The American definition of globalization or “outsourcing” is the action of “obtaining of goods or services needed by a business or organization under contract with an outside supplier”. This definition seems pretty clear and concise but what it fails to include are the countless other factors that this fad has introduced into American lives.

Some see outsourcing as a way to help other countries build their own society and economic wealth but this action causes more harm than good to those countries. Not only is outsourcing non beneficial to our country because it gives away countless jobs that we desperately need during these hard economic times, but we are also limiting the rights of the people within these deprived countries.

By outsourcing, the United States and its companies are stripping not only ourselves of our own culture by not influencing the output of products that read the label “ Made in USA” but also other countries of their own individual culture. Globalization is just another way for big companies to manufacture their products with cheaper labor, goods and services.

Over decades American families have helped build our nation to what it is today, and now we don’t even have the resources to support these workers that have helped make our country the “super power” it is.  Why should people overseas reap the benefits from our economic hardships? Is it because the government wants to keep the rich richer?

Is it because the government wants to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer? Or is it because companies don’t want to take on the accountability that comes with having American citizens working in their factories?

On the surface, globalization seems like a good idea to spread knowledge and technology to less fortunate countries but what we may not realize is that people in these countries suffer under safety and health violation and the possibility of discrimination and illegal behavior, since developing countries do not have the same level of labor rights making it easy for them to be exploited.

Thus safety hazards and unsafe labor conditions are created. Not all labor laws in the U.S. exist in these countries and if they do they are certainly not enforced the way they are in the United States, with that in mind companies can contract and make their own labor laws to which they feel are ethical.

Since these countries aren’t as well developed as the U.S. children and women are able to work long stressful hours, in an unsanitary environment for very little pay to help support their family. Companies are also exempt from paying as much for their workers health benefits.

Along with the disadvantages of the people in these undeveloped countries are the people in the hometown of these big corporate companies. According to an American Union report by AFL-CIO “Goldman Sachs estimates 400,000–600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period.”

The report also states “Forrester Research Inc. predicts U.S. employers will move 3.4 million white-collar jobs and $136 billion in wages overseas by 2015.” Not only are Americans struggling with looking for work during this almost Depression-esc time the work that we do have were giving away billions of dollars to countries at a cheaper price and cheaper value.

By not circulating the money within our own country, companies are benefitting to the economic hardship by not hiring Americans to run their businesses and work in their factories. Companies are at fault by not providing a solution to the country that are assisting the problem.

In reference to the loss of jobs due to globalization, according to the CRS Report for Congress both physical and emotional factors have begin to come into play within our society people are scared that they may eventually lose their job and this creates “worker anxiety”, “The current, highly publicized wave of offshore outsourcing has caused considerable anxiety among both unemployed and employed workers….

Domestic outsourcing and offshore outsourcing result in job losses for those employees who no longer are required to produce the goods and services that their employers decided to purchase. Some displaced workers must seek jobs in other fields because the domestic firms that specialize in providing outsourced functions do so more efficiently than their former employers.

Others who lose their jobs to domestic outsourcing can continue to perform similar work — perhaps for lower wages and fewer benefits,” the CRS Report for Congress states on page 5. Americans are taking pay cuts and receiving less health benefits due to outsourcing and are made to believe that globalization is good for the country, our America.

The question is who’s America we’re speaking off and if we really want to live in ‘that’ America. Outsourcing could be detrimental to our country especially during these financial times where companies need to promote as much revenue as possible. We cannot successfully help others if we cannot help ourselves.

As it was so eloquently put in the textbook The New World Reader “The essence of globalization is a subordination of human rights, of labor rights, consumer rights, environmental rights, democracy rights, to the imperatives of global trade and investments.”

The article Outsourcing in America – Is It Worth It? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In our age, the difference between real and virtual life is often blurred — but while technology does not replace what makes us human beings; when we use it, it tend to add value to our sense of self-being. Professor Robert Dunbar of Oxford University spoke about a predefined number of 150; this is the average number designed for human beings’ capacity of close friends.

