Historically speaking Essay

Globalization is one of the most recent phenomenons ever to strike humanity upon its entrance to the 21st century. Historically speaking, globalization itself has been around for decades long before it was conceived as a field of study of international trade. Some economists and historians contend that the concepts of globalization have been prevalent even during time when the Silk Road started in China up to the Roman Empire. Some, however, argue that globalization began during the 19th century; when the prevalence of the Industrial Age was at its fastest and that trade between Europe, their colonies and the Americas were growing steadily. Major advances in technology, especially during the 20th century, eventually led countries to lower trading costs; hence, highlighting the inevitability of the expansion of trade within the International Community. Still, globalization, as a term, was never used by economists; at least not until the early 1980’s. Furthermore, all its concepts and ideas were never really fully understood by the academic community until the early 1990’s. Fortunately, after seven years into the 21st century, much of the world is already aware of its contexts and aspects – from outsourcing to currency trading via wireless applications. Still, despite our knowledge of globalization, we cannot deny the fact that we know less about its implications for the future. Globalization, as a field of study, is a volatile subject that, even with the assistance of factual data and information, is almost ultimately unpredictable. Despite the existence of a myriad of books, journals and articles pertaining to the topic of Globalization, we cannot deny that we have yet to fully understand its future trends. Indeed, a major advancement brought by sophisticated technology can ultimately change, once again, the face of the International Community; thus, affecting international trade and ultimately affecting the â€Å"globalization† of the world. On a further note, third world countries that would eventually become first world countries in the future may end up shifting the international balance of trade and commerce for first world countries. As such, it is very tempting to imagine what the International Community would be like if, for some infinitesimal chance, the African Continent booms like Asia. If such an event occurs, will globalization be the cause for it? Alternatively, will globalization even allow such an event to occur? People who are against the advancements of globalization argue that globalization only benefits the rich north and detriments the poor south. This is evident from the fact that countries in the northern hemisphere tend to play in a neo-imperialist fashion among the countries in the southern hemisphere. Anti-globalization movements insist that the prevalence of globalization only means the prevalence of multinational corporations (MNC’s). They contend that these corporations, while providing employment for the local population, only encourage more poverty in the country. Multinational corporations, upon entering a country, immediately eliminates local competitors; thus, destroying the balance of power between local and foreign. As such, the country becomes subject to the influence of foreign countries that originally holds these multinational corporations. This automatically becomes a sort of leverage for foreign countries (which are, most of the time, rich countries coming from the north) against the country holding their MNC’s. On the other hand, people that are for the advancements of globalization argues that free trade – the main tool of globalization – encourages more growth for developing economies compared to protectionism. Primarily, globalization allows several countries access to several goods and services that they could never produce or emulate from other countries. Furthermore, they contend that globalization encourages competition among local and foreign businesses. Though unfair at times, supporters of globalization claim that encouraging competition allows small businesses to grow, to become more efficient and to become more versatile. The arguments of both sides are truly credible. Indeed, globalization, as a concept, is considered by many as a double-edged sword – though benefiting the user, it can, if careless enough, harm him/her as well. Globalization has many facets. As such, it has many implications – some we are aware of and some aren’t. But according to one scholar, Thomas Friedman, globalization has one important implication that has been very prevalent over the past couple of years but has only recently gained attention. In 2005, Thomas Friedman – a columnist of Foreign Affairs and the New York Times – published a book entitled The World is Flat. According to Mr. Friedman, the world is becoming smaller and that the competition between countries in different parts of the world is becoming or â€Å"being leveled†. One example that he noted was that the economies of India and China, two emerging economic superpowers in the eastern hemisphere, are now becoming so becoming so advanced that they can now compete with the economic powerhouses of the west. He further claimed that, ironically, much of the west, most especially the Americans, weren’t ready for such events unfolding. Indeed, the unexpected booms of India and China have made the Asian continent an attractive place for foreign investment. Another important point is that both countries’ huge populations have played a vital role in the labor market – both in manual labor (i. e. manufacturing) and professional labor (i. e. information technology). Not only do these two countries outshine the United States in terms of cheap labor, but they also outdo the American population in terms of efficiency and productivity. Simply said, employers are getting the same level of productivity and efficiency from both Chinese and Indian workers, but at a lower cost. This, according to scholars, has proved very detrimental to Americans. Not only does this threaten the employment of future American workers, but it also threatens the economy of the United States on the long run. As such, how can one defend himself from such negative advancements to one’s own country? On a more general level, how can the populace protect itself from such a deadly competition? As an American Citizen and as a soon-to-be professional entering the world of competitive employment, I can indeed come up with several answers to that question. First, as a country, the United States must make huge investments on education. Improving the workforce of the country is imperative if we are to face foreign competition. One important thing that we can put into consideration is the introduction of language classes in our academic system. Learning the language of foreign countries can surely make our general workforce a seemingly good investment for foreign companies. Yet another note is the introduction of new laws which will, in some way, discourage young students from dropping out of school. An example of these laws is the prohibition of issuing driver’s licenses to adolescents who have dropped out of school for no particular reason. By doing so, the general workforce of the country will remain efficient and highly educated. Despite the rapid growths of China and India, it cannot be denied that much of their population remains below the poverty line. As such, this problem becomes a drain on their economy (for the simple reason that the government has to continuously spend huge sums of money on anti-poverty programs and such). Ironically, this could play both a huge disadvantage and an advantage at the same time for the United States. For one, since people live in very poor conditions, corporations can take advantage of them by paying them low salaries; which, for the population, could seem very high. On the other hand, the good living conditions of the American population can imply the demand for high-paying jobs; which, of course, corporations would not prefer. Alternatively, this could also serve as an advantage for the United States since the American workforce – compared to the cheap yet impoverished populace of India and China – are more efficient and educated; thus, implying more productivity and growth for the corporation. Education is one thing. But as a person who’s about to enter into the competitive world of employment, how can I prepare myself against the competitive nature of foreign workers that will most likely ensue?