Slashdot Mirror
The Internet's Network Efficiencies Are Destroying the Middle Class
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Joe Nocera writes in an op-ed piece in the NYT that the same network efficiencies that have given companies their great advantages are becoming the instrument of our ruin. In the financial services industry, it led to the financial crisis. In the case of a company like Wal-Mart, the adoption of technology to manage its supply chain at first reaped great benefits, but over time it cost competitors and suppliers hundreds of thousands of jobs, thus gradually impoverishing its own customer base. Jaron Lanier says that the digital economy has done as much as any single thing to hollow out the middle class. Take Kodak and Instagram. At its height, 'Kodak employed more than 140,000 people.' Kodak made plenty of mistakes, but look at what is replacing it: 'When Instagram was sold to Facebook for a billion dollars in 2012, it employed only 13 people.' Networks need a great number of people to participate in them to generate significant value says Lanier but when they have them, only a small number of people get paid. This has the net effect of centralizing wealth and limiting overall economic growth. It is Lanier's radical idea that people should get paid whenever their information is used. He envisions a different kind of digital economy, in which creators of content — whether a blog post or a Facebook photograph — would receive micropayments whenever that content was used. 'If Google and Facebook were smart,' says Lanier, 'they would want to enrich their own customers.' So far, he adds, Silicon Valley has made 'the stupid choice' — to grow their businesses at the expense of their own customers. Lanier's message is that it can't last. And it won't."
The micropayments for content idea sounds familiar.
Kodak was replaced by a whole slew of companies that make components for digital cameras, cell phones, picture hosting, digital frames, etc.
...do we throw our wooden shoes into the Internet?
This guy is a moron.
He's completely ignoring all the new jobs in the last 10-15 years that have been created over the years:
- Build and maintain networks
- Building data centres (construction)
- Network management and services (ISPs, etc...)
- IT support (hundreds of thousands of jobs and probably millions, small consultant companies and mom and pop shops)
- Research has tremendously increase
Seriously, his story is almost the same as "Robotics and Automation" is stealing all our jobs. But then they forgot the support industry for these new technologies.
Things change, its the way of things, people need to adapt and go back to school... or become salesmen :)
limited resources divided by more people = people are poorer
More efficient use of resources can somewhat mitigate this process but see Jevos paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
Here I thought the financial crisis was caused by lenders approving loans they knew people wouldn't be able to pay off and then packaging those loans together and pawning them off on other people and so on through the pyramid until the entire scheme inevitably collapsed. Nope. It wasn't greed on the part of the bankers and lenders. It was the Internet! Technology is to blame. And do you know who's behind technology? Scientists! Yup, if we'd all go back to being completely ignorant and subservient to the rich folks who tell us what to think then everything would go back to those wonderful days when everyone was happy.
[/sarcasm]
Wait... who put these extra-strength rose colored glasses on my face?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Once upon a time 100% percent of GDP was produced by farmers but rising farming efficiency rendered many farmers unnecessary. Once upon a time the vast majority of the middle classes worked in factories but rising efficiency from automation made many redundant. Once upon a time all administrative tasks where written and calculated by hand by vast numbers of office workers. New forms of economy rise whenever efficiency pushes people out of work. But I can't pretend that I'm not a little worried. Any such new form of economic activity will need time and stability to form.
I stopped reading the summary right there - that was one of the dumbest things I've seen claimed in a long, long time.
Maybe network efficiencies caused Hurricane Sandy to hit New York, too...
#DeleteChrome
The billionaires are destroying the middle class, by extracting their wealth; Internet efficiencies are just one means they use to do that. This is, simply put, not inevitable, and if the power structures were different, the Internet would be enriching, not destroying, the middle class.
How to change that, and the end game if it is not changed, are left as exercises for the reader.
even if the problem was not oversimplified. The problem is less that productivity increased but more that political power is more concentrated. I get micropayments for some of my content now, using Google's adsense. It's not enough to buy a cup of coffee a day and I've worked at it. Fundamentally, the problem is how society is structured and the balance between the power of labor and capital. We've seen other great revolutions in productivity from the agricultural to the industrial revolutions. When society distributes those gains more equitably, civilization flourishes and standards of living go up.
