EarthPulse - National Geographic
I recently had the opportunity to review some new educational materials published by Wiley & Sons, in cooperation with National Geographic. Earthpulse represents a collection of maps, stories, images, and statistics collected and bound for student's use, to augment instruction.
Earthpulse is now a branch off of the National Geographic website. I have just started to examine this website, but I can already see me using this in my World Geography courses. Imagery really helps convey a sense of place; graphics help convey information. The "Globalization" page under "Our Connected World" seems to indicate that much of the money we spend on goods tends to stay in our own country, despite all the noise we hear that all of our dollars are headed to China.
This site will take much exploration.
Showing posts with label globalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label globalization. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
Child Labor - Forbes.com
Child Labor - Forbes.com
Geographers have a difficult road ahead of them. The irresistable force of Globalization extends its tendrils into all facets of our lives. We are not even safe from the malevolent aspect of globalization when we purchase a soccer ball. That soccer ball may have been sewn together by a child, according to this story by Megha Bahree.
Not only do soccer balls represent a negative aspect of globalization, but so do embroidered jeans, beaded purses, or those little decorative boxes available at many department stores. These products could also, potentially, have been constructed by children.
Child labor is nothing new. Even our society in the United States has involved a fair amount of its own child labor. Talk to anyone who grew up on a farm. Ask them what it was like for them to grow up. They will probably say, "chores!" I know I worked each summer on my grandparent's farm in Nebraska; and I know that my mother and her brothers worked throughout their childhood on their parent's farm. Child labor in the U.S. is nothing new.
For some children in the U.S. things are somewhat different. Children, and I should say that the definition of a "child" depends. For some, those people under 13 are consider children. For others, the age might be 14. From other viewpoints, those 18 and under are children. But as I was saying, things for some U.S. children are different. They get paid.
Many farmers pay their labor fairly well. According to Ms. Bahree's article, some teenagers may make as much as $7/hr. The other difference is where the money is spent. U.S. teenagers are probably not going to use their income to pay for food for their family, or to help pay off family debt. Children in other countries may make $0.20/hr, or perhaps $1-$2/day. This money is then used to help pay for family expenses-food or debt, not for shopping at the mall, buying Miley Cyrus' new CD.
But is Globalization really that bad?
I argue that Globalization is an amoral force - it doesn't care, really, one way or the other if children are employed or not. The people behind the force have the responsibility of these decisions, however. Guns don't kill people, bullets do not kill people - it is the person wielding the tool that decides how the tool is used.
It can be argued that Globalization may be a potential savior for some of these children. The outsourcing of jobs overseas, not only from the U.S. but also from Europe, Mexico (yes, even Mexico outsources), and Japan, can push technology and new jobs and higher wages into new regions. As wages increase, children may be less likely to have to work outside the home. Families won't feel compelled to "sell" their children's services to others to help the family survive. The children would then be able to educate themselves, further increasing their income potential.
But all of this occurs slowly, and the distribution of these activities is spotty. However, this is the way of Diffusion. Just like disease outbreaks begin slowly, sometimes in isolated areas, pretty soon, under the correct conditions, the disease begins to thrive.
Globalization may act this way, becoming spatially diffuse, and, unlike an infection, may gradually improve the standards of living of millions of people abroad.
Geographers have a difficult road ahead of them. The irresistable force of Globalization extends its tendrils into all facets of our lives. We are not even safe from the malevolent aspect of globalization when we purchase a soccer ball. That soccer ball may have been sewn together by a child, according to this story by Megha Bahree.
Not only do soccer balls represent a negative aspect of globalization, but so do embroidered jeans, beaded purses, or those little decorative boxes available at many department stores. These products could also, potentially, have been constructed by children.
Child labor is nothing new. Even our society in the United States has involved a fair amount of its own child labor. Talk to anyone who grew up on a farm. Ask them what it was like for them to grow up. They will probably say, "chores!" I know I worked each summer on my grandparent's farm in Nebraska; and I know that my mother and her brothers worked throughout their childhood on their parent's farm. Child labor in the U.S. is nothing new.
For some children in the U.S. things are somewhat different. Children, and I should say that the definition of a "child" depends. For some, those people under 13 are consider children. For others, the age might be 14. From other viewpoints, those 18 and under are children. But as I was saying, things for some U.S. children are different. They get paid.
Many farmers pay their labor fairly well. According to Ms. Bahree's article, some teenagers may make as much as $7/hr. The other difference is where the money is spent. U.S. teenagers are probably not going to use their income to pay for food for their family, or to help pay off family debt. Children in other countries may make $0.20/hr, or perhaps $1-$2/day. This money is then used to help pay for family expenses-food or debt, not for shopping at the mall, buying Miley Cyrus' new CD.
But is Globalization really that bad?
