Work and Trade: Are we able to pursue a career in our area of interest?
Why do we work? We work to earn money, and in turn get the necessities we need for our daily lives. Or even, to get the material goods we desire. In this way, many find work a drudgery-working for the sake of it, as we are trapped in the vicious cycle to work to get what we want and need in our lives. There is no motivation to work (other than the need to). Some argued that if we are able to find a job we like, we are less likely to find working a chore. In our area of interests, we are motivated to work. However, how many are able to get a job they like?
In Singapore, due to its relatively limited resources and our government’s policies, our economy is more focused on the commerce sector and recently, in the science and technology. As a result, there are higher chances of finding a job in the commerce sector. Just take a walk in the Central Development District, majority are the skyscrapers of the banks. We need to work to survive. So will we go into an area where there are more jobs available or pursue our interest as, say, a curator where the need for such talent is in scarce demand? Hence the majority may end up in a job they do not like but have to accept in order to survive. I mentioned that the government is developing out science and technology sector, so presumably, there will be more jobs available too. However, for this sector, it is not so much of ‘learn as you do’ work like in the commerce. Knowledge is needed. Not everybody has the knowledge needed, and again, they will be forced to accept a job that they do not have an interest in.
In other countries, they may not face the limitations due to lack of resources as we do, but globalization has affected them too. As the global economy becomes more integrated, and countries become more specialized in an area, it is even more difficult to find a job that one is truly interested in. for example, in the poor African nations, they focus largely on their agriculture sector. It is almost impossible for one to get a job in other areas. Likewise, for developed nations like the US, much is focused on the knowledge-based economy, like technology. It is increasingly becoming more difficult to find a job in the manufacturing sector. It gets even worse when large corporations outsource jobs to reduce production costs. Layoffs became frequent. When one cannot even secure a job, how can he have the privilege to choose a job he is interested in? Many also critised that those in the poor nations are exploited. But they do not have a choice. If they do, will they be willing to settle for a low-paid manufacturing job? Thus, in a sense, globalization has also resulted in confining one to do a job we may not really like.
Even if one decided to pursue his own interests, despite how the economy is like, influence from his family may keep him from doing so. Typically, parents and relative will have a generalized idea on which jobs has a “better and more stable salary”. So as parents, they may want the child to go for such jobs to have “a better future”. An example would be that majority feel that getting a business degree is more useful that getting a, say, arts degree. A business degree will more probably secure a job as more emphasis is placed on the commerce sector. Hence, a student may opt for a degree programme that he does not really like. Also, when one is married with has a family, the problem of livelihood is more important that one’s interests. Bills have to be paid, bread is needed and the children needs education. One cannot easily neglect all these to pursue his own interests. Then, again, one is settling for a job that he may not like.
Thus, the economy and our environment do not allow us to pursue a job within our interests all the time. Then, what for we work? Because there is a need to. We are trapped in the cycle to work to survive, despite our misery.

Class & Inequalities: Will there really be equality in the economic aspect?

In this century where democracy prevails, the majority hopes to move to a more equal and fairer world. But my question is, is equality ever possible in the economic aspect?
In the lecture, ideas of reducing poverty were vehemently discussed. But, within a country itself, is it possible to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor and how? We can introduce the social welfare system like what the British did in the 1940s. Subsidies were given to those running business and social services were either free or highly subsidized. However, it is argued that the poor will become reliant on the government and have no incentive to work or be efficient as they feel that the government will support them no matter what. If everyone has this mentality, nobody will want to work! There would not be a division between the rich and poor. But it upsets the forces of the economy and capitalism will not thrive. Is it advisable then, for such a policy, when nobody will drive the economy?

Income can also be redistributed from the rich to the poor to produce a fairer society. However, given the human nature, the rich is bound to make protests. What for their hard work and efforts then if the rewards are not theirs? Nobody will be willing to put their best foot forward at work anymore. Then, where do we find the income to redistribute? Furthermore, who shall be in charge of the income redistribution even if we adopt the policy? Is the government completely reliable? But there are corrupted governments like Indonesia’s Suharto. Some suggested handing the responsibility to Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). But in the light of incidents where the head of charity organizations like the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) in Singapore mishandled funds, how can people trust them completely? Then, who is capable of taking up the responsibility?

