How Manufacturing Jobs Won’t Come Back, and We’d Better Look into Collaborative Age Occupations

There is an increasing number of papers, particularly in the US, on the fact that developed countries lose manufacturing jobs due to globalisation and trade rather than automation, such as this Quartz paper ‘The epic mistake about manufacturing that’s cost Americans millions of jobs‘. This is particularly trendy, of course, in view of the need to justify Donald Trump stance on the need for protectionism.

My view is that those papers raise an obsolete debate. They are missing the most important point: the economy transforms and the future is not in manufacturing jobs. We’ll never get them back. What’s the point in wishing those jobs to return? Of course in the previous century those were high value added, safe jobs for the middle class. But in the Collaborative Age, manufacturing jobs will become like what farm jobs have become in the Industrial Age: low value jobs.

The economy is changing, fast, and it might look like a “manufacturing job implosion” like the paper says. And this is certainly dramatic for many people. But those jobs won’t come back, even with some backward policies around protectionism. Their value is evaporating. Governments should better help people find new, high value added occupations into the Collaborative Age.

Share

How Obsolete is Capitalism Really? Can it Really not Address Complexity?

As per his usual perspective, Umair Haque explains ‘Why Capitalism is Obsolete (And Why Humanity’s Future Depends on What’s Next)‘. His view is generally that capitalism is obsolete because it can’t resolve the major issues facing humanity now such as climate change, energy supply etc. And more generally, capitalism would not be able to solve complex issues.

There is some irony in this paper as he takes ITER as an example of why capitalism is obsolete. But ITER is on the contrary quite an example of a centrally planned organisation gone wrong and struggling to deliver.

Anyway, I do not agree with his point on complexity. Capitalism as a way to force change on the economy through innovation still works, and it has easily made centrally planned economies obsolete. There is power in decentralisation and letting innovation compete. And actually capitalism is the best system we have found so far to address the increasing complexity of our world, through its self-regulation loops on some aspects.

It is true that capitalism does not solve the tragedy of the commons or longer term infrastructure issues, because everyone tries to exploit as much as possible of the common resources; and this is why strong regulation on top of capitalism is needed, as well as subsidization of long term commitments. Regulation is also needed to find some balance in society.

We have to find the right balance of regulation and market forces. There will always be some balancing act and the optimised point will need some searching, but I am still confident that regulated capitalism will find solutions to complex issues much faster than any other available system.

Share

How People Constantly Take Decisions Based on Opinions

In my consulting work I am permanently astonished how much people tend to take decisions based on opinions without even taking a few hours to establish some quick facts about the situation.

Of course we all know that at the end we tend to take decisions based on our feelings, and that over-analysis is not good. However in the professional field it is astonishing to see how many substantial decisions impacting many people are taken with limited analysis or basic fact checking about orders of magnitude. A common example in my speciality is project scheduling, and scheduling forecast. It is quite easy to establish the current slippage of a schedule and the current productivity level compared to the expectations. Decision-makers do not even take a few minutes to establish those facts.

As a consultant a substantial part of my job is to establish some of those facts to question the worldview of decision-makers. And by doing that I am often disturbing because I often invalidate well established opinions. Up to the point that I often need backing by top management for those exercises.

Please take a few minutes to gather some basic facts and orders of magnitude before taking decisions. It would so greatly improve a number of situations. It is astonishing how many bad decisions are taken without basic fact-checking.

Share

How Society Needs More Troublemakers

This excellent Quartz article ‘A Berkeley professor explains why society needs more troublemakers‘ touches a nerve as I consider myself to be sometimes moderately in that category – in a constructive manner.

The interesting part is of course that troublemarkers improve team thinking and avoid “groupthink“: “research in social psychology and cognition has shown that disagreement improves group thinking. “It’s a benefit regardless of whether or not [dissenters] hold the truth,” she argues. “Most people are afraid and they don’t speak up. Companies have that problem all the time. And the research really shows us that that even if it’s wrong, the fact that the majority or the consensus is challenged actually stimulates thinking.

Of course being a dissenter does not make you popular immediately, as Marshall McLuhan reminds us (“Every Society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers“), still it is quite needed, and in particular when tackling complex problems.

Share

How Google Takes Political Decisions Surreptitiously

This excellent post by Alex TabarrokGoogle Bans Bail Bond Ads, Invites Regulation‘ shows how dominating internet companies can take decisions that look simple but have substantial political background.

Bail bond is a way to escape actual jail in the US. Google is banning ads for bail bond because it considers that it targets vulnerable people and is de-facto discriminating. However, some authors consider that they are a way to give a chance of support and advice to people that couldn’t otherwise afford it.

I have no opinion on the matter except that as all complex issues, there are several sides to it and the situation is more complex than people often believe. And by taking single sided decisions on their own, internet giants are avoiding debate on those issues while influencing the life of many people. Google is indeed taking a simplistic view: where is the data?

As the paper concludes, Google and the others really invite some kind of regulation of their activities to be implemented!

Share

How the Hard Part is Falling Out of Love with the Old Idea

I love this Seth Godin post ‘Falling Out‘: “The hard part isn’t coming up with a new idea. The hard part is falling out of love with the old idea

In my life as an entrepreneur I encounter or devise more ideas than I can execute. This is often the case in private life as well. The key issue is when one decides to develop some new idea, how to let older activities fall?

I am quite guilty of adding up new ideas and activities without removing older ones, leading to situations of excess work. I then have to do a pruning exercise to concentrate on what is the most important at the time.

I thus fully agree that the hardest is often to stop doing older ideas and objectives, and dropping former objectives. And I also need to improve on this!

