Roxanne and I have been helping with some minor chores since the seventh week at Sir Speedy. For example, think of some simple designs for the client, played with Flash, cut papers, compile papers that cannot be used anymore into small notepads, and etc. I've also learned how to use the paper cutter, hole puncher, photocopier during the past few weeks.
The most special experience was a visit to the printing press. There were many big machines for mass printing. The people there first print client's image on 4 pieces of metal plate, and then they would roll the metal plates into different machines for different colors. All the images are printed based on 4 different colors - CMYK. C for cyan, M for magenta, Y for yellow, and K for black. When it comes to bigger machines, the person can adjust the amount of ink by a computer and they would try to adjust the color of the image as close to the original design as possible.
Some clients are picky about the colors, therefore my mentor usually go to the printing press to make sure the colors on the image are the same as the original design. For smaller printing machines, the person will use his own judgment to mix the paints to get the right color.
I was quite amazed to see how little change in the amount of the inks will effect the complete product! The people in the printing shop will have to repeat the step of adjusting the amount of inks for at least 10 times to get the right color. Imagine doing this job for years and years... they must have a lot of patience to do this job well!
The total papers used for test-printing are also a lot. For example, if the client wants to print 1000 posters, then the clients must prepare 1200-1300 papers because those extra 200-300 pieces will be used for test printing. It is a huge amount of papers wasted. Therefore, the design industry are promoting digital design, so there won't be that many papers and inks wasted.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Good and Bad of Globalization - Essay
Teenagers chat on the Internet, go on Facebook and My Space, etcetera to meet more new friends. These things are happening because of “Globalization”. Globalization is a trend of everything being internationalized, including technology, education, economy and culture. Globalization can bring positives such as cultural diffusion, improved living standards, and a boom in economy, but at the same time bring harm to the developing countries and the environment. I would like to explore the idea of Globalization in economy and see how the positive and negative impacts affecting the global community are concerned with good and bad incentives and moral responsibilities.
Let’s look at the positive effects:
First of all, Globalization brings innovation in both economy and education to developed and developing countries. People exchange knowledge with and learn from each other and allow more technological advancement to be made to improve our lives. For example, about 100 million people owned cell phones by the mid-1990s and the number rose to 3 billion in 2007. According to a report done by the London Business School in 2005, an increase of 10 cell phones per hundred people in emerging markets contributes to 0.6 percent growth in GDP (*data from International Union for Conservation of Nature).
Secondly, Globalization can improve living standards in developing countries. For the US, about 200 billion US dollars were devoted to foreign investment because it is the best chance for them to get out of poverty and improve their living standards. There will be more job opportunities therefore many people will benefit! More job opportunities mean a greater labor force. This leads to the third positive impact: lower cost of living and more stable national economy. It is easier to get inexpensive but high quality goods if there are more workers. For example, according to an article I read on “Forbes.com”, it says that as China built up its infrastructure, it created a Special Economic Zone that enabled foreign companies to build more factories and hire cheap labor, and go years without paying taxes while the government builds other infrastructure that they need. China’s export grew from 970 million USD to 974 billion USD in three decades. Per-person income increased from 16 dollars a year in 1978 to 2000 dollars in the present. Surely both China and foreign investors benefit from this economic growth.
After seeing three main positive impacts, we need to look at the unseen or unknown sides of Globalization. Although the economy has improved, one may also argue that the global economy is, in fact, becoming more imbalanced. As Joseph Stiglits stated in his book “Making Globalization Work”: “Globalization has compounded the problems arising from the misalignment of incentives in modern corporations.” Obviously, the main cause of many negative impacts is that foreign investors often lack incentives to protect the workers and the environment.
First impact is that, moral responsibility is weakened once multinational businesses are created because of the mind-set that a developed country may have on those developing countries. It is easy for technology-advanced countries to think that ‘because they (workers in third-world countries) are poor, they deserve less, or even are worthless. This is when competition in foreign investments are wrong; there are usually no strict laws to regulate powerful investors on what they can and cannot do and no strong laws to protect foreign workers and the environment. For example, the chemical plant for Union Carbide, an American company, exploded in 1984 in India. The court extradited the company, but it refused to cooperate and rejected the extradition request without explanation. As a result, India was forced to clean up the mess that the company made (*data from the book “Making Globalization Work”).
This ties to the second impact: when something happens in international business relationships, it is harder to find someone to be responsible for the consequence. We can see this problem in the Wal-Mart movie “The High Cost of Low Price”. A young female worker who works in a factory that produces products that will be sold in Wal-Mart said that she does the same chore for twelve hours a day. She is forced to live in a crowded, dirty room with other female workers and cannot go home to see her parents often. But she needs this job to earn money for her parents. I am sure there are much more similar cases like this young woman’s. The problem is, who is responsible for workers’ rights? The Wal-Mart Company in the US or the Chinese government? Third World Countries are usually the victims of these international businesses. Only developed countries gain the most profit.
Last but not least, Globalization and foreign investment will threaten the environment. The big environmental issues such as deforestation, severe drought and flooding, desertification, threatened biodiversity, and global warming are all caused by the huge demand on resources. In order to meet the global demand for goods, investors seek for more and more resources all around the world. For example, China’s investments alone in Africa in 2006 were estimated at 50 billion USD. In May 2007, TRAFFIC, a wildlife trade-monitoring network, released a report indicating that illegal logging in Tanzania has increased in an uncontrolled rate only to meet the demand from China. This is definitely a huge threat to the forests and ecological system in Tanzania (*resource also came from International Union for Conservation of Nature).
On the whole, having seen the positive and negative impacts of Globalization, it is necessary to educate foreign investors to have moral responsibility and good incentives. Investors should take shareholders, employees, and the community into account because everything in interconnected. It is like a chain reaction – once one part collapses, other parts are affected too. We definitely want innovation, more positive cultural exchange, and a healthy global economy. It is everyone’s responsibility to take care of their own actions so the whole world, both developed and developing countries can benefit from Globalization!
Let’s look at the positive effects:
First of all, Globalization brings innovation in both economy and education to developed and developing countries. People exchange knowledge with and learn from each other and allow more technological advancement to be made to improve our lives. For example, about 100 million people owned cell phones by the mid-1990s and the number rose to 3 billion in 2007. According to a report done by the London Business School in 2005, an increase of 10 cell phones per hundred people in emerging markets contributes to 0.6 percent growth in GDP (*data from International Union for Conservation of Nature).
Secondly, Globalization can improve living standards in developing countries. For the US, about 200 billion US dollars were devoted to foreign investment because it is the best chance for them to get out of poverty and improve their living standards. There will be more job opportunities therefore many people will benefit! More job opportunities mean a greater labor force. This leads to the third positive impact: lower cost of living and more stable national economy. It is easier to get inexpensive but high quality goods if there are more workers. For example, according to an article I read on “Forbes.com”, it says that as China built up its infrastructure, it created a Special Economic Zone that enabled foreign companies to build more factories and hire cheap labor, and go years without paying taxes while the government builds other infrastructure that they need. China’s export grew from 970 million USD to 974 billion USD in three decades. Per-person income increased from 16 dollars a year in 1978 to 2000 dollars in the present. Surely both China and foreign investors benefit from this economic growth.
After seeing three main positive impacts, we need to look at the unseen or unknown sides of Globalization. Although the economy has improved, one may also argue that the global economy is, in fact, becoming more imbalanced. As Joseph Stiglits stated in his book “Making Globalization Work”: “Globalization has compounded the problems arising from the misalignment of incentives in modern corporations.” Obviously, the main cause of many negative impacts is that foreign investors often lack incentives to protect the workers and the environment.
First impact is that, moral responsibility is weakened once multinational businesses are created because of the mind-set that a developed country may have on those developing countries. It is easy for technology-advanced countries to think that ‘because they (workers in third-world countries) are poor, they deserve less, or even are worthless. This is when competition in foreign investments are wrong; there are usually no strict laws to regulate powerful investors on what they can and cannot do and no strong laws to protect foreign workers and the environment. For example, the chemical plant for Union Carbide, an American company, exploded in 1984 in India. The court extradited the company, but it refused to cooperate and rejected the extradition request without explanation. As a result, India was forced to clean up the mess that the company made (*data from the book “Making Globalization Work”).
