This is my last "official" post for EDUC 5414: Technology for the Administrative Tasks of Teaching. Since much of what we examined during class were values regarding technology use, not the tech tools themselves, I want to continue with a discussion I felt we never really had the time to explore in class.
To begin, scroll through these quotes from The World Is Flat (apparently a major invoker of thoughts for me).
The World Is Flat is a lengthy book, and it's possible that I'm pulling these quotes too far away from their original context for them to be taken at face value. But I don't believe that's the case. When I read these quotes, I see a common theme - competition. When I read Friedman's book, I see the same theme. In one way, I see the world that Friedman describes as a fast-paced, hyper-competitive, hyper-connected place. I think it's wise for societies to step back and think along the lines of "should we?" whenever they're about to adopt policies that might drastically change the way governments, businesses, organizations, and individuals work. Take the industrial revolution, for example. Could the industrial revolution have started with cleaner coal if more questions had been raised before its widespread adoption? If so, would we be facing the environmental issues that we currently do?
So, regarding the Flat World, Globalization 3.0, etc., I have some concerns. I also have some answers to those concerns.
Educational Inflation
Educational inflation is the idea that we have to run faster to stay in the same place (Romer, p. 387). Fifty years ago, a high school degree got you to the same place, wage-wise, as an associate's or bachelor's degree does today. I don't think that's a completely accurate comparison, but that's the underlying idea of educational inflation. Yet a bachelor's degree still takes about four years, and it also costs relatively more money than it did thirty years ago. If these trends continue - and based on what Friedman has presented, they probably will - could a person have to obtain an associates's degree simply to maintain an unskilled hourly wage position? I don't see how we can avoid this scenario. People are going to try to be more attractive to employers than other potential employees. There will always be people who are willing to push beyond average.
I feel like a hypocrite when I question the idea of continuously "pushing beyond average." But I wonder about implications for our lives when it's possible that so much of our time will be spent just keeping up with the rest of the workforce. Will the Flat World allow people the time to enjoy genuine quality in their lives outside work - the other parts of life that are important and enjoyable? My mother, for instance, works a decently-paying job at Cargill Kitchen Solutions. She has worked there for more than ten years, and for most of that time she has not had an "eight hour workday." For most of my time in middle and high school, I was only able to spend time with my mom from 6:00 PM until 9:00 or so, when she fell asleep. She was the primary breadwinner since my dad had started a business; she couldn't do much about her situation. Though I believe that kind of situation to be fairly commonplace, I don't want it to be so. But I feel like the flattening of the world might make it the new normal.
Then again, maybe not. Some people value money and high-prestige jobs more than anything else in life, which is fine, but most people don't. I would bet that most people would choose to scale back on their professional commitments if not doing so meant sacrificing too much quality time with families, hobbies, etc. Given this, though the widespread adoption of flat-world practices might rocket competition forward, there might be a time when the fuel starts to fizzle out; in other words, people will be unwilling to invest more time in order to get ahead.
Once again, however, maybe not. Probably not, in fact. I already touched on this idea in another post, but I think the more likely scenario is that it will simply become easier to obtain degrees. Advanced Placement courses are one example of this development. We now see them offered in more schools, in greater numbers, and in more diverse subjects.
Another factor that pushes against the kind of Flat World that worries me - hypercompetitive, hyperconnected - is value. We discussed this briefly one day in class: people value different things. Speaking in generalities, products from China are attractive to people who value low cost, while products from the USA are attractive to people who value companies who compensate their employees well. These conflicting values will always be available on the market, there will always be work available for both companies.
Friedman spoke about "fat" and "walls," terms he used to represent the structures that slow collaboration and productivity. I think it's human nature to desire some fat and walls. They provide comfort and security. Most of the quotes I listed above hint towards a world where economic security is a thing of the past, but I don't think economic security is a dichotomy - there, or not there. We might feel insecure here for a while, but in China and India, people will feel more secure. I think that the global marketplace will eventually balance out, spreading wealth equally, everywhere.
Who knows how long that will take, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment