 | |||||
| The 'HAVES' and 'HAVE NOTS'
“The Second-Level Digital Divide describes the
difference, or divide in how technology is used, while the Top-Level Digital
Divide refers to the difference between the technology haves and have nots
(Hargittai, 2002). This newer divide…the
Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD), is no longer a simple delineation between
those who have access to technology and those who do not. The SLDD refers to the difference in how technology
is utilized” (Reinart, Thomas, Toriskie, 2008, pg. 493).
We are ultimately shaped by
our life experiences. This often
dictates how we see the world and how we see ourselves and others existing,
operating in that same sphere. When Friedman
(2007) visited Bangalore he witnessed the economic revitalization of a once
modest section of India. This reshaping
was primarily contributed to industrial growth augmented by advancements in
technology. From Friedman’s optical lens,
he observed the erection of once highly regarded American industries in such
far away countries as India. This
industrial construction did more than strengthen India’s economic power. These technological industries symbolized the
impact that innovation was having on globalization. Technology had minimized and shattered the
great barriers - land, water, borders, states, countries, governments, regimes
and continents – of the world. People
who were once kept apart by these great barriers could now socialize through
multiple mediums; interact in meaningful ways; and increase the rate/speed of
information sharing. Symbolically, the
world was shrinking not demographically, but geographically. From this perspective, it’s plausible for
Friedman to correlate the geological configuration – flat – of the world with
how its inhabitants began to function.
Insomuch that the use of technological devices had expedited
communication whereby bringing people of the world closer together. Yet, Friedman’s theory of how technology has
advanced the world socially has minimal correlation of how it has improved the
quality of lives for many Americans.
Figuratively, the world maybe
flat, but this flatness has perpetuated a continual flat-line. The idea that technology has transferred into
creating a leveled playing field is argumentative at best. Advancement in technology has done little to
establish viable American industries where blue collar workers can earn an
honest living to sustain a family.
Economically speaking, technology has booster the income of the
innovators. While the poor purchase the cell
phones to keep up with an evolving society, the innovators reap the
benefits. It’s acceptable to buy the
phone, but we will have natives of other countries make the phones. Where is the leveled playing field in an
economic capitalist structure which supports a vicious cycle by which the rich
continues to get richer and the consumer continues to get poorer? If technology has created a leveled playing
field, someone must speak to the economics of the matter. Somehow, technology has done little to chip
away at poverty in the US (see Map).
I would argue that innovation
and technology has reinforced Karl Marx’ theory on how political and economics
play a vital role in forming class struggles thus bringing greater understanding
of society's development. In the article
The World is Spiky, the author attempts to express these thoughts. The spikes generated by advancement in
technology represent areas within the U.S. where technology has transferred
into economic wealth. Yet, it is these
spikes that demonstrate the inequalities that continue to exist in the United
States.
Technology has made the
innovators of products wealthy. It has
created jobs for advanced, skilled workers, but the evolution of these devises
have not lead to support a factory industry that once provided jobs to sustain
working and middle class Americans. The
technology has done little to contribute to job growth for blue collar
Americans. This is in part due to
other advancing countries producing more
skilled workers thus providing US innovators, business leaders with opportunities to
made their products at cheaper wages.
This has booster aspects of other countries economy, but not so true for the U.S.
Whether technology has caused
the world to become more flat or spiky, one aspect continues - the world is far
from being economically leveled. If the
world is spiky this advances that idea that technology is inexpensive and a quick
form for social communication, but continues to perpetuate a divide - the "haves" and
the "have nots". The second digital divide
makes these distinctions. Technology is used by innovators and the educated - haves- to generate wealth and improve their life styles while technology by
the poor and less educated - have nots - is used for social interaction that does little to
advance their earning power. Collectively,
these typologies are examples of how the US economic capitalist structure forms
the country’s economic divides.
______________________
Friedman, T.L. (2007). The World is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the
Twenty-first Century.