Another alternative would be to provide the same opportunities to the poor. We can provide everyone education and send them to training, like what Singapore did to ensure that its pool of workers are still competitive. Despite all these, it still largely depends on one’s abilities and meritocracy for one to climb the corporate ladder. We still fall into Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest, so we are still trapped in the vicious cycle! It is impossible to close the gap between the rich and poor.

On the other hand, are we capable of bridging the gap between the rich and poor nations then? It is argued that ethically, the richer nations should help the poorer ones. But the question is, how much aid would be suitable so that they will not be over-reliant on foreign aid? It is difficult to judge. According to the UN World Food programme spokesman, the Africans are just too poor to feed themselves whenever there’s a slight disruption in their environment. Millions of them have next to nothing to eat. Then, are we able to help them forever? Are we able to give them aid forever? It is impossible! It is also impossible for us to change the environment to be suited towards agriculture and impossible for the whole lot of them to leave their country. Moreover, how will the people in the rich countries feel when resources are given to other nations over a long period of time? They will not be happy as there are also poor people in their own countries who needed help too.

Some even suggested we can rely on the world organizations such as the UN, WTO, IMF and more to provide capital, resources and technology to the poor countries to improve their lives. But there are concerns that the aid provided comes with strings attached so much so that the poor countries are exploited instead of showing signs of improvement. These organizations are mostly influenced by the rich countries like America and British too. Which means, if any policies made will have negative effects on the rich nations, they may oppose the policies and aid will not be given to the poor nations. There are also failures of such organizations too. The UN humanitarian chief mentioned that as many people die in Congo every eight months as the 2004 Tsunami. They still fail to help the poor. Also, even if free education is provided to these people, will they be willing to wait till the children complete their education and find better means of life? Can hunger and poverty wait?

Thus, it seemed impossible to reach equality even though many advocated it.

Sociology Problems in a Global Context

Modernity creates violence. Is this always true?
In the lecture, paradoxes of modern societies were mentioned. One of the paradoxes would be that modernity creates violence but modern society encourages peace. When countries choose to embrace globalization, they are welcoming modernity. This leads to the acceptance of Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) like GAP, Starbucks and more. It also introduces the usage of technology and a knowledge-based economy (KBE). With the introduction of more powerful companies and technology, a country’s economy becomes more competitive. The locals will find it difficult to keep up with the MNCs in terms of resources, capital, talents and experience. Home entrepreneurship is thus discouraged. Locals also lose jobs to more talented foreigners- as hiring of foreign workers and outsourcing of jobs become more popular to cut costs and increase efficiency. When the locals feel that they are losing their rights, they may reject modernity- for example, the communist countries like China and North Korea. In their course of rejecting modernity and foreign western help, violence may occur in the process, like the people of Iraq, where some feel that the new democratic government was not doing any better than the previous Saddam Hussein’s empire. They react violently, some joining the terrorist groups to go against the democratic forces.

But is it always true that modernity results in violent reactions? Singapore, too, is still going through the process of modernity due to globalization. We, too, experience the problem of the influx of foreign companies and workers, coupled with problems of outsourcing and mergers of big corporations. Locals cannot find an “iron rice bowl” anymore. But we do not resort to violence to voice our displeasures. We do make crude remarks of the foreigners and complain about them. But we accepted the foreigners as part and parcel of accepting globalization. We do not assault them. Also, in the western countries like America, if they are unhappy about the economic policies or worried about their job future, they protest by holding strikes and writing petitions to the government, not violence.

Furthermore, it is not always just due to the factor of modernity that constitutes violence. In the Iraq example, it is also due to the instability and constant fighting that induces people to join the terrorists in hope of finding peace. It is the environment that forces them to be violent to achieve their aims.

Another example would be the Tamils and Sri Lankans. It is not due to modernity that violence prevails in the country, even though the country accepts the forces of globalization. It is the long history of hatred, bias and unequal treatment that lead the Tamils into violent means of protesting their rights and fight for equality.

Moreover, it may not always be true that modern society encourages peace. True, with peace and stability, economies can function better and the government can focus more on solving other problems of society. But it is also an innate feeling for humans to desire peace and cease sufferings due to rampant violence.

Also, for countries like Iran and North Korea, which goes into nuclear experimentations, how can we say that these societies are advocating peace? They are viewed worldwide as potential threats due to the nuclear programme which could jeopardize peace and stability.

Therefore, it is not true that modernity will always create violence-there are other factors. It is also not always true that all societies encourage peace.