What a Mess !
 |
| (McKenna, 2009). |
In post-World War II (WWII) people
were more sufficient, thriftier and much less wasteful (Wilkinson, 2013). Globalisation bought change to the way
society lived their daily lives. We will
look at some pros and cons of the Cooperate giants, and who benefits the most.
My grandparents wasted next to
nothing, if a piece of fruit had a brown spot on it, it would be carefully cut
out and eaten. If there were socks to
darn, or any trousers with holes in them, they would simply mend them. They lived through the depression, and any
items they accumulated, they would hold on to, just in case it was needed one day. This was typical for this era, when something
broke they worked out how to fix it, they would never throw it away and go out
and buy a new item, unless they had exhausted themselves in trying to fix
it. Products were not readily available
or abundant like they are today.
Resources were hardly ever wasted due to this reason, and people
understood the importance of not wasting.
Fordism gave rise to the industrialization of
developed nations as it focused on mass production. The social and political component of Fordism,
focused on the national market (Sexton, 2007). Mass production became popular, companies
would produce products to fail and consumers were pressured to purchase again
(Sexton, 2007). They were making products of lesser quality and more
affordable. This is not how it was when I
was a growing up, when I got my first radio, I had it throughout my entire
childhood and treasured it. Unfortunately
I cannot say the same of the way I live today or the way I am bringing my
family up. Most of our decisions are
based on convenience and we have become a throwaway society without thinking
too much about the consequences. These
large industries have a massive effect on our environment, for instance, the
food industry. Buchan explains the
whaling industry in Japan and how they get away with slaughtering a species
that should be protected. They have found a loophole, and use the excuse that
they are whaling for scientific reasons. Their conclusion is, the whales are
eating the fish in the ocean (Buchan, 2002).
Globalization has distributed
unequally between the rich and the poor.
Companies moved their productions to countries where they pay employee’s
little, so that they can profit greatly and many Westerners lost their jobs. A large number of small companies have closed
their businesses for they could not compete with the cooperate giants.
Buchanan, M. (2002). Tangled web, in Nexus: Small worlds and the groundbreaking science of networks (pp. 138-155). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
McKenna, Phil (photographer). (2009). Ea oka aina [image of a photo]. Retrieved from
What are Fordism and Post-Fordism. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.voices.yahoo.com/what-
Wilkinson, R. (Producer). (2013, August 22). Stuff markets and manufacture [Video podcast]. Retrieved
Hi Kerrie,
ReplyDeleteThere’s no doubt the gap between rich and poor is widening. Dicken (2007) writes 20% of the population in countries like Australia control ‘well over 80 per cent of world income, trade, investment and communications technology' (p. 441). This is also true within our country. The minority of the likes of Gina Rinehart owns the bulk of the wealth in Australia, evidenced by the increase in homeless people for example. However, Dicken also writes, ‘globalization … [is] also a beneficial one, in which the winners far outnumber the losers’ (p. 439). Similarly, we all benefit by the wealth that is generated by Rinehart’s ventures in revenue to our economy, lifting our standard of living. In turn, we can outsource to other countries those services we no longer perform, enabling less fortunate countries a stream of revenue they previously didn’t have. I hate to be devil’s advocate but in perspective the argument is never one-sided.
Reference:
Dicken, P. (2007). Winning and losing: An introduction, in Global shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world economy (pp. 437-453). London, England: Sage.