Tag: economy

Silicon Valley and the rise of Chinese innovation

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick thinks China could overtake the United States in being innovative

Silicon Valley could be soon surpassed by China warns Uber’s Travis Kalanick.

While sceptics could dismiss Kalanick’s claim as his simply sucking up to his hosts in Beijing where he made the comment, or put the statement down to a PR campaign for his company’s renewed push into China, there may be a kernel of truth.

If for nothing else, the Chinese diaspora across the Pacific Rim is known for its entrepreneurial drive. From Bangkok to San Francisco and Sydney, Chinese communities have a reputation for being full of smart and hardworking business people.

Added to the Chinese cultural aspect is history. Fifty years ago car makers in Detroit and motorbike manufacturers in Birmingham, England, scoffed at the idea that their Japanese competitors could overtake them.

Within a quarter of a century they were proved wrong.

Another concern for Silicon Valley is that it could be losing its edge. As veteran journalist Tom Foremski points out, increasingly workers in the Bay Area live in a privileged bubble.

Foremski discusses how younger, creative and innovative workers are finding opportunities in cheaper and more diverse American cities like New York’s Brooklyn.

America’s diversity, and depth of its economy, will continue to be a strength for the foreseeable future but Americans, particularly those in the Bay Area, shouldn’t be resting on its laurels.

Travis Kalanick’s warning might be dramatic, but it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility.

Similar posts:

Where the jobs will go

An Australian state government survey outlines the impact of automation on employment

That automation is having a profound impact on existing jobs is beginning to be appreciated by governments. A study by the New South Wales government’s Parliamentary research service examines what the effects will be on the Australian state’s economy.

Like equivalent overseas studies, the report finds over half the state’s jobs – a total of 1.5 million positions – could be at risk from computerisation.

An interesting aspect of this is the bulk of the impacts being felt in the mining, construction and logistics industries. While there’s no doubt those sectors will be hard hit, particularly for lower skilled workers, the assumption is higher level positions in management and supervisory roles won’t be as greatly affected.

Examples of this include ‘professionals’ only being at a 4.6% risk of being displaced and ‘General Managers’ at 5.0%. This compares to labourers at 96.1% and 95.7% of ‘filing and registry clerks’ losing their jobs.

While there’s no doubt the lesser skilled roles are at immediate risk, and have been for decades, the rise of artificial intelligence and business automation are increasingly going to put management roles at risk.

Quibbles aside, the report is a good read on the impacts of automation and computerisation on what has been one of the western world’s more successful economies.

The hollowing out process of Australia’s middle classes it describes show that phenomenon is not just confined to the United States and this probably creates the greatest challenge to politicians as populists seek to blame foreigners and minorities for much of the population’s declining fortunes.

Almost every government in the world is facing these issues and the efforts of public servants and economists to accurately describe what’s happening has to be applauded and encouraged.

For voters and workers, reading these reports to understand the forces changing their industries and communities is essential to making informed choices at the ballot box and the workplace.

Similar posts:

Silicon Valleys of the Twentieth Century

Dayton Ohio is an example of an industrial hub rising and falling, could Silicon Valley follow?

The rise and fall of industrial hubs is a topic that fascinates this blog and the excellent BBC and US National Public Radio series Six Routes to a Richer World discusses how countries as disparate as Germany, Brazil, China and the United States are carving their own paths to prosperity in the 21st Century.

In the US segment, the show looks at one of America’s industrial centres of last century – Dayton, Ohio.

The home of the Wright Brothers, Dayton also saw the invention of the cash register, air conditioner and even the self starting motor. In the early part of the Twentieth Century it held the most patents per capita of any US city and workers flocked to the region for high paying manufacturing job.

Manufacturing, and research, is largely gone from Dayton today and the question posed is could the successful cities of California’s Bay Area follow a similar path this Century.

Whether Silicon Valley and San Francisco fade will be a matter of historical forces that are difficult to see right now, but the likelihood can’t be underestimated.

Similar posts:

Thinking through the effects of autonomous vehicles

Driverless cars and autonomous vehicles are going to change the economy and workplace. Where will the jobs come from?

The defining technology of the Twentieth Century was the automobile. While there were many advancements – antibiotics, mains electricity and mass communications to name just three – nothing changed society to the same extent as the motor car.

A hundred years ago it was impossible for a pundit to appreciate how the motor car was about to change communities, the population’s increased mobility saw the suburbanisation of cities, the creation of the consumerist society and the rise of industries such as supermarkets and drive in theatres, none of which were foreseeable fifty years earlier.

