 |
| Graphic created by Jacob Morch jacobmorch.com |
The definition of work changes as economies evolve. The grandchildren of farmers became factory workers and the grandchildren of factory workers became knowledge workers. There’s good reason to believe that the definition of employee will change again, this time into something like entrepreneurship.
Thomas
Jefferson imagined the United States as a country of educated, gentleman
farmers. Even when he became president in 1801, though, the percentage of Americans
farming had begun its steady decline. Now, each month economists await the
announcement of nonfarm payroll employment. Today farm jobs are not even
included in the country’s defining measure of jobs lost and gained.
Alexander
Hamilton’s vision of an industrialized nation turned out to be more prescient
but in recent decades, manufacturing’s share of the work force has also been in
steady decline. Next century, economists may await the nonmanufacturing payroll
employment report.
Millions
voted for Trump and his promise to bring back manufacturing jobs. As promises
go, it seems more akin to a 1916 campaign promise to bring back farming jobs
than an adaptation to new realities. Yet acknowledging that farming and
manufacturing are unlikely to reverse their decline leaves us with the question
about the source of next generation jobs.
------------
The economy has shifted but policy has not. Until economic policy begins to address the new limit, it will continue to be ineffective.
Over the last 40 or 50 years the per capita GDP growth rate has fallen. The fallout is not just economic. It has made voters less trusting of major institutions and expressed itself in surprising victories for BREXIT and Trump. Most people now feel that “the system is broken, unfair, and failing them.”[1]
Over the last 40 or 50 years the per capita GDP growth rate has fallen. The fallout is not just economic. It has made voters less trusting of major institutions and expressed itself in surprising victories for BREXIT and Trump. Most people now feel that “the system is broken, unfair, and failing them.”[1]
Meanwhile, one place that has done remarkably well in the
last half century is Silicon Valley, a place that more than any other has
become synonymous with entrepreneurship.
About a century ago, Henry Ford made business history by
doubling the wages of his factory workers. Doubling. Not only was he making
cars more affordable, he was paying working class people enough to buy them.
In 2016, median wages in the US were about $51,000 a year. Like
Ford, Silicon Valley has doubled that. In Santa Clara County – one reasonable
approximation of Silicon Valley – average wages were $117k, or 118% higher than
the national average.
It’s possible that Silicon Valley is an anomaly, a place that
other communities can only envy but never emulate. A more interesting
possibility is that Silicon Valley is to a new entrepreneurial economy what
Manchester, England of the 1700s was to a new industrial economy: just the
first place to enter a new economy whose practices will eventually spread around
the world.
Four
Economies and Four Limits
Agricultural economies give way to industrial economies,
which give way to information economies. Most people share that intuition but their
understanding of what these labels mean and how to distinguish between them is
fuzzy. Even industrial economies have farms and information economies have
factories. It takes a little explanation, but limits can clarify the distinction
between different economies and predict a fourth, entrepreneurial economy.
Economy
|
Period in West
|
1st, Agricultural
|
1300 to 1700
|
2nd, Industrial
|
1700 to 1900
|
3rd, Information
|
1900 to 2000
|
4th, Entrepreneurial
|
2000 to ~
|
Before talking about economies, imagine a factory with four stages.
It gets raw materials in on one end and sends product out the other. The
materials that become a finished product must pass through all four stages
before they’re sold.
The numbers and height of the bar indicate how many products
a stage can process in an hour. The first stage can process only 1, the second
can process 2 and the fourth and final stage has the capacity to process 4
products an hour.
The customers don’t buy the unfinished product from any intermediate
phase, though. They only buy product that comes out of the whole factory,
product that has passed through all four phases. The question is, what is the
capacity of this whole factory? How many products can it produce per hour?
The answer is 1 per hour. Your factory’s capacity is equal
to the capacity of your first stage. You could call that a bottleneck, a
constraint or limit. Whatever you call it, this limit defines the capacity for
your whole factory. If it can only feed the next stage 1 item per hour, it
doesn’t matter that the second stage has the capacity to process 2 items per
hour because it won’t get product fast enough to process that many.
Until you increase the capacity of the first stage, you will
not increase the capacity of your factory. So, you experiment. Maybe you speed
up the process, simplify the process or just buy a second machine for that first
stage. However you do it, you eventually double the capacity of this first
stage to get a picture like this:
The good news is that by doubling the capacity of the first
stage you have just doubled output for the whole factory. Armed with the
knowledge that focusing on the first stage makes all the difference, you
continue to experiment and invest in improving that first stage until you find
a way to double its capacity again.
This time, though, doubling the capacity of your first stage
does not change your factory output. Why? You were so successful at improving
the first stage that it is no longer the limit to your factory. Your limit has
shifted elsewhere.
