Tagged with Economy

Average Is Over

Average Is Over – NYTimes.com

Friedman on why the middle class’s pockets keep shrinking.

In the past, workers with average skills, doing an average job, could earn an average lifestyle. But, today, average is officially over. Being average just won’t earn you what it used to. It can’t when so many more employers have so much more access to so much more above average cheap foreign labor, cheap robotics, cheap software, cheap automation and cheap genius. Therefore, everyone needs to find their extra — their unique value contribution that makes them stand out in whatever is their field of employment. Average is over.

Cut’s like a knife.

Tagged , ,

Mr Cruz and the Agony and Ecstasy of John Gruber

There has been a lot of news recently about Apple and their relationship to the factory workers in China. Many reports have been coming out about the worker mistreatment in these factories, the little money they earn, the long hour shifts, and the most disturbing of all, the suicides by the workers in the Foxconn plant. This American Life dedicated an entire show to the topic which profiles Mike Daisy and his one man show titled The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs. N+1 Magazine also published a powerful essay on the subject titled Outsourcing Jobs. The NyTimes also did a pair of articles. A series they titled the iEconomy. One tackles the subject of why Americans didn’t get these jobs, How the US Lost out on iPhone Work, and the other about the general worker mistreatment, In China, Human Costs are Built into an iPad.

It doesn’t matter if you’re an Apple fan or not, this is concerning. This should concern you. If you’re into computers and gadgets, this should concern you. Because if you read the articles you’ll see that factories like Foxconn don’t just make stuff for Apple, but for other companies like Dell, HP, and others. And it’s not a political thing. Deciding not to buy an Apple product wont make things better. But being aware of it might help a bit.

So why this focus on Apple, since other technology companies also outsource to third world countries? One answer is that they’re the top dogs right now. But I also think it’s because Apple, at least for us Apple partisans,(see episode 46 of Hypercritical), should do better. It’s a company that is held in a higher esteem because they represent higher values. They’re mission is not just to make a profit, or to just make beautiful computers and gadgets. They exist “to change the world.” Right?

So I’m surprised, and a bit disappointed, when John Gruber the other day linked to the NyTime article. I’m disappointed because in that link-post, Gruber did what he’s constantly being accused of doing. Even without saying anything, because all he did was link to the article, paste a negative pull quote, and link to Tim Cook’s email. What he did was very Apple partisan of him, or more colloquially, very Apple fanboy of him. Sure, an email from Tim Cook responding that Apple cares is “objectively” refuting what was in the quote, but that’s it? That’s all he’s going to say about it?

Maybe Gruber doesn’t feel qualified to tackle a complex subject such as human rights and working conditions in third world countries. But he could, if he wanted to. And you kind of expect him to. All those words and in depth analysis he has given to the iBooks EULA thing, or the iPhone mute/ring wars. He could give at least a couple of paragraphs. Maybe I’m being full of shit here, and he does have something in the works, being that he was at Macworld this past week, but till now all he gave us was a link. At least for me, that is not enough and his opinion on this is as important to me, and even more so, as his opinion on if force-quitting iOS apps really makes the iPhone faster.

*Update – Gruber did had some great stuff to say on the latest The Talk Show.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Does Time Spent Watching TV Correlate with Income Potential?

Over at The Story’s Story, Jake Seliger argues that the 99%’s are the 99% because they watch too much Television and is surprised that time spent watching Tv is not considered a factor when speaking about income equality/inequality. Seliger writes:

In all of the contemporary reports and newspaper accounts and blog posts about income equality, I’ve never seen TV consumption mentioned. To me TV consumption is astonishing and might also be linked to Americans’ larger economic problems—I can’t imagine that most successful, people who earn a lot of money watch anything like four hours of TV a day, because where would they get the time? I also doubt TV probably isn’t imparting the skills and knowledge that future high earners need to be high earners. It could be that I’m succumbing to the availability bias and assuming that the high earners I know are representative, but the fact itself still amazes.

