The stunning differences between these two articles is compelling in that
the article about the class in many ways supports the globallization
article. I know this is a bit off topic so I'll keep this brief but the
damage that is being done by the current trends to folk here in the us far
outweighs any future benefits to us or elsewhere so we should heed and learn
from the globalization article.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nelson Blachman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: The social costs of globalization
Peter,
Thomas Friedman's column today (see below) presents a way of looking at
globalization different from Stiglitz's, but I velieve both are valid.
--Nelson Blachman
________.
Op-Ed Columnist: 30 Little Turtles
February 29, 2004
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
BANGALORE, India
Indians are so hospitable. I got an ovation the other day
from a roomful of Indian 20-year-olds just for reading
perfectly the following paragraph: "A bottle of bottled
water held 30 little turtles. It didn't matter that each
turtle had to rattle a metal ladle in order to get a little
bit of noodles, a total turtle delicacy. The problem was
that there were many turtle battles for less than oodles of
noodles."
I was sitting in on an "accent neutralization" class at the
Indian call center 24/7 Customer. The instructor was
teaching the would-be Indian call center operators to
suppress their native Indian accents and speak with a
Canadian one - she teaches British and U.S. accents as
well, but these youths will be serving the Canadian market.
Since I'm originally from Minnesota, near Canada, and still
speak like someone out of the movie "Fargo," I gave these
young Indians an authentic rendition of "30 Little
Turtles," which is designed to teach them the proper
Canadian pronunciations. Hence the rousing applause.
Watching these incredibly enthusiastic young Indians
preparing for their call center jobs - earnestly trying to
soften their t's and roll their r's - is an uplifting
experience, especially when you hear from their friends
already working these jobs how they have transformed their
lives. Most of them still live at home and turn over part
of their salaries to their parents, so the whole family
benefits. Many have credit cards and have become real
consumers, including of U.S. goods, for the first time. All
of them seem to have gained self-confidence and self-worth.
A lot of these Indian young men and women have college
degrees, but would never get a local job that starts at
$200 to $300 a month were it not for the call centers. Some
do "outbound" calls, selling things from credit cards to
phone services to Americans and Europeans. Others deal with
"inbound" calls - everything from tracing lost luggage for
U.S. airline passengers to solving computer problems for
U.S. customers. The calls are transferred here by satellite
or fiber optic cable.
I was most taken by a young Indian engineer doing tech
support for a U.S. software giant, who spoke with pride
about how cool it is to tell his friends that he just spent
the day helping Americans navigate their software. A
majority of these call center workers are young women, who
not only have been liberated by earning a decent local wage
(and therefore have more choice in whom they marry), but
are using the job to get M.B.A.'s and other degrees on the
side.
I gathered a group together, and here's what they sound
like: M. Dinesh, who does tech support, says his day is
made when some American calls in with a problem and is
actually happy to hear an Indian voice: "They say you
people are really good at what you do. I am glad I reached
an Indian." Kiran Menon, when asked who his role model was,
shot back: "Bill Gates - [I dream of] starting my own
company and making it that big." I asked C. M. Meghna what
she got most out of the work: "Self-confidence," she said,
"a lot of self-confidence, when people come to you with a
problem and you can solve it - and having a lot of
independence." Because the call center teams work through
India's night - which corresponds to America's day - "your
biological clock goes haywire," she added. "Besides that,
it's great."
There is nothing more positive than the self-confidence,
dignity and optimism that comes from a society knowing it
is producing wealth by tapping its own brains - men's and
women's - as opposed to one just tapping its own oil, let
alone one that is so lost it can find dignity only through
suicide and "martyrdom."
Indeed, listening to these Indian young people, I had a
déjà vu. Five months ago, I was in Ramallah, on the West
Bank, talking to three young Palestinian men, also in their
20's, one of whom was studying engineering. Their hero was
Yasir Arafat. They talked about having no hope, no jobs and
no dignity, and they each nodded when one of them said they
were all "suicide bombers in waiting."
What am I saying here? That it's more important for young
Indians to have jobs than Americans? Never. But I am saying
that there is more to outsourcing than just economics.