Because "divert blame from the upper class" has become a lucrative job with lots of cash coming in.
The reason you could only have black was because at the time of the assembly line's advent, the only 'fast-drying' paint available was black. When GM came along, different colors had been developed to meet the demand. Which Ford also used.
FYI
Common Sense (+1)
> Those on low wages get generous benefits
Tune in to "Benefits Street" on Channel 4 to see what it's like on benefits.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/07/tvratings-channel4
If that's the kind of life generous benefits get you, I'll stick to working.
Marx barked about this back in the 19th century. This is not news. The most expensive part of a business is labour. If profit is the most important thing, then labour must be squeezed. So, if online profits are the most important thing, then online labour at no cost is perfect. Lanier is wrong - this is not a call to micropayments, this is a call to (a non-soviet form of) socialism, a socialism of organised networks based on telekommunist principles of contribution and guaranteed wages in a socialised economy.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
It did, it sucks electricity out of those power plants. In turn, those power plants when they use more electricity creates heat because of those datacenters. by creating heat the temperature of a that region shift and changes too fast which in turn changes the humidity level, the wind and lastly creating the Hurricane /sarcarms
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
That just says there are sectors that are booming. This shift has left a lot of people behind. what you are ignoring is all the lower skill jobs. Now when I say lower skill, I don't mean McDonalds; I mean any job you could do with a 2-4 year non-technical degree and on the job training.
It used to be, you go to college, prove you can read, write, and take training, and you were almost garaunteed a middle class lifestyle supporting job. The entire economy was based around the plethora of these jobs.
My favorite example is the paralegal. They still exist, yes. However, it used to be a single lawyer with a big case would hire an auditorium full of paralegals just to study case law and review documents. Those days are gone, that job is done by a small handful of people. An entire auditorium reduced to maybe 2-4 people.
That is why you are seeing people with college degrees working at McDonalds and those with less education struggle to get even the shit jobs that they used to be considered "stuck with". We have seen the huge rise of part time, low wage employment.
But yes, our sector is booming and it is great. That is partially because we empower everyone else to hire less people, and use the ones they do hire more efficiently.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Unfortunately there's way too much neglect in the industry right now. I drive around the city that I live in and more than half of the pedestals are cracked open, with plastic bags wrapped over the distribution blocks to keep water off of them. The cable and phone companies are neglecting their infrastructure and given the number of years that this has been a problem, they don't seem interested in hiring the staff or paying for the materials to fix these problems correctly.
As far as data centers, network management, and the like, the industry has headed toward ever smaller and more powerful machines, virtualization, and equipment that needs less knowledge to support it. Autoprogramming switches, that sort of thing. It's also becoming more prevalent to outsource instead of having staff on-hand, so that's not exactly helping to push us toward full employment either.
In short, it's all screwed up.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Also because "blame technology for its inherent evil" is the default reaction to technological change of the academic handwringer class from which our journalists and columnists are drawn.
Took the words out of my mouth. Automation is change and change can be very harsh. One thing about change is that it's futile to try and prevent it or hope that it won't happen. Technology at its core displaces technologies before it. Either go with the flow and learn to take advantage of it or get swept up in it's aftermath - a tough pill to swallow for some but a harsh reality.
None of the things you mention provide many jobs, especially compared to the industries being replaced. It's not as simple as you seem to be making it out to be.
I don't respond to AC's.
...is that this guy's girlfriend left him for the web developer at his company.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
It's not as though this is a new problem, wealth concentrated in few hands. It can be solved the same way it was in the past. Increase the income tax at the highest levels to 75% for incomes over $1 million and use the revenue gains for public works projects. Make University level education free. Invest in research like the human genome project. Rebuild all the countries bridges and highways. Demolish ruined buildings and create public parks. The money is there and the manpower is here.
