Chapter One Case: The World Is Flat—Thomas Friedman
In his book The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman describes the unplanned cascade of technological and social shifts that effectively leveled the economic world and “accidentally made Beijing, Bangalore, and Bethesda next-door neighbors.” Chances are good that Bhavya in Bangalore will read your next X-ray, or as Friedman learned firsthand, “Grandma Betty in her bathrobe” will make your JetBlue plane reservation from her Salt Lake City home.
Friedman believes this is Globalization 3.0. “In Globalization 1.0, which began around 1492, the world went from size large to size medium. In Globalization 2.0, the era that introduced us to multinational companies, it went from size medium to size small. And then around 2000 came Globalization 3.0, in which the world went from being small to tiny. There is a difference between being able to make long-distance phone calls cheaper on the Internet and walking around Riyadh with a PDA where you can have all of Google in your pocket. It is a difference in degree that’s so enormous it becomes a difference in kind,” Friedman states. Below are Friedman’s list of “flatteners.”
Thomas Friedman’s 10 Forces That Flattened the World
Fall of the Berlin Wall – Opened the world to free markets.
Netscape IPO – Began the gigantic investments in connecting the world with fiber-optic cables.
Work flow software – Allowed employees to communicate and collaborate from all over the world.
Open-sourcing – Open source communities began creating free software.
Outsourcing – Using labor from third world countries allowed companies to grow while helping grow economies.
Offshoring – Using China to manufacture goods helped the world-wide global economy.
Supply-chaining – Businesses gained monumental efficiencies by connecting networks of suppliers, retailers, distributors, and customers.
Insourcing – Small business gained global momentum.
Informing – Search gave the intelligence to the masses.
Wireless – Business mobility gave the power of collaboration to the people.
Friedman says these flatteners converged around the year 2000 and “created a flat world: a global, Web-enabled platform for multiple forms of sharing knowledge and work, irrespective of time, distance, geography, and increasingly, language.” At the very moment this platform emerged, three huge economies materialized—those of India, China, and the former Soviet Union—“and 3 billion people who were out of the game, walked onto the playing field.” A final convergence may determine the fate of the United States in this chapter of globalization. A “political perfect storm,” as Friedman describes it—the dot-com bust, the attacks of 9/11, and the Enron scandal—“distract us completely as a country.” Just when we need to face the fact of globalization and the need to compete in a new world, “we’re looking totally elsewhere.”
Friedman believes that the next great breakthrough in bioscience could come from a 5-year-old who downloads the human genome in Egypt. Bill Gates’s view is similar: “Twenty years ago, would you rather have been a B-student in Poughkeepsie or a genius in Shanghai? Twenty years ago you’d rather be a B-student in Poughkeepsie. Today, it is not even close. You’d much prefer to be the genius in Shanghai because you can now export your talents anywhere in the world.”
After reading the case study, answer the following questions in a video post:
Do you agree or disagree with Friedman’s assessment that the world is flat? Be sure to justify your answer.
What are the potential impacts of a flat world for a student performing a job search?
To complete your discussion video post watch this video and then complete the following steps…
1) In the window above, scroll down and select this week’s discussion.
2) Record your video post and respond to at least TWO other students via a video response.
Step 3 is optional but HIGHLY encouraged. I will also apply extra credit points for this step at the end of the course.
3) Scroll down in the window above, select the devotion for this week. Follow the instructions in Flipgrid to post a video/response on technology and your faith.
Levels of Achievement
Criteria
Exemplary
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Dimension 1: Original response to prompt
27 to 30 points
The student appropriately and clearly responded to the discussion prompt with an exceptional amount of detail.
24 to 26.99 points
The student appropriately responded to the discussion prompt with a sufficient amount of clarity and detail.
21 to 23.99 points
The student responded to the discussion prompt with an average amount of clarity and detail.
18 to 20.99 points
The student did not appropriately respond to the discussion prompt, and/or provided a below-average amount of clarity and detail.
Dimension 2: Response to classmate 1
9 to 10 points
The student’s first response to a classmate added noteworthy perspective and/or value to the discussion, and contained an exceptional amount of detail.
8 to 8.99 points
The student’s first response to a classmate added sufficient perspective and/or value to the discussion, and contained a reasonable amount of detail.
7 to 7.99 points
The student’s first response to a classmate added limited perspective and/or value to the discussion, and contained an average amount of detail.
6 to 6.99 points
The student did not properly respond to their classmate, and did not add perspective or value to the discussion. The post contained a below average amount of detail.
Dimension 3: Response to classmate 2
9 to 10 points
The student’s second response to a classmate added noteworthy perspective and/or value to the discussion, and contained an exceptional amount of detail.
8 to 8.99 points
The student’s second response to a classmate added sufficient perspective and/or value to the discussion, and contained a reasonable amount of detail.
7 to 7.99 points
The student’s second response to a classmate added limited perspective and/or value to the discussion, and contained an average amount of detail.
6 to 6.99 points
The student did not properly respond to their classmate, and did not add perspective or value to the discussion. The post contained a below average amount of detail.
Dimension 4: Speaker Narration and citation
9 to 10 points
Student narration of video is exemplary using a formal, mature, polished, and scholarly academic voice. Speaker is well organized, free from speaking errors, and professional. The post contains a relevant peer-reviewed citation.
8 to 8.99 points
Student narration of video is accomplished using a formal, mature, polished, and scholarly academic voice. Speaker is well organized, free from speaking errors, and professional. The post contains a relevant peer-reviewed citation.
7 to 7.99 points
Student narration of video is competent using a somewhat formal, mature, polished, and scholarly academic voice. Speaker is somewhat well organized, free from speaking errors, and professional. The post contains a citation that may or may not be peer-reviewed.
6 to 6.99 points
Student narration of video is below average using a somewhat formal, mature, polished, and scholarly academic voice. Speaker is unorganized and/or has multiple speaking errors. The post is missing a citation, or may include a citation that is irrelevant to their discussion board post.