New York, NY: Picador.
Center for International
Earth Science Information Network. (2005, October). The World in
Numbers: The World Is Spiky, Globalization
has changed the economic playing field, but
hasn’t leveled it. The Atlantic Monthly.
|
Friday, October 25, 2013
THE SECOND DIGITAL DIVIDE!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes! ... and No! (...and that is the problem...)
ReplyDeleteFor the masses, I would agree - we continue to have the HAVES and HAVE NOTS...though today that divide has less to do with devices and more to do with access to the web through broadband. And there are great examples of individuals who have taken advantage of that access.
I got to hear David Karb speak last year...the twenty-something CEO of Tumblr. David never completed high school or college...dropped out of high school to run a web site (which he started in NYC but then continued while living as a 17-year old for a year in Tokoyo). Ten years later, he sold Tumblr to Yahoo for 1.1 billion dollars.
Sooo...for us as leaders, what are lessons we can take from web entrepreneurs that can make a positive impact both in our organizations and our community?
Dr. Watwood,
DeleteFor every success story there are a million to the contrary. I do agree that many individuals have taken advantage of technology to establish worthy ventures and in return building a better life for themselves. I have no doubt that TUMBIR has assisted people with launching a business. The focus for TUMBIR is to encourage people to use their product. Tumbir employ highly skilled individuals many whom are engineers.
Broadband services are expanding to cover many remote areas; however, I am not convinced that access to the web is the equalizer for a leveled playing field. Just about every student I encounter have a cell phone or IPAD and many other technological devices. Many view technology as a form for social interaction and entertainment. My goal is to help them see technology as a means to making a living.
I am quite agreeable, but I love to debate!
UNT_Denise
I concur with your remarks concerning how "technology has booster the income of the innovators. Technology has made the innovators of products wealthy." I have seen this in government where local programmers have previously developed products and are compensated well for their service. However, years later, budget shortfalls have introduced a variety of other ways to obtain, retain, and provide data, whereby making prior programming efforts obsolete. In fact, prior programs have been discontinued, yet the salaries of many remain unchanged.
ReplyDeleteAs you indicated, technology has "created jobs for advanced, skill workers but have failed to support a factory industry that once provided jobs to sustain working and middle class Americans." In government, our "blue collar workers" can be likened to some clerical positions, where many of these workers help to keep the organization afloat through their support. However, I have seen how the technology developed, through in-house and national programmers, have made their jobs obsolete. The level of support have been drastically reduced, as case workers have the ability to be more self-sufficient and complete tasks themselves through the use of mobile technology.
Technology has shattered great barriers of the world. Unfortunately, it has taken jobs as well.
Thank you for sharing your blog post. Your post has definitely helped me to reflect further on the impact technology will have on us in the future during the second digital divide. I agree that technology has done little to contribute to job growth for blue-collar workers in America. I have witnessed this change within my own workplace where technological advancements have neutralized the power that was once yielded by our unionized workforce, who would ensure that they kept companies honest in protecting the middle class worker.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think technology has been both a gift and a curse within our workplace. It has been good because it has allowed us to provide services to customer’s faster and continues to help them manage their daily lives better. It has allowed us to move from a top- down organization that required little information from those on the bottom of the hierarchy into one that is increasingly flexible and better able to adapt to the ever-changing environment through collaboration and decentralization.
Conversely, technology has created more layoffs and greater pressure. As the world changes faster, we must have personnel who are willing to embrace change to meet these new challenges. Unfortunately, companies have realized that they can get the same amount of production by shipping their work overseas for the reduced cost and reduced the earning power of American blue-collar workers. Florida (2005) explained, “And inequality is growing across the world and within countries” (p. 51). Thus, technological advancements that are associated with globalization has caused a greater divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”
As you stated, the world is far from being economically leveled because some companies and countries that have an economic advantage will continue to exploit others for monetary gain. Yes, individuals in countries like India can provide a better life for themselves and family from technology and globalization, and that is a good thing. However, there is a cost to the American blue-collar worker and their ability to provide for a living. Do you think that there is a solution that exist that uses technology help prevent a greater digital divide from occurring during the next stage of development? Or, is it just the inevitable that the second digital divide will make the divide between those who have and those who don’t have greater?