This ties to the second impact: when something happens in international business relationships, it is harder to find someone to be responsible for the consequence. We can see this problem in the Wal-Mart movie “The High Cost of Low Price”. A young female worker who works in a factory that produces products that will be sold in Wal-Mart said that she does the same chore for twelve hours a day. She is forced to live in a crowded, dirty room with other female workers and cannot go home to see her parents often. But she needs this job to earn money for her parents. I am sure there are much more similar cases like this young woman’s. The problem is, who is responsible for workers’ rights? The Wal-Mart Company in the US or the Chinese government? Third World Countries are usually the victims of these international businesses. Only developed countries gain the most profit.
Last but not least, Globalization and foreign investment will threaten the environment. The big environmental issues such as deforestation, severe drought and flooding, desertification, threatened biodiversity, and global warming are all caused by the huge demand on resources. In order to meet the global demand for goods, investors seek for more and more resources all around the world. For example, China’s investments alone in Africa in 2006 were estimated at 50 billion USD. In May 2007, TRAFFIC, a wildlife trade-monitoring network, released a report indicating that illegal logging in Tanzania has increased in an uncontrolled rate only to meet the demand from China. This is definitely a huge threat to the forests and ecological system in Tanzania (*resource also came from International Union for Conservation of Nature).
On the whole, having seen the positive and negative impacts of Globalization, it is necessary to educate foreign investors to have moral responsibility and good incentives. Investors should take shareholders, employees, and the community into account because everything in interconnected. It is like a chain reaction – once one part collapses, other parts are affected too. We definitely want innovation, more positive cultural exchange, and a healthy global economy. It is everyone’s responsibility to take care of their own actions so the whole world, both developed and developing countries can benefit from Globalization!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
End of Suburbia - Movie Reflection
Can you imagine living without air conditioning during summer seasons in Taiwan? I can't. But this is what we might have to face in the future!
We watched a movie called "End of Suburbia" in class last week. The movie says that suburbia is a false promise because as this kind of life-style expands, more energy and resources are needed. There are also many issues being discussed in the movie: over consuming, oil and natural resource depletion, energy depletion, and etc. The pollutions suburban life-style create are just a tip of an iceburg. I think these problems occur not just in the US, but also the world. Not only Suburban life-style pose threat to the environment, but the overall life-style we have now needs to be changed to suit what our earth can sustain.
I lived in Long Island (two hours outside of NY City) when I was back in the US. The place I lived was not necessarily a suburb, however, it still requires a lot of car driving to get to buy goods. Although there are few smaller grocery markets around my house, but if you want to shop for some new clothes or things you would not normally get in a small grocery stores, you'll need to drive for at least thirty minutes. I know that US is a big country; however, I questioned why my father have to drive so far to get what we need for daily life.
The difference between the US and Taiwan, in regard of shopping, is that it is very convenient to buy things in Taiwan. Taiwan is a small country with crowded population. People in Taiwan does not need to drive for a long time before reaching a restaurant or shopping mall.
However, when talking about transportation, Taiwan has some similarities with the suburban life style in the US. Taiwanese people relies on scooters a lot because it's very convenient. One can get around the town with a scooter very easily and they are not too expensive. Massive scooter population pollutes the air. However, Taipei and Kaohsiung, the two cities, provide more developed and convenient public transportation system. With well-designed public transportation system, people will have less chance to drive their own cars. Another really good example would be Tokyo City, Japan.
In now days, pretty much everything we buy were manufactured and/or shipped from another city or another country. For example, we've read about how a can of coke was made, where did the materials came from, and etc. This is a big problem because long-distance shipping requires a lot of energy and leaves massive amount of ecological footprints. Unfortunately, this is hard to change the situation because we all want things with cheaper prices. I totally agree that we must have more small-sized and localized retail stores!