I argue that Globalization is an amoral force - it doesn't care, really, one way or the other if children are employed or not. The people behind the force have the responsibility of these decisions, however. Guns don't kill people, bullets do not kill people - it is the person wielding the tool that decides how the tool is used.
It can be argued that Globalization may be a potential savior for some of these children. The outsourcing of jobs overseas, not only from the U.S. but also from Europe, Mexico (yes, even Mexico outsources), and Japan, can push technology and new jobs and higher wages into new regions. As wages increase, children may be less likely to have to work outside the home. Families won't feel compelled to "sell" their children's services to others to help the family survive. The children would then be able to educate themselves, further increasing their income potential.
But all of this occurs slowly, and the distribution of these activities is spotty. However, this is the way of Diffusion. Just like disease outbreaks begin slowly, sometimes in isolated areas, pretty soon, under the correct conditions, the disease begins to thrive.
Globalization may act this way, becoming spatially diffuse, and, unlike an infection, may gradually improve the standards of living of millions of people abroad.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Four Tiers of Growth and Prosperity
Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn makes a good pitch in this recent article. Within, he describes the transition from our traditional First World, Second World, Third World mentality - which within the last decade or so has migrated towards High Income, Middle Income, Low Income nomenclature - to a new paradigm.
The world now consists, or will soon consist of, a different structure. First Tier is used to describe Western and Northern Europe, the United States and Canada, and Japan.
The second tier, comprised of former middle- and low-income nations, is represented by countries like India and China.
The third tier are represented by countries in the Middle East and South America. These countries have significant economies yet do not have the influence within the world economy to either require significant help or have the ability to significantly influence world economic policy. At least according Wolfensohn. I would suggest that while, overall, this may be true, certain economic sectors are certainly influenced by countries in these regions. The Middle East is a significant player in petroleum, which influences energy prices. Brazil and Argentina are significant players in agriculture, which carries over to subsidies, food costs, and perhaps energy (think ethanol).
The last tier of countries are chiefly found within Subsaharan Africa. There are a few other countries that fit into this are found outside the region, such as Haiti.. These countries have extreme human poverty, benefit little from the forces of globalization, and unless there is outside intervention (which may have been the initial catalyst for their problems), will probably continue to lag behind the rest of the world - at best.
The article is very detail-rich and Wolfensohn does offer some advice to counteract some of the forces currently at work that undermine potentials across the globe that seek to elevate countries to higher tiers. Finally, being European, I would guess, he challenges Europe to rise up and take a leadership role in eradicating the extreme differences in growth and wealth around the world.
A certain amount of income-disparity is important to have, I believe. In fact, in a free-market world, there will certainly be a stratification of wealth and income. Not everyone is predisposed to risk, entrepreneurial attitudes, climbing the corporation ladder, or the means-justifies-the-end type mentality. Thusly, there will also be disparity in wealth. One cannot eliminate the ability to achieve a better standard of living, however. Maybe it could be likened to a football game (American), where one team gets down so far, becomes demoralized, and loses. There are examples of comebacks, however.
The Houston Oilers and the Buffalo Bills game comes to mind.
The world now consists, or will soon consist of, a different structure. First Tier is used to describe Western and Northern Europe, the United States and Canada, and Japan.
The second tier, comprised of former middle- and low-income nations, is represented by countries like India and China.
The third tier are represented by countries in the Middle East and South America. These countries have significant economies yet do not have the influence within the world economy to either require significant help or have the ability to significantly influence world economic policy. At least according Wolfensohn. I would suggest that while, overall, this may be true, certain economic sectors are certainly influenced by countries in these regions. The Middle East is a significant player in petroleum, which influences energy prices. Brazil and Argentina are significant players in agriculture, which carries over to subsidies, food costs, and perhaps energy (think ethanol).
The last tier of countries are chiefly found within Subsaharan Africa. There are a few other countries that fit into this are found outside the region, such as Haiti.. These countries have extreme human poverty, benefit little from the forces of globalization, and unless there is outside intervention (which may have been the initial catalyst for their problems), will probably continue to lag behind the rest of the world - at best.
The article is very detail-rich and Wolfensohn does offer some advice to counteract some of the forces currently at work that undermine potentials across the globe that seek to elevate countries to higher tiers. Finally, being European, I would guess, he challenges Europe to rise up and take a leadership role in eradicating the extreme differences in growth and wealth around the world.
A certain amount of income-disparity is important to have, I believe. In fact, in a free-market world, there will certainly be a stratification of wealth and income. Not everyone is predisposed to risk, entrepreneurial attitudes, climbing the corporation ladder, or the means-justifies-the-end type mentality. Thusly, there will also be disparity in wealth. One cannot eliminate the ability to achieve a better standard of living, however. Maybe it could be likened to a football game (American), where one team gets down so far, becomes demoralized, and loses. There are examples of comebacks, however.
The Houston Oilers and the Buffalo Bills game comes to mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
