exploited for. In addition, China is being towed next to South America because workers there are also being exploited or extremely low wages under inhumane working conditions. Backderf has a negative view of outsourcing, which is shown by labeling Mexico as "Your Former Job," showing that many American jobs have been outsourced to exploited Mexican workers in sweat shops. Backderf also shows that globalization is not for the general good of Americans by labeling "Easily Duped Souther Voters," "Gullible Cowboys," and "Cooperative Gun Nuts" on the map. This creates the image that rich, powerful businessmen are manipulating the citizens of the U.S. to go along with their plans for globalizations, even though globalizations will only hurt people. Backderf also groups the FTAA protestors and the relocated IRS and SEC headquarters on the Falkland islands to show that corporate America has overpowered them. In this new FTAA where globalization is above all, free trade rules and there are no taxes or regulations on corporate actions or trade. 

Like any major change, globalization has both positive and negative aspects. However, it is clear from the cartoon above as well as the article "Let's Admit it: Globalization Has Losers" that globalization has a negative influence on far more people than it has a positive influence on. Although globalization opens up many new opportunities for jobs to people all over the world, it also opens up most areas of the world for large corporations to exploit and from which companies can glean resources. Despite these problems with globalization "über alles," if globalization is controlled responsibly and regulated so that workers are not mistreated and resources aren't exploited, it can be used to connect poor, rural workers to the global economy and help pull them out of extreme poverty, like in the article "Workers of the World, Employed." This impact sourcing, a type of outsourcing, can help people in very poor areas, but it usually takes jobs from more developed areas. It therefore extremely important that the quality of education is increased in developed countries so that people in those areas have more skills to be able to create their own new jobs as Thomas Friedman suggests in the article "How Did the Robot End Up With My Job?" Most of the effort to improve education should be targeted at the poor and lower middle classes, who have little chance of traditional success without a high quality education, and have little chance of getting a high quality education without traditional success, as the article "Super People" asserts.

Workers of the World, Employed

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/workers-of-the-world-employed/?scp=5&sq=globalization&st=cse

Although globalization has profoundly changed many areas of the world, it has not yet reached some areas of the "informal economy" in developing countries. One method used to help people become involved in the global economy is called impact sourcing, a process that makes it advantageous for companies to outsource business processes to workers in developing countries, and, like micro financing, it can show that people from rural villages or slums are trustworthy and reliable workers. Impact sourcing is cheaper than outsourcing, and unlike outsourcing, it gives impoverished people without a college education or many prospects to better their situation and young people without much prior job experience an opportunity to better lives. In today's digital world, there is always more computer work to be done, called microwork, and people in developing countries can do it well because of the connectivity of the internet.

Super People

Although this article is not directly about globalization, it does address the increasing world competitiveness in our society. There has been, in the past twenty or thirty years, a Great Academic Leap Forward that has both resulted from and contributed to growing inequality in American society. Children start to work hard for a successful future from a very early age, and being brilliant is just not enough anymore to get into a good college and to lead a 'successful' life. In today's globalized society, students also have to compete with other "Super People" from all over the world, and because colleges and universities want a diverse student body, being foreign is often an advantage in itself. But the greatest advantage of all is simply having money. Rich people can practically buy their children "Super" resumes by sending them to build schools in Bolivia or the like. (Not to say that all this volunteer work is bad; it isn't. High achieving students do a lot of good in the world.). But just like the wealth gap in American society, the gap in education and intellectual capital is growing. While rich kids all over the world are achieving higher than ever before, the quality of education in poor, inner-city schools is the same as ever. The globalized world had led to an even more over-worked and success-driven society in which some people are winners and some people are left behind in the dust before they even know the race has started.

Let’s Admit It: Globalization Has Losers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/opinion/sunday/lets-admit-it-globalization-has-losers.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=globalization&st=cse

Globalizations creates both winners and losers. This can be seen clearly in the auto manufacturing sector where the American workforce has been greatly reduced while the Mexican, Indian, and Chinese workforces have been increasing because labor in those countries is much cheaper. Instead of trying to create more jobs for Americans in the manufacturing sector by starting wages very low, the focus should be on expanding industries in which the U.S. is ahead now, like service industries such as education, entertainment, digital media, and financial services. Education is also an important part of being a "winner" in the globalized world. Although the U.S. government should not take complete control of private industry, it should help to create more "winners" by, for example, using tax incentives to encourage new companies to create new high paying jobs, providing visas to entrepreneurs, and  making public financing markets easier to access.