This whole movie talks about sustainability. The effects are never one-sided. Every impact we made will influence the economy, the society, and the environment--- it's a chain reaction.
Although it is up to us to decide how we want to use the resources; however, we also need to be thinking about the next generation, and next, and next...
Like Al Gore said "we have entered a period of consequence." If we do not try our best to fix the problem, we will be doomed.
We watched a movie called "End of Suburbia" in class last week. The movie says that suburbia is a false promise because as this kind of life-style expands, more energy and resources are needed. There are also many issues being discussed in the movie: over consuming, oil and natural resource depletion, energy depletion, and etc. The pollutions suburban life-style create are just a tip of an iceburg. I think these problems occur not just in the US, but also the world. Not only Suburban life-style pose threat to the environment, but the overall life-style we have now needs to be changed to suit what our earth can sustain.
I lived in Long Island (two hours outside of NY City) when I was back in the US. The place I lived was not necessarily a suburb, however, it still requires a lot of car driving to get to buy goods. Although there are few smaller grocery markets around my house, but if you want to shop for some new clothes or things you would not normally get in a small grocery stores, you'll need to drive for at least thirty minutes. I know that US is a big country; however, I questioned why my father have to drive so far to get what we need for daily life.
The difference between the US and Taiwan, in regard of shopping, is that it is very convenient to buy things in Taiwan. Taiwan is a small country with crowded population. People in Taiwan does not need to drive for a long time before reaching a restaurant or shopping mall.
However, when talking about transportation, Taiwan has some similarities with the suburban life style in the US. Taiwanese people relies on scooters a lot because it's very convenient. One can get around the town with a scooter very easily and they are not too expensive. Massive scooter population pollutes the air. However, Taipei and Kaohsiung, the two cities, provide more developed and convenient public transportation system. With well-designed public transportation system, people will have less chance to drive their own cars. Another really good example would be Tokyo City, Japan.
In now days, pretty much everything we buy were manufactured and/or shipped from another city or another country. For example, we've read about how a can of coke was made, where did the materials came from, and etc. This is a big problem because long-distance shipping requires a lot of energy and leaves massive amount of ecological footprints. Unfortunately, this is hard to change the situation because we all want things with cheaper prices. I totally agree that we must have more small-sized and localized retail stores!
This whole movie talks about sustainability. The effects are never one-sided. Every impact we made will influence the economy, the society, and the environment--- it's a chain reaction.
Although it is up to us to decide how we want to use the resources; however, we also need to be thinking about the next generation, and next, and next...
Like Al Gore said "we have entered a period of consequence." If we do not try our best to fix the problem, we will be doomed.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Is 'organic' really organic?
Eugene and I did a presentation on sustainable business on an organic market called "Li-Rhun" a month ago. Li-Rhun do seem like a very organic market to me; however, after reading "Big Organic", an excerpt from "The Omnivore's Dilemma", I start to question whether organic businesses are really organic.
The word 'organic' came from the countryside of California in 1969. This organic movement soon disseminated across the country . Although the organic movement faced a big failure called "Alar Scare" in 1990s, it soon recovered. Many big companies started to sell organic produces. They turned organic farming/gardening into an organic business, and then to the organic industry we now see. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) also steppe in to try to set a standards for 'organic'. The process of setting a standard took a decade long; however, the standard is, in fact, pointless.
The USDA said, to raise organic animals, as long as animals have "access to outdoor/pasture", it is defined organic. This definition is vague and meaningless because people can find loopholes and break this standard very easily. I find a similarity between the standard USDA set up and the Mark-to-Market strategy Enron had. The Mark-to-Market strategy also has many loopholes that the CEO can make false claims easily.
'Organic' was originally designed to feed people in a way that is closer to nature. Unfortunately, it became unsustainable once the businesses stepped in. The reading defined 'unsustainable' as "sooner or later it must collapse" and I find this parallel to Enron's failure. Enron was originally a successful business, however, the temptation of profits blindfolded their eyes. This is similar to the big business that stepped into organic farming. In both cases, the true meaning of organic and the original goal of Enron were mislead to a devastating dead-end.
