Here is a typical evening
at a major cable TV network: arrive at
Washington studio and be asked to sign
in by a contract security guard. Be met
by either a young employee who appears
to still be in college or an older
person who seems to have hung on with
tenure. Have your nose powdered by that
person. Have your microphone attached by
that person. Be positioned in the studio
chair by that person, and then look
directly into a robotic camera being
manipulated by someone in a control room
in New York and speak to whoever the
host is wherever he or she is. That’s
it: one employee, a robot and you.
Think of how many jobs —
makeup artist, receptionist, camera
person, producer-director — have been
collapsed into one. I raise this point
because there is no doubt that the main
reason for our 9.1 percent unemployment
rate is the steep drop in aggregate
demand in the Great Recession. But it is
not the only reason. “The Great
Recession” is also coinciding with — and
driving — “The Great Inflection.”
In the last decade, we
have gone from a connected world (thanks
to the end of the cold war,
globalization and the Internet) to a
hyperconnected world (thanks to those
same forces expanding even faster). And
it matters. The connected world was a
challenge to blue-collar workers in the
industrialized West. They had to compete
with a bigger pool of cheap labor. The
hyperconnected world is now a challenge
to white-collar workers. They have to
compete with a bigger pool of cheap
geniuses — some of whom are people and
some are now robots, microchips and
software-guided machines.
I wrote about the
connected world in 2004, arguing that
the world had gotten “flat.” When I made
that argument, though, Facebook barely
existed — and Twitter, cloud computing,
iPhones, LinkedIn, iPads, the
“applications” industry and Skype had
either not been invented or were in
their infancy. Now they are exploding,
taking us from connected to
hyperconnected. It is a huge inflection
point masked by the Great Recession.
It is also both a huge
challenge and opportunity. It has never
been harder to find a job and never been
easier — for those prepared for this
world — to invent a job or find a
customer. Anyone with the spark of an
idea can start a company overnight,
using a credit card, while accessing
brains, brawn and customers anywhere. It
is why Pascal Lamy, chief of the World
Trade Organization, argues that terms
like “made in America” or “made in
China” are phasing out. The proper term,
says Lamy, is “made in the world.” More
products are designed everywhere, made
everywhere and sold everywhere.
The term “outsourcing” is
also out of date. There is no more “out”
anymore. Firms can and will seek the
best leaders and talent to achieve their
goals anywhere in the world. Dov
Seidman, is the C.E.O. of LRN, a firm
that helps businesses develop principled
corporate cultures, and the author of “How:
Why How We Do Anything Means
Everything.” He describes the
mind-set of many C.E.O.’s he works with:
“I run a global company with a global
mission and one set of shared values in
pursuit of global objectives. My
employees are all over the world — more
than half outside the U.S. — and more
than half of my revenues and my plans
for growth are out there, too. So you
tell me: What is out and what is in
anymore?”
Matt Barrie, is the
founder of freelancer.com,
which today lists 2.8 million
freelancers offering every service you
can imagine. “The whole world is
connecting up now at an incredibly rapid
pace,” says Barrie, and many of these
people are coming to freelancer.com
to offer their talents. Barrie says
he describes this rising global army of
freelancers the way he describes his own
team: “They all have Ph.D.’s. They are
poor, hungry and driven: P.H.D.”
Barrie
offered me a few examples on his site
right now: Someone is looking for a
designer to design “a fully functioning
dune buggy.” Forty people are now
bidding on the job at an average price
of $268. Someone is looking for an
architect to design “a car-washing
cafe.” Thirty-seven people are bidding
on that job at an average price of $168.
Someone is looking to produce “six
formulations of chewing gum” suitable
for the Australian market. Two people
are bidding at an average price of $375.
When Barrie needed a five-word speech to
accept a Webby Award, he offered $1,000
for the best idea. He got 2,730 entries
and accepted “The Tech Boom Is Back.”
Someone looking for “a rap song to help
Chinese students learn English” has
three bids averaging $157.
Indeed,
there is no “in” or “out” anymore. In
the hyperconnected world, there is only
“good” “better” and “best,” and managers
and entrepreneurs everywhere now have
greater access than ever to the better
and best people, robots and software
everywhere. Obviously, this makes it
more vital than ever that we have
schools elevating and inspiring more of
our young people into that better and
best category, because even good might
not cut it anymore and average is
definitely over.
READERS'
COMMENTS
How Did
the Robot End Up With My Job?Back to Article »
By THOMAS
L. FRIEDMAN
Today’s hyperconnected world
requires white-collar workers to
compete with a bigger pool of cheap
geniuses, some of whom are robots,
microchips and software-guided
machines.
Comments are no longer being
accepted.
james
memphis
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Poor,
hungry and driven. Sounds more
like the 18th century than what I
had hoped for the 21st; maybe we
are indeed heading back to the
future. International Finance has
destroyed 200 years of gains in
the Western World by working
people. The WTO is obsessed with
open borders and free trade, but
actively works to destroy minimum
wages, safety rules, overtime pay,
reasonable work days, pollution
and environmental rules; it only
attempts to protect the wealth of
the investors. This open world you
so strongly support means that
Western industry has to compete
with totalitarian regimes which
routinely imprison anyone who
questions their authority. No
labor unions. No regulations. No
democracy. This is lunacy.
How can free societies survive in
an unfair trade war where
international finance continues
this race to the bottom? Are we to
give up on everything won with
generations of struggle? It will
be easy to compete with China once
we get rid of the EPA and allow
factories to spew waste into our
air and water again. Get rid of
unions, wage and hour rules, no
more OSHA, no child labor laws, no
property protections, no
insurance. Then we can once again
compete. The world will be flat.
Or maybe we can move to restrict
free trade to free countries.
Perhaps we could impose tariffs on
goods produced by countries with
no protections for labor or
environment. We could move to
reward production instead of
finance. And we could once again
try to rebuild a society where
working class people are respected
and have a chance of living a fair
and productive life.
poomakmak
tent
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
"Anyone
with the spark of an idea can
start a company overnight, using a
credit card, while accessing
brains, brawn and customers
anywhere." I have no idea how you
can say such a thing. Further, the
'bids' for work you cite as
positive instances are mostly
desperate people trying to get any
income they can. The educational
divide in this society divides
even the dividers: the difference
between IP attorneys and those
working for impoverished
inner-city folks accused of
stealing a slice of pizza.
Gerard
Dallas
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Are
you telling us that the prices
posted for work on
Freelancer.com
represent some kind of
progress? Look closer. Write a
500-word piece for a dollar?!? You
could starve to death working for
those prices.And large numbers of
the people posting these jobs are
barely literate themselves, as
witness their own writing. If
that's the future. . .
Alan
Washington,
DC
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
In
the not too distant future, robots
will be able to do most jobs, so
labor costs will not be very
important. Smart robots will
permit an increase in productivity
that will dwarf even the increase
during the industrial revolution.
The challenge will be distributing
the wealth the robots can create.
The ultimate irony is that in the
future, the more heavily "the
rich" are taxed, the richer they
will become. If the wealth is
confined to a relatively small
number of executives and the few
employees they need to run the
robots, demand will plummet, the
economy will stagnate, and the
income of "the rich" will
decrease, while if the income is
heavily taxed and the wealth is
redistributed by the government,
demand will increase, the economy
will grow, and the income of "the
rich" will increase: sort of the
Laffer effect in reverse. But good
luck getting the needed policies
through a Republican congress!
Mark
Colorado
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Today's
column is (I sincerely hope) a
wake-up call for young people
seeking employment. Hopefully they
are reading your column and
understanding the implications for
their future life. If they do not
understand or heed your very clear
message, what will become of them,
and any offspring they generate? I
am 70 and retired with Wyoming
Retirement, Social Security, some
family farm income, plus the
wife's social and retirement. We
can pay our bills IF we DO NOT buy
a second home, a new car (like
$22,000.) or take more than one
trip a year to see family in the
UK, France, Spain, or Germany. My
question is: Where are people who
do not understand "DO NOT" going
to end up? Scary!!
home
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Along
with what and where is labor in
the connected world today. What
and were is value? And what and
where is the business
infrastructure? How many
businesses today exist only on the
hard drives of servers and their
connected network. There may be
leased spaces but no leased
property whose property title is
registered in the county court
house of any county within the
united states or any country in
the world. And what can be said of
what businesses and value anymore
when we ordered some books for our
kids for Christmas and the book
cost a dollar and shipping cost 5
dollars. More economic businesses
was involved in the shipping the
book than the market value of the
book. And today what is a book any
way when one can buy a Kindle or
pay for downloading an ebook onto
a computer. Yes the books
royalties have to be paid, but
what happened to all of the jobs
created by printing, storing,
transporting, designing, and
marketing the hard cover and soft
cover versions. The book has been
scanned onto a server where it is
available to be purchased by all.
Most of the real jobs end up being
the ones needed to support and
police the internet and create and
modify the software to do this.
Again who and where are these
ghostly businesses. Are they
sitting at home alone in a
bathrobe or down at the beach. And
if this is so where are all of the
company buildings and warehouses
and if these all stand empty
because most of the real work can
be done by dispersed groups
working in the privacy of their
own spaces. What happens to all of
the construction jobs when
business buildings and warehouses
are not need or are just for show?
Yes there is a lot left for
factories and manufacturers and
all of the jobs created by them.
But today many of the social
service jobs and insurance jobs
and God knows what else is being
done from the individuals private
space who knows were. The
radiologist read my kids cat scan
from across the ocean in Spain.
South
Carolina
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
A
couple of types of white collar
worker exist. Those you described
all fit in the engineering or
designer category. After reading
your piece, my first question was,
"How many of these $200 solutions
actually worked and made it to
market?" Also, just what level of
expertise are these people
bringing to the projects?