Reference
Florida, R. (2005, October). The world in numbers: The world is spiky. The Atlantic Monthly. pp. 48- 52
- G. Barnes
Yes, there are methods to decrease these divides. And, as leaders in our respective fields, we must certainly find ways to address inequalities.
DeleteCurrently, my goal as an educational leader in compulsory education, K-12, is to help students view technology as a means to an end not simply an ends to satisfy a means. In better terms, I aim to assist students with looking at how technology can be used as a means to make a living. How can we expand upon current forms of technology to support an idea for starting a business; how can technological devices be improved to fulfill a societal need. I hope to help students move beyond using technology for pleasure and entertainment and see it as a source for becoming entrepreneurs or entering STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields. My dissertation design is centered on this theme.
Thank you for the thoughtful feedback!
UNT_Denise
To play devil's advocate, I argue that blue collar workers are not the victims of technological innovation. They are rather the victims of a national economy that has refused to allow itself to level down to competitive levels with global counterparts. And this started before the high technology revolution. While union leaders were exacting ever-increasing compensation demands from manufacturers, and well-intended progressive leaders were pushing for higher and higher artificial minimum wage requirements, Japan, then Korea, then Indonesia, then China, then the Phillipines and India and other nations gladly took on the manufacturing tasks for a fraction of the cost. America's response upon awakening to the fact that our industry was gone was to launch "buy American" campaigns in the 70s and 80s, which failed, because consumers at the individual level would rather buy a foreign made widget for $20 than paying $35 for the same widget put together by a union worker who made twice the consumer's pay.
ReplyDeleteNow, the crisis shifts from blue collar to white collar, and rather than being union-driven, the shift is almost entirely due to the relative spending power in the countries involved. As long as it costs us $50K to $100K to get an MBA, and $40K for a car, and $200K+ for a home (much higher in technology centers) because of artificial economic constraints that seek to keep America the world's economic elite, the opposite effect will continue to happen, with companies aggressively going to wherever they can build that widget for a competitive price.
I am going to play devil’s advocate and say we are expressing the same thoughts.
DeleteAs I mentioned in my post, the economic results of globalization through technology is a reflection of our capitalist form of economics. I mentioned Karl Marx to stress how technology has simply perpetuated a social-economic system where we see a constant struggle between the classes. There is plenty of blame to go around for the economic inequalities resulting from the technology industry, but as you discussed America’s free market system will continue to dictate how businesses in this country will operate.
The big question is, How do we change this?
Thanks for elaborating on this side of the argument.
UNT_Denise
I got the feeling from your post that the innovators of technology should do something about poor people. However, the innovation of technology has nothing to do with feeding the poor or providing jobs, or for that matter, to become rich. There have always been the “Haves” and “Have nots”. They were around even before the internet and will continue long after each of us are gone. Technology can be a savior (as in health care) that prolongs the life of both rich and poor. Therefore it is difficult to say that technology should do something for the poor. Thankfully, poor people can still receive high tech health care in order to prolong their life. I would much rather be poor and alive than poor and dead.
ReplyDeleteTo the contrary, the argument isn’t that technology should do something for the poor. The premise is technology has simply advanced the capitalist system by which those who create it acquire the wealth while the lives of those who consume it remain relatively the same. This discussion is not about the POOR. There are greater societal issues at play here. Our goal as leaders within our respective fields is to identify these issues; bring them to the forefront and advocate for resolve.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback.
UNT_Denise
Team,
ReplyDeleteThis concludes my feedback and post for Week 1. Please look for my Week 2 post on the technology tool - POLL EVERYWHERE!
UNT_Denise