It's A Flat World After All

Competing philosophies over the same topic, is common place across the disciplines. This could not be truer with Florida (2005) and Friedman (2005). Although there is room for variation of interpretation of data, people generally write about what they know. This sometimes gets projected in a way that leaves little room for other perspectives, and goes to the question discussed in unit 2 about gaps of knowledge.

Florida has a background and subject matter expertise in urban planning. It is no wonder that in his piece The World is Spikey (Florida 2005), his conclusion draws on the importance of such areas. Friedman has a much more global background, which fuels his worldview articulated in his piece “It’s a Flat World After All” (Friedman 2005).

Friedman is missing that infrastructure, availability to access seed capital, income, educational outcomes, economic opportunities, and societal upward mobility restrictions all serve as hindrances to that point. Friedman brings a perspective through the lens of globalization, technology, sociology, and foreign relations. While analysis Florida’s (2005) piece, it is clear his perspective is rooted in a western lens, sociology, and urban theory. Florida (2005) certainly concedes the point that the globalization has made the world more competitive. But Florida (2005) challenges Friedman (2005) on exactly how much. According to Florida (2005), only a tiny percentage of places on earth have significant economic activity. Of course, it’s easy to rely on anecdotes that drive a point home, but the data by and large may not support such assertions by Friedman (2005). Florida (2005) adopts a mixture of approaches using both empirical and rhetorical. The reliance of Florida (2005) using a data focused empirical argument makes his piece more compelling. If the activity of the discussion board for unit 3 is any indicator, then my view is in the