The projects you listed were
somewhat trivial. Otherwise, what
a boon for the cost of medicine!
For example, how about a cure for
leukemia? Is someone going to
assemble a $100 million laboratory
and sell the formulation for $375?
A more critical shortage is
effective leadership with working
solutions. We need to drop
unemployment in the U.S. by four
percentage points within the next
year and raise the middle class
income by 5% during that period.
What will that design cost? $300?
I like the idea of designing
social solutions that work. The
obstacle is getting them
implemented.
During my university years I was
often up until 1:30 AM making sure
I understood my calculus homework
and was not just solving problems.
I was often up that late making
sure I understood computer
programming algorithms and was not
just going through the motions. A
family joke was if I showed up at
holiday, my companion would be my
physics textbook during the
semesters I was taking my
engineering physics courses. I
wanted to be a useful engineer.
Guess it worked. I'm still
employed.
Had anyone told me my degree in
electronics engineering would
qualify me to endlessly bid on
$200 contracts, I'd have studied
something else as would have my
classmates. However, a nation
without an abundance of engineers
is a nation bereft of
independence.
What you presented has its place.
It also highlights need for the
U.S. to more rapidly implement
truly high speed Internet such as
Japan uses. Already, nations with
the fastest access to, and fastest
capability to process our vast
store of knowledge, combined with
shared human imagination, produce
the most sought-after products.
New
Jersey
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Good
piece. Your "inflection point"
took its own time showing up (many
of us having been expecting it now
for many years); showed up at a
bad time generally; and indeed has
been obscured by other events in a
teetering economy. But it's here,
and we'd better get with the
program.
But this is an opportunity for
passé liberals to re-invent
themselves, as well as a
government that pretty soon is
going to be completely run by
non-liberals. You see, the reason
the robot ended up with all the
jobs that aren't (temporarily)
owned by off-shore workers, is
that the robot tends to do one
thing very well and very cheaply;
while the American worker who does
only one thing often doesn't do it
very well and is anything but
cheap. If all you need done is
that one thing, then which are you
going to choose?
But it doesn't have to end that
way, and this is where re-invented
liberals come in. It's clear that,
perforce, deficits are going down
because conservatives are going to
slash budgets across the board,
and this won't simply be limited
to entitlements, it will need to
include the military, as well.
This will free up enormous sums of
money, both real money and the
debt that otherwise would accrete
without the cuts. Liberals should
be cooperating, but seeking as
quid pro quo a set-aside to fund a
new Agency for American
Competitiveness (get rid of 100,
or dramatically de-fund them; but
add this one).
The purpose would be to identify
the actual jobs that are needed
today and likely to be needed in
five years (yes, I know we have
study groups that project this,
but they're at best anemic,
completely unable to affect our
reality); then, identify the
skills required to do those jobs,
which would need to consist not of
one thing but multiple, related
things that have value. The
American worker who does numerous,
related things well is far, far
less susceptible to being replaced
by Robbie the Robot; and is far
more valuable to anyone who
employs him, making his non-cheap
status wearable.
Then, incentivize community
colleges with federal subsidies
throughout the U.S. to offer
programs that train workers in the
skills required to do the jobs.
Provide scholarships to
workers/students for continued
study who demonstrate high
performance in the early parts of
the studies. Provide two-year tax
breaks to companies that hire the
graduates and keep them for not
less than two years.
In order for us to re-invent our
middle class (and save it), we
need to put our workers beyond
easy replacement by single-purpose
hardware and software. Outsourced
workers labor within inflexible,
tightly controlled machines of
their own kind; so we need our
workers to be flexible, able to
adapt quickly to new needs where
outsourcing engines require time
to adapt by adjusting rigid
processes and re-training their
people.
Seeing a robot or an off-shore
worker take your job doesn't need
to be the end of the story. If
it's done right, it can be the
beginning of a much better, more
sustainable one.
Macro
Atlanta,
GA
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
This
is a great thing Friedman. No more
we are rich here and help the poor
out there. Equal opportunity now.
Of course it will not be perfect,
of course there will be
challenges, but for the average
person the world will be a better
place. Asimov would have loved it!
Atlanta,
GA
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Tom,
this would be more inspiring and
make more sense if your 'best'
people weren't giving away their
creative skills for $375.
The frightening implication here
is that creativity and design have
basically become worthless.
home
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
One
more question, When I am in my
internet world and typing in
photons and electrons, where and
really when does that world reside
and when the businesses that
occupy that world go bankrupt how
to they auction off the assets.
What labor force maintains this
reality and where is the
infrastructure and if one makes a
capital investment what exactly is
one investing in. What does stock
in the company really mean that
you have part ownership in exactly
what? Are we investing in nouns
when we invest in the internet or
are we investing in processes and
verbs. Is all there really is a
bunch of binary numbers its there
or it isn't code which creates
images on a screen. If I own stock
what pixels do I own and how do I
get them. Is a large part of
businesses today investment in
kinetic or potential energy so
that when the businesses goes
bankrupt its vanishes like the
spark on a magicians wand.
Econfix
SFO
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
$268
for a dune buggy design; $168 for
a car-washing café
architecture; $375 for a product
formulation. Mr. Friedman, doesn’t
this seem like a crime to you? In
candor, why get an education at
all, if you can only make a few
dollars per hour as a freelancer?
You would be better off washing
dishes. You may earn enough to eat
- maybe. We have a serious problem
as a country, if this is the best
an educated person can do.
Pennsylvania
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Saving
and creating jobs for U.S. workers
is a high priority in these trying
times. A self-regulating scheme
for doing that was suggested
several years ago by Warren
Buffett. It continues to be
overlooked. It consists of the
following:
U.S. exporters would be granted $
import credits based on $ amounts
that they collect from foreign
customers. Would-be importers
would be required to purchase such
$ import credits on a regulated
exchange before releasing $ funds
to pay for imports.
Imports/exporters includes
services as well as goods.
In periods of import imbalance,
such as have now, those import
credits would rise in price as
would-be importers competed to buy
them.
Exporters would thus receive
windfall profits encouraging them
to expand production for export.
That would help to expand
employment. Would-be importers, on
the other hand, would have an
incentive to look for domestic
suppliers in order to avoid this
extra expense of importing. That
also should have a positive effect
on U.S. employment.
Roman
Seneca,
SC
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
It
seems like the inevitable
conclusion is that the less
educated, less motivated are
compressed further down. Not
everyone can be better or best.
Diane
Chicago
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
I'm
about to scream the next time some
middle-aged humanities major talks
about Facebook as if it's the
greatest thing in mankind and can
be used to feed and shelter 7
billion people on this planet.
Facebook is nothing more than a
picture album and an interactive
alumni newsletter that relies on
advertising revenue. Nothing else
has changed. Facebook cannot
create jobs when there is no
demand, it doesn't bring our
manufacturing jobs back from
China. Facebook is frankly part of
the problem, because it
facilitates this myth that our
country of 300 million can subsist
in the virtual world of gossip,
vanity and braindead
correspondence.
Jon
Jost
Tokyo
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
"..entrepreneurs
everywhere now have greater access
than ever to the better and best
people, robots and software
everywhere..."
Of course Tom the Pied Piper of
globalization neglects to mention
that this corporate access is also
to the cheapest labor, least
environmental regulation, worker
safety laws and all that. He also
neglects to mention how vast money
now buys up anything around the
globe it wants, whether millions
of acres of farmland in S America
or Africa, or a lovely site for a
multi-million dollar 4th vacation
home on some tropical paradise
whose economy is twisted into
pieces thereby.
I think while offering a global
vision as is his wont, Mr Friedman
needs a visit to an eye doctor to
correct his obsessive
near-sightedness. He can't see
beyond the tip of his nose for
pie-ib-the-sky theories as he
imagines now everyone booting up
for the hyper-connected world,
neglecting to note that a large
chunk of the population anywhere
is not composed of PhD's or people
who ever could be one.
www.jonjost.wordpress.com
www.cinemaelectronica.wordpress.com
Minneapolis
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
As
nearly always, Mr Friedman's
column is (affectionately)
dedicated to that one-ten
thousandth of one percent of the
world's population who are
fortunate enough to own, run, or
work for massive multinational
corporations. Perhaps you might
lower your eyes to regard the rest
of the human race someday, Mr
Friedman, you might find one or
two points of worth.
Houston
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
It
is hard to disagree that workers
in the US have been engaged for
quite a few years in an uphill and
mostly loosing battle for fewer
jobs. Automation and cheap foreign
labor, mostly of the non-genious
category, is doing in the American
Dream. I would be willing to bet
that many if not most of those
cheap geniuses PHDs have their
workrooms on foreign soil. Or, if
we want to be with it by using the
new lingo, their home base is not
their home country, it is "the
World". I have to admit that I am
really impressed with the idea of
the "Made in the World" label. A
touch of genius there. Just when
it seems that some of these
business types can reach a new
low, they do.
Most Americans know and have known
for a good while that we have a
serious job problem. Decent paying
jobs are hard to find. Even the
politicians are coming to this
realization. The question is, what
are we going to do about it? Today
in the US there are roughly 190
million people of working age
between 22 and 65 years. Even
after we take out the very rich
and the ones doing quite well with
good jobs, how many geniuses are
we going to find that are going to
be "the best". Average does not
mean incapable or dumb. It means,
well, average. I am waiting to
hear suggestions as to what are
these millions of average people
going to do to survive in this new
world. Any ideas on that, Mr.
Friedman? Maybe not now, but that
American Spring is going to come
sooner than later if this remains
an issue to bring around only at
election time.
St Paul
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
I
first noticed "the Great
Inflection" when one of the
colleges in Minnesota merged the
jobs of Chief Information Officer
and Physical Plant Director. With
budget cuts, downsizing, etc. we
are going to see more of that
thinking.
Leon
Breaux
Beijing
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Mr.
Friedman, you are a very bright
man and I usually agree with what
you say. However, I must take a
few exceptions here.
It seems to me that you yourself
are caught in this mania. Humans
cannot live well as you are
describing. We need to slow down
and take stock of the real,
physical world and the real,
physical other humans because that
is where we live. We need to
understand that the internet is a
way to move data and
communications around quickly, but
that it hasn't changed fundamental
human nature or basic problems. We
need to understand that we live
under an abstracted economic
system that pays little heed to
people's actual needs. We need to
understand that all trappings
aside, our social organization is
not so different from a
liberalized feudalism.
In an MSNBC poll, 87% of
respondents say it's okay to kill
a US citizen on the government's
say-so that the person is a
terrorist. We are through the
looking-glass.
Yes, yes, yes, the world is
hyper-connected. So what? What is
really changing? Are people
becoming more thoughtful, more
reflective, more moral, less
greedy? The knife cuts both ways.
Technology is our servant, not our
master. Yet we bow to it.
Technology is actually people
using a tool, not an entity unto
itself, and when we bow to
technology, we ultimately bow to
those who are in charge of the
tool. It is a fetishism, an
idolatry, and we should be better
that that.
Mr. Friedman, you know as well as
I that it is impossible for
average to be over. Average is a
mathematical statement concerning
a group of items. It exists in
people and always will no matter
what we say. If we are so hyped up
that we forget such a simple,
commonsense fact, what can be in
store for us? More denial at the
speed of light?
We need to slow down and breathe.
We need to check what we are
doing. We need to reflect. Speed
is not of the essence.
Montreal
Moe
West
Park, Quebec
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Mr
Friedman,
Many of us have been aware what
was going on for forty years. When
you wrote the world was flat we
warned it was badly warped. You
were wrong then and you are still
unaware of what is going on.
It is sad that a gifted social
commentator such as yourself
should live in a middle class
cocoon and should huddle with
equally cocooned people and middle
east aristocracy.
Your solutions have always
benefited the rich and powerful to
the detriment of the planet and
its citizenry. Those of us who
worked in technology 40 years ago
knew that just as John Henry could
not compete with the steam drill
human being could not compete with
the technological marvels we are
capable of producing today. I am
amazed that with your knowledge of
what is going on your solutions
are so misguided.
It seems obvious to me that our
economic system is not capable of
delivering peace, order and good
government in the 21st century.
The well known "secret" of
survival is not competition but
adaptation. I am appalled by the
notion of social "Darwinists" that
evolution involves survival of the
strongest and most powerful.
Darwin is all about adaptation and
I would have hoped that given even
the evidence you present in your
current essay you might have
understood the absolute need to
adapt to a modern technological
world.
We do not need to work harder,
longer and smarter we need to work
less and learn to deal with the
time we would spend in non
productive work. Instead of
learning from Chinese
entrepreneurs you should have
focused on the Chinese government.
A country losing a million plus
manufacturing jobs a year tears
down a 25th part of its cities
every year and rebuilds thus
ameliorating some unemployment. We
can do better.
Early retirement, job sharing and
free lifetime education are just a
few ideas that could stop the
impending social destruction. As
Mel Brooks said to Carl Reiner
many years ago "hitting a tree
with a stick, that was a good
job." Technology means we have
enough stuf
nicholas
atlanta
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
So
people who are poor and hungry,
selling their labor for pennies on
the dollar, with no hope of a
permanent position with any type
of benefits is a good thing? Or
just how it is, with people
needing to realize it and accept
the fact that the middle class is
officially dead?
In essence, everyone is competing
with everyone for scraps and a
subsistence-level existence while
the people with money grow more
wealthy and more powerful?
The Gilded Age is Back.
AlanZo
Boston,
MA
October 2nd, 2011
7:24 am
Global
company, global mission, global
objectives. This is great, and I
totally support it, however labor
markets remain exceptionally
fragmented amongst nation states,
and until a seamless global labor
market emerges, one where
unemployed Rustbelt workers can
freely move to Guangdong to follow
their jobs, and aspiring Indians
IT workers can move to Silicon
valley unhindered in any quantity
at any time, the forces of
tech-fueled income inequality will
continue to grind nationally
captive labor underneath the
treads of globally mobile capital.
"There shall be open borders" is
the absolute necessary corollary
of financial and trade
liberalization. Alas, it is
politically impossible until
cross-border incomes more or less
equalize, as will happen on
present course in about 20-30
years. Unfortunately, by then the
centrifugal forces may have
collapsed this current era of
globalization. I would hate the
forces of nationalism to reassert
themselves once again. Einstein's
quote about World War IV being
fought with sticks and stones
comes to mind.
Also coming to mind is the
impossible trinity of the global
political economy from Harvard's
Dani Rodrik, which states that out
of economic globalization,
political democracy, and the
nation state, the world system
can, in any given era, satisfy at
most 2 and never all 3 conditions.
IMHO time to dump the nation
state. Let it die... peacefully,
gracefully, in due time, but the
direction is clear.
Just
sayin'
Boston
October 2nd, 2011
7:28 am
If one accepts your
premise that there is no more
"out" in the labor pool, then
what short and long term
employment solutions do you
propose for the developed
western world, with its high
labor costs and standard of
living as well as its high cost
social contract to its citizens?
If most jobs will migrate to the
best value labor pool, and if
the countries with whom we
compete do not have shared
values or social contracts,
which means we cannot compete on
value, what will the West do for
jobs?
As long as we are competing
against less developed countries
we lose. When India, China,
Thailand, etc. have developed a
country wide infrastructure and
governmental system of free
primary education, access to
health care, senior care, care
for the poor, indoor plumbing,
housing codes, environmental
protection, human rights
protection, as well as the
bureaucratic burden to develop
and maintain them, they will no
longer be so "inexpensive" to do
business with, as the costs of
doing business and the standard
of living will rise. Until the
playing field levels out, what
is the West to do?
Do our governments/corporations
have any right/need/obligation
to impose barriers to the uneven
field until it levels out? Many
here in the US appear to feel
that we should abandon our
social contract and code (shrink
the government, reduce
regulation, let the market
rule…the Republican approach) to
reduce our costs, standard of
living and social contract to
match the developing world...I
personally feel that is both
morally wrong and a step
backwards but I do see the
allure.
What is a short term solution?
What can we, the US, do in the
next 5-10 years to increase US
jobs given the global situation
on labor costs? Changing
education will take at least 2
decades to materialize. It
doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start,
but it is insufficient.
Marshfield,
MA
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
Gee,
Tom, a "glass is half FULL" person
would see the 1 person broadcast
studio as the ADDITION of a job
outside the main studio that would
not have otherwise been there had
there not been technology to make
it possible. Then, of course,
there are all the people who
supply, service, and visit the
studio, who spend money
benefitting all the business in
the neighborhood that would not
have otherwise benefitted.
It thought it was conservatives
who wanted to return everyone to
the '50's, not good progressives,
but it seems this antipathy
towards ATM's and other modern
technology - a little creepy given
the Unabomber in our past - is
creeping into the group think of
those most loudly proclaiming
themselves the party of 'science.'
Whaddup with that?
www.anniefields.com
Diana
New
York
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
'The
connected world was a challenge to
blue-collar workers in the
industrialized West. They had to
compete with a bigger pool of
cheap labor. The hyperconnected
world is now a challenge to
white-collar workers. They have to
compete with a bigger pool of
cheap geniuses — some of whom are
people and some are now robots,
microchips and software-guided
machines. '
Ah, no, they never HAD to compete,
they were MADE to compete by the
Masters of the Universe.
It's funny how, when talking money
for the monied, the earth is flat
and it's a new day and things like
fair trade policies and protective
tariffs are so ‘yesterday,’ but
when talking fair and equitable
tax rates, livable wages, and
regulated capitalism, why, 19th
century policies are just fine.
durham
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
Thank
you for the article. It is
particularly interesting with the
perspective of Mr Blow's article a
few weeks ago about the "War for
Jobs". Basically the future will
be a war for good jobs. In the
past if you were on the side of
country which won a war you did
fairly well yourself. Now even if
your country 'wins' you could
still lose your job to someone
from anywhere around the world. 2
points though -
1) In a hyper connected world, if
we must all be prepared to lose
our jobs either because someone
else will do it better or cheaper
if if our entire industry becomes
obsolete then should we all be
prepared to do something else?
Plan B, second jobs? What will it
be like to grow up with that kind
of anxiety?
2)If there is no job security will
people be prepared to put in the
personal investment to become
really, really good at what they
do? For examples, with the
onslaught of news in sound bites,
blogs and brief snippets and the
loss of print newspapers will any
journalists takes the time to
develop in depth knowledge and
really build their writing skills?
Mr Friedman, if you had to start
with a blog would you be who you
are?
In a hyper connected world do we
all have to be 'Jacks' of at least
a few trades and no time to be
'Masters' of anything.
Truckee,
CA
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
Please.
China and many other countries
practice mercantilism, the West is
practicing plutocracy.Our
plutocracy gives them jobs, so
that we will have no power, and we
can't revolt.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Carolyn
Egeli
Valley
Lee, Md.
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
Tell
this to the people in the street
and see what reaction you get from
the unemployed. You might be
accurately describing the reality,
but it comes across as more
darwinistic economic theory,
survival of the fittest, with no
social responsibility attached.