I think that the whole process of organic farming turned into organic industry, is not out of will. The reason why farmers cooperated with super markets or other larger businesses is because there is a huge demand from the consumers. In order to suite the need of the markets, some farms choose to be industrialized. If the farmers of small farms does not find new ways to sell their product, they'll face a danger of dying out. Oppositely, Enron turned out to be so avaricious was out of their own will . No outside force was really pushing them to become greedy or start lying to the others. Enron could still be a good business even if it faces some outside pressure or expectations.
This reading really got me start questioning whether organic is organic. Although the growing process of vegetables, fruits, and other produces can be organic, but how about food processing and distribution? It takes a lot of energy resources to pack and ship the products to all over the country, or even the whole world. I think the problem is because organic farms are only centered in one area. In the reading, organic farms in California are responsible a big percentage of organic produces in the US. Therefore, it requires a lot of long-distance shipping from California to other states.
I think the problem of overuse of energy can be alleviated if the farms are more localized. However, it is a challenge for big businesses to work with small, local farms. This is a problem that all the state governments, even the whole world, need to work on.
The word 'organic' came from the countryside of California in 1969. This organic movement soon disseminated across the country . Although the organic movement faced a big failure called "Alar Scare" in 1990s, it soon recovered. Many big companies started to sell organic produces. They turned organic farming/gardening into an organic business, and then to the organic industry we now see. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) also steppe in to try to set a standards for 'organic'. The process of setting a standard took a decade long; however, the standard is, in fact, pointless.
The USDA said, to raise organic animals, as long as animals have "access to outdoor/pasture", it is defined organic. This definition is vague and meaningless because people can find loopholes and break this standard very easily. I find a similarity between the standard USDA set up and the Mark-to-Market strategy Enron had. The Mark-to-Market strategy also has many loopholes that the CEO can make false claims easily.
'Organic' was originally designed to feed people in a way that is closer to nature. Unfortunately, it became unsustainable once the businesses stepped in. The reading defined 'unsustainable' as "sooner or later it must collapse" and I find this parallel to Enron's failure. Enron was originally a successful business, however, the temptation of profits blindfolded their eyes. This is similar to the big business that stepped into organic farming. In both cases, the true meaning of organic and the original goal of Enron were mislead to a devastating dead-end.
I think that the whole process of organic farming turned into organic industry, is not out of will. The reason why farmers cooperated with super markets or other larger businesses is because there is a huge demand from the consumers. In order to suite the need of the markets, some farms choose to be industrialized. If the farmers of small farms does not find new ways to sell their product, they'll face a danger of dying out. Oppositely, Enron turned out to be so avaricious was out of their own will . No outside force was really pushing them to become greedy or start lying to the others. Enron could still be a good business even if it faces some outside pressure or expectations.
This reading really got me start questioning whether organic is organic. Although the growing process of vegetables, fruits, and other produces can be organic, but how about food processing and distribution? It takes a lot of energy resources to pack and ship the products to all over the country, or even the whole world. I think the problem is because organic farms are only centered in one area. In the reading, organic farms in California are responsible a big percentage of organic produces in the US. Therefore, it requires a lot of long-distance shipping from California to other states.
I think the problem of overuse of energy can be alleviated if the farms are more localized. However, it is a challenge for big businesses to work with small, local farms. This is a problem that all the state governments, even the whole world, need to work on.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Internship Learning Experience Reflection 1
Roxanne and I are currently helping Sir Speedy, a print and design company, to research information about how to make its business green. The main reason for doing this is to educate not only the people in print and design industries, but also the cooperating units and clients.
We've been at our internship for eight times since October 8th. My main job for the first four times was to help my mentor, Roma, to compile a list of green-papers, research Chinese information online and translate an English pamphlet into Chinese. I have to say that I was quite nervous for the first few times there because I knew nothing about this print and design industry. I had some difficulties with translating some technical terms into Chinese. However, I was a "problem solver" because I tried my best to research anything I can find. What I got out of this translation experience is that I feel very privileged to be able to read and write in Chinese fluently. Since China is becoming a competitive country in the world, I realized how this can be my greatest benefit for future.
