Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat Free Essay Example

Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat aims to break down the causes of globalization and address how today’s countries and companies must adapt to the changing conditions. Friedman states that we are in the era of Globalization, a period driven by individuals. Previously, globalization had been driven by states and countries, followed by large corporations.

Somewhere along the third wave of globalization, Friedman claims that the world became flat due to ten occurrences consisting of the fall of the Berlin wall, the rise of the internet, work flow software, uploading, outsourcing, offshoring, supply-chaining, insourcing, informing, and the steroids.

Friedman states that with the culmination of these ten flatteners, individuals have the ability to get on the field and compete with the bigger corporations. He also advises companies and countries on how to adapt their work practices and instill changes in order to survive in the rapidly changing economy. He outlines the careers that would remain in demand, ones that would become obsolete, and ones that should be pursued in order to make oneself important in the future.

Friedman wraps up his advice on surviving in the flattened world by urging Americans to pursue careers in science, math, and engineering, and to remain passionate and curious in their life. He states that without passion, curiosity, and creativity, one cannot add value in the changing world, and thus will not be able to survive in it. As a final warning, Friedman juxtaposes the dates of 11/9 and 9/11 to show the fragility of our global collaboration and the negative effects of a flat world.

He claims that while the fall of the Berlin Wall on 11/9 opened up the global market, the attack on 9/11 shut it down due to the misuse of the flat world. It is clear from his writing that Friedman encourages the growth of capitalism by praising its benefits for those involved. However, he fails to address the negative consequences created by the flattening of the world1, and by doing so, does not paint a transparent picture of globalization.

A critical analysis can be made on Friedman reliance on commentary from corporate figures, his failure to address the exploitation and environmental damage due to globalization, and his overarching claim of a flat world. In his book, Friedman relies heavily on his travels, interviews, conversations, and personal anecdotes to set-up and support his argument to the reader. However, his pool of interviewees all fall within the top 1 percent of the population. Throughout his book, Friedman quotes high tech CEOs, and large corporations such as Dell, UPS, Wal-Mart, and Microsoft. Friedman supports his analysis through simple statements made from already established employers about how the playing field is being leveled. It does not make sense for a mathematician to talk about the problems physicists face in their line of work. So why would it be any different for a high-tech CEO to comment on how the world is changing for a mom and pop shop? Friedman’s argument would be stronger if he had chosen to pursue small businesses that were starting to grow due to his previously mentioned flatteners, rather than comment on how powerful corporations harnessed the flatteners to become more profitable.

By choosing to interview and include information from a single source, Friedman fails to look at the issue from other angles, and thus fails to properly address counterpoints that would weaken his argument. Throughout the book, Friedman and his network of colleagues claim that the playing field is being leveled to allow smaller companies to make their mark, but does not provide concrete examples. Additionally, the practices of outsourcing and offshoring are claimed to help small businesses act big by letting them onto the field. However, this is not correct. It is not that more players are being added to the field, it is simply that the bigger corporations are adding more players to their own rosters. It is nave to think that small businesses can have the same profit, influence, and power as large corporations such as Google, Microsoft, and Wal-Mart. By failing to include evidence of successful small businesses, Friedman does not provide sufficient proof to support his argument. Another way in which Friedman’s argument in favor of globalization fails is in his dismissive attitude towards exploitation of workers, his lack of concern for environmental destruction, and a general assumption of the lack of globalization in third world countries.

In his account of India vs. Indiana1, Friedman states that it is not clear to see who is being exploited, and who is doing the exploiting. He elaborates that India could be exploiting the state of Indiana by taking away jobs from American citizens by offering to do it at a lower cost. However, Indiana could be exploiting India by paying Indian workers much less than they would pay American workers. Friedman’s statement that every company and trade agreement is too entangled in the flat world to decipher who owns what is a vague and weak argument. The practices of offshoring and outsourcing exploit the workers in the foreign countries because they receive lower wages, and have extreme working conditions. If those practices are not allowed in America, it is unethical to apply those same conditions to a new group of people in an another country.

Though outsourced and offshore workers might make enough to live comfortably in their own country, it does not give them the opportunity to save and live like their counterpart in America, or another established nation. This is another instance in which it is clear that new players are not being added to the field, but simply being recruited by older teams. Friedman’s lack of concern for the negative effects of globalization is also present in his failure to address the eminent environmental effects. Throughout the book, Friedman only praises globalization for its ability to connect and improve the global market economy. He never once mentions the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the contamination of bodies of water, and the air pollution caused by factories. In fact, he spins these adverse effects as a positive outcome for the coming future.

In his Untouchables chapter1, he claims that the green people will have job security in the future due to the need for environmentalists and sustainable systems. His claim that there will be plenty of jobs from our environmental problems shows that Friedman’s support of globalization and capitalism is blinded, and is not cautious about its adverse effects. In his praise of globalization, Friedman also fails to provide a concrete reason as to why there are still third world countries unaffected by the flat world. Throughout his book, he states that the world has been flattened and that everyone has a chance to be on the field. However, he does not explicitly address the fact that places like Africa have not been privy to these benefits. He simply makes the point that while globalization has spread far and wide rapidly, it has not spread fast enough. Additionally, he calls for further deregulation of market economies because he claims that the governments of third world countries are broken and lack proper leadership.

However, it makes no sense to fix problems in an underregulated economy by taking away regulation altogether. Friedman fails to acknowledge that globalization is not all-inclusive, and that it is still discriminatory towards economical classes. His explanation that the flat world left certain countries untouched due to internal problems is a weak reasoning and does not support his claim that the playing field is level. Additionally, he warns that many middle class jobs will become obsolete due to practices such as supply chaining, offshoring, and outsourcing, thus forcing individuals to become more specialized and valuable. This is not a feat that is possible everywhere in the world, and thus further discriminates towards poorer nations. He suggests that individuals pursue jobs based on creating ideas, passion, and curiosity. However, if everyone pursues these jobs, there will be an oversaturation of the market and thus will result in a new obsolete career. The world cannot be full of leaders and entrepreneurs. A proper economy requires a hierarchy of employees consisting of managers, workers, and consumers. Thus, Friedman’s advice to become more specialized and valuable is only helpful in the short term.

The final criticism of Thomas Friedman’s book is his statement the world is flat. The idea from which the phrase was coined is a far stretch from the original statement, the playing field is being leveled , and does not do anything more than add a dramatic factor to Friedman’s epiphany. This instance goes back to the first criticism of his novel because the statement was made by the CEO of Infosys. It is absurd to have a CEO of a major tech company comment on how the world is becoming easier for local businesses. Additionally, Friedman’s assumption that the world is flat is not accurate because it is not flat. There are still third world countries desperately trying to become self-sufficient and independent. There are still nations that are being controlled and exploited for their natural resources such as oil and gold. So, it is not accurate to claim that the world is flat and that there is equal opportunity for all.

In his book, Friedman attempts to break down and analyze the proponents of globalization and its positive effects on the global market. However, he writes his analysis from one perspective and blindly supports a flat world with no regard for the negative consequences. Friedman does not address any of the counterarguments of globalization and simply brushes them off to the side with blanket statements. By doing so, Friedman does not paint a comprehensive picture of globalization and thus misinforms the reader about capitalism, the global economy, and the near future.