Change didn’t happen in isolation, those new industries were the result of a number of changes in technology alongside the motor car, for instance the supermarket couldn’t have happened without refrigerators becoming household items along with radio and television developing new markets through the advertising industry.

Economic drivers

The biggest driving force was economic, once motor cars became affordable for the typical worker – just before World War II in the US and in the mid 1950s in most of rest of the Western world – the cost of travelling fell dramatically.

With the cost of moving around falling, workers had the opportunity to move out of the dirty, grimy inner city to new and clean suburbs where they could commute to their jobs in offices and factories. At the same time it also meant families could travel further to buy their groceries, forcing the end of the cornershop and the milkman.

Autonomous vehicles change those economics again, as Uber founder Travis Kalanick pointed out last year, the most expensive item in a taxi or Uber fare is the driver.

During his interview at the Code Conference Kalanick went on to describe how eliminating the driver changes the economics.

“When there’s no other dude in the car, the cost of taking an Uber anywhere becomes cheaper than owning a vehicle. So the magic there is, you basically bring the cost below the cost of ownership for everybody, and then car ownership goes away.”

Changing ownership

The assumption in today’s discussions about autonomous vehicles is that car ownership will become and thing of the past, something that fits into Travis Kalanick’s view.

Should that be the case then a whole range of new industries open up. Who owns the cars, who dispatches the cars, who plans for peak and normal usage are just a few questions and opportunities that open for savvy entrepreneurs.

A changing concept of ownership doesn’t come without problems, not least who owns the code controlling the vehicles and the data being generated which in turn raises privacy issues.

Loss of jobs

The obvious other question with driverless vehicles is what happens to all the taxi drivers, couriers and long haul truckers as automobiles no longer require operators.

With truck driving being the dominant occupation in most US states, employing 1.8 million workers according to the Bureau of Labor Studies, this is a serious question. Interestingly the BLS forecasts employment to grow five percent per annum over the rest of the decade.

That scale of  job losses hasn’t been unusual over the last century. The agricultural industry itself has seen a massive fall in employment in that time period with the proportion of Americans working in agriculture falling from half the population to a tenth of that.

Creating new industries

Obviously half the US working population didn’t end up being unemployed, with the many of those displaced by the motor vehicle – either in the agricultural sector or in those fields catering for the pre-motor car market – finding work in other fields.

That the economy adapted to the loss of jobs in what were traditional fields in 1915 gives us a clue to where the jobs and industries of the future are going to come from as the changing nature of the economy means new businesses are created.

As the economics of these industries change, we see the need for workers move further up the value chain. We also see those reduced costs open opportunities for new ideas, just as the supermarket concept took hold in the 1950s as the economics of household shopping changed.

This is where the greatest opportunity lies for today’s entrepreneurs lies, in figuring out how those reduced costs will change the way consumers and society use transportation. In turn that will drive the next wave of employment growth.

Similar posts:

Rethinking education in a time of a declining middle class

Reskilling the workforce is essential to address middle class decline

The role of higher education is changing in the face of technological and economic change as this World Economic Forum article describes.

Education is one of the keys to staying competitive in an increasingly technology driven society on both a personal and societal level. Individuals and nations that neglect their education investment risk are left behind.

One of the starkest examples of this are America’s lower middle class and the rise of Donald Trump.

In an article for The Atlantic, former George W. Bush adviser David Frum, describes how economic uncertainty for America’s relatively unskilled workforce are pushing back against their falling living standards.

The angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an accusation rather than a description.

You can measure their pessimism in polls that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their children. On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group, in middle age.

That these people are supporting Donald Trump – and their counterparts in almost every Western democracy – is not surprising as they losing in the new economic order and the technological changes which are eliminating or devaluing their jobs.

For governments and communities, the question is how to restore these folks’ fortunes or at least maintain their living standards. With protectionism almost certainly guaranteed to fail, the obvious answer is to give these workers the skills to compete and contribute in the 21st century economy.

Sadly, most Western governments still locked in a 1980s Reagan/Thatcherite mindset see education as a cost to be reduced rather than an investment in both their communities’ collective wealth and society’s cohesion.

Education, like the rest of society, is changing. A rethinking of both how it is delivered and its role is essential for nations to be successful in today’s economy.