It’s a valid argument and I can see how time spent watching Tv can correlate with income. If you spend less time watching Tv, you will probably use that free time learning something new, thus having an earning potential there. However, the problem I see with the premise that people’s income is correlated with time spent watching Tv is that you can say that about any activity, or any type of media consumption. People could be richer if they bought and read less books, listened to less music, or watched less movies. They could create more stuff if they consumed less stuff.

There has to be a definite link between Tv viewing, the bad kind of Tv viewing, and your ability to accomplish a goal, be it a financial goal or just learning a new skill. Even today with the web and social media, Tv is the strongest time sucking medium there is. I want to agree completely with Seliger, but again, you can blame anything else that is distracting you from doing something productive. I advocate for the same thing Seliger is advocating though. There should be more studies on yearly incomes compared to time watching Tv.

Tagged , , ,

Food for Thought Links

food-for-thought*Today’s links deal with management. Self management and organization management as well. This was totally coincidental.

The Pmarca guide to Personal Productivity

Jed Christiansen has been posting Marc Andreessen’s archive over at his blog and at his Posterous page. I’m really glad I stumbled upon the above wisdom nugget. Here’s Andreessen on scheduling:

Let’s start with a bang: don’t keep a schedule. He’s crazy, you say! I’m totally serious. If you pull it off — and in many structured jobs, you simply can’t — this simple tip alone can make a huge difference in productivity. By not keeping a schedule, I mean: refuse to commit to meetings, appointments, or activities at any set time in any future day. As a result, you can always work on whatever is most important or most interesting, at any time. Want to spend all day writing a research report? Do it! Want to spend all day coding? Do it! Want to spend all day at the cafe down the street reading a book on personal productivity? Do it! When someone emails or calls to say, “Let’s meet on Tuesday at 3″, the appropriate response is: “I’m not keeping a schedule for 2007, so I can’t commit to that, but give me a call on Tuesday at 2:45 and if I’m available, I’ll meet with you.” Or, if it’s important, say, “You know what, let’s meet right now.”

via


Hating What You Do

Companies should be aware of that there’s such a thing as over-management, specially in these shitty times we’re living in.

SUICIDE, proclaimed Albert Camus in “The Myth of Sisyphus”, is the only serious philosophical problem. In France at the moment it is also a serious management problem. A spate of attempted and successful suicides at France Telecom—many of them explicitly prompted by troubles at work—has sparked a national debate about life in the modern corporation. One man stabbed himself in the middle of a meeting (he survived). A woman leapt from a fourth-floor office window after sending a suicidal e-mail to her father: “I have decided to kill myself tonight…I can’t take the new reorganisation.” In all, 24 of the firm’s employees have taken their own lives since early 2008—and this grisly tally follows similar episodes at other pillars of French industry including Renault, Peugeot and EDF.

via


The Gervais Principle, Or The Office according to the Office

In depth look at how the show The Office is more than just a parody of office culture, but a deep inquiry about the uselessness of corporate management.

The Office is not a random series of cynical gags aimed at momentarily alleviating the existential despair of low-level grunts. It is a fully-realized theory of management that falsifies 83.8% of the business section of the bookstore.

via

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Food for Thought Links

food-for-thoughtIn Praise of Doodling

HiLoBrow on the magical-ness of doodling and its etymological history.

“In its modern sense, doodling is surrealism and abstract expressionism’s dour bachelor uncle — a workaday, intuitive expression and proof of the conviction that the artist is coextensive with nature. And the power of all art, furthermore, is bound up in our empathetic experience as doodlers; great art returns our doodles to us with a kind of alienated majesty. It was Emerson who said this, referring to the works of great thinkers — in whose complex, polished, and ramified ideas we may discern the traces of our own abandoned musings.”

The Whole Point of Capitalism

The Forbe article sort of praises Michael Moore’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story.  I write “sort of” because I haven’t seen the film yet and it’s not clear what the author agrees with. I suppose this discussion is healthy, but we have to be careful and separate what’s purely ideology (capitalism is fair and egalitarian) from what the economic system actually is.