For the fifth and sixth time, Roxanne and I went of to a meeting with the paper vendor. We sat down with the vendor and chatted about the future market of green paper alternatives, etc. The boss of the paper company invited us to join a lunch with him and paid the money for us. It was the first time ever that I feel like I'm an office worker who's attending the meeting ever! I also reported the information I got to Roma. However, we did not meet the expectation, so I got on the phone to try to get the missing information from the paper vendor. Overall, it was a fresh experience!
Roxanne and I did some actual designs for the clients on the seventh and eighth time. I was quite excited because I got to learn how to use designing programs (eg: InDesign and Illustrator) other than Photoshop.
Speaking of doing designs for clients, Roma told us that the designs they created will eventually belong to the client, not themselves. This is the reality of this industry. For me, I can totally understand this "reality"; however, I sometimes do not like the feeling of my art work being owned by someone else. If I ever get into this business one day, I would, perhaps, have to adjust my mind-set to get myself ready to accept this reality.
We've been at our internship for eight times since October 8th. My main job for the first four times was to help my mentor, Roma, to compile a list of green-papers, research Chinese information online and translate an English pamphlet into Chinese. I have to say that I was quite nervous for the first few times there because I knew nothing about this print and design industry. I had some difficulties with translating some technical terms into Chinese. However, I was a "problem solver" because I tried my best to research anything I can find. What I got out of this translation experience is that I feel very privileged to be able to read and write in Chinese fluently. Since China is becoming a competitive country in the world, I realized how this can be my greatest benefit for future.
For the fifth and sixth time, Roxanne and I went of to a meeting with the paper vendor. We sat down with the vendor and chatted about the future market of green paper alternatives, etc. The boss of the paper company invited us to join a lunch with him and paid the money for us. It was the first time ever that I feel like I'm an office worker who's attending the meeting ever! I also reported the information I got to Roma. However, we did not meet the expectation, so I got on the phone to try to get the missing information from the paper vendor. Overall, it was a fresh experience!
Roxanne and I did some actual designs for the clients on the seventh and eighth time. I was quite excited because I got to learn how to use designing programs (eg: InDesign and Illustrator) other than Photoshop.
Speaking of doing designs for clients, Roma told us that the designs they created will eventually belong to the client, not themselves. This is the reality of this industry. For me, I can totally understand this "reality"; however, I sometimes do not like the feeling of my art work being owned by someone else. If I ever get into this business one day, I would, perhaps, have to adjust my mind-set to get myself ready to accept this reality.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Blood, Sweat, and Tee-shirts BBC - Reflection
This clip recalls what the situation was like back in Industrial Revolution. The working condition in India is not that sever as it was back then, still, it's not a condition that I would call "humane". We only see the pretty surface of different things, but are we really progressing on the "inside"?!
Although I've only watched a short part of this BBC documentary, I can tell that the condition in the factory is really harsh. It is hard to me to imagine being in such situation. If I am one of the British girl, I would probably have a hard time there too.
I can relate this BBC documentary with a film about Walmart that we watched during Global Ethics class last year. In the movie, there is one part about Chinese labors working in cloth-manufacturing factory. The clothes will be shipped to Walmart stores mainly in the US. The condition of the workers are also bad. One of the girl who was being interviewed said that they must live in a small, crowded dorm and work overtime most of the time.
Although I've only watched a short part of this BBC documentary, I can tell that the condition in the factory is really harsh. It is hard to me to imagine being in such situation. If I am one of the British girl, I would probably have a hard time there too.
I can relate this BBC documentary with a film about Walmart that we watched during Global Ethics class last year. In the movie, there is one part about Chinese labors working in cloth-manufacturing factory. The clothes will be shipped to Walmart stores mainly in the US. The condition of the workers are also bad. One of the girl who was being interviewed said that they must live in a small, crowded dorm and work overtime most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)