Kodak was fucked over by inept management. At the beggining of the digital switchover, Kodak was actually one of the pioneers and the future was bright. But management thought this new digital thingamajiggies were a fad, so there we are. They could easily be where Canon or Nikon are now, basically owning the professional market, or Sony, owning the sensor market. But, alas, they went the way of Polaroid, instead of going the way of Canon.
The final nail in the coffin came a few years later when their braindead CEO had the brilliant idea to gamble the company's future on... printing! On a day and age where 95% of all photographs taken were already viewed on a screen of some sort, he decided that printing was a fabulous idea. Yeah, that went well.
Anyhoo, I miss Kodak, I still have a freezer full of film, enough to last me a good 10 years before I run out. I only shoot film recreationally now, probably less than 50 rolls a year. But I miss Kodachrome, Tech Pan and Verichrome Pan already, and will miss Portra NC, PlusX and TriX or Double X, which despite being motion picture film stock was widely used around the world by still photographers. Thankfully I have almost 500ft in deep freeze, as well as a shitload of TriX.
I think it is only one of the methods.
We might have finally reached the tipping point where there will be no new sector for all the displaced workers to migrate to.
Agriculture > Industry > Knowledge workers.. each shift seems to have required progressively less workers which is why we now have the Service sector. ie. crap jobs where people are treated like disposal items.
With the price of automation falling and the playing field internationally being so unfair to manual labour in most developed countries.. how can there continue to be a middle class? I don't see it.
Where are displaced people supposed to find jobs now when every industry has become more and more efficient with technology while using less and less people?
This smells distinctly like someone had an idea ("The internet is destroying the middle class!") and then busily started beavering away trying to jam every square peg into that round-hole of conclusion.
Kodak was absolutely NOT destroyed by the internet, not by any way. It was annihilated by digital CAMERAS. It's only with a staggering misunderstanding of recent history and a stunning lack of historical memory that someone could assert that something released in 2010 destroyed a company that was shedding jobs a half-decade before. (15000 jobs cut in 2004 alone).
To suggest that "the internet" led to the financial crisis is simply ignorant; the (most recent) financial crisis had its roots in the subprime-mortgage industry, which (depending on whom you believe, and probably your politics) was a failure of collusive non-regulation, unbridled mercenary greed, the Democrats, the Republicans, or the Illuminati. Only by a complete misunderstanding of the circumstances could one believe that electronic trading (I guess?) might have had something to do with it, but EVEN THEN fund traders don't use the interwebs, they have dedicated lines because even a 0.5 second delay would mean a massive competitive disadvantage.
NETWORKS are allowing companies of any size to compete successfully around firms like Wal-Mart and Target (who themselves destroyed small-town businesses). Networks mean everyone's competing in a flatter environment, informationally - that's a good thing, pretty much per economics 101. (Well, it's not good for the non-competitive; are they a 'protected class' now?)
Joe Nocera, by the way, is a "business" columnist/commentator who has a penchant for taking a reasonable position to silly extremes, so I guess this isn't such a surprise.
-Styopa
Businesses always choose their own profit margins over the wellbeing of their customers. They consider customers are only there to be exploited, without considering the long term effects...
For instance look at outsourcing production to places like china... The cheap laborers who make your goods in china aren't paid enough to buy them, and neither are the now unemployed people in your home country. By keeping people employed back home you might have to pay your workers more, but a healthier economy would also ensure more potential customers.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
- Build and maintain networks
- Building data centres (construction)
- Network management and services (ISPs, etc...)
- IT support (hundreds of thousands of jobs and probably millions, small consultant companies and mom and pop shops)
- Research has tremendously increase
Continued developments in server and infrastructure technology are introducing major efficiency, automation and density improvements that will significantly reduce the need for jobs in all but the last of those points. So you better start looking for the next trend now.
The internet is a component of that. I have a deck of COBOL cards in a box somewhere and yep, it all goes back to that. All of the clerking and moving bits of paper around jobs are gone. There are no more mail rooms in companies, no more box stacking jobs, there are no more middle managers. I could buy a car anywhere in the world using my phone in under a minute.