Share

How Your Business Needs to Become Your Mission

Robin Sharma writes “until your business becomes your mission, your business will never become a movement“.

This statement is interesting and inspiring because it puts back on the table the question of why we are entrepreneurs. Why are we giving so much of our time and attention to our entrepreneurial endeavor?

We are doing it because we have an internal impetus to give out our energy to something we believe in, a mission we believe will improve something in the world around us. And because we are doing this sacrifice, it has to be for something we believe in.

If the mission is really useful for people out there, then yes, maybe it will also become a movement. But first, let’s work to realise our mission.

Share

How the Problem of Success is that the World Conspires to Stop you Doing the Thing that You Do

I encourage you to read the writer Neil Gaiman‘s 2012 graduation keynote address. It offers invaluable advice on dealing with failure, and on being successful, in creative fields. Although it is primarily addressed at artists, I believe it is quite applicable to entrepreneurs, who are another type of creators.

The piece of advice that struck me is related to success, after the usual initial failure phase. (“The problems of failure are hard. The problems of success can be harder, because nobody warns you about them.”)

The biggest problem of success is that the world conspires to stop you doing the thing that you do, because you are successful. There was a day when I looked up and realised that I had become someone who professionally replied to email, and who wrote as a hobby. I started answering fewer emails, and was relieved to find I was writing much more.” And that is of course the issue for all successful entrepreneurs; working on the company is taking lots of effort and we are doing less of what we wanted to develop when we created the organisation.

There is a lot of advice about how to deal with failure. Not so much on how to deal with success, be it whole or limited. However it can also make people miserable. Make sure your reflect on what you get drawn in when you start being successful, and decide what you really want to do.

Share

How Creativity Can be Enhanced by Machines

Of course for centuries, creative endeavors have had a renewal every time a new technique appeared. Now with the advent of Artificial Intelligence and machines, artists have another transforming way to be creative. The excellent article ‘The Coming Creativity Explosion Belongs to the Machines‘ gives a broad overview.

In a process similar to that followed by a human artist or scientist, a creative machine begins its work by framing a problem. Next, its software specifies the requirements the solution should have before generating “answers” in the form of original designs, patterns, or some other form of output. Although the notion of machine creativity sounds a bit like science fiction, the basic concept is one that has been slowly developing for decades.

This evolution of course may be found threatening by some. In reality we need to get accustomed to the potential for this support to our work and find ways to deploy machine creativity for our benefit. We need to learn how to harness the power of those machines. I can’t wait to see what will come out of those new creativity techniques!

I suspect the real world-changing application of machine creativity will be in the realm of everyday problem solving, or Little C. The mainstream emergence of powerful problem-solving tools will help people create abundance where there was once scarcity.

Share

How Artificial Intelligence Transforms the Ad-financed Internet

Following up from our previous post on ‘How the Foundation Principles of Internet May be Flawed‘, the issue with ad-financed internet only came up to the surface with the emergence of powerful Artificial Intelligence. As described in this TED talk ‘We’re building a dystopia just to make people click on ads

It may seem like artificial intelligence is just the next thing after online ads. It’s not. It’s a jump in category. It’s a whole different world, and it has great potential. It could accelerate our understanding of many areas of study and research […] And these things only work if there’s an enormous amount of data, so they also encourage deep surveillance on all of us so that the machine learning algorithms can work. That’s why Facebook wants to collect all the data it can about you. The algorithms work better.”

Therefore, it is possible that the rising of AI combined with the ad-financed model is the fundamental reason why the Google and Facebook are excessively collecting data on us. The issue is that this may lead to “building this infrastructure of surveillance authoritarianism merely to get people to click on ads.” It might be time to change the business model of the internet.

Share

How the Foundation Principles of Internet May be Flawed

There is an increasing uneasiness on the foundations and principles of internet. In a TED talk, ‘how we need to remake the internet‘, Jason Lanier explains a fundamental mistake was made in the 1990’s: the advertising model to provide internet content for free.

Early digital culture had a sense of a socialist mission: everything on the internet must be available for free (contrary to books, even if solutions like public libraries compensate to make them available to everyone). At the same time we loved our tech entrepreneurs that could dent the universe. The solution was the advertising model: free with ads. In the beginning it was cute. ”

The comparison with what happened before is of course not so abrupt, for example newspapers have long relied on ads to finance their activity and therefore could sometimes be opinionated, but everyone knew which side the paper was on.

And as it is proven now, the consequence of the advertisement model is quite incompatible with the principles to govern internet edited under a UN mandate that refer to universality and non-discrimination (refer to those principles here).

As Jason Lanier concludes, “Our species cannot survive in a situation where if 2 people want to communicate they need to go through a third person that wants to manipulate them“.

Share

How to Deal With Rejection-Prone Processes

In his post ‘Effort in the face of near-certain rejection‘, Seth Godin shows that there are two fundamental strategies to deal with processes that involve rejection (such as for example, submitting resumes, book drafts, commercial proposals…).

  • The first approach is statistical: go for volume, there will be some acceptance along the way;
  • the second approach is to invest in the relationships; instead of volume, go for quality and emotional connection.

The second approach is harder, requires emotional work, but probably more effective on the long term. And by using the first approach you are more likely to disrupt people and create bad feelings. Finally it may not take more time to apply the second approach either.

The thing is, people can tell. And they’re significantly more likely to give you an interview, make a donation, answer your question or do that other thing you’re hoping for if you’ve signalled that you’re actually a caring, focused, generous human.”

So, let’s try to create connections instead of sending our resume or our book draft blindly expecting someone to respond positively!

Share