Hooking up with no strings
attached is what you are
describing, not unlike Justice
Scalia in his speech about coed
dorms. We are a society, not just
a bunch of people either employed
or not employed. We owe something
to one another. " Hooking up" by
getting a good deal in a race to
the bottom mentality isn't going
to cut it as a way to solve our
economic woes caused by
unemployment. We need a sense of
committment to everyone's welfare
and hiding behind robotsas an
argument to avoid responsibility
is not going to solve our
problems. So called "free markets"
sounds good, but in actuality,
there have never been any. That's
why successful civilizations take
care of their own. We've forgotten
all about that concept of "giving
back". There's no loyalty or
devotion to any tribe anymore, and
I can't say it is a good thing. I
am not interested in buying from
China or Africa when our own
people need a way to survive. Even
with so much automation, there is
no excuse for our lack of loyalty
to our own.
charlotte,
nc
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
This
is both facinating and terrifying
at the same time. While it is
wonderful that hyperconnectivity
brings us closer to a world
community, what are we ever to do
with all the debt and trappings
that have kept Americans in need
of high paying jobs that we have
built our whole belief and
financial systems around? Perhaps
I can tell my mortgage and credit
card holders that I was just under
bid by 75% on the contract my
former employer, who layed me off
a year ago, had asked me to do. I
really have no problem with
developing countries raising the
standard of living for their
people, I just wish we could find
a way to reconcile the fact that
we are all in the same world
economy and that the scale of
economic expectations we have as
Americans is going to have to get
a bit more in line with the rest
of the world. This reconciliation
WILL take place. It is an open
question as to whether it takes
place through default, hyper
inflation, or hopefully some other
creative way that has yet to be
revealed.
west
hollywood
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
There
is an elephant in the room that no
one is talking about: people have
become more difficult, expensive
and troublesome over the last 20
years. Yes, the new generation is
very tech savvy and that's a plus.
But they don't have many other
attributes that made earlier
generations gel as teams and seem
indispensable. They lack
resilience, they put self first,
they are quick to file complaints.
Further, while their self-esteem
is amazingly high, it is seldom
supported by talent. I overheard a
business owner at a luncheon the
other day. He said: I hire as few
people as possible and make those
employees accountable to an
outsourced supervisor. All I need
is product and an invoice;
anything beyond that is TMI.
cobbler
Union
County, NJ
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
In
this country we have a workforce
of about 154 million people, from
which about a third does things
that can't be shipped to India,
Mexico, China, or even 100 miles
away. This leaves us with ~100
million at risk - or rather 86 mln
since 14 million are already
unemployed. From 86 mln I am sure
5% are immediately globally
competitive; they are so smart and
productive, that their designs of
cafe/carwash combos could be
cranked out so fast that getting
$180 for the job is just fine -
they could make 10 a day - or the
design costs $700 but totally
knocks the socks off the
competition. Revamping our
education system has a decent
chance of bringing another 5 or
10% to this level. This leaves us
with 70 million people that either
need jobs that are not globally
competitive, or that need to be
provided for by the "top 5%"; the
latter is a redistribution on a
scale much greater than anything
ever done even in Sweden.
Mr. Friedman never offers a
solution for this group that
accidentally comprises what is the
bulk of our today's middle class.
Solution that escapes him and
every other flat earth mentality
person, is economic nationalism.
Tiny green sprouts of it are
already emerging across the
country; we need to water and
fertilize them, and hopefully in a
few years to gather enough will to
build a virtual fence around the
American jobs. This fence which
should include tariffs, capital
controls, as well as non-tariff
preferences, will somewhat
restrict the corporate profits and
likely reduce the quantity of junk
the average paycheck can buy. It
will however make sure that our
societal structure doesn't become
the equivalent of Columbia's, and
that a non-genius is able to
provide for his or her family
without the involvement of public
or private charity.
ShowMe
Missouri
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
We
need to develop an economy where
every person has the chance to
make a living and to live a
satisfying life, which includes
having the knowledge that their
life has meaning through the
products of their efforts and
their relationships with other
people. If this is socialist, then
I believe that we must not be so
narrow in our thinking that we
reject it.
mancuroc
Rochester,
NY
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
No
more "in" or "out"? Arrant
nonsense! As anyone exposed to
today's labor market knows, you
are either "in" or "out" of a job.
It matters not where the job went
- it either went overseas or it
went away completely. Vast numbers
of people have been de-skilled,
told to learn new skills and
dutifully obeyed, only to find
that they are competing with newly
minted graduates for a decreasing
pool of skilled jobs. Tom, where
do YOU think the vast majority of
those people from the TV studios
went?
J
Connors
Durham
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
$268
for a fully functioning dune
buggy? $168 for a car washing
cafe? $375 for six formulations of
chewing gum?
Obviously you don't know a scam
when you see one, do you?
These people will pay their "bids"
and never hear another word unless
they have at least $100,000 to
hire a lawyer.
This scam has been going on for
over a hundred years.
Al in
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh,
PA
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
Several
thoughts come to mind. Here are a
few:
1. Corporations are not looking
for the best and brightest; they
are looking for the cheapest
workers for the particular niche
application, however
sophisticated. The idea of hiring
the best people for a long career
with the enterprise is so 1950's.
2. The idea of managing complex
projects, (eg, the 787), using
ad-hoc collections of independent
entities is likely to be as
successful in the long run as the
success of a loose confederation
of city states against an
integrated nation state under
strong leadership. (eg the Greeks
vs. Alexander or Northern Italy
vs. France and Austria) Some
members of the confederation will
always try to find a better deal
for themselves at the expense of
the project.
3. There have been a lot of
commments to the effect that large
globalized companies are better
credit risks than sovereign
goverments in these days of
concern over national debts. Seems
to me that these comments ignore
the very real power of governments
to commandeer the assets of the
companies either through taxation,
policy, or outright
confiscation/nationalization.
C
Landrey
New
England
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
So,
Matt Barrie describes his own team
as "poor and hungry?" He must be
proud of that achievement.
krish
ri
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
World
is evolving - It looks like a
teenager that is transforming into
an adult. So, the changes are so
fast.
In stone age, there ws no iron
tools. In bronze age, humans
developed tools. So on and
on....the changes were happening
so slowly then. But, now the
changes are happening so fast.
I would, however, look this from
another angle. Isn't the very
definition of what is fast and
what is slow changing today?
Times are changing, but so are the
effects of time changing. A
gradual transformation would have
not been noticed so suspiciously.
But, again isn't the way we judge
change changing?
What if I go a thousand years back
and try to judge the changes
occurring at that time? Will I
judge in the same way as when a
person from that age comes to our
age and judges these changes?
Let us reflect on what is actually
changing.
Josh
Oyster
Bay, NY
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
If,
as Thomas Friedman states,
"average is definitely over", then
average, normal, everyday people
will have -- how shall I put it?
-- a big problem. That isn't a
recipe for a pleasant future for
our society.
Laura
NYC
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
Really?
Then why is China continuing to
buy US treasuries in order to keep
the value of their currency
artificially low? Why does Japan
go to great lengths to close its
market to foreign competition? Why
is South Korea the only country
where Japanese automakers can't
sell any cars? How did Canada
manage to win Hollywood from the
US? And why does every country but
the US have plans to become more
economically competitive?
These countries see what Americans
don't want to. Country borders
still matter. And we'll discover
how much only once we've already
given away the farm.
jorge
Rosaly
puerto
rico
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
the real problem is the reality
you correctly described ,in my
opinion, there is no room for"
medium intelligece people" who
constitute our middle
class.in this
scenery where every society wants
the same rewards,meaning
wealth,and the resources are
limited,sooner or later there is
going to be a big war.
jorge rosaly
Karen
Philadelphia
Suburbs
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
The
world may be flat, but people
still have to live in a particular
location - and cost of living
still varies greatly from one area
to the next. If the world job
market becomes one market, then
presumably the cost of housing
would have to adjust to one market
as well. Relatively small
decreases in home values caused a
near-depression in the U.S. - what
would happen if housing prices
dropped to 1/10 of their values to
match housing prices in China or
India? But if you're earning
Chinese wages, you can't pay
American prices for your apartment
or house.
Mike
Francestown,
NH
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
I
am an engineer working for a major
robot company designing and
building cutting edge robots. As
far as I know, there is currently
no agreed upon definition of the
word robot. The best that the
research community has come up
with is a mechanism that 1) senses
it's environment, 2) can change
it's environment, and 3) can move
in it's environment. The devices
you describe do not fit the
criteria. In the future there will
be robots that do, and they will
be in your life, for better or
worse. But until then, please do
not confuse the term with mere
advanced technology. Arthur C.
Clark said: "Any sufficiently
advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." The
fact that a mousetrap is more
advanced does not make it a
robotic mousetrap. Please be
accurate in your language,
otherwise you risk spreading the
imprecise thinking that is
currently in vogue. And anyone who
risks that risks us all.
comp
MD
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
Mr.
Friedman: the future you
see--working harder and smarter
and longer, producing more and
more and buying more and more to
maintain our economies--cannot.
be. sustained. There are way too
many people in the world and way
too few resources. High technology
will not save us.
Start banging the drum of birth
control and downsizing our
needs--and start praying for the
messiah.
The
Deputy
Pescadero,
CA
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
My
question is this: if
robots/software/productivity are
eliminating jobs left and right,
what will people do to make a
living? The population is GROWING
not shrinking. The promise of
productivity was to make our lives
better (work less, more leisure
time, etc.) Won't these factors
only continue to gut the middle
class? How long before the robot
asks "would you like fries with
that?"
Brad
Arizona
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
Mr
Friedman's overall conclusions are
reasonable, and they are behind
some of the great decline in the
American middle class that is
motivating so much of the anger
and fear of the Tea Party
movement.
There is a second factor besides
hyper-connectivity that needs to
be recognized: the global spread
of education. For the past 65
years, education has been seen as
the pathway to economic success
throughout the world. Education
was seen as the way to reduce
poverty in the developing world
and to reduce poverty in
low-income regions and blighted
inner cities in the developed
world.