We're either looking at medieval rates of income disparity or much higher taxes to prevent revolution. I think what will happen is that some countries (the EU/Canada/Australia/Japan) will use the US as a dirty lab for some of the higher risk stuff of capitalism while maintaining a firewall to maintain civilization.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
How did this half-wit get published by the NY times?
Hint: they also publish the bullshit that Paul Krugman writes.
It's easy to say that internet companies only employs X people, while forgetting that they do not charge users for whatever they provide.
I, for one, think the greatest economic advantage is when we are able to get things for free. There's no need to "monetize" everything.
I decided to log-in and repost my answer as non-AC:
In both cases (digital economy/Internet and robotization) the net result is increased productivity and a smaller workforce. It is true that some new jobs are created, but they are fewer than the ones replaced.
The only solution, really, is some sort of socialist system, with higher taxes for the high-earners so that everyone has a fair share of the increased productivity. And with bigger strides in robotization, this will be mandatory, or else we'll have revolts and heads will literally roll, which would be unpleasant.
Most of those jobs are white collar though and often require substantial investments in education which statistically pays off, but statistically works out and works out for an individual are not always the same.
There are still jobs like welder, that people can still go get hired and trained to do right out of high school but these are rapidly disappearing.
Labor saving technology created opportunities for just about everyone on; automation is creating opportunities for capital owners, and certain groups of white collar middle class workers that fall into some prerequisite conditions; but its not helping helping everyone.
Its largely leaving the jobs that are so low skill and low wage they are not worth anyones trouble to automate ( cleaning, final assembly, landscaping ) and jobs that require (or at least appear to require) intelligence and decision making we can replicate with a machine.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I'm sick of explaining to the kids that I cannot afford a PS4 for their Christmas because travel costs to work are going up and tax allowances being reduced, at the same time that kids of a single mother who works in Tesco's part time can easily afford it - and then tell us how a charity is giving them a holiday in Benidorm in the summer. I'll be lucky if we can afford a week in Southend-on-sea.
This sounds to me like you have chosen to live in the suburbs, too far from work. It sounds like you could afford a PS4 and more if you did one or more of the following things: Find a job closer to home. (perhaps, Tesco.) Moved house closer to work. Got on the dole , like the Tesco part-timer you facetiously cited.
Partly true - tough my job moved further from me. Moving has a very high fixed cost (stamp duty on buying a new house, estate agents fees, solicitor's fees, and the actual move). With the workplace in a more expensive area moving would probably never save me money, and certainly the payback time would be many years. not to mention kids are settled in school.
You're right though, from a percentage aspect and a total volume aspect, the middle class is providing the greatest tax revenue. The extremely wealthy individual is paying a lower percentage than yourself, but they are also paying many orders of magitude more actual pounds than you ever will. And, lest you forget, the middle class are also the largest consumers of said tax revenue. Roads for you to get from the burbs to work, public transport, police, fire brigade... the middle class majority consume the majority of these services. If you look at it objectively, the current system is "largely" fair.
It doesn't make you feel any better, but it does sound like you are avoiding some very logical decisions that could change your circumstance, but you choose not to.
Though as a group they are the largest beneficiaries individually they are not. The lower paid get many benefits, and you only have to hear about how much some of the ultra-rich get for "set aside land", grants for maintaining their "buildings of historical interest", and schemes like the Duke of Northumbaland's "Alnwick garden charity" that gets grants and lottery money to improve the land - that will revert to his personal ownership after 20 years.
Wealth Inequality in America exposed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
This image says it all:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/If-us-land-mass-were-distributed-like-us-wealth.png
Also interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Moving closer to work is often not an option... Companies like to concentrate themselves all in the same place, which means most of the space in the area becomes occupied by businesses and what little residential property there is becomes obscenely expensive.
And then due to the density of businesses all in one place, you get severe overcrowding on any transport systems serving those areas during the peak business travel hours.
If companies would spread themselves out more, and also spread their working hours out more then it would solve most of the transport problems, and save most people an absolute fortune in wasted time and money.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
The problem is not automation (we are doing this since the industrial revolution), but the distribution of wealth.
