C.E. - The Cognitve Age

[Gregory Hewett]

May 2, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

The Cognitive Age
By DAVID BROOKS

If you go into a good library, you will find thousands of books on globalization. Some will laud it. Some will warn about its dangers. But they’ll agree that globalization is the chief process driving our age. Our lives are being transformed by the increasing movement of goods, people and capital across borders.

The globalization paradigm has led, in the political arena, to a certain historical narrative: There were once nation-states like the U.S. and the European powers, whose economies could be secured within borders. But now capital flows freely. Technology has leveled the playing field. Competition is global and fierce.

New dynamos like India and China threaten American dominance thanks to their cheap labor and manipulated currencies. Now, everything is made abroad. American manufacturing is in decline. The rest of the economy is threatened.

Hillary Clinton summarized the narrative this week: “They came for the steel companies and nobody said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said anything. They came for the office companies, people who did white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said anything.”

The globalization paradigm has turned out to be very convenient for politicians. It allows them to blame foreigners for economic woes. It allows them to pretend that by rewriting trade deals, they can assuage economic anxiety. It allows them to treat economic and social change as a great mercantilist competition, with various teams competing for global supremacy, and with politicians starring as the commanding generals.

But there’s a problem with the way the globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of what is happening in the world.

Globalization is real and important. It’s just not the central force driving economic change. Some Americans have seen their jobs shipped overseas, but global competition has accounted for a small share of job creation and destruction over the past few decades. Capital does indeed flow around the world. But as Pankaj Ghemawat of the Harvard Business School has observed, 90 percent of fixed investment around the world is domestic. Companies open plants overseas, but that’s mainly so their production facilities can be close to local markets.

Nor is the globalization paradigm even accurate when applied to manufacturing. Instead of fleeing to Asia, U.S. manufacturing output is up over recent decades. As Thomas Duesterberg of Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, a research firm, has pointed out, the U.S.’s share of global manufacturing output has actually increased slightly since 1980.

The chief force reshaping manufacturing is technological change (hastened by competition with other companies in Canada, Germany or down the street). Thanks to innovation, manufacturing productivity has doubled over two decades. Employers now require fewer but more highly skilled workers. Technological change affects China just as it does the America. William Overholt of the RAND Corporation has noted that between 1994 and 2004 the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs, 10 times more than the U.S.

The central process driving this is not globalization. It’s the skills revolution. We’re moving into a more demanding cognitive age. In order to thrive, people are compelled to become better at absorbing, processing and combining information. This is happening in localized and globalized sectors, and it would be happening even if you tore up every free trade deal ever inked.

The globalization paradigm emphasizes the fact that information can now travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. Does the individual have the capacity to understand the information? Does he or she have the training to exploit it? Are there cultural assumptions that distort the way it is perceived?

The globalization paradigm leads people to see economic development as a form of foreign policy, as a grand competition between nations and civilizations. These abstractions, called “the Chinese” or “the Indians,” are doing this or that. But the cognitive age paradigm emphasizes psychology, culture and pedagogy — the specific processes that foster learning. It emphasizes that different societies are being stressed in similar ways by increased demands on human capital. If you understand that you are living at the beginning of a cognitive age, you’re focusing on the real source of prosperity and understand that your anxiety is not being caused by a foreigner.

It’s not that globalization and the skills revolution are contradictory processes. But which paradigm you embrace determines which facts and remedies you emphasize. Politicians, especially Democratic ones, have fallen in love with the globalization paradigm. It’s time to move beyond it.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[xxlyra]

As technology becomes more and more present in our everyday life, it is time to start focusing on the things human can do, and technology can't. This is the main point of "The Cognitive Age" by David Brooks, and he does have a point - career-experts today argue that the most influential growth in jobs will happen in fields where a certain degree of humanity is required, like in jobs as nursing, psychology, and teaching.

Brooks' article also serves as yet another corrector of those who blame 'the Indians' and 'the Chinese' for stealing jobs and capital. In reality, one could view it the other way around: with these new Asian nations assuming status on the economic world map, they will create job opportunities and economic growth in their countries, ergo creating more consumers with buying-power. And with today's e-commerce field showing massive potential, there is no boundary to where these consumers can buy from - and with the West having a temporary monopoly on internet business, the retailers who are internet-ready could therefore benefit from this.

In the future, one could easily imagine many jobs having been completely eliminated because of increasingly sophisticated technology. But nothing compares to the sound of a real human voice. So, in order to prepare for the skills revolution, schools will need to focus more on the fields of humanities and creative mathematics and sciences, and less on the field of orthodox mathematics (arithmetics etc.) and subjects that can be solved by technology.

Some questions about the future:
-will skills such as mathematics computation and correct spelling be obsolete fifteen years from now, where computers most likely will have replaced paper and automatic spellchecking, calculators, etc., will be all around us?
-will artificial intelligence devices have developed to that level where it WILL be able to mimic human emotions more closely, thus creeping closer and closer to creepily resembling humans?

[sarah99]

In the article it says that "globalization is the driving force behind economies". As a result, no countries in the world today can control their economies inside their country. How then is it controlled? By something or someone outside their country? Or is globalization just causing complete chaos in our world today? Before globalization was at the height it is now, the global economy seemed to have worked better—at least it was under more control. Now, what was once in some control is completely out of control. Is there some law in economics that can explain globalization? Some law that can help a country's economy in the midst of the chaos of globalization? It seems now that the only certain thing is change as a result of globalization. I predict that unless economists and politicians can find a way to somehow strengthen and control their economies in spite of the chaos of globalization, countries' economies around the world will be completely unpredictable.

As for the technology revolution, I agree with what Lyra said—about how in the future, many jobs will possibly not be needed anymore because technology could replace it…. However, nothing can replace an actual human being for some jobs. It is a very scary thought that humans will go so far in technology that computerized/techno beings will be able to mimic humans . If, far into the future, we get so far in technology that many, many jobs are not needed anymore; will this help or hinder humans? If many jobs are not needed anymore, won’t that increase unemployment? And therefore poverty? The skills revolution, even more than globalization, could drastically change our world.

[sanjayvdasari]

The article was in fact very interesting. Even though they are almost ‘blaming’ the Indians and Chinese for “stealing" the manufacturing jobs in the US, it was a very enlightening article. Putting the entire article in one petit little point, the time has come for the people to start finding things that only people can do. Jobs that machines cannot take away from them.

Globalization, I feel, is actually a good thing. It’s basically the coming together of the world. This can benefit retailers, as there will be a whole new batch of people willing to buy their goods, and wholesalers, as there will be a whole new batch of retailers willing to sell their goods. I feel that the main thing that has brought globalization this far is trade, but what will keep it going is the people views about how Globalization can indeed benefit the society and their lives as a whole.

Reply:

I agree with Lyra that those who say ‘the Indians’ and ‘the Chinese’ are stealing jobs from the people in the US are extremely misled. In fact, it is the other way around, for years, people in the US or somewhere replace jobs in India by simple sending over a few machines that could do the work a lot faster and efficiently.

[jozefien]

While reading the book the” No Nonsense Guide to Globalization”, I often had the impression that globalization is not very beneficial for developing countries; very few things were said about the positive side of globalization. I believe that globalization is not always good for every country in the world, but this article showed that there are many untruths told about globalization. One of it is the common misconception that globalization moves jobs from developed nations to developing nations, and thus increases the unemployment rates in developed countries. Many people think that this statement is true. I have experienced this myself when my family decided to move to India last year. Many people in Belgium thought that my father’s company was a perfect example of a company that moved to a cheaper country to make more money and thereby contributed to the rising unemployment in Belgium. Because there was so much criticism on Belgian companies moving to cheaper countries, I didn’t really know what I had to believe, but after reading this article it is very clear to me that those people were wrong. The article says that only a small part of the unemployment is caused by globalization. A more relevant cause of unemployment in developed nations is the increased technology and usage of machinery .In the past many people were needed to produce things, for example for the production of cars, but nowadays this happens almost completely with technology; the only human interference that is necessary is controlling the designing, controlling, and maintaining the machines .

