Haves Have nots and Have hads.
Last year The Economist ran a front page on which it acclaimed: ‘work longer and have more babies’. The suggestion being, that in order to maintain the workforce and consequently the economy of many Western countries we must increase the population and work beyond the ‘normal’ retirement age.
My opinion of this statement is that it is completely and utterly misguided. It is based on the planning assumption of ‘more’, totally endemic in western politics and business. I propose that we need to stop this ‘more’ idea, and think ‘less, a lot less and better, a lot better’.
We are now in an age nearing total mechanisation and computerisation, in which the lower and middle ranks of companies are being reduced as machines and outsourcing takes over. Consequently we actually need less people - or less local people - to achieve considerably more output than was ever achieved in the past. Couple this with the fact that progress is generated by new innovation, and, that since the rise of the internet we have had no real worldwide product launch that is actually ‘new’, per se. We have seen many reinvented versions of older products better ways of doing the same thing, but little new that could spark a new industry and absorb the increasing numbers of unemployed.
What is going to happen then and how should we deal with it? In brief, have fewer children and educate the few we do have to be better than we ever were.
In a little more detail; with the rise of Asia and the wealth of cheap labour, companies are looking at alternatives to ‘production and services’ here in Europe and in the US - be it manufacturing, dealing with customers, or product development.
The options are, outsource it directly to Asian companies, or computerise – automate it by making it more self-service for the customer or supplier; or, a mixture of both. Supply chains are getting smaller and more efficient, eliminating more and more interfaces, good for the customer, not so for the now ex-employees of the middle companies. The simple result is that companies need fewer people; people who have worked and helped put the company where it is today. Doesn’t do much for the corporate social responsibility image, but it certainly makes business sense.
- Leaving aside the fact that you have made your customer base unemployed of course!
As I mentioned before, innovation is slow in all sectors. All sectors are merely re-inventing the products and services and are not bringing to the market new ideas. Thus no new industries are being created to absorb the fallout from the more outsourced automated self-service industries. We communicate, work, eat, socialise, heat ourselves and travel in much the same way as we have for the last 10 years, only slightly faster.
Take the telecommunications industry as an example, it has recently benefited from the dotcom boom and the amassed fibre optic cables laid by, long bankrupt, infrastructure firms and the rise in innovation of the mobile sector. But today, even the ring-tones market is suffering. And Skype will see the end of call-charges as we know them. There has been no new innovation for at least 5 years, and so market players are looking to convergence as the next move. Doing the same thing in one package, another form of reductionism.
What is then the outcome? We have always had the poor, ‘have nots’ and the rich, ‘haves’. But, I predict that we shall see in the coming years a far more unfortunate group, in the middle, the ‘have hads’. These are the people who once had a good job and the accoutrement that went with it house, car, health insurance, flat screen TVs etc. but following their redundancy, even assuming they get a new job, or two new jobs, they can no longer afford to maintain the standard of living that they were once used to, or assume is expected of them. And thus, the resentment that will build up will be on an unprecedented scale. You may well have seen, the films ‘The Full Monty’ or ‘Brassed off’ and the despair that was portrayed therein after the fall of the British steel and coal industries, now imagine that on a continental scale, the size of Europe or the US. This is the future world of the ‘have hads’. There are no more Toyotas factories to come to their rescue. And if there were, then they won’t need the staff, because they will be fully automated.
Another element to compound this and accelerate the decline of our ‘third generation world’ is that of complacency. We ( in our 30s - 40s ) are the post baby-boomer generation. Our Grandfathers worked hard to raise themselves from near nothing and passed on what they had, with the attitude of hard work, to our parents; who, in turn followed suit and raised themselves up to a level of middle class. Yet, we are the complacent ‘third generation’. We have lived with the relative wealth of our parents and have stopped trying. Why should we try? We have all that we require and the possibility to slowly improve on what we have, from starter home, to semi, to detached, to ‘by the sea’. We were promised that if we worked hard at school we would get a good job after and we would be happy, we did and we are. Computers? They would give us more leisure time, not steal our jobs!
Why then should we try harder? Easy answer, because there are 2 billion Asians of ‘first generation have nots’!
