Despite being one of the commonly talked about words, globalization has remained yet an elusive and slippery word. This is because it is like a double aged sword, favoring and disfavoring people equally. While it is good news to many, it is also frightening to much more. As for me, globalization poses several problems because of its impact on my future careers. In its truest elements characterized by intense interaction between the economies of different countries, while presenting me with some opportunities, it would also have some inherent problems for in my future practice. This essay is a guiding navigational GPS to as to how I would tread in the turbulent waters of the world of globalization.
In future, I intend to major in the social science of economics. Therefore, I intend to work as an economist in future. As an economist, I am certain that globalization would pose serious issues and be a subject of heightened debate. For instance, international trade and its impact on country economies would surely be a subject of debate. For instance, as an economist, I would strongly suggest that my country tries to do the best to create employment. This would entail that among other things, the government invests in increasing production activities within the borders of a country to create job. However, the paradox is that globalization encourages firms to produces where costs of production are lowest. This necessarily means that manufacturers may have to move to other countries where the cost of labor is lowest – which would mean moving to create jobs in such countries, ultimately failing to create employment in my home country (Tisdell and Sen 146). As an economist, it would be a tricky affair to champion for globalization when the same is responsible for taking jobs away. An economist who advocates for a sort of international trade that takes jobs away will definitely be rebuked.
While it is clear from “The World is Flat” that Friedman is an enthusiast of globalization – to the extent of criticizing people and nations that resist it – it is also evident from his text that globalization is not a cure-all remedy to the problem facing the economies and wellbeing of other nations (Friedman 127). For instance, globalization encourages outsourcing, where company can enter into an agreement with another such that the later provides goods or services to the former for a price. Unfortunately, such outsourcing denies emerging economies the chance to undertake production, because they will be under pressure from developed one to outsource their production and manufacturing to the highly skilled and technically advanced companies of the developed. Clearly, globalization has winners and losers. However, it can be a deadly sin to remind the beneficiaries of globalization these facts – and this definitely makes my future career perilous.
At this point in this discussion, it may appear like globalization is a nightmare, a bad dream that all should be afraid of ever experiencing. It is indeed true that globalization threatens smaller economies, which definitely means that as an economist in future, it may reach a point where the society many look up upon me to offer solutions to phenomenon that is too huge to explain. For instance, during the financial crisis that began in 2008, economists found themselves in an unpopular position of having to explain the downside of globalization to a people already reeling from effects of reduced purchasing power and eroded savings (Chirico 276). While it was indeed an opportunity to shed light on the disadvantages of globalization – the crisis speared quickly because of the connected nature of the contemporary economic world – they also faced the threat of making unwanted enemies, mostly in the corporate world who would not want to hear the dark side of globalization. This is because among other things, they would be required to scale down their portfolio, something that would see then realize diminishing profits.