Stop wasting time in the wrong direction FFS.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Actually I think if you look at the number of jobs created in those industries, and a realistic picture of the number of jobs they replaced in other industries the numbers are still significantly negative.
Let me use one simple example of the old way, compared to the new way, looking only at jobs in America. 20 years ago a product built in China would be shipped here on a boat. A team of 20 or so long shore man would unload the boat. 200 truck drivers would take the goods to an importers warehouse, employing another 200 to sort them. 5 customs inspectors would go over everything on the boat and make sure it passed muster. Another 200 drivers would set out across America to middle man warehouses. Each of those 200 warehouses would employ another 200 people to unload the trucks, break down boxes, sort, pick, and build new bundles, and send them to mom and pop stores in their area. Each mom and pop store would then employ 10-20 people to stay operating.
The new way is that your iPhone is ordered online by a computer run by a fraction of personafter all a sysadmin these days can take care of a few thousand machines. It is made in China and put on a FedEx plane. A team of 3 pilots brings it to the US. 1 customs inspector spot checks a few things match the computer generated invoice. Perhaps a hundred folks at the FedEx shipping center help sort that package. Another 3 pilots take it to the destination city, where 1 loader puts it on a truck for 1 driver to drop off at your door.
That is supply chain efficiency. No inventory in warehouses, which means no warehouses. No middle men. No or limited retail stores. Handle the package a minimum number of times, don't let it sit around collecting dust and depreciating while tying up capital. It's all driven by computerized supply chain management.
And this doesn't even address the issue that many of our goods are so cheap now as to be disposable, eliminating whole industries of repair. Remember when their used to be TV Repair Shops? Yeah, those all went away when a new TV became $200.
So yes, there are millions of new jobs, but there's also no shortage of information suggesting that workers are more productive with technology, which means one new worker can do the job of more than one old-school worker. That's net negative for the job market. When we were at full employment that was good, freeing up some people to do new things, but now that we're at less than full employment it could quickly become a downward spiral as there are no new jobs, people go unemployed, lose skills, and stop contributing to the economy.
Also he completely ignores the motivation "Greed is good" behind using technology to gain an advantage and instead blames the technology. Technology will advance and corporations have exploited it just like they've exploited natural resources like oil. Don't blame the technology for how people decide to use it. For example, what lead to the financial crisis was the fact that everybody was chasing the next big score on Wall Street. For them that meant trading in unregulated derivatives with credit default swaps based on home mortgages. Everyone seemed to forget that housing is just as cyclical as other markets. The boom was bound to end. How was IT at fault for this? It is easier to trade electronically and more people can do so but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have happened it was still paper trading.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
and then you may see more people working less people pulling 60-80 weeks as is cheaper then hiring 2 people for 40 each.
Very true. With companies not "sharing the wealth" and favoring owners over employees in almost every case, this becomes a very real problem since most people are employees first and foremost (often only).
There's plenty to go around, too - our country's GDP is booming. Its just that none of that wealth is being shared. Oddly enough, the pain when a recession comes is shared very quickly.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
There are many problems, and we aren't going to work them all out on Slashdot :)
One reason that people work at McDonald's with college degrees is that the traditional, elite "liberal arts" education is sold as a job-getter to non-elites. Sure, a wealthy man can find a job for his liberal-arts educated son. Good luck to the liberal-arts educated guy whose dad is a factory worker, or even in prison. For most people in the middle or lower classes, college should be used to develop an actual skill. A liberal-arts education is great, but it is a luxury unless one can be assured that they will attend graduate school.
With the disappearance of factory jobs, we really are leaving our high-school graduates hanging out to dry. Good paying jobs require more skill now, and I think if we want to maintain a non-college track, we should seriously consider extending free pubilc education through associates-level courses.
Massive numbers of factory jobs are gone. Probably forever. We can blame robots, China, or whatever but the reality is that they are gone. We need to be realistic about what the next generation of kids needs to have a shot at a middle class lifestyle.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Seriously, his story is almost the same as "Robotics and Automation" is stealing all our jobs. But then they forgot the support industry for these new technologies.