Two lessons from your factory could apply to any system.[2]
- To improve the system, you have to focus on the limit, and
- Success eventually shifts the limit.
So, what limits an economy? In every introductory economics
course, students learn that there are just four factors of production: land,
capital, labor, and entrepreneurship. Anything of value created by an economy
depends on some mix of these four factors and one of those would have to be the
limit at any given stage of economic development. Land includes all natural
resources, from herring to oil, acreage and cotton. Capital includes the
financial and industrial tools that transform those natural resources into
finished products, the factories that can turn cotton into clothing and the
stocks or bonds that finance the machines and factories. After the industrial
revolution, the labor of knowledge workers – people like accountants, engineers
and advertisers – who manipulate the symbols of things rather than actual
things was the most defining labor. Finally, entrepreneurship brings together
land, capital and labor into a profitable enterprise.
The four phases of a factory can become four factors of
production in an economy and we can examine limits to an economy in the same
way that we examined limits to the factory. The output of an economy can be
measured by things like jobs or wealth, income or GDP.
Different
limits create different economies
Agricultural economies are limited by land. Wealth between
1300 and 1700 didn’t result from advances in information technology (not that
the Gutenberg Press wasn’t disruptive) but instead came from trade, conquest,
and colonization with faraway lands and creating nation-states and private property
in your own land.
An industrial economy is limited by capital. Between 1700
and 1900, the creation of wealth was less about exploration, conquest and
colonization than it was about building the factories that could turn raw
materials into finished goods and then build out canals and railroads to
distribute those goods. Wool and cotton became fashion. Iron ore became
railroads. Skyscrapers rose in cities and cars emerged to drive between them.
An information economy is limited by knowledge workers.
Between 1900 and 2000, it wasn’t enough to have factories that could make more
products than anyone had ever seen before. They had to be the right products (which
required marketing and design expertise) made for and sent to the right places (which
took manufacturing and distribution knowledge) by the right methods (which took
advertising and retail display experts.)
An information economy emerges after an industrial economy.
Before the automation of the industrial economy, you need workers to manipulate
actual things, afterwards, machines can do that and labor can shift its focus to manipulating
symbols. The sequence from agricultural to industrial to information economies
is not just an historical sequence, it’s a logical one.
Economy
|
Limit
|
Period in West
|
1st, Agricultural
|
Land
|
1300 to 1700
|
2nd, Industrial
|
Capital
|
1700 to 1900
|
3rd, Information
|
Knowledge Workers
|
1900 to 2000
|
4th, Entrepreneurial
|
Entrepreneurship
|
2000 to ~
|
Economies are complicated and progress is slow so it makes
sense that as communities gradually overcome limits they’ll cling to the
processes that once made them great. Like the factory manager who keeps
doubling the capacity of his first process step to no avail, communities can continue
to create foreign colonies, spending huge sums on a global empire even after
they’ve entered an industrial economy. Or more recently, they might pump money
into their economy or create graduates past the point that capital or knowledge
workers actually limit the rise in per capita GDP. It is almost inevitable that
communities will continue to do what they’re now good at even after reaching a
point of diminishing benefit. Cultures last longer than cost-benefit analysis
and new practices become old habits.
An additional complication is that there are always pockets
within a larger community that face earlier limits, and those limits define local
culture and politics. When natural resources are the basis for wealth in a
region, for instance, it will be more religious and more inclined towards
policies like a strong military that support the notion of a zero-sum economy.
It’s not the ingenuity of people that creates an oil field but is instead just
a gift of God or nature. And that oil field doesn’t get larger because we
decided to share it. Either I own it or you do, and rather than win-win we’re
going to have a winner and a loser in this exchange. There will always be
regions that lead or lag in development and thus will lead or lag in the reality
they experience and that informs their convictions. It’s not just that a person
living in rural Kentucky has a different political philosophy than her peer in
Cambridge, MA; the daily reality that informs her perspective is different.
One other way to understand a limit is to look at its price.
Scarce factors are expensive and abundant factors are cheap.
The success of the second economy made capital abundant.
Traditional bankers who emerged from the second economy (many of our current
banking practices were defined in England by 1900) carefully loaned out money,
trying to minimize the risk of losing capital. Venture capitalists, by
contrast, treat capital as abundant and fully expect to lose quite a few
investments. Given they’re taking equity in a new firm rather than hoping to
get back capital with interest, they know that only a fraction of their
investments need to succeed in order for them to get great returns. Traditional
banking evolved when capital was scarce: venture capitalists evolved when
capital was abundant.