I think Moore’s a little too flip about how important it is for people to be free to chase their fortunes. Some take Moore’s own financial success as irony. I see it as hopeful. We need more Michael Moores. But we don’t get them in a system where, say, the telecom, television and radio industries are difficult to disrupt because only the largest companies can afford access to a spectrum that’s supposed to be held in the public trust.

via This is Probably an Interesting Blog

Understanding the Anxious Mind

NYT Magazine profiles Jerome Kagan’s research on anxiousness.

The tenuousness of modern life can make anyone feel overwrought. And in societal moments like the one we are in — thousands losing jobs and homes, our futures threatened by everything from diminishing retirement funds to global warming — it often feels as if ours is the Age of Anxiety. But some people, no matter how robust their stock portfolios or how healthy their children, are always mentally preparing for doom. They are just born worriers, their brains forever anticipating the dropping of some dreaded other shoe. For the past 20 years, Kagan and his colleagues have been following hundreds of such people, beginning in infancy, to see what happens to those who start out primed to fret. Now that these infants are young adults, the studies are yielding new information about the anxious brain.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Bright Lights

brightlightsusa

Cities of Light

The NewScientist article explains that a better predictor of a country’s economy, is how many lights it has at night. The above link takes you to a gallery of 6 satellite photos of lights in the night.

Tagged , , , ,

The Cross-Subsidized Free Lunch

It Feels A Little Like Free

There’s been a lot of free talk provoked by Chris Anderson’s book, Free: The Future of Radical Price. Cory Doctorow’s critique of the book is very spot on when he mentions that some things are just “truly free” and can exist outside of a “marketplace”. That’s why Anderson fumbles a lot between the idea of free and cross-subsidized methods. But the above link to the Snarkmarket post takes the cake in explaining and understanding what Anderson is trying to explain, or sell.

When the idea of free really works, it makes us forget that it ever even cost anything at all. Reading web pages is free – once you count the money you pay for internet access. Between my phone and my house, I pay more for internet access per month than I do books – and I read a lot. Add on to that all of the ways my free behavior is paid for with information from or attention paid by me, and a ruthless calculus would determine that the internet is expensive as hell.

Almost all free things are cross-subsidized in some ways. But if the cross-subsidy is obvious – “Free phone with a two-year plan worth at least…” – then free fails. If your website suddenly has a glaring and obnoxious banner ad, then it doesn’t matter if it is as free today as it was yesterday. It doesn’t feel free anymore.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Chris Anderson on The Colbert Report

Wired‘s chief editor Chris Anderson was last night on the Colbert Report promoting his book Free: The Future of Radical Price. I downloaded the audio book some days ago, but I still haven’t finished it. I don’t know squat about business and finance. I even struggle in getting the “supply-demand” thing straight. But my impression so far is that it’s intellectually interesting, but theoretically contradictory and fishy. Till’ now I’m confused about the really, really free, the somewhat free, and the close to zero. There’s a chapter were he even gets all etymological on the word free. My rhetorical question is: How can there be on economy based on really, really free, with an exchange of zero goods, but make money somehow and call that “free”?

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Thought Leader Battle Royal – Round 3

Malcolm is Wrong

In a surprising move, bald marketing guru Seth Godin tagged Anderson, and betrayed his intellectual buddy. The drama ensues.

Conde Nast (publisher of the Wired (Chris’s magazine) and yes, theNew Yorker (Malcolm’s magazine)),  is going to go out of business long before you get sick, never mind die. So will newspapers printed on paper. They’re going to disappear before you do. I’m not wishing for this to happen, but by refusing to build new digital assets that matter, traditional publishers are forfeiting their future.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Thought Leader Battle Royal – Round 2

Dear Malcolm, Why so Threatened?

Chris Anderson responds to Gladwell’s critique of Free

Since journalist Malcolm Gladwell has somewhat parochially decided to make the Future of Paid Journalism the focus of his review of Free (which is, ironically, free on the New Yorker’s website; perhaps this is something Gladwell should take up with David Remnick?), I’ll try to respond in a bit more detail.

Oh, snap!

via Marginal Revolution

Tagged , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.