There was a fallacy in this
vision. Greatly expanding the
numbers of educated people did
promote economic development, but
the income returns for education
would decline as the supply of
educated persons rapidly caught up
to and exceeded the demand. Look
at the problems in the Middle East
and Europe: there is massive
unemployment of young people with
university degrees. There is
increasing under-employment of
university graduates in the USA.
Investments in education no longer
provide to an individual the same
payback as they did in the past -
but there is no alternative, as
extreme poverty is the
alternative.
Hyper-connectivity and a highly
educated global population means
that the "middle class" will no
longer be concentrated in the USA,
Europe and Japan. Some of it will
be in China, India, Brazil, Russia
and another dozen or so nations.
The middle class that is left in
the US, Europe and Japan will
increasingly interact with the
rest of global middle class. The
global middle class will be spread
all over the planet, and those in
it will do what they can so that
their children have a chance to
move int the global elite, or at
least remain middle class.
Yes, the global elite. Their
existence has been obvious for the
last few decades. The US and the
EU must go after their tax havens
and their financial practices.
Slideguy
San
Francisco
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
You
know, the problem is considerably
simpler, but more intractable than
Friedman makes it out to be. There
are simply nowhere enough decent
jobs to employ the US work force.
And since corporations went
multi-national, the thrust is to
find the cheapest labor on the
planet for any given job. And the
multinationals are now employing
governments like our own to
maintain order so that they can
extract the last penny of profit,
the general welfare be damned.
Instead of our government acting
on its Constitutional mandate to
promote the general welfare, it is
now employed by organizations that
have no patriotism or loyalty to
the US to protect them while they
steal from us.
cynikall
nj
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
...
people bid on projects/jobs for
less than $500. care to explain
how they can recover their cost or
live on that?
toronto,
canada
October 2nd, 2011
7:31 am
Is this the brave
new world for new jobs, where
the highest bidder for an
innovatory project is less than
$400? These people could do
better busking in the subway, if
they had any talent.
Boston
MA
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Doesn't
everyone know this already?
The price of US labor (white or
blue collar) has been too high on
the global market because has been
protected by barriers to entry, so
it was too difficult to arbitrage
the excess price away. Now, as Mr.
Friedman points out, those
barriers are gone.
What is not known is how the US
economy will achieve the repricing
of its labor. It could be through
continued underemployment of the
labor force, reducing the global
spending power of Americans
through reduced total wages, or
through inflation, leading to a
lower value of the dollar on world
markets. I'd be interested in Mr.
Friedman's views on this choice.
Ne d
Welker
Prescott
AZ
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
It
isn't like replacement of people
with robots is new or that people
who can, work for themselves, and
those who cannot work for others,
is it? As a person in my seventh
decade of life, I have often
observed, as have my elderly
retired friends, that it would be
intolerable to be young enough to
have to make a go of it in today's
world. Everything has changed, and
it seems the change came overnight
for many. Old war horses like me
and my friends are as redundant as
old 78 rpm Victrolas but there are
many young people who are finding
as many opportunities in today's
world as I and my friends found in
yesterday's. The fate of those who
wait for someone to level the
playing field, or bring fairness
into the equation was set when I
was young just as it is set for
the youth of today. Individual
strength comes from within, not
without and from what I can see,
there are plenty of opportunities
if people will seize them.....just
like there have always been.
Dallas,
Texas
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Those
managers can also be replaced. As
a matter of fact, we can all be
replaced and from generation to
generation, indeed we are
replaced. As a nation we need to
rethink some very basic concepts
such as: the purpose of national
government, the goals of a public
education system, the credibility
of attaining very high levels of
education and etc. Who does
globalization benefit? In the long
term, does it create world wide
shortages of certain commodities?
The new world is already becoming
terrible for those clinging to the
old!
Felipe
Orlando
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
I
have been telling a lot of people
that technology, besides the
financial strike been hold by the
financial institucions because
they are not lending to anybody
regarless their good credit and
the war economy mentality of
managers "do more with less"
(hiring freeze), is an important
factor in the high unemployment
rate. Five years ago I paid my
tolls to a person. Today is
deducted by epass. Before I spoke
to a insurance broker, travel
agent, bank representative, cable
operador. Today I speak to a
computer and if I need to speak to
a customer service I get someone
with a strong accent some where in
the other side of the world.
Companies won't be hiring again
until they get financing to grow,
they understant that the recession
is over, and politicians quit
preaching the end of the world.
Paul
Brooklyn,
NY
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
So
what is the conclusion to be drawn
here? That eventually we'll all be
working for pennies, or not at
all? The one hitch in the road
corporate capitalism has chosen is
that robots don't have emotional
or physical needs that drive
consumption. Though I wouldn't be
surprised to discover that the
geniuses who brought us the
internet, artificial intelligence,
exchange-traded derivatives and
credit default swaps have this all
figured out. That's why they'll be
the last ten people on the planet
holding down jobs while the rest
of us forage and beg, or (for the
lucky ones living in places with
social safety nets) live off the
dole.
Jay
Fleming
South
Texas
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
I
saw you tell this same story on
C-Span the other night, and
thought then how inadequate was
the answer that you and your
co-author gave. Better education
may provide a key for the relative
handful who have the rare mixture
of intelligence, drive and
resourcefulness to rise above the
pack. But a combination of factors
including outsourcing, corporate
merger mania, increased efficiency
and automation that are the unseen
drivers in the current employment
crisis have significantly reduced
the demand for "average"
blue-collar and white-collar
employees in our country. Good
luck helping them all retool for
competition against your 'bigger
pool of cheap geniuses'.
I fear we are going to find over
the next few years that our system
of government may be unable to do
anything significant to alter this
trend. Mere economic stimulus is
decried as socialism. But if
nothing is done, don't be
surprised if we witness the rise
of a guerilla movement or
movements which seek to cripple or
destroy major portions of the
electronic apparatus by which the
world is hyperconnected and much
of its population is rendered
'unnecessary'.
joechill
Winona,
mn
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
I'll
tell what's in and what's out. The
top 1% is in. The rest of us are
out. The love of free trade means
that middle class Americans will
soon be at the level of our Indian
and Chinese counterparts because
"we" now all believe that workers
have no rights and that
nation-states are economically
obsolete. As a consequence, if
you're in, that must mean you are
a smarter and harder worker than
those who are out. Clearly, there
cannot be impediments to
advancements in Tom's world. The
world is flat, and we are all
equal in it, and if you aren't
equal, you don't deserve to be.
Richard
G
Nanjing,
China
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
What
you describe is a "Road Warrior"
world absent the nuclear holocaust
- which comes instead in a
financial version. This does not
demand a change in perception or
preparation. It instead demands a
change in the way the world is
manipulated by the concentrated
rich to squeeze ever more out of
the world's expanding poor. It
demands a revolution.
Boulder,
UT
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Tom
-
You always make these
technological changes sound so
positive! But, and it's a big one,
unless we find a way to reorganize
our global society there is big
trouble brewing.
When measuring IQ we choose 100 as
the average intelligence. That
means that one half of all people
fall below that level. There was a
time when these folks could find a
job that would supply basic needs
doing manual tasks such as
manufacturing. Now, thanks to
businesses always looking to
compete and create profit we find
hugh numbers of people
disenfranchized in a marketplace
that no longer needs them, not
just here but world wide.
Also, as your world of wonder and
high tech spreads there are many
people who just don't have the
ability to function in this highly
complex environment. The stress of
this - Brave New World - is
already showing in a rise in
stress related disease.
There is a growing gap not just
between the very rich and all of
the rest of us, but also between
the techno-intelligencia and the
average Joe/Jane. There is a
tremendous amount of resentment,
just look at the Tea Party and
Climate change deniers.
Ah, Brave New World! It doesn't
look so promising from wher I sit.
Al
Virginia
Beach
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Piecework
attracts several bids all under
$200. Awful and the article
uncomprehendingly remarks upon it
as if they represent an evolution
toward something.
Matt
Upstate
NY
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
I
know this is your dream world, Mr.
Friedman--everyone an entrepeneur,
everyone working 16 hours a day, 7
days a week, madly competing with
everyone else in the world to be
the best, continually coming up
with new innovations, frenetically
producing, producing, producing.
But while I don't deny that this
describes the reality of some
people, the truth is that your
picture has nothing to do with my
life or the life of anyone I know.
And I deeply hope that I never
live to see the day when it does.
L.R.
Upstate
New York
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Try
this one: a world where the only
value people have is in filling a
job is a world where people
without jobs are disposable - and
the economy has every incentive to
make them so. If the only reason
for people to exist is as a cog in
the economic machine, then we're
going to have one hell of a
surplus population to deal with.
Soylent green, anyone? It's that
or we figure out something else
for people to do here.
Jeofree
New
York
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
And
yet all actual data clearly shows
that were the economy healthy and
growing, unemployment would be
down to 4 or 5%, that is,
virtually full employment, instead
of at 9% as it is now. There is a
huge lack of demand for products
and services, and people can
actually measure it, and were that
demand there, then unemployment
would drop.
The idea that all of the jobs that
were there three or four years ago
when we had full employment, that
these have suddenly vanished
coinciding with the worst economic
downturn in a century, but not
because of it, this is absurd.
Some of this that Friedman writes
about is obviously happening,
automation and so on, but they can
actually study how much it affects
the employment level and it's
insignificant. Old style jobs are
vanishing but new ones are being
invented, and yes it's a struggle
for people with old skills who
need new ones and so on, but the
point is that all data shows that
were the economy growing at a fast
pace, people would be working to
the tune of almost no
unemployment.
William
Taylor
Nampa,
ID
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Since
in the end, life--and an
economy--is about people, what you
are describing is a society that
is hollowing out from within. Gone
the blue-collar workers with no
way to give them a life of
dignity, and gone the white collar
workers who despised the unions
and thought they were immune.