Thomas Friedman: How Did the Robot End Up With My Job?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-did-the-robot-end-up-with-my-job.html?ref=thomaslfriedman

Friedman's main point in this article is that the high rate of unemployment in the U.S. today is not only the result of the current recession, but is also due to what he calls "The Great Inflection." By "inflection," he means that the number of workers needed for any one job is decreasing. The cause Friedman provides for "The Great Inflection" is the increasing interconnectedness of the world that has created a constantly growing pool of labor. Wider competition puts more people out of work, but unlike blue-collar jobs that have been outsourced in the past, the white-collar jobs that are put at risk because of wider competition are not being transferred to any one location. More interconnectedness allows the best workers and machines from all over the world to get jobs, while being average or even good, Friedman argues, is not enough anymore. However, new connectivity in the world also makes it much easier to create a new job, so Friedman concludes that the school system must teach and inspire students to be innovators or to make themselves stand out instead of settling for average or good enough.

This is the picture from my last post.

"Anti-Qaddafi fighters arrested a Nigerian man they accused of being a Qaddafi loyalist in Mahruga, Libya"

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/africa/2011-sept-libya-slide-show.html#51

This is a picture from September 17, 2011 of anti-Qaddafi fighters guarding a Nigerian man who they accused of being a Qaddafi loyalist. The photographer's purpose in putting the Nigerian man in the center of the photograph with his face in the light is to make him the focus of the photograph. The eyes are immediately drawn to his fear, eliciting sympathy from the viewer and creating a apprehensive and panicked mood, especially since the fighters seem to be determining what to do with him, possibly whether he will live or die. The photographer also took the picture from the Nigerian man's level instead of the fighters' level to connect the viewer with the Nigerian man. The Nigerian man's face is the only clear face in the picture since two of the anti-Qaddafi fighters' faces are cut off and the third is blocked by another's hand. By excluding the faces of the anti-Qaddafi fighters, the photographer prevents the viewer from forming a connection and sympathizing with their actions (many anti-Qaddafi fighters have been targeting black Africans as Qaddafi supporters, even though there is no evidence to support these claims) and takes away their individual identities, dehumanizing them into an oppressive barrier confining the Nigerian man. Their guns surround him showing that he is trapped, and the drab, gray wall behind him closes him in further, showing that there is little hope of escape. The exclusion of the fighters' faces also makes them anonymous, showing that due to the absence of a stable government, they could kill the man without fear of any repercussions, and if they were to kill him, it would be just one example of many murders in this area committed with impunity. The absence of their faces also signifies the anonymity of the anti-Qaddafi fighters on a larger scale. No one really knows who this group is, what type of government it will form, or how it will rule the country.

Packing Heat Everywhere

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/opinion/packing-heat-everywhere.html?_r=1&ref=global

Right now in the House, there is an "extreme proposal" to take away state's rights to regulate the ability to carry a concealed loaded firearm. This would mean that states with tight gun control regulations would have to let people with gun permits from states with loose gun control regulation carry guns in their state despite the first state's tighter standards. The proposal is also unorganized and unreasonable because it provides for no way for police officers to validate the concealed weapon permits of people from other states, and therefore no way to efficiently enforce the law. It could also put police officers at greater risk, increase gun violence, and increase illegal gun trafficking. However, the demands of the NRA could matter more to some politicians than the major problems and dangers of the bill. I do no believe that people should have the right to carry loaded concealed guns at all, so I am also upset about this bill too.

Investors Brace as Europe Crisis Flares Up Again

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/global/german-dissent-magnifies-uncertainty.html?ref=europe

In Russia, although Dmitri Medvedev is president, there has been uncertainty about whether he or Putin has true power in the country. While Medvedev has given the impression of being more willing to reform, Putin still represents authoritarian power in Russia. Both have shown the intention of running in the 2012 election, but while Putin has been preparing his campaign, Medvedev has been unable to declare his candidacy without Putin's permission. The attendance of important government officials at political events for each of the men has indicated whose side they will take in the upcoming election, and Putin seems to be ahead and clearly working hard at his campaign. However, this does not mean that Medvedev does not still have a chance to win the election, even if by winning, he will be coming back into a post even weaker than his presidency for the past 4 years.