Whether you know it or not, 150 is the number of friends we can actually call friends and it is a number which is dependent on our neocortical area. 150 are those with whom we are not just saying hello or sharing jobs, but those of whom we can ask for help or share deep details of our lives. They are the ones we can distribute time and energy to, without handling it as a burden or a cost of opportunity.

Those 150 people are the average the human brain can manage. The number can vary between 100 and 230, and only the extent of our brain capacity or of our available time would let us deal with more friends, as Robert Dunbar delicately describes in interviews and in his writings. The number is not equivalent to our Facebook friends though.

Professor Dunbar explains that a human touch, a real one, is worth a thousand words and until technology can simulate virtual touch, we still have to put a line between Facebook friends and ‘real’ friends. Facebook statistics shows that the average number of friends for the average Facebook user is 130.

It seems that, although many of us live in a virtual world for more than half of our daily lives, we seem to remain in touch with reality, or maybe our brain obliges us to. We might declare 500 virtual friends because we work ourselves into a world where we are obliged to keep track with hundreds of people, but our real life is limited to the 150 number in practice.

Technology and the social networks are only tools that extend our capability to work beyond the limit. Our brain and cognitive capacity is adapted to and confirmed by the 150 number — even while we become addicted to globalization through technology. The development makes us more intelligent and more evolved as human beings.

We have to manage our time according to the technological progress, and meanwhile, we have to shape our relationships in the same pace. Life is defined by numbers. Dunbar, as well as Fibonacci, puts our lives in numbers. Instinctively we feel these numbers; our brain is limited to them, even though sometimes technology, globalization and life by itself show us that limits and numbers can be recreated.

In this way, technology brings added value to what human capacity cannot handle at this point.

The article Our Brain Limits Our Friendships, Technology Mediates It appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The year 1984 signified for Apple the beginning of a new era, where Big Brother rules were extraordinarily turned upside-down by a computer too small to do computing. Perhaps the computer was small, but the vision was great enough to grow beyond making — to satisfy a growing and developing market within mainstream technology.

Steve Jobs’ resignation from his lifework brings back the story of a most valuable commercial. 1984 won’t be like “1984” was the final statement of the Apple commercial that introduced the Macintosh. The outstanding determination and belief of Steve Jobs introducing the commercial predicted the success of a company and a man.

Like any good story, Apple was brought to life under the humblest of circumstances. Built on passion, youth and a courage to experience, what was thought not worth for a resounding name, Apple became one of today’s leading companies. Selling a Volkswagen and a programmable calculator, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak conceived the first version of Apple.

They first met at a Hewlett Packard internship and continued to collaborate while being members of the Homebrew Computer Club, both highly passionate about electronics. Seeing things differently and always bringing in personal experiences, the two created the fundaments of present technology: Macintosh, iTunes, iPhone, iPad — could you imagine life without them?

What defined their success is not reserved to passion. Steve Jobs quit Oregon’s Reed College, but took classes in calligraphy to improve his sense of aesthetics. Steve Wozniak understood that more lied beyond the screen and keyboard.

Jobs did not rest with simple solutions when he needed to facilitate the interaction between human and computer — we owe him the mouse and the object-oriented interface. “One was more the engineer- technologist, one wanted to do things,” said Wozniak in an interview.

Steve Jobs has aligned his love for Apple equal to his family: “Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do” and perhaps that constituted the key element for such a professional and precise way to succes.

Meanwhile, even people outside the regular Apple fan base respect the innovator. Steve Jobs mastered the introduction of 1984 because he saw behind simple things: he saw consumerism beyond technology. We might say that the two friends designed the future of technology.

At the time of his resignation, Jobs recognizes that “I’ve done a lot of things I’m not proud of (…) But I don’t have any skeletons in my closet that can’t be allowed out.” Success meant backsteps as well. After a period of withdrawal from Apple, he came back more energetic and weighted in experience — from 1997 he led Apple to new heights.

But these accomplishments were possible through team effort. He has stated that the company persists through the “ideas, not hierarchy.” In the moment of stepping down, he proudly announces his trust in the next generation. Apple’s temporarily CEO Tim Cook received great recommendations from Steve Jobs. Success should be safe when the one leaving is convinced he passed his knowledge and vision on.