Similar posts:

Changing the Australian investment mindset

Can the Turnbull government’s Innovation Statement reset Australia’s investment mindset?

“Of course I’m minimising my tax. If anybody in this country doesn’t minimise their tax they want their head read,” media tycoon Kerry Packer growled when asked about his financial affairs at an Australian Parliamentary committee in 1991.

Kerry Packer’s attitude towards tax minimisation runs deep in the Australian psyche so the announcement of a range of concessions to encourage investment in startups as part of the Federal government’s Innovation Package, branded as The Ideas Boom, may well succeed in unexpected ways.

The National Innovation and Science Agenda should be welcomed by any Australian concerned about the nation’s role in the 21st Century. After 25 years of neglect – if not wilful ignorance – by successive Liberal and Labor governments there is now at least a recognition that developing new industries and businesses is essential to maintain first world living standards.

Many of the proposals in the package are long overdue such as a commitment to open government data, initiatives to support STEM education, programs to encourage women in the IT industry and recommitment of funding for the government scientific agency, the CSIRO.

Australia’s quiet tragedy

The defunding of education and CSIRO research by successive Liberal and Labor governments has been one of the quiet tragedies of Australia’s turning its back on the 21st Century. The reversal of the focus on property speculation and mining is hopefully the start of renewed government efforts to restore the long term competitiveness of the country.

While many of us hope this is part of a broader, bipartisan vision of where Australia should be in the connected century, at this stage no-one can have confidence that these long term measures won’t be the victim of short term political expediency.

Short term gains

In the short term however the focus will be on the immigration and investment incentives. In some respects they are disappointing – the $200,000 annual limit for tax benefits should be contrasted with there being no such restrictions on property speculation – and both the investment and immigration proposals are still overly complex and will be a boon for well connected advisors and consultants.

However the changes are a start in shifting the attitudes of the nation’s risk averse investment and business culture and may well be well timed as the real estate price bubble starts to deflate forcing investors and speculators to look elsewhere for returns and tax breaks.

That chase for tax breaks could well mark the change for Australia’s investment starved small business and startup community, at the time Kerry Packer made his comments to the Parliamentary committee one of the most popular tax minimisation strategies was investing in locally made movies under the 10BA scheme that allowed generous deductions for investors.

Following film

Most of the films made under the 10BA regime were at best forgettable and the scheme was wound up in the mid 2000s but the wave of money that flowed into the Australian film industry helped launch the careers of many of today’s globally actors, producers and industry professionals.

If these changes can have similar success in the technology industries then they may be well worthwhile.

Another aspect to the Innovation Statement may well be the shift in Australian government industrial policy from a failed ‘think big’ mindset that assumed local businesses had to dominate their domestic markets to compete globally into a view where smaller, nimble operations can succeed internationally.

Welcoming change

Overall the Turnbull government’s Innovation Statement is a welcome change from the last twenty years of complacent policy around Australia’s economic development. One big challenge remains though in changing the nation’s complacent business culture.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge is move Australian households and investors on from the tax minimisation mindset. While Kerry Packer may no longer be with us, his mindset remains the driving force of Australian business.

Similar posts:

Investing in a low consumption economy

In an age where economic growth doesn’t require an exponential increase in energy and resource consumption, new investment models will be required

Four days at the Autodesk University in Las Vegas last week confirmed how a radical change has happened in economic development since the turn of this century. The question is whether business and national leaders will accept this new reality.

Andrew McAfee’s session at the Autodesk opening keynote illustrated the declining use of commodities by advanced nations. McAfee’s point dovetailed nicely with that of Kevin Ashton a few weeks earlier in Sydney that energy consumption of devices is falling as well.

Showcased at the conference were the new manufacturing processes, design methods and smart materials showing how we’re now in an age where increasing living standards are not coupled to rising consumption rates.

Falling use of energy and resources, even while living standards and functionality grow, is a direct contrast to the economic models of the past three hundred years where increasing affluence and quality of life meant exponentially increasing demands for energy and commodities.

This point has been missed by many businesses and policy makers, particularly in Australia where the assumption of ever increasing demands for energy has seen massive over-investment in coal and gas export facilities along with the tragic gold plating of the electricity distribution at cost that’s now crippling the nation’s industries and households.

Businesses, and nations, that haven’t recognised the trends will need admit the error, write off those costs and move onto the new model.

For voters, consumers and investors it’s time to demand leaders of business and government accept the 21st Century economic model is very different to that of the previous century.

Similar posts: