Thomas L. Friedman, a journalist¸ often travels the globe. On a visit to India he ran across and idea that sparked his want to author The World is Flat. The seemingly simplistic idea is that from information and economic aspects the world is “flat”. In the modern age, individuals and countries have greater access to technological advances, which help level the playing field in terms of communication and gathering information. He presents his ideas through specific stories, interviews, and conversations had with executives in different countries who have similar ideas about globalization. The Next Convergence, written by Michael Spence, expresses the idea that prior to World War II the rich countries were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. This is the idea of divergence; modern convergence is Spence’s main claim throughout this book. Convergence is the shift in the global economy in which developing countries have experienced rapid growth. He has the idea that fairly soon the developing countries will be on par with the countries with advanced economies. Ultimately, both books have similar messages, but the messages are presented in different ways. A key aspect of Friedman’s book is that globalization occurred rapidly. The Berlin Wall collapse, occurring during the end of 1989, was his first of ten “forces” that flattened the world. Throughout thousands of years of human existence and multiple economies, I do not believe any have experienced a rapid increase in technology which then sparked a quick change in the global economy. This idea of rapid globalization is seen in Spence’s work. The pattern change towards convergence began after WWII. A hidden idea that is somewhat mentioned in Friedman’s work is that the efforts of individuals and governments in developing countries have shown initiative to improve economic position. The individuals drive was an impressive aspect of Indian culture. They are hard working and willing to learn to improve theirs and their family’s lives. Developing countries governments play a major role in globalization. Countries governments who support and work with global businesses have a major advantage when trying to strengthen their global economic position Another strong idea that’s presented in both books is a specific call to action; the notions that Americans must recognize, understand, and adapt to the changing economic landscape. Friedman specifically expresses that the United States should not build walls to try and protect, but, instead, prepare to join along with as well as compete against other nations. The United States must realize that the key to staying ahead of the developing countries is education. America is at a huge disadvantage from an economical aspect when it comes to individual salary. An Indian worker could do the same job at the same, or higher, efficiency as an American worker for a fraction of the cost. Spence calls these types of jobs “low-value-added jobs”. From a business perspective it is a no brainer because the main purpose of a business is to profit monetarily. Americans must adapt in specialized areas to stay ahead. Technology is a major part of globalization. The personal computer, internet, World Wide Web, work flow software and uploading all play fundamental roles in convergence as well as the world becoming flatter. All of the previous are tools that allow the exchange of ideas, which I believe is the main building block of globalization. The internet, often incorrectly used as a synonym of World Wide Web as Friedman states, connects computers throughout the world. Internet browsers have simplified the web and made the everyday user an important player in the global flow in information. Companies are able to connect and meet from opposite sides of the globe. This is a game changer, and technology increasing at an exponential rate. The future is what Spence focused on. The rise of India and China becoming new economic giants is beginning to bring the globe onto a level playing field. The economic gap is reducing, but will it stop? Will current economic powers then begin to pull away? Friedman and Spence seem to have the future figured out, but there are so many unpredictable factors that could play a role in global economics. I believe Friedman, even though I felt he exaggerated in some aspects, was extremely effective in arguing his main claim that the world is rapidly becoming economically globalized. His book stimulated my mind to think about the ways that globalization has affected my life. Reflecting, most aspects of our lives have been directly or indirectly affected by globalization. I have read and worked with Friedman’s work through economics classes before and I have historically agreed, and continue to agree with him in The World is Flat. Spence, on the other hand, was tough to figure out, but I believe he has similar claims to Friedman with minor changes. Spence believes the current industrialized economies are in a slight limbo and developing countries are rapidly catching up. I agree is some aspects with Spence, but one I do not agree with is that the developing countries will soon be level with countries like the United States. I believe at some point the extraordinary growth rates that are being seen in the developing countries will dramatically slow. Also, I feel as though the United States, and countries similar, is on the cutting edge of technology while developing countries must make an astounding amount of infrastructure improvements to come close to that cutting edge. After slightly struggling through Spence’s work, the one thing that I did not enjoy about the book was the overwhelming analysis presented. In contrast to Friedman, who has a journalism background, Spence has a quite extensive but purely economic background. Friedman’s work flowed better from a conversational standpoint. I tend to support Friedman and his work, so you could stay I’m slightly biased towards him. I sometimes overlook some of his lapses, but after reading this work I feel like he did not overturn every stone. He focused on India, China, Japan, and the United States almost exclusively. I would have liked for Friedman to further expand on how the rest of the world has been developing. A potential argument I’d set forth is that The United States, Japan, China, and India along with a few other countries are the only few countries that highlight this globalization change. An example would compare the major countries to major cities in the US. New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Chicago would take the place of countries. These cities, along with a few others, are booming economically, but what about other parts of the world? I’d compare the former Soviet Union to Detroit. Both had huge economic inclines but due to a stagnant economy both also had huge declines. Also, you could equate mid-american states with countries that are stagnant on the global economic scale. Comparing cities in the US to countries is a bit simplistic but I feel as though it conveys the message that Friedman could be making too broad of generalizations based on small sample sizes. At the same time, I understand from a journalist’s perspective of why he made these generalizations; it is because they bring a certain conflict which, in turn, brings popularity to certain works. Friedman and Spence have distinct opinions on the earth becoming a flatter, more economically level place. Their opinions came from a well rounded, more traveled existence. Along with a wealth of education, they both seem to have traveled the world and had firsthand experience dealing with other cultures. They have a worldly view on things with no truly defensive standpoint. It would have been very interesting to see how the books would have been written from specific countries viewpoints. Would the United States try and manipulate facts to keep businesses from expanding to other countries? From a political point of view, it is a disaster that jobs are moving overseas. The unemployment rate continues to grow, and politicians are blamed. Mitt Romney shipped jobs overseas and is not being chastised for it while running for president. But, as a businessman it was clearly the best way to maximize profits. As a student and current employee, Friedman’s and Spence’s works are very current and relate to what I have experienced through school and in the workplace.