There's quite a lot of evidence that job creation has ground to a halt in the US.
During the Clinton administration, the average annual increase in jobs created was over 2.5% per year. With a couple of exceptions, the figure has always been over 1% at least.
Since 2000, that figure dropped to 0% and 0.21% during GWB's two terms. Obama's first term was also 0.21%. There's not much indication that his second term will create many more.
Once you factor in population growth, job growth has actually been negative for over a decade. I don't have the US figures to hand but here in the UK, there are 5 unemployed per job vacancy.
It is a problem that is largely being ignored.
the fruits of modern technology abused for corporate interests. that is a big part of what is killing classes. instead of making life better and easier for everyone its all about profits for a few lazy thiefs. ofc those in power have an interest in destroying the lower classes, else their system cant work - be it technology, silly laws, propaganda and religion.
Completely agree: the economic impact of this shift cannot be overstated. This shift is what's driving the hollowing out of the middle class: all of those white collar, skilled jobs are being wiped out by greater efficiencies. True, it's probably employing a software programmer somewhere, but that is at the expense of thousands of paralegals and even lawyers. The brutal reality is this: the system rewards the small handful of top performers at the expense of thousands of rank and file / competent but mediocre folks underneath them. Society is going to have to figure out what to do with all these people, or there will be hell to pay.
Just write in railroad everywhere you see internet.
It's pretty idiotic. The internet led to a massive economic boom in the 1990's. 10's of millions of new jobs created.
What we are suffering from now is the aftermath of a debt collapse that has nothing to do with the internet.
I think part of the reason they tried to sweep digital under the rug was that they were always a film company, not a camera company. even you lament the loss of their film, not their cameras. Kodak was essentially trying to sell the disposable blades for the razors.
Indeed their downfall was inept management, it was mostly wishful thinking on their part that they could just forget about digital. at least from their perspective printing was a very logical step from film. the printers needed a bunch of disposable items such as paper and ink, very much like film in a analog camera. what they failed to notice is that people were happy viewing their pictures on a screen and didn't need to have them printed out as much..
im pretty sure the death of the middle class was ushered in by a combination of wanton and reckless deregulation which encouraged predatory and fraudulent lending markets leading to a subprime lending crisis that precipitated massive foreclosures which in turn plunged major economic sectors into default requiring trillions of dollars of subsidies be paid to a concentrated minority of powerful multinational companies. historical analysis confirms this sharp decline was predicated by liberal trade deregulation and labor union suppression in the form of the north american free trade act and the reagan PATCO strikebusting event of 1981 as well as various lesser publicized pension reforms and right to work legislative endeavors which relegated blue collar jobs once responsible for middle class lifestyles to the working poor.
but yeah, i can see how billionaires could mistake that complex chain of events for the turbo button on their linksys
Good people go to bed earlier.
It would be an awesome first step if we could all just agree that the middle class (at least in America) is in decline from what it was one generation or two generations ago, and that that has several bad consequences, and that we should try to think of ways to reverse this trend.
I think it would be reasonable to admit that it does look as though a lot of currently-existing good-paying jobs (and even notso good) are being automated away, and that we don't really have much sense of what jobs all those displaced workers might be doing a decade or two in the future. I can easily google up lots of examples of current attempts at automating away whole classes of workers - bus drivers, teachers, care-givers for seniors, farm workers, guards and night watchmen, legal and actuarial staff. Logically, if the costs per unit output were more for these automated methods, (once the design, support, IT etc was included) than for the labor-intensive solution, then no one would be pursuing them. I don't see anything in recent economic history that leads me to believe the higher profits yielded by these automated techniques will be shared with the remaining workers. I doubt that too many of the displaced bus drivers or farm workers are ever going to be retrained as robot maintainers (or whatever new jobs are created.)
Most likely outcome: management is going to develop and use automation wherever it can, let go as many workers as the automation allows it to, and keep the profits. Productivity goes up, but the remaining workers don't get much in higher wages. Economic value (e.g. money, capital) continues to be concentrated at the top of the economic pyramid, where it is stockpiled and rendered useless.