Rex
Dawson
Santa
Cruz, CA
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Very
interesting that you mentioned
freelancer.com.
Apparently, you only spoke to the
CEO and didn't bother to actually
look at the "jobs" being offered,
which include a large number where
the client (hiring party) wants to
pay $2/$3/$4 per hour to the
person who accepts the job. Is
that really a reasonable wage? Is
the website exempt from federal
minimum wage requirements? Sounds
more like a technological
sweatshop to me. As to your
premise that gee, willikers isn't
it great that companies and their
jobs are transnational, the rub
lies in the fact that
citizens/jobseekers aren't. So if
capital finds cheaper borders
outside the USA, American
jobseekers are not free to follow.
The upside from the transnational
nature of corporations has been
pretty one-sided thus far
(benefits the corporations), and
sadly, you seem to have been a
long-term proponent and cheering
section for this outcome.
MattyP
NYC
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
And
the question remains: what do you
do with the other 6 Billion (and
counting) on the planet?
Baltimore
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Friedman
presents us with a vision of the
world in which the "average" and
even the "good" are unable to
compete for jobs with the "better"
and "best" - TF forgot to mention
"wealthiest." There's no doubt
that this is happening. But do we
really want a future in which the
world is divided between those who
could "swim" and those who
couldn't? What are the average and
good supposed to do? Wait tables?
Drink? Eventually, if
technological progress continues
at its current rate (and there's
no sign it'll slow), we will find
that we're all replaceable by
robots or computers. It's time to
rethink the ruthless and
taken-for-granted logic of sink or
swim, kill or be killed, and
imagine ways that these incredible
new technologies and means of
connectivity might assist us in
creating happier, less stressful
lives for everyone, the average as
well as the extraordinary. If this
smells of socialism, that's not a
mistake.
Andy
Palo
Alto CA
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Your
description of our economic
near-future earns a +1 from me. It
is also true that this coming
world will put severe wage
pressure on every American.
People get ready. Every individual
is going to have to work like hell
to keep up in the near-future. But
also - we need a collective
strategy to keep our living
standards high. What is that
strategy?
Technology is making our economy
more efficient, but our system is
structured to deliver all the
productivity gains to the
Oligarchs. You're going to be left
to fight for the scraps against
people who will work for a
fraction of your wage.
Carol
Benedict Russell
Shelter
Island, New York
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
New
Job: Invent Something: anything
and build it quickly. If it is
a better whatever and makes your
life a lot easier, well it will
most likely be wanted by someone
else. Just don't outsource
yourself.
Stay away from the big banks and
stay way way under the US
government
radar, so they can't take your
profits and your entire idea.
Guess that says it all: Just do
not trust the US Government at
all.!!!
Portland,
Oregon
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
I
think Friedman nailed it. We are
killing our economy (and
ultimately ourselves) with our own
technology. By technology, I mean
the internet, robotics, GPS, rapid
transportation, and instant
world-wide communication. These
marvelous advances enable
predictable and reliable
just-in-time delivery of products
manufactured by the cheapest
supplier in any part of the world.
Friedman outlined that so well in
"The World Is Flat" when he
describes and traces the order
processing, manufacturing and
delivery of a Dell notebook he
purchased. To me, it appeared very
little was done by US workers.
Of course this was just the tip of
the global economy iceberg we
would crash into. Can we blame our
corporations for rushing out to
secure cheaper parts and labor in
far away countries any more than
we can blame consumers that bought
the cheapest, often from the
internet, with a wink and grin?
No, I think not. We are all share
the blame, just as we all shared
the savings. But now our breached
hull continues taking on water
while the iceberg of globalization
drifts with in the currents.
Like water seeking it own level,
money, jobs and quality of life
are leaving wealthy countries like
ours, and bolstering the fortunes
and futures of the poor, but
stable progressive countries. The
America we knew growing up in the
50's through the 90's, is, I fear,
long gone... and not coming back.
NY, NY
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
So,
basically, what you are saying is
that unless we are in the top
.01%, we are completely TOAST? If
the "average" person has no chance
of survival in post-industrial
America, we will either need to
build a massive social safety or
learn to embrace that the new dark
ages are upon us, as 99.9% of the
population starves, while the
wealth build ever-larger gated
estates....
Terence
Hughes
New
York, NY
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Gee,
Tom, again you fail to ask the
most obvious of questions: How the
hell is anyone going to live on,
oh, $157 for a few days' work,
especially when they have to pay
their withholding tax, other
taxes, health insurance premium,
rent, food, and the baby's shoes?
What if any human conclusions are
you capable of drawing from this
depressing set of examples?
Oh, wait -- "Are there no prisons?
Are there no workhouses?"
We're back in the earlier parts to
the 19th century in many ways, and
all you can do is spout some
carefully selected evidence? How
about suggesting that this system
is untenable for any country that
aspires to more than desperate
subsistence for its citizens? Or
is it your contention that there
are lots (privately-run) prisons
and feudal factories for the
people who may be "geniuses" but
who somehow count for a lot less
than the people who pay your
salary and your speaking fees?
Your is a de facto apologia for
the continuation of this
hypercorrupt order you wax so
eloquent about. We might just set
our sights on 14th-century serfdom
as a model; it sure seems like
we're headed that way.
Goodbye, America.
J. E.
L.
Arizona
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
Mr.
Friedman once again hits the nail
on the head...pretty much. The
individual in the new economy will
be lost to actual productivity
that benefits in both the small
and the large unless current
political problems are resolved. I
can do the job and get paid, but
for this rising tide, not
everybody is in the boat, and they
will need to be. What a great
argument for the arts and
creativity training.
Peter
CT
October 2nd, 2011
7:36 am
3000
BC Egypt: Owners utilize cheap
programmed labor, aka slaves.
Owners utilize mechanized
solutions, aka block and pulleys.
Owners think beyond their borders,
aka the valley of the living and
the valley of death.
Hi Ho, Hi Ho, Off to work we go.
KH
Idaho
October 2nd, 2011
7:47 am
I came of age
during the worst part of the
Recession of the 80s and found
that in order to make a living I
was going to have to create my
own job, which I did throughout
my 20s and 30s. It was
exhausting, working constantly,
hustling constantly, not being
able to obtain health insurance.
People younger and older
ensconced themselves in well
paying jobs that I couldn't
find. I couldn't always
guarantee assignments would come
in so I worked a night job too
for a few years, putting in an
exhausting schedule. I had no
health insurance because I had a
medical condition that rendered
me uninsurable to private
companies. But I was young and
figured with a bit of luck and
by being careful with my health,
I had lots of time to move up in
the world.
Then I turned 40 and realized I
had "made it" in the field I was
working in. I also looked at the
fact that I could work at
McDonalds for a greater hourly
rate than I was making because
my work was always feast and
famine. I wanted an easier way
to make a living. So I went back
to school, changed professions
and 10 years later am successful
at a job that requires a lot of
creativity and the same
managerial, go-getting skills I
learned as a freelancer.
The point is - look at all these
bids. Freelancers are not valued
any more than they were in my
day. They are doing what I did,
working for starvation "wages"
and hustling for work against
other creative, hungry people.
It's a hard life, having to
constantly reinvent yourself:
for how many years -- after age
50, 60, 70, 80? I don't where
all this is going to lead, but
having come of age during those
lean years when there was no
work for young people, I'm
constantly learning new skills,
and have even become bilingual.
But going for yet another degree
now is out-of-the-question due
to cost and the knowledge that
student loans are a bad idea at
my time of life. I plan to one
day retire when I'm 71 or so, or
at least semi retire, not
reinvent myself until I drop.
Scott
Seattle
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
The
world you describe where people in
developed nations have to compete
with everyone in the third world
for preposterously low wages
ignores the fact that the
architect in Bangladesh doesn't
have to pay $1000/month for a
studio apartment, doesn't have to
carry insurance, doesn't have to
pay US taxes, doesn't have to find
a way to pay for unaffordable
medical insurance, doesn't have
the outrageous prices for food,
etc.
The notion that there should be
free trade between high wage and
low wage countries is
preposterous. By opening up
endless sources of labor in
markets that will never buy what
is produced by that labor is a
ticket straight to the third world
for everyone in the developed
world.
International corporations have no
loyalty to anyone. They seek only
to extract as efficiently as
possible and they should be
destroyed. Encouraging the best
and brightest to emmigrate to the
United States is a wonderful idea.
The bring their genius here and
spend their earnings here. Simply
allowing the free flow of labor
across the globe without regard to
taxes, cost of living or the
myriad of other things that place
the first world at a disadvantage.
The path you describe will leave
the United States decimated and
will result in a bloody revolution
when 90% of our population is left
to starve as the predatory
multinationals run off with the
wealth of the globe.
Digoweli
New York
City
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
At such
ridiculously low prices for
serious specialized work, how
will they have the money to
buy anything? A guaranteed
income maybe? Your ideas just
don't add up. The flat world
has been the arts since 1929
and all it did was destroy the
economic basis for the arts
and turn it all non-profit and
dependent upon guaranteed
income called grants and
patrons at Lincoln Center.
Think Thomas!
Nagoya,
Japan
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
When I look at
the books getting published
today, the music being
recorded, and the movies being
made, I would have to disagree
emphatically that average is
over. Average is more in than
ever. It is excellence that is
so over.
Iowa, USA
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
The question we
face is what are we going to
do with the people who are
unable to snag one of these
jobs? Will we let them go
hungry, homeless, and
uneducated? Or will we make a
solid, real, and lasting
commitment to care for the
humans displaced by the
machines we've made.
Efficiency and profit are not
the only criteria for success.