There's also geopolitics. It is inevitable in a networked
world that our economy is going to shed certain low-wage,
low-prestige jobs. To the extent that they go to places
like India or Pakistan - where they are viewed as
high-wage, high-prestige jobs - we make not only a more
prosperous world, but a safer world for our own
20-year-olds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/opinion/29FRIE.html?ex=1079068406&ei=1&en=
ecf36496968696b3
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Altschul" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:54 PM
Subject: The social costs of globalization
> Financial Times February 25, 2004
>
> The Social Costs of Globalisation
>
> By Joseph Stiglitz
>
> The report of the global commission on the social dimensions of
> globalisation*, issued this week, shows dramatically how the debate on
> globalisation has changed in recent years. The commission was established
> two years ago by the International Labour Organisation and its 24 members
> (of which I was one) were drawn from diverse interest groups, intellectual
> persuasions and nationalities. Its mission was to look carefully at the
> social dimensions of globalisation, which had too often been given short
> shrift in policy discussions.
>
> Some of the commission's messages - such as the need for better ways of
> restructuring debt - might have seemed controversial a short while ago.
> Today they are either in the mainstream or are gradually being accepted.
> But the central theme, that we need to look at the social consequences of
> globalisation, can never be overstressed.
>
> It is now generally agreed that the state has a role to play in cushioning
> individuals and society from the impact of rapid economic change. But the
> way globalisation has been managed has eroded the ability of the state to
> play its proper role; and the root of this problem lies in the global
> political system - if such it can be called. Institutions such as the
> International Monetary Fund and World Bank must become more transparent
and
> their voting structures must be changed to reflect the current - as
opposed
> to 1945 - distribution of economic power, let alone basic democratic
> principles.
>
> The report recognises that social progress, particularly for the poorest
> countries, cannot be separated from economic development. But it differs
> from the conventional wisdom on globalisation in arguing, first, that
> economic progress by itself may not entail social progress and, second,
> that the policies pushed by the international economic institutions -
> especially capital market liberalisation and an unbalanced trade
> liberalisation agenda - may not lead to economic growth and stability in
> developing countries.
>
> The report also recognises that, while developing countries are
responsible
> for their own actions, the international community has responsibilities
> too. Many poor countries have no hope of competing in the globalised world
> - even assuming there is a level playing field - without help to get them
> to a point of self-sustaining development. The commission thus underlines
> the importance of the rich nations fulfilling their promise of increasing
> overseas development assistance to 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product
> (compared with an actual average of 0.23 per cent of GDP), of relieving
> debt and of introducing other measures to speed the flow of capital and
> technology. Given the political will, these could be achieved almost
> overnight. So too could ending the outrageous discrimination - against
> products in which the poor are competitive - by rich countries that preach
> free trade.
>
> Yet more money and fairer trade are just part of the answer. Much of the
> damage done by globalisation has been a result of institutional and policy
> failures. In many cases, globalisation has been managed in a way that has
> eroded the state's ability to provide macroeconomic stability and social
> protection. Tax competition for businesses has weakened the tax base and
> put more of the burden of taxation on workers. Competition for investment
> has eroded the will of the state to protect the environment from pollution
> and workers from exploitation.
>
> Today, in the advanced industrial countries, displaced workers - those who
> have lost their jobs because of outsourcing or competitive imports - call
> for more protection and it is natural that democratic governments should
> respond. But if those in developed countries - where unemployment is low,
> strong social safety nets are in place and there are high levels of
> education - turn to government for help, how much more necessary is
> assistance in developing countries?
>
> The economic and financial volatility - and hence insecurity - associated
> with globalisation is the result of an agenda driven by interests and
> ideology. We all know how much damage it has done, especially to middle-
> income countries in Asia and Latin America - how it has contributed not
> only to poverty but also, in many countries, to the devastation of the
> middle class. Even the IMF now agrees that capital market liberalisation
> has contributed neither to growth nor to stability.
>
> If globalisation is managed better, the world can come closer together and
> become more prosperous. If it continues to be poorly managed, discontent
> with globalisation will grow. The commission's report provides concrete
> suggestions on how it can be better managed. But, whatever one thinks of
> these suggestions, this much is clear: we need a more inclusive debate
> about globalisation, in which its social dimensions are given their proper
> emphasis.
>
> Joseph E. Stiglitz is professor of economics at Columbia University. He
was
> awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001
>
> Copyright 2004 The Financial Times
>
> http://news.ft.com/home/us
>
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> To join or leave the list, send a message to
> [log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
> "subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
> VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
>
>
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
|