Thomas Freidman’s book ‘The world is flat’ can be condensed into one of his quotes; he says that ‘his parents told him that he must eat all on his plate; because, there are 500 million Chinese and Indians children who would love his food. Friedman now tells his children that they must study hard because there are now 1 billion Chinese and Indian children who would love their future jobs’.
Asia has no ‘have hads’ as yet. They are the first or second generation ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. And there are more than enough ‘have nots’ with a wish to become ‘haves’ to change the cultural complexity of the planet.
What is the answer? We are not in a position to compete on quantity, in fact this would be our downfall, but we can compete on quality.
‘Less is definitely more’ from now on; we have been witness to the recent unrest that has been caused in the Parisian suburbs simply because the cultures there have prized bigger families. But these young people are without a useful education and face a decreasing demand for unskilled menial jobs. These people are second generation ‘have hads’, the disaffected, their parents have some money and dignity and they not, hence the resentment. Recourse to Government is now useless, though is still the popular way to seek solutions.
We need smaller and suitably educated future populations to face the challenges of the 21. century. A workforce that can cope with the modern employee-scarce companies; that can cope with having portable roles, not jobs. That can be creative and innovative and self-reliant. Kennedy was some 40 years premature in his statement, ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’. To rely on Government is a misnomer, they cannot create employment, particularly where none is needed. They can only help shape societies fit for the world as it will soon be.
The standard response, from economists to Governments is that we need a critical mass population to generate the volume to sustain the income necessary to feed those outside the working populous. Their further solution is to extend the working age range or have more babies, as the Economist suggested. But this ignores the facts on the ground of the changes taking place in business. The reducing demographics will create difficulties for those caught in its timeframe until population numbers stabilise, but it is only a phase. What is now required is a socially altruistic and responsible attitude, that only Governments and personal forethought can control.
Sadly, history tells us that we always learn the hard way and that change from a more to a less, and better society, will only come after the ‘have hads’ join the ranks of the ‘have nots’ and the once great Western society reaches its lowest ebb.
An afterthought, consider how wonderful it would be to have continents with populations equal to the 1950’s and today’s technology? Think how much better the planet would feel too!
simon quick ( Hear this blog as a Podcast on iTunes, search: Blogosophy ).
Last year The Economist ran a front page on which it acclaimed: ‘work longer and have more babies’. The suggestion being, that in order to maintain the workforce and consequently the economy of many Western countries we must increase the population and work beyond the ‘normal’ retirement age.
My opinion of this statement is that it is completely and utterly misguided. It is based on the planning assumption of ‘more’, totally endemic in western politics and business. I propose that we need to stop this ‘more’ idea, and think ‘less, a lot less and better, a lot better’.
We are now in an age nearing total mechanisation and computerisation, in which the lower and middle ranks of companies are being reduced as machines and outsourcing takes over. Consequently we actually need less people - or less local people - to achieve considerably more output than was ever achieved in the past. Couple this with the fact that progress is generated by new innovation, and, that since the rise of the internet we have had no real worldwide product launch that is actually ‘new’, per se. We have seen many reinvented versions of older products better ways of doing the same thing, but little new that could spark a new industry and absorb the increasing numbers of unemployed.
What is going to happen then and how should we deal with it? In brief, have fewer children and educate the few we do have to be better than we ever were.
In a little more detail; with the rise of Asia and the wealth of cheap labour, companies are looking at alternatives to ‘production and services’ here in Europe and in the US - be it manufacturing, dealing with customers, or product development.
The options are, outsource it directly to Asian companies, or computerise – automate it by making it more self-service for the customer or supplier; or, a mixture of both. Supply chains are getting smaller and more efficient, eliminating more and more interfaces, good for the customer, not so for the now ex-employees of the middle companies. The simple result is that companies need fewer people; people who have worked and helped put the company where it is today. Doesn’t do much for the corporate social responsibility image, but it certainly makes business sense.
- Leaving aside the fact that you have made your customer base unemployed of course!
As I mentioned before, innovation is slow in all sectors. All sectors are merely re-inventing the products and services and are not bringing to the market new ideas. Thus no new industries are being created to absorb the fallout from the more outsourced automated self-service industries. We communicate, work, eat, socialise, heat ourselves and travel in much the same way as we have for the last 10 years, only slightly faster.