I think that as a response to the technology, people will become smarter, and as the article says we will be in a “cognitive age”. Because less labor-intensive jobs will be needed, governments will have to ensure that the population has access to better education, in order to keep unemployment rates low. This could happen through further subsidizing education so that more people can go to university or college. On the long term almost everybody will be higher-educated. Higher educated people could then control technology and improve them further. Of course other professions that are not connected to production will still exist as well. Since production of things will become less labor intensive, everything can be produced on larger scales. This could be a solution for a very current problem: the higher demand for food and products from the growing populations in developing countries.

However, if this actually happened, then there would be one serious concern: our environment. Would it be achievable to grow enough raw commodities to make higher production scales possible? And how can we sustain our environment if technology has such an important role in our lives? Maybe the results of the cognitive age (the smarter people) will be able to find solutions for these hindrances.

After reading this article I was surprised that despite globalization and the fact that many people have access to a wide range of media, there are still many people that believe the lies that are told about globalization .The article spoke about how politicians blame globalization for the problems in their local economies. This gives people a completely wrong view on how the global economy works, and keeps certain paradigms alive. Although increased access to media is often seen as an improvement, we should be selective and make up for ourselves what we believe and what not.

[tamsin]

This article was quite interesting. Its so shocking to read that India and China are pressuring American supremacy due to their economical labor and influenced exchange. this must be a total gain for India and China, but a sufficent loss for America. since they dont gain anything from this.
Our world is just becomng so much smaller as globalization expands.
Nations are now finding it difficult to run their economies efficiently. how can these nations solve the problems? they are now going to have to find exterior support to guide them to run a succesful economy.
Globalization today as practicly ruined the economies of the world. it is changing our world so quickly that it has gone to far to even stop the development. globalisation was so simple and easly to handle back when it was extablished. Globalisation has caused job loss due to the cause of extreeme technology. as everyone has agreed with lyras exellent piont , technology will probably eventually take over Human jobs, and they will have to find something humans can do that extreeme technology cannot imitate.

i guess it is up to us to decide if we really want new technolgy to be in our future that could indeed ruin countries all over the world. or to slow it down to atleast benfit from Human resources.

[niranthara]

As money, ideas, jobs and goods travel across borders and combine, we see our world shrinking and changing its good old ways-globalization. As the people of the world, we aren’t just coming together economically, but socially too. As people and ideas travel across the world, the understanding of different people and their behaviour also becomes easier. This is where we see one in many cycles of globalization. In my opinion, economies and ideas coming together and growing as one is a result of the integration amongst different races and cultures.

One of the biggest reason people move around the world is because of the job opportunities created everywhere. It isn’t just the availability, but the possibility to reach them. It is also economically profitable for anyone to be able to not only take jobs in foreign nations but create ones too. As companies start selling their products else where they decide to push their people and money to where the greatest demand is. It not only makes more sense, it’s much cheaper.

With technology being one of the biggest forces of globalization, we see it move to a much higher level. What makes me wonder is if technology is so much more efficient and provides better quality than simple human hands, then why people are exporting job opportunities to china and India? Can’t it be done quicker and easier in America?

Which brings us to the next topic- comparative advantage. It’s obviously not as practical, but at the same time makes more sense because it’s cheaper. Economically, exporting the job to some other nation that would do the same job at a cheaper rate, more effectively is profitable. This is also where we see the wealth from one large, powerful nation being spread to the smaller and developing nations. As the article said, “there was once a nation-state like the US.” Countries like India and china are not only becoming wealthier due to more job opportunities being created, but also because they interacting with nations of much more power.

However powerful technology maybe, human power and work will always be needed. Looking at the importance of comparative advantage, it will always be economically beneficial. In my opinion, the Indian and the Chinese aren’t stealing jobs but helping globalization prosper.

On the other hand, the increase in global competition and interactivity has also put more pressure on the younger generations. With job opportunities blossoming all around the world, there is a want and need for skilled people. With only so few jobs and so many people, they have to work twice as hard to reach it. People want to move around and keep up with globalization, but the big question is if they can?

[xxlyra]

This is a reply to Jozefien's superfine post, but in particularly this part:

May 10, 2008 16:02:11 GMT 5.5 @jozefien said:

I think that as a response to the technology, people will become smarter, and as the article says we will be in a “cognitive age”. Because less labor-intensive jobs will be needed, governments will have to ensure that the population has access to better education, in order to keep unemployment rates low. This could happen through further subsidizing education so that more people can go to university or college. On the long term almost everybody will be higher-educated.

In Denmark, every part of the education system is completely subsidised. University and post-graduate programmes, doctorates - it's all free, and what's more, once you are over 18 and still in the educational system, you actually get paid to study*. No shiz! As we are older when we start school in Denmark, typically you start getting paid in the first year of gymnasium (see explanation underneath for the real definition, but technically it's like when you start high school). But, after my impression, this does certainly not mean we have higher educated people.

The Danish school system is very different from the American: we start off in grade zero, all the way up to nine, and then we are theoritically finished. Grade ten is voluntary, and only really for those "who didn't get it the first time", as one educational minister so eloquently put it.. After that, one can choose to take another three years of school referred to as gymnasium - but for the vast majority, that's as high as education will go. While most people at my old school talked about going to gymnasium, nearly none had in mind to attend university (which is after gymnasium, and works the same way as the British/American unis), even though it was free, and even though they earned a salary for studying there.

There could be many explanations for why people would choose not to take this opportunity.

First off, there are many job options in Denmark - we certainly do not suffer from job shortage. You do not need very much education to get a job. Already after grade nine, one can choose to either just work (for a low wage, though), or join an apprenticeship in a company. This apprenticeship is also paid, and after it has finished, the company typically hires the student. The apprenticeship is usually in more labourous fields, such as carpenting, or construction, but the wages for such fields are high in Denmark. And considering that one can start nearly right after grade nine, many carpenters will be richer than doctors when both reach 40.

Second of all, if you go as far as finish gymnasium, you have so many job opportunities that unless you want to a) super-specialise, b) obtain a doctorate, or c) just get paid 10,000 pounds more each year, it seems pointless to go to university. Again, considering the time you 'waste' not working but studying, there is no real financial incentive to go to university. Just these three extra years of study means that you are already considered educated.

Another possibility is that simply, I'm wrong, and many people do go to university. After all, I went to school in Denmark lastly in grade seven. But still, I had friends in all age ranges, and out of those, very few had attended anything above gymnasium.

To conclude, one can say that if one wants to impel a population towards higher education, there is far more to it that just subsidising education. As the (perceived) situation in Denmark illustrates, there needs to be stronger financial incentives than those present in that little country. But seeing as college/university is nearly obligatory in order to get a well-paid job in America, perhaps subsidising would work better there, seeing as their incentives are already strong (i.e., one, you don't have a college/uni education, you're not gonna get a very high-earning job, and two, people expect you to go, which is more a social incentive, but okay).

In order to get people to do something, they need motivating reasons - 'incentives'. Incentives can be classified as either financial, social, or moral. And nearly none of those are present in Denmark. So while free higher education is definitely an advantage to living there, it does not automatically equal higher educated people. To make subsidised higher education work, one needs to be sure that the general population would actually be motivated to use this opportunity. So, whether or not free education will produce a higher educated general population will ultimately depend on the incentives the population sees for taking up further studies.

*for people living at home, they get around 120 pounds a month. This does not sound like much, but remember, they do not have to pay for rent or food, since they live at home, so it's like suddenly having 120 pounds to spend on whatever you want each month! The system, called S.U., is conditional though; how much you 'earn' depends on your living conditions. Also, if you have a part-time job, there is a limit to how much you can earn and still receive S.U.

[nitika]

While scrolling down to where I can post my reply, I was left speechless and shocked at the amount people wrote. Some are as long as the article. Mine is going to be very short compared to the rest.

As the title states, Cognitive age is the era of knowing, where skill and being smart, is all that it takes to make it big, such as the skill to analyze, understand, and put forth things in an interesting and correct manner.

The current event affects all the people in the world; each and every one of us. The current event states that the fields where skills are required are everywhere today and there will be more tomorrow. The world is changing at such a fast pace and people have to work hard to keep up.

I think Globalization is has it’s own side of ups and downs; just as everything else has. It may be a good thing from one point of view and from another a very bad thing. This article gives us a sneak into the other side of globalization.

Politicians blame globalization for many things, and find it convenient to get out of situations by blaming them on globalization. But they are wrong. As we had learned in the book “No Nonsense Guide to Globalization” as companies move oversees, they expand and therefore creating more jobs, which is ultimately good fro the economic growth of both countries; the country from where the company had arrived and the country where the company is now situated. More jobs created= less unemployment= more money= more spending= good for countries.

Many misleading thoughts such as the Indians and Chinese are “stealing” jobs from the Americans are presented in this article, but it is not true. In fact, the number of jobs in the U.S. has increased not decreased, and number of employed Americans has increased since 2000. Even if many new powers are stealing the jobs, won’t the companies expand and so won’t there be new jobs available. As we learnt more people= more jobs created= more people employed. So where’s the downside?

In the demanding world of today, people look for that extra 1%, what makes you different, if you have the skill, and then you have the money, and the power. I think in the future, more technology will be made, and robots will be made, very close to the human, and so humans will have to achieve higher thinking capabilities to compete with these robots. As the world grows, demand for skill grows. People have to hurry to catch up with the fast growing world.

[kwangsampark]

Today, trading all over the world without any borders has triggered globalization and due to globalization, it was possible for others to get employed for manufactoring jobs in other countries. In the article, politicians are blaming some countries such as India and China for stealing these jobs in U.S, however, I think that instead of the word "stealing" it would be more appropriate to say "helping". As we have learned in our class book "No Nonsense Guide to Globalization, when there's globalization, it would create more oppertunities for people to get jobs. not just this, but also globalization connects people all over the world, and help them maintain their life. But this can not be supported nowadays, first, today, a lot of people try to work on their own, not hink of others and this has been led by the development of technology. Numerous people are now depending on technology therefore they do not depend on each other for helps. As technology develops, people are going to be more dependent on their technology, whether that is for producing more goods ect. And this has made the jobs decrease. In the future, it would be more serious.

So I think that people should focus on the development of technology at the same time, not too much depend on the use of technology. As a result, when globalization occurs, people will tend to buy products from all over the world, which would benefit both the consumers and producers in the end.

Also I think that the development of technology, also known as skills revolution, can't be blamed for the decrease in the jobs. The population has grown so much since last few years. As population of the world grows, people started to consume more food(eat more), as a result products have to be produced more in quantities than that of the pasts. So in order to produce more commodities, technology is something that cannot be excluded.
What I want to mention is that, it is not the technology that really influences negatively, but the growth of population can be main cause of this whole thing.

[keisuke]

Well this article was quite interesting from the articles i read in the past. Well talking about globalization in this article, its a very necessary process in this world right now. Globalization could be realized to people in either good way or bad way ofcourse. in the bad way since this globalization occured people kept on depending on it and started to close companies and quie the trading with the farming. However in the good wy it helps the people from all over the world unite so it is a good process to make people to know each other.

Well my dad works in Panasonic, which is a globalized company made in Japan since it is known from all over the world. As he said its really good to be a globalized company so that he could check out the world he had never seen before other than Japan and also to know about other people.

well thats about it

see ya ;D

[zachghaderi]

It’s funny that this article was chosen. This was actually hanging over my head for a long time. I always figured that this technology is getting so advanced to transport thoughts, ideas, feelings, work, goods, etc., that it must take a real team of geniuses to create those advancements. But then, where does that leave all the small people who can comprehend that hi-tech info? They are left behind as the huge wheels of globalization role by crushing their hopes and dreams.
We can see the changes already. The people who don’t go to college now aren’t as lucky as they where before. My uncle was college bound, until he met the woman of his dreams. That changed a lot for him including his aspirations of a college diploma. Though, he was very fortunate. He is highly creative and skilled with machinery and crafts, and he ended up with a nice, well paying job from Ford (until that the company as a whole went downhill). The fact is that there are many people in his boat. They went for a job right out of high school and landed one, a good one.
But nowadays that is just about impossible. To get ANY kind of nice job that can pay any money to be happy with requires a college diploma, unless your life goal is to get a “McJob” frying patties all the while.

[sparsh]

Hmmm. This was truly a very interesting and educational article. Since there is no summary needed I am going to cut to the chase. The countries like China and USA are getting rid of so many employees and replacing them for efficient machinery. They are only keeping the really brainy and intellectual employees. So basically it’s Machine over Man.
In my opinion this is good and bad. It’s good because now that the employees that were not very useful and let go the machines which can do their jobs are present. I think it is very good and essential that they keep the few brainy employees to run the software that is needed. It is bad also. What are these people that were let go going to do? This action is going to affect the unemployment rate of the country. Like Brook said in the article that since 1994 to 2004 over 25 million employees were let go. That’s only 10 years. Did the companies that lost all of these so called “not needed” employees lose money or gain profit?

All in all globalization is a good thing. It ties the countries together and helps the development of the world.

LAST DISCUSSION FORUM

THAKNK YOU GOD


Reply to Sanjay : I had the same response to the article as you did. People should start finding jobs that require labour done by humans and not machines. Also the part where you said that the people need to see that globalization can benefit their lives. I 100% agree with you on that. These people should take the advantages of globalization and actually find jobs in companies that need them instead of firing them for some machines.

Reply to Zach: Dude I completely agree to the last point you made about getting a good job that pays good money without a diploma. I honestly thought the same when I read this article. You can’t get a good job without being a college graduate unless you want to work in a Mc D’s or a Burger King. Very true my friend. Very true.

[hisu]

I don't really get it. Its filled with too much complicated stuff. I agree Globilization is very interesting and important. The most interesting part was that globalization wasn't decreasing manufacturing in the States. Because in the first part of the current event it says that America's manufacturing was in decline, but in the second part it says that it isn't decreasing, but increasing. I think that machines should not be able to replace humans. It can't because it will cost many people their jobs. I think that humans have their right to jobs and nothing should be able to change that. I think that soon people will find things for machines to do that won't interfere with the jobs of humans. What I don't understand is that why globalization isn't the "central driving force for economic change?" If it has such an impact on the world.

[hisu]

I disagree that in the article it said that globalization is the driving force. It says it isn't. I also agree about how you think about the technology revolution. It is scary to think that when we grow up we may have such a hard time finding a job. I would never like to live under the poverty line.

[olivia]

This Article was very interesting, some parts where hard to follow, but most of it was understandable.

A major part of this article which really intersting, was how the government thought that manufacturing was distrupting the american econonmy, but it really was just to get polititions more votes, which i find very pathetic.
After i read about how technology was replacing humans in the workforce, i was shocked to realize that machines where overtaking human jobs, leaving them without financial aid and support. I believe that humans should not be replaced by any means.
Humans need these benefits. They have families to feed, and need the support. Machines however, dont have these difficult situations. I find it very inconsiderate, that they re replacing these workers with machines, and it definitly, shouldnt be approached
A question that i thought of , was why globalization is not one of the central forces of economic change when it is affecting the world so much? since, withought globalization, civilization today wouldnt be as strong, as it would be if globalization was enforced.
This was a pretty good article, and very eye awakening.

[rmanu]

In the article it says that between 1994 and 2004 Chinese got rid of 25 million jobs and it was 10 times more than the US. This was because technology is improving; now technology can do some jobs that humans can not do. Technology also does jobs that are not required skills and which is cheap labor. Basically only skilled and intelligent workers are needed which is a good sign but this will lead to poverty because lots of people will be unemployed especially in countries like India. There is a lot of population in India and most of the population is very poor. Technology is going to replace jobs that are cheap in labor that it is not required to much skill. So most of the jobs in India will be replaced by technology but this will lead to poverty and a lot of unemployed people. In the future i think this will happen. Only people who are well educated, skilled, and intelligent will find jobs. People who are not that educated, not skilled, and not intelligent will find it very hard to find jobs.

[elizabethw]

The article does very well to point out the actual reasons for the economic issues faced by the US and the other developed nations. It also clearly shows that jobs are not just lost to foreigners but they are lost to technology improvements. The article is very educating because, it explains, what one has to match with the technology changes, and it is about improving cognitive skills. Getting information and understanding it and then exploiting it towards technology improvements. Some of the countries to which jobs go, have exactly done that. The article has done a good job in explaining the misinterpretations given by politicians, and beautifully suggests that readers look beyond globalization and look into why globalization occurs and how cognitive skills will drive it.
The globalization paradigm is often misinterpreted or misunderstood by many around the globe today. The topic explains how politicians conveniently blame the foreigners for their economic anxieties. The globalization paradigm can be seen as a major threat to a country’s economy as capitol and money freely flows across borders, technology improves and global competition becomes fiercer. Expert studies conducted at the Harvard University and the Alliance/MAPI, point to a different opinion: majority of the investments are kept domestically and manufacturing around the world is being shaped by technology improvements and innovations because of the competition faced within the country and among developed nations. The article indicates that improved technology means demand for specialized skills and lesser manual work- that explains the fewer jobs. The article correctly points out that, this threat of losing jobs is not due to globalization but because of the improved technology, which is a requirement to beat competition. The actual driving process of an economy is skills revolution and not globalization. Reading this article, one can understand that skills need to improve to match the change in technology that will always keep improving to be able to fight global competition.
The article points out that, economies like India and China foster a learning environment towards skills development required improving and operating the technology that drives globalization. This explains the fact that countries like India focused on education that built skills in operating and maintaining technology (for example: IT). The cognitive age paradigm requires a good capacity to process the information received and exploit the information by applying it to technology.
An article written by Surekha Galagoda for the Sunday Observer in September 2007, pointed to the fact that countries like India and Sri Lanka emphasize on aligning their education to the technology improvements that drive globalization. The article shows that by focusing on the cognitive requirements, countries like India can match global competition in gaining prosperity. It is this part of the article that interestingly relates to current article written by David Brookes.
Thus it can be predicted that (the US and the developed nations) by focusing on the cognitive age, rather than globalization alone, will not only remove the anxiety of a worsening economy but also actually improve its economy and face global competition and of course not lose jobs.
Additional Article referred to: Develop education sector to boost IT/BPO industry - CEO WNS Group By Surekha Galagoda, Sunday, 2 September 2007, Sunday Observer, Colombo, Sri Lanka

[jungkyu]

Cognitive Age Paradigm

This editorial had a strong voice about the cognitive age paradigm. The author clearly tries to make us understand the cognitive age paradigm by laying out the differences between globalization and cognitive age. The author also mentions the state of globalization and contrasts the economies of the past and present.
Nowadays, technology has developed rapidly and reached at much higher level than the past. Accordingly, the globalization today seems to be driving forces that affect and are influenced by the technological development. However, the author of this editorial is trying to tell us that we are in the world of globalization paradigm as well as the cognitive age. Moreover, we need to understand that we are in the cognitive age paradigm. By being in the cognitive age means that we require a higher skill of absorbing, processing and combining information. In fact, I do agree with the fact that we are in ‘cognitive age’ which globalization does not affect us much. Although it may affect the world entirely by a bit, it does not have a significant impact in us and in our countries’ economies or development. Rather, some of the politicians are benefiting from the globalization. My opinion about the cognitive age paradigm is that because the globalization had occurred, it also had created cognitive age. Therefore, we need to be more aware of what is going to happen in the future. I think by acquiring higher skill in adapting to the new information will help us in the future. In addition, I also agree with the article because the higher skill and recognizing allows us to adapt to the changes in the future. We do not know what’s going to happen in our future, and some people, in fact, are not aware of these changes. They are just doing their work everyday. However, they are in a risk. For instance, what will happen if a new infectious disease occur and devastate the world; like SARS? The first thing that people have to do in a situation like this would be going to the internet and finding various ways to avoid the disease, and in order to do this, people require a higher skill in adapting and being aware of the changes.
( I went a bit beyond what this article is meaning.) Anyway, my understanding about the cognitive age paradigm is that people should be more aware of the changes. They don’t know what will happen to their jobs.
Although I did know what globalization meant, I did not know why it had occurred.
One other thing that I did not get from this article was that ‘why does the cheep labor threaten American dominance?’ What I thought was, doesn’t U.S benefit from these cheep labors? Or if this was true, then U.S might have been affected by these cheep and large labor that’s around the world like China and India.

[maimoona]

The Cognitive Age

When I first read this article the first thing that came to my head was that, when the people who leave their homes and get into new places like for example when people leave the States and come to India, the people are experiencing a whole new change of life. Because they see a completely new different world, as to how India is for them. The culture differences, the way people are, it is just different. Moreover, I think that what globalization means when you tend to get into something new, and experiencing something different.
Ha-ha

This article brings up a lot to do with globalization, and how it has a positive and a negative influence in this world. However, I think that overall, it has done many positive things to this world as to how I see it. However, there are also something's what we have to take under consideration such as how some people lose their cultural benefits and practice other culture, which means that they are losing their own culture, and move on with life. However, globalization can still be good because in fact in modernizes most places such as the third world countries. Because the people in the third worlds places are not exposed to, outer culture but they are gradually, because the people are more globalized. Actually, we can more or less say that it modernizes the developing countries.

It also plays a big role in the economic and the business world. Like for example if you see mac products are basically sold all around the world, and everybody knows mac or what it is, and what it does and so on, so as to that we can see that mac is more known to people and is more globalized. We can see that the people are more into technology, and through technology, we can communicate more with people where ever they are, for various business reasons. Another example of gobalization would be the IT parks here in Chennai, like for example for a long time people didn’t use much of compures, or computer programing isses here in Chennai, but these days there seems to be a lot of IT and how the people use them today.

I think India would be a good an example of globalization because here they are many people from various parts of the world; we are getting to know them more, globalizing. The technology that we have here is amazing, and people know more into producing more because there is competition in the world, the people produce more products, which are in higher level, there is more competition on who is producing better products how are people buying it, and how the competition is rising day by day.


How was globalization different back then and now?

[asifhilal]

This article was interesting to read. So people think that the “Indians”, and “Chinese offer cheap labor, and manipulated currencies to steal jobs. Anyway, as people mentioned it is a coincidence that jobs can be stolen anywhere. Like Sanjay mentioned, Americans can steal jobs from Indians, and Indians can steal jobs from Americans. But globalization is supposed to be a good thing. It is supposed to unlock the world’s countries giving them access to the world. However, things like “job stealing”, bring negative effects. I do think that some people need to come up with a solution, and I don’t agree with the statement that people need to find “human jobs”, rather than technology. Technology will always be there, and people doing “jobs that machines cannot take away from them” (Sanjay), is only a very small solution to a huge problem.

[priyankajohn]

Its a brilliant piece of writing by David Brooks on Cognitive Age which emphasises the hype about Globalization. Everywhere we come across this word Globalization. Do people really know what it means ?? We are "moving into a more demanding cognitive age... This is true

“Globalization is real and important. It’s just not the central force driving economic change.” Brook specifies that. “Global competition has accounted for a small share of job creation and destruction over the past few decades. Capital does indeed flow around the world. But as Pankaj Ghemawat of the Harvard Business School has observed, 90 percent of fixed investment around the world is domestic. Companies open plants overseas, but that’s mainly so their production facilities can be close to local markets.”

I personally feel countries like India and China are no threat. People see economic development as a form of foreign policy and as a grand competition between nations and civilizations. The chief force reshaping manufacturing is technological change. Manufacturing productivity has increased tremendously in the last few years. With a result of this highly skilled labourers are in big demand all over the world. Just the way they are in demand in US they are in demand in China and India too. He emphasizes that different societies are being stressed in similar ways by increased demands on human capital.

When he talks about skills he is not talking about manufacturing skills, he is talking about the skills to understand and make use. He says information can now travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. His doubt about the individual having the capacity to understand the information, to exploit it is good point to think about. Huge medical advances over the last 100 years have enabled longevity, improved quality of life overall. But, they have focused more on how to maintain "healthy bodies" than on "healthy brains. People need to learn and understand all about brain fitness.

Politicians should see the postive side and work towards it rather than sit and criticize
by rewriting trade deals that can assuage economic anxiety. They should first understand what globalization is and try to contribute rather than sit and blame.