Steve Jobs has been called a mentor for Apple’s new generation and for any young entrepreneur, and surely his statement is encouraging: “If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on.”

The year 1984 launched the success af a vision which after 27 years is still highly acclaimed. Steve Jobs never settle: even his resignation is viewed through the lens of his debut.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/farber/

The article Steve Jobs: From 1984 Debut to Resignation appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Amidst Renaissance-era churches and crumbling tile facades, a colossal stone structure hovers unassumingly. Completed in 2005, the Casa de Musica in Porto, Portugal symbolizes a fight that is not unique to the miniscule country, but one that is strongly highlighted there. It is the fight against time, a desire to stay relevant beneath the weighty shadow of the Big 5, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council in a rapidly globalizing environment. The Casa de Musica is an innovative concert hall in the Porto’s historical center, the Rotunda da Boavista, contracted in 1999 after the city received the European Culture Capital award.  The mastermind of the project, Rem Koolhaas, sought to connect the old and new and public and private facets of the city that have long divided it.

“Through both continuity and contrast, the park on the Rotunda da Boavista, after our intervention, is no longer a mere hinge between the old and the new Porto, but it becomes a positive encounter of two different models of the city” states Rem Koolhaas, the architect in charge of the project.

The 22.000 m2 structure has spaces that not only showcase the talent of the Porto Philharmonic Orchestra to the privileged few, but grand staircases, bars, and terraces that support public concerts and experience.

The city of Porto is one that traces millennia of conflict and change. Historic references from as early as the 4th century and Roman times have been discovered, and remnants of ancient Celtic citadels have been found in the city center. The Condado de Portucale, or county of Portugal, was officially established in 868 a.d., and given away as royal dowry in 1095. This next several hundred years saw the evolution of the city from a small provincial state into an industrialized nation and little sister of England. The city felt the might of the Moors and Napoleon, and has been torn apart numerous times by civil war, and yet a Cicada Invicta, the Unvanquished City, still stands.

Today, the city’s ports continue to export the namesake port wine that has been its primary commodity for centuries. However, the economic state of the country is taking its toll on its inhabitants. Nearly bankrupt, Portugal is desperately trying to avoid the fate befallen on Greece and Ireland. The last two decades have brought woe in the form of Chinese textile competition and falling wage rates, and the ripple effects are evident. However, some marks of wealth still manage to squeeze by in a heavily stratified society. In Porto, one room shacks occupied by the families of a nearly extinct class of fisherman are sandwiched between artfully designed glass houses worth millions along the coast. The old world fights for its relevance amidst the punctuated wealth of capitalism.

When I visited the country of my ancestral origin, I knew nothing of its rich history or what to expect at all. I was gratefully swept away by my amiable cousins to my great-aunt’s estate in the country side, obtained by her through marriage. The central building is a formidable stone one, built in 1895 amidst grape vines and fruit trees. The land used to act as a functioning vineyard and the first floor of the abode a wine cellar, but now they have fallen into disuse. The rest of the home features relics from generations past, like a step back in time. The estate rests merely 20 minutes outside the city by car, but the rural area seems far from real.

Back in the urban center of Porto, I visited several apartments of relatives and friends, and was stricken by the similarity of them all. The exterior of the buildings all featured a characteristic apparent dilapidation, as though centuries of conflict had left a layer of grime over the whole city (later I was to find out that this gray aura was due to the type of stone the city was built out of, the local granite).  This contrasted clearly with the interior design of every apartment, which was clean cut and modern. Sharp edges and metallic finish support sumptuous dark hardwood detailing. This juxtaposition of the primeval and the modern will always leave its mark on me, a reminder of lost time and lost memories that will never truly fade into the woodwork.

Consequently, of every country I have visited heretofore in Europe, Portugal seems the least Americanized – the country still clutches its heritage and many residents do not speak English. Perhaps, that is an unfair standard to level a country to when analyzing its industrial relevance, but it is a valid misconception in today’s media saturated world. Portugal, and the city of Porto itself must continue to evolve, or face extinction.

The article Straddling Two Worlds: Porto, a City in Evolution appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.