Take the telecommunications industry as an example, it has recently benefited from the dotcom boom and the amassed fibre optic cables laid by, long bankrupt, infrastructure firms and the rise in innovation of the mobile sector. But today, even the ring-tones market is suffering. And Skype will see the end of call-charges as we know them. There has been no new innovation for at least 5 years, and so market players are looking to convergence as the next move. Doing the same thing in one package, another form of reductionism.
What is then the outcome? We have always had the poor, ‘have nots’ and the rich, ‘haves’. But, I predict that we shall see in the coming years a far more unfortunate group, in the middle, the ‘have hads’. These are the people who once had a good job and the accoutrement that went with it house, car, health insurance, flat screen TVs etc. but following their redundancy, even assuming they get a new job, or two new jobs, they can no longer afford to maintain the standard of living that they were once used to, or assume is expected of them. And thus, the resentment that will build up will be on an unprecedented scale. You may well have seen, the films ‘The Full Monty’ or ‘Brassed off’ and the despair that was portrayed therein after the fall of the British steel and coal industries, now imagine that on a continental scale, the size of Europe or the US. This is the future world of the ‘have hads’. There are no more Toyotas factories to come to their rescue. And if there were, then they won’t need the staff, because they will be fully automated.
Another element to compound this and accelerate the decline of our ‘third generation world’ is that of complacency. We ( in our 30s - 40s ) are the post baby-boomer generation. Our Grandfathers worked hard to raise themselves from near nothing and passed on what they had, with the attitude of hard work, to our parents; who, in turn followed suit and raised themselves up to a level of middle class. Yet, we are the complacent ‘third generation’. We have lived with the relative wealth of our parents and have stopped trying. Why should we try? We have all that we require and the possibility to slowly improve on what we have, from starter home, to semi, to detached, to ‘by the sea’. We were promised that if we worked hard at school we would get a good job after and we would be happy, we did and we are. Computers? They would give us more leisure time, not steal our jobs!
Why then should we try harder? Easy answer, because there are 2 billion Asians of ‘first generation have nots’!
Thomas Freidman’s book ‘The world is flat’ can be condensed into one of his quotes; he says that ‘his parents told him that he must eat all on his plate; because, there are 500 million Chinese and Indians children who would love his food. Friedman now tells his children that they must study hard because there are now 1 billion Chinese and Indian children who would love their future jobs’.
Asia has no ‘have hads’ as yet. They are the first or second generation ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. And there are more than enough ‘have nots’ with a wish to become ‘haves’ to change the cultural complexity of the planet.
What is the answer? We are not in a position to compete on quantity, in fact this would be our downfall, but we can compete on quality.
‘Less is definitely more’ from now on; we have been witness to the recent unrest that has been caused in the Parisian suburbs simply because the cultures there have prized bigger families. But these young people are without a useful education and face a decreasing demand for unskilled menial jobs. These people are second generation ‘have hads’, the disaffected, their parents have some money and dignity and they not, hence the resentment. Recourse to Government is now useless, though is still the popular way to seek solutions.
We need smaller and suitably educated future populations to face the challenges of the 21. century. A workforce that can cope with the modern employee-scarce companies; that can cope with having portable roles, not jobs. That can be creative and innovative and self-reliant. Kennedy was some 40 years premature in his statement, ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’. To rely on Government is a misnomer, they cannot create employment, particularly where none is needed. They can only help shape societies fit for the world as it will soon be.
The standard response, from economists to Governments is that we need a critical mass population to generate the volume to sustain the income necessary to feed those outside the working populous. Their further solution is to extend the working age range or have more babies, as the Economist suggested. But this ignores the facts on the ground of the changes taking place in business. The reducing demographics will create difficulties for those caught in its timeframe until population numbers stabilise, but it is only a phase. What is now required is a socially altruistic and responsible attitude, that only Governments and personal forethought can control.
Sadly, history tells us that we always learn the hard way and that change from a more to a less, and better society, will only come after the ‘have hads’ join the ranks of the ‘have nots’ and the once great Western society reaches its lowest ebb.
An afterthought, consider how wonderful it would be to have continents with populations equal to the 1950’s and today’s technology? Think how much better the planet would feel too!
simon quick ( Hear this blog as a Podcast on iTunes, search: Blogosophy ).
posted by Simon Quick at 8:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home