We must also keep our
compassion and humanity.
trickyday4
ohio
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
Tom's best
article in a long time, it's
theme is correct and
critically important. This
should just be the start
however, the country needs to
be discussing it's
implications and what do we do
about it. A real example,
companies that use forklift
trucks are increasingly paying
3 times the cost of the basic
forklift for an option that
permits it to be run REMOTELY,
with no operator. That is how
much companies are willing to
pay to avoid hiring a forklift
operator. I'm sure other
readers have similar
anecdotes.
Vince
Toronto,
ON
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
I don't disagree
with your diagnosis. With the
globe as connected as it is,
everyone is bidding for work,
be it through the 1000's of
resumes that get submitted for
single job openings or through
the website you mention where
you literally race to the
bottom in order to find work.
But if as you say there is no
hope for "average" and little
hope for "good", what happens
to people who fall into those
categories? All of us like to
think that we fall into the
"better" or "best" groups, but
by definition, more than half
of the people in the world
fall into the "average" or
lower groups. So what happens
to "them"? Should they just
take the minimum wage or lower
job and hope no one better
comes along to steal it from
them? Does humanity wind up
sending the majority of people
off into the slums to fend for
themselves while the elites
gorge themselves on the wealth
of the world?
Looking at government and
corporate policies throughout
the world today, the worst of
them being the "unemployed
need not apply" policies, the
answer is clearly yes.
Steve
OH
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
This column is
one of the most depressing
views of the future I've seen.
It is depressing because of
the lack of understanding of
basic human needs that
underlies its assumptions -
that the world is open for
everyone to become a
freelancer, an entrepreneur, a
business start up, that we can
move at will or would want to
in order to be "employed." But
the truth is that the vast
majority of people are not cut
out for that kind of
competitive world and there is
no training or education that
will prepare them for it. That
is because what people - human
beings - really want is home,
security, family, and
community. The vision laid out
here is the antithesis of what
builds human communities. It's
not that people don't want to
be part of the world, travel,
grow, or expand, that is not
it. It is rather that the
vision laid out here will
actually produce the opposite
effect than described here.
How do I know this? Because we
already have more than enough
evidence from globalization
and "outsourcing" to know this
is true. The destruction of
community and cultures is
going ahead at a frightening
pace. Corporations now have
far more power than any one
government. The small reed of
hope we have is to actually
push back against the hyper
connectedness described and
instead push for
interconnectedness beginning
with our communities and
building upon that. The future
described is not an advance,
but rather a great lost of
community, diversity, and
spirit.
brooklyn,
ny
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
How I became a
robot at my job ...
At large institutions,
professional skills are
becoming compartmentalized to
narrow functions. Supposedly
if a process requires a skill
X then anyone with that skill
can do the job equally well.
Interchangeability works well
with inanimate objects but not
with people. A normal person
performing the same routine is
supposed to learn how to do it
better and more importantly
how to improve the process and
prevent issues. If you do
something well you are either
promoted untill you no longer
effective or your skills are
invisible or you work yourself
out of job because you manage
to streamline your process to
a zero effort or eliminate the
need for the process.
If every skill, process,
equipment is generic,
interchangeable, commoditized
what makes a particular
enterprise special compared to
another one? I presume it
Malvern,
PA.
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
Your explanation
of the changes is interesting
and accurate, though you do
not touch on the response
which some of us, older people
who have witnessed these
changes take place before our
eyes, and who have decided to
persist to the bitter end in
the belief that there is still
free choice in life and that
one does not have to be a part
of the flock and may still be
a part of the independent
herd.
Aware for fifty years that
purchasing foreign cars and
other capital goods had a
severe impact on American
jobs, as has been amply
demonstrated in recent years,
and having seen the
devastation caused to small
towns throughout the nation by
Wallmart and its clones, it is
easy to conduct ones purchases
on an America first principle.
In fact my preference for the
past fifty years has been to
always look for the country of
origin label and select
products made in the US,
Canada and Mexico only and
absolutely reject all others,
with the only exceptions being
wine and cheese.
Patronizing Wallmart, then
becoming unemployed and
continuing to do so, is
indicative of a mind numbing
insensitivity of, the American
worker. In renting a car
recently and stating to the
clerk handling the paperwork
that my selection must be an
American made and an American
brand, he was perplexed, since
he said that certain of the
Asian and European makes were
made in the USA. True indeed,
though as a consumer I prefer
to be more explicit and opt
for my preference, since more
US jobs depend upon the
standards I apply. A tiny
fraction of the consumer
population no doubt, and in
the depression and joblessness
now all about us a seemingly
futile gesture though if taken
up by more consumers, some
American jobs may yet be
saved.
It seems that pride in the
Made in the USA label has gone
by the wayside without the
remotest realization of how it
has devastated our economy.
Sad to say its principle
victims are the jobless and
the middle class who never
gave it a thought then and
still don't.
California
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
What you always
miss in your stories is the
economic boom that could be
triggered immediately in this
country if oil companies were
allowed to drill for oil and
gas anywhere in the U.S. I
said in the U.S. No way to
outsource to Brazil or Russia
or Cuba. It would take place
right here. Look at North
Dakota where drilling is going
full blast and they have 3%
unemployment. Stop your silly
propaganda on solar and wind
which are outsourced to China.
Open your eyes, stop dreaming,
tell it like it is. Drill,
baby, drill and this economy
will take off like a rocket.
You have to lock your hatred
for oil companies in a closet,
let them do their work. Oil
and gas drilling in this
country cannot be outsourced,
period. Wake up, Mr.
Friedman!!!!!!
kgeographer
Santa
Barbara, CA
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
If there is no
"in" and "out" -- regarding
nations that is -- then a very
large percentage of Americans
can expect their fortunes to
descend to a level meeting the
upward rise of growing
economies.
The antidote to this is
restoring some sense of
society, even nationalism.
Whatever happened to "Buy
American?" Are we enough of a
society that we decide to
ensure good livelihoods for
our citizens? Increasingly, I
think not. Friedman's flat
world is also borderless, and
while that might be appealing
on some level, it is
absolutely destructive of our
middle-class.
Good night and good luck.
Leonard
NYC
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
Tom, unemployment
is 16%, not 9.1%. An important
distinction.
The employment/unemployment
scenario you describe
essentially guarantees that
increasing numbers of people
will be out of work,
regardless of education, as
automation advances and
population surges, with a pool
of now 7 billion, soon to be 9
billion people for the
international companies that
"hover" (to use your current
word) over the world to
exploit.
Don
Seekins
Waipahu,
Hawaii
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
"Indeed, there is
no “in” or “out” anymore. In
the hyperconnected world,
there is only “good” “better”
and “best,” and managers and
entrepreneurs everywhere now
have greater access than ever
to the better and best people,
robots and software
everywhere."
Mr. Friedman, this is a little
like a Roman in the 1st
century BC saying "there are
no such things as freemen
making stuff or growing crops
anymore in Italy; not when
Gaul and Greece can provide us
with as many slaves as we
need!" Depriving people of
their livelihoods in the name
of "hyperconnectivity" is as
meaningless and immoral as
slavery.
George
Chen
Washington
D.C.
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
Brilliant
observation. The
hyperconnected world resulting
in higher productivity is very
good globally even if it means
temporary high unemployment. I
remember attending Columbia
Univeristy commencement
ceremony in 2009 when the
Journalism school dean
lamented about hundreds of
graduates are not going to
find any employment in today's
hyperconnected news media
world.
In the long run, flat or
hyperconected world can only
bring positive aspects to
human civilization. More
likely for nations to engage
in trade exchange than
confrontation. This is the
best way to bring peace and
prosperity to the world. On
the other hand, building Great
Wall barrier like ancient
China did never will resolve
any problem.
TmNY
New York
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
An immediate 50%
American tariff on all
imported goods (as opposed to
labor) is needed.
Someone said to me, "A nation
that cannot clothe and feed
itself cannot survive."
That seems reasonable to me.
America needs to re-institute
the American tariff. Like the
one Alexander Hamilton first
instituted to protect American
jobs.
This would not only create
American jobs here on a giant
scale, it would also balance
our budget almost immediately.
And if one looks at the record
of history, it's clear that
America's phenomenal rise,
from a agrarian colony to a
gigantic economic power,
starting with the years of
George Washington's presidency
(1790) all the way through the
American Civil War, and up to
World War I (1914), was made
possible by an American tariff
on foreign goods.
Take a look at the very
successful history of American
tariffs here, in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
Bejay
Williamsburg
VA
October 2nd, 2011
7:56 am
Average is over?
Most people are, by
definition, average or below.
Only a minority can ever be
above average. If only the
best can succeed in the modern
world, then the majority are
condemned to failure.
What do we plan to do with all
the people who are only
average? Is the idea of the
vast majority of people being
able to live a decent life now
a pipe dream?
Once, America was regarded as
the best "poor man's country"
in the world, where the
ordinary average man could
build a life for himself. No
more.
Fred
Drumlevitch
Tucson,
Arizona
October 2nd, 2011
12:44 pm
"Indeed, there is
no 'in' or 'out' anymore. In
the hyperconnected world,
there is only 'good' 'better'
and 'best,' and managers and
entrepreneurs everywhere now
have greater access than ever
to the better and best people,
robots and software
everywhere." [Tom Friedman]
As is frequently the case, Mr.
Friedman, you've missed the
real point: In the
hyperconnected world, there is
only "cheap" "cheaper" and
"cheapest", and the result of
the United States travelling
down that path --- through
trade, tariff, and corporate
tax policies, and corporate
and financial market
priorities --- has been a
severe erosion of the U.S.
middle class, and complete
unemployability for many in
our bottom class. Those
consequences, and worse, are
the inevitable results of a
political and economic system
that gives corporations the
legal rights of people, and
that intensely values price
and profit while giving little
thought to real people.
Oscar Wilde's well-known
quote, with some additions,
seems particularly appropriate
here: The bean counters of our
corporations "know the price
of everything", worldwide ---
labor costs, raw materials
costs, waste disposal costs,
shipping costs --- "and the
value of nothing". Corporate
management and their
government lackeys certainly
don't know the value of their
fellow human beings --- or
don't care --- and are willing
to consign them to poverty and
misery, while they themselves
in their rationalizing
smugness travel home to their
mansions, satisfied that
"God's in the Hamptons, All's
well with the world!".
(Apologies to Browning).
www.FredDrumlevitch.blogspot.com
San Diego,
CA
October 2nd, 2011
12:45 pm
Dear Mr.
Friedman:
Well, there is certainly an
"in" and an "out" when paying
the rent and buying food. I
used to live in Thailand where
I paid $75 in monthly rent and
spent $.50 for dinner. I lived
well on $6,000 a year. Now as
I try to start a career in
freelance copyediting from my
home in the US using Elance, I
discover I am competing with
English-speaking expats in
Thailand and elsewhere. They
can afford to take month-long
assignments for $400. When
they bid $400 for a month-long
assignment and I bid what I
need to pay the bills and
indulge in such luxuries as
food, I don't stand a chance.
Maybe in "the cloud" there is
no "in" or "out," but in the
grocery store and the mail box
where I send off my bills,
"in" and "out" are alive and
well. Yes, I could try to
convince the author that I
have something special to
offer, something that makes me
stand above the guy from
Thailand. But in these times,
how many authors, many of whom
are struggling financially for
all the same reasons, will be
persuaded to spend more than
twice that $400 the editor
from Thailand is offering?
What you must understand is
that the huge savings the
editor from Thailand is
offering IS what makes him
stand out to a struggling
author.
I guess it's my fault for not
being flexible enough. I could
move to Bangladesh, live in a
shack over a sewer, work 25
hours a day and eat the rats I
catch in my shack. But we
Americans have gotten so
spoiled.
WDA
Los
Angeles
October 2nd, 2011
12:46 pm
Mr. Friedman hits
the nail on the head.
Americans need to wake up and
smell the coffee and the tea
and the mango and the sushi
and the curry and the boba.
Eventually, all high end work
will become highly mobile. But
this is the dawn of a
wonderful time on our planet,
filled with great
opportunities as billions of
people rise out of poverty.
Rejoice and compete!
BJ
CANBERRA
ACT
October 2nd, 2011
12:46 pm
TOM I have
followed your columns for
years but have not noticed
what you think will be the
societal fallout from this
unbridled competition.What
happens to the low and mid
range talents that cannot
compete?Should they starve ,be
euthanized, forever
marginalized in slums on the
outskirts of silicon valleys.
If the future is exclusively
social Darwinism in outlook
what are the political
ramifications?Perhaps a long
column on the geopolitical
consequences of your
projections is in order.
C
NYC
October 2nd, 2011
12:47 pm
Best essay I have
read in support of trade
barriers and tariffs! Without
trade barriers all that
matters is having capital,
since labor is essentially
worthless, all the more so in
the hyper-connected world.
Zurich
October 2nd, 2011
12:47 pm
'Obviously, this
makes it more vital than ever
that we have schools elevating
and inspiring more of our
young people into that better
and best category, because
even good might not cut it
anymore and average is
definitely over.'
Half the population is average
or below. Are you predicting
50% unemployment?
BubbaReagan
Aether
October 2nd, 2011
12:47 pm
singularity here
we come! My hunch is that we
will see a wave of
protectionism in the US and
the Eu sweeping in the the
next 15 years. just like the
dark ages around the late 19th
century and the 1930. we
already had a global networked
econonmy, twice....
SBATT
Oxford, UK
October 2nd, 2011
12:47 pm
I thought the
implication was "average is
getting bigger and angrier,
not 'average is definitely
over.'"
Richard
Doczy
California
October 2nd, 2011
12:48 pm
But doesn't that
free up people to do more
interesting, creative work?
Technological innovation only
temporarily displaces some
working people. History proves
this without any reasonable
doubt: With all the new
technology around now, there
are many more jobs than there
used to be. So what are you
whining about, good doctor?
Henderson,
Texas
October 2nd, 2011
12:49 pm
This is exactly
what people said from '30
until '40: that the new,
automated factories had
replaced the skilled craftsmen
with machines, so a much small
number of unskilled, low paid
workers could produce more
than a much larger number of
well-paid skilled craftsmen
could produce, so there were
no jobs, and hence no demand
for what the factories
produced. And no way out, the
world would have to learn to
live with permanent 20%
unemployment.
This lasted until those two
brilliant economists, Profs.
Adolph Schicklegrüber and
Tojo figured out a way to
stimulate demand and achieve
not just full employment, but
over-employment, with
governments forcing people who
did not want or need to work
into jobs deemed necessary for
national survival.
The reason the stimulus was
effective was not just the
size (about 50% of the total
GDP), but because it taxed the
wealthy 50% of earned income
and up to 91% of unearned
income and used that money to
create jobs for the poor and
middle classes. A stimulus of
the same size consisting of
tax cuts for the wealthy would
have had no such effect.
Gail
Tampa,
FL
October
2nd, 2011
12:51
pm
I'm now
reading your book. I
bought it after you
stated, in your interview
with Charlie Rose, that
the book is for parents (I
have two kids under the
age of 8). Parents really
do need to understand that
the job market will be
very different for our
kids than it was for us.
At the same time, you need
to stress the importance
of parents getting into
the trenches with their
kids, sitting with them
when they do homework,
making sure they're
understanding things,
challenging them, pushing
them. It's easy for me to
do because I was raised by
authoritarian immigrant
parents, but it doesn't
come naturally to many
American parents.
NY
October
2nd, 2011
12:51
pm
One
overlooked factor is that
the new technology has
greatly reduced the need
for human labor.
Corporations are making
great profits without all
the workers who were laid
off. Without a surge in
demand why should firms
hire anyone?
dar-es-salaam,
tanzania
October
2nd, 2011
12:54
pm
The happiest
of people don't
necessarily have the best
of everything .
They just make the most of
everything.
People born before 1946
were called The Silent
generation..
- People born between 1946
and 1959 are called The
Baby Boomers.
- People born between 1960
and 1979 are called
Generation X, ....
- And people born between
1980 and 2010 are called
Generation Y ,
Why do we call the last
group Generation Y?
Y should I get a job?
Y should I leave home and
find my own place?
Y should I get a car when
I can borrow yours?
Y should I clean my room?
Y should I wash and iron
my own clothes?
Y should I buy any food?
But a cartoonist explained
it very eloquently
below...
cid:_2_0985DD700985D4E0002BF948422578AE
An old country preacher
had a teenage son, and it
was getting time
the boy should give some
thought to choosing a
profession.
Like many young men his
age, the boy didn't really
know what he
wanted to do,and he didn't
seem too concerned about
it.
One day, while the boy was
away at school, his father
decided to try
an experiment.
He went into the boy's
room and placed on his
study table four objects:
1. Bible
2. Silver Dollar
3. Bottle of Whisky
4. Playboy magazine
“I'll just hide behind the
door”, the old preacher
said to himself.
"When he comes home from
school today, I'll see
which object he picks
up."
"If it's the Bible, he's
going to be a preacher
like me, and what a
blessing that would be !”
"If he picks up the
dollar, he's going to be a
business man, and that
! would be okay, too.”
"But if he picks up the
bottle, he's going to be a
no-good drunken
bum, and Lord, what a
shame that would be.”
"And worst of all if he
picks up that magazine
he's going to be a
skirt-chasing womanizer."
The old man waited
anxiously, and soon heard
his son's foot-steps as
he entered the house
whistling and heading for
his room.
The boy tossed his books
on the bed, and as he
turned to leave the
room he spotted the
objects on the table.
With curiosity in his eye,
he walked over to inspect
them.
Finally, he picked up the
Bible and placed it under
his arm.
He picked up the silver
dollar and dropped into
his pocket.
He uncorked the bottle and
took a big drink, while he
admired the
magazine's centrefold.
" Lord have mercy”, the
old preacher disgustedly
whispered,
" He's going into
politics!!"
That ends the economics
and politics and I had a
good laugh. I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla DBA
Satya
NY
October
2nd, 2011
12:54
pm
My mentor
back in India in 1990's
taught us everyday -
"I am working hard ain't
good enough...Work Hard,
Work Smart".
Today, I try to teach the
same to our team in the
US,, they get it, much
better and much quicker
than they used to in 2000.
Thanks for spelling it
out...
Atlantic
City, NJ
October
2nd, 2011
12:55
pm
I remember an
automatic car wash in
California that had robots
in 1969. A gang of
fearless robots gave some
people a washing and these
people were afraid! Oh
well, gotta laugh and move
on or wind up crying.
Something says more bio
information is still
needed as compared to
machine information yet
the amount of machine
information is
accelerating. This planet
needs a heart.
Port
Orange, FL
October
2nd, 2011
12:56
pm
For most
people that world rots. At
least in America, I would
say 97% of the people want
to work 9-5, Monday to
Friday, have two weeks
paid vacation and some
overtime around Christmas.
They don't want to be the
boss or an entrepreneur.
They don't want to bid
$200 to design Australian
chewing gum or Chinese rap
songs. They want to work
hard, go home, drink a
beer and retire at 65.
What they want can only
realistically be achieved
through manufacturing and
construction jobs.
Manufacturing has largely
fled the country and
construction is on a
prolonged hiatus with the
collapse of the housing
bubble. A world where
everyday they have to
compete against everyone
else to be the best and
the brightest for an
average bid of $57 means
no security and no
protection against
mediocrity, sickness, old
age or being just plain
tired. Piece-work is ok
when you're young and
healthy and the best one
at the shop. Not so good
when you're forty and a
new 21 year old is kicking
your butt.