What is scarce now? Entrepreneurship and we can see that in
its price. At 31, Bill Gates became the richest self-made billionaire in
history. A generation later, Mark Zuckerberg became a billionaire at 24. The
price of capital is the interest rate and towards the end of last year,
investors owned about $12 trillion in negative interest rate bonds. Trillion. We
have a glut of capital and a shortage of entrepreneurs, which suggests that
effective policy would focus on increasing the supply of entrepreneurs rather than
the supply of capital. Between 1700 and 1900, we learned how to increase the
supply of capital through a variety of means, from popularizing savings and
investment (from founding father proverbs like “A penny saved …” to expanding the
number of people who bought wartime bonds and then later became savers) to
changing the money supply or interest rates. If policy makers think that we’re
short of capital, they can quickly pump billions into the economy. There are no
comparable policy levers for increasing levels of entrepreneurship. Not yet.
When The
Old Limits No Longer Limit
If capital were still a limit, we’d be in great shape. The
S&P 500 have $1.5 trillion in cash and in the third quarter of last year
they paid out $200 billion in dividends and stock buybacks. Banks excess
reserves have dropped from their August 2014 high of $2.7 trillion but are
still at a staggering $1.9 trillion.[3]
(Before the Great Recession, excess reserves in the US were closer to $1.5 billion.)
Our education system helped us to overcome the limit of
knowledge workers. In 1900, less than 10% of 14 to 17 year olds were formally
enrolled in education. By 2000, less than 10% were not. In a century, the US
went from an industrial economy dependent on child labor to an information economy dependent on adult education. That helped to transform life in the 20th
century, real incomes increasing 6X to 8X and life expectancy rising from 47 to
77.
If knowledge workers and their information technology were
still a limit, creating more graduates would help to create more jobs. In 2013,
the American education system created 3.7 million graduates, everything from
folks with AA degrees to PhDs and all the degrees in between. That same year,
the economy ended the year with 2.4 million more jobs than it had at the start.
We’re creating graduates faster than we’re creating jobs, 15 new graduates for
every 10 net new jobs. It’s no wonder that student debt is becoming a growing
issue.
It’s not just ineffectual to pursue old policies in a new
economy. It can be dangerous.
A glut of money creates problems. Investors in search of
returns, unwilling to accept negative interest rate bonds, too readily bought expensive
things like tech stocks in 1999 or subprime mortgage instruments in 2007. Trillions
in investments can create a series of bubbles and busts as it wanders the earth
like a murmuration of starlings in search of returns.
A glut of graduates creates problems. Young people not only
start careers with mounting debt but find it more difficult to find jobs they
could not have worked with just a high school diploma. Millennials who are the best-educated
generation in history nevertheless fear that they’ll be the first generation in
American history to do worse than their parents. (This student debt will also
make it tougher for them to finance startups. As medical school has become more
expensive, for example, the percentage of doctors working for large groups or
hospital has gone up relative to those who start a private practice.)
One consequence of continuing to pursue dated policies is
that it makes it tougher to pursue any policy. When incomes are steadily
rising, politics is civil. Families can pay a little more in taxes to support schools
and help the poor while still taking home more pay after taxes. When incomes
are stagnant, politics becomes more divisive. Few people like the idea of not
supporting education or the sick but if the choice is between that or less take
home pay? Well, the conversation becomes more heated and compromise is harder
to reach on top of the fact that everyone starts this policy conversation
disenchanted and bewildered.
We don’t need to jettison incredible financial and
educational systems that are essentially over-producing, creating more capital
or graduates than we can fully employ. We just have to stop looking to those
systems as the means to create jobs and wealth. As we become successful at
overcoming this new limit of entrepreneurship, we’ll be able to fully employ
capital and college grads. Eventually, we will even create enough demand for
them to bid their prices up further.
The Central
Question of Every Economy
The central question for any generation concerned about
economic progress is how to overcome its limit, not the limit of its
grandparents or founding fathers. Creative answers to that question result in a
new economy and a very different community.
In retrospect, the central question of economic development
from about 1700 to 1900 was simple: how do we get more capital and make it more
productive? The creative answers to this included everything from the Dutch
stock market, Rothschild’s international bond market and the British banking
system to the spinning jenny, steam engine, and continuous production
technology. (The question is simple. The answers can be complicated.)
The central question of last century was, how do we create
more knowledge workers and make them more productive? The creative answers to
this included the popularization of K-12 education, the modern university,
R&D labs, the modern corporation and information technology.
The question that policy makers everywhere – city hall and
senate floor, corporate boardrooms and universities – should now ask has two
parts:
- How do we create more entrepreneurs and make them more effective?
- How do we make employees more entrepreneurial?
Creative answers to these simple questions will transform the
economy. We now have a financial system and an education system. We don’t have
an entrepreneurial system but instead expect our entrepreneurs just to show up,
like autodidacts in 1800. Changing will be an odd, fascinating and profitable
project. Think about educating students to be prepared to become entrepreneurs
in the same way that we now educate students to become university students and
knowledge workers, for instance, or changing the definition of employee.
Changing
the Definition of Work. Again.
Perhaps more interesting than the question of how to create
more entrepreneurs is the question of how to make employees more
entrepreneurial. We – rightfully – make a big deal about national economic
policy. It’s worth keeping in mind that measured by GDP or revenue, of the 100
biggest economic entities only 31 are countries; the other 69 are corporations.
(Walmart’s $480 billion in revenue would put it just between Sweden and Belgium’s
GDP.) Corporate policy deserves as much discussion as national policy if we’re
interested in progress. The most important topic in this discussion might be to
ask what it means to be an employee in a time when AI like IBM’s Watson is
liable to automate knowledge work in the same way that capital automated manual
work.
Think about changing employment so that employees within a
corporation had as much freedom to pursue new ventures as citizens within a
country. Roughly 800,000 Americans make more than the $400,000 a year that we
pay the president.[4]
That sort of thing was unthinkable in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak or France under
King Louis XIV, but as nation-states evolve, people within them have the
potential to prosper more than even the head of state. Contrast that with how
evolved the corporation is. While it’s common for professional athletes or
portfolio managers to make more than their managers, it is rare that anyone
inside a traditional Fortune 500 firm makes more than the CEO. What if
employees could become more entrepreneurial, were able to create equity by
taking existing products into new markets or by leading product and business
development efforts that are akin to startup activities? And what if the
success of those ventures could actually result in their making more than the
head of the company in the same way that an American entrepreneur has the
potential to make more than the American president? This dispersion of power
and pay is just one way that the popularization of entrepreneurship will change
the corporation.
Overcoming the limit of entrepreneurship will require and
result in new legislation, new education, and new definitions of what it means
to be an employee. As importantly, it will continue in a grand tradition of the
west, doing for business what earlier economies did for religion, politics, and
finance. That is, it will expand freedom for the individual. There is no way to
make employees more entrepreneurial without giving them more freedom.
There are interesting examples of popularizing
entrepreneurship within companies. Ricardo Semler did something interesting
with his Brazilian company Semco. He gave his employees freedom to negotiate
work arrangements. People working side by side on the factory floor doing
similar work might have very different arrangements. One was paid hourly,
another a monthly salary, another paid by piecework and another might actually
be paying Semco to use equipment to make product that she – the employee – could
later sell herself. Uber lets “employees” accept or reject specific fares and take
just one fare a week or work all day. Amazon’s marketplace and Apple’s iTunes
are platforms that let companies and entrepreneurs sell their own products. P&G
is among the companies who richly reward successful product development leads
whose responsibilities overlap quite a bit with entrepreneurs. All of these are
examples of enabling entrepreneurship, blurring the boundary between
traditional definitions of employee and entrepreneur, and giving the employee
more freedom to define their own work and its results.
This matter of employees gaining more autonomy is not
incidental to progress. Autonomy is a way to define progress and each new
economy has given the individual in the West more freedom. If you have shoes
you have more options about where to go than if you are barefoot; if you have a
car you have even more options. If you live in a democracy, you have more
options about what to believe and how to live than if you live in a theocracy.
If you have a credit card you have more options than if you need to approach a
banker to request a loan for a specific item, or can’t get a loan at all. If
you have the freedom to create equity as an employee you have more freedom than
if you’re expected to adhere to a process someone else defined.
The popularization of entrepreneurship will increase our
product options and levels of wealth. Progress, though, is only partly about
more and better products. That is only one way that our lives expand to include
more options. The first economy didn’t just bring potatoes and tomatoes to
Europe; it brought religious freedom. The second economy didn’t just bring fashion
and automobiles to households; it brought democratic freedoms. And the third
economy didn’t just give us radio and the polio vaccine; it made capitalists out
of knowledge workers, giving them financial options that people in 1900 would
have found as baffling as the internet. The fourth economy will transform business
and work in the same way that the first three economies transformed religion,
politics, and finance. That is, it will give us more autonomy, as economic
progress always does.
[1] https://twitter.com/Bill_Gross/status/821245915579240448
[2]
Eli Goldratt, author of The Goal and Critical Chain popularized the ideas of
Theory of Constraints (TOC) in the 1980s and 1990s within many Fortune 500
companies and government agencies.
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EXCSRESNS
[4] https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2015
No comments:
Post a Comment