May it's time to change full time to 20-32 hours a week with an say min level of say 100K+COL to have someone on NO OT salary.
Maybe also have forced comp time / any use it or lose it use it or lose vacation policy must pay out the lost time as some people can't get the time off and or comp time goes to vacation but the work load is to high to use it all.
We're getting Wal-Marted to death, and the libertarians want to argue about Kodak.
There's no convincing them. They'll be touting the virtues of the unrestrained free market right through the next depression.
I do worry about what's coming next for the middle class, and that's coming from someone who's firmly in the "knowledge worker" camp. The reality of this is that the traditional "corporate drone" job is rapidly being replaced by software automation or cheaper labor. Futurists who see a bright Star Trek-style utopia at the end of this change, in my opinion, are overlooking some very big problems:
- The loss of safe, stable corporate employment is going to cause a huge shift in people's standard of living. There are millions of people who get up, get in their car, go to an office, take a stack of input work, perform some process on it, forward it to the output queue, and repeat this 5 days a week. I think most IT people can relate -- we support lots of people doing these jobs. All of that is going to disappear. Now you're going to have a chunk of the population who is suddenly unemployed, broke, and has no way to support itself to the same standard. Think about the office environment of the 60s vs. now -- no more secretary, no more typing pool, way fewer bookkeepers, way fewer middle managers. All those workers in the 60s made enough to buy houses, cars, vacations, etc. and keep the economy running. Now most people who want to consume are forced into debt.
- There's no getting around the bell curve. It's impolite to say, but not everyone is or can be a knowledge worker. (I'm no genius either, so I'm not trying to be snobby or elitist.) We've already hollowed out the lower end of the curve by killing manufacturing jobs. Someone with an IQ of 98 is much better suited to performing a repetitive assembly line task with no independent thought. Those people used to be able to work in factories at a wage that at least allowed them a few nice things once in a while. Now, all those people are working minimum wage jobs or unemployed.
- Right now, there is no appetite for ideas like providing everyone a subsidy. Unemployment insurance in the US is a joke and the idea of a universal income will never fly with those who have more than average.
I definitely don't want to go back to a world without computers and automation, but I think we need to seriously consider the problems that complete automation of all routine tasks will create for society in general. The standard answer when anyone brings up concerns is that better, new jobs will get created. What will these be? I can't see a future form of employment that takes the full spectrum of people's abilities into account and makes everyone's lives better. When you can't even fall back on fast food, or driving a taxi, what's next??
Henry Ford was very resistant to adding options to his cars. It had nothing to do with efficiency, but more of a moral outlook.
He felt that options or additional features were wasteful extravagant luxuries. When customers started buying the more feature rich GM cars, he often complained that Americans used to be a frugal people.
Wrong. Flat tax is a bullshit idea that benefits the rich the most. Money's value to an individual is logarithmic, not linear. Taxing a billionaire 10% and a homeless man 10% is NOT fair, and it's simplistic to think it is.
If you want to replace people with "efficiencies" then be prepared for, and learn to live with, a larger welfare state.
You only need so many greeters at Wal-Mart. Only so many domestic workers. Further, there is a limit to how much a domestic worker will be paid. Remember, in the England of "Upstairs/Downstairs" the domestic workers were forced to wear different bonnets to church so they wouldn't be mistaken for proper ladies. Rich people don't want poor people to live as well as they do.
We just might be reaching a point where there just aren't enough new things for people to do to make a living. So, we can either accept that we will have to have a larger, more equitable and robust welfare state, or start being willing to embrace some very ugly solutions like mass population reduction. And except for the most ardent neo-libertarians, people usually aren't comfortable with forced population reductions.
The thing you CAN'T have when people are being put out of work by efficiencies is an expectation that people work longer hours for less pay and higher productivity.
Here we are, in the 21st century, and people are working longer hours. I don't think technology was supposed to result in people working harder, and more people at the bottom. Technology wasn't supposed to result in less economic and social mobility. Technology wasn't supposed to result in a lowering of standards of living and greater economic uncertainty.
You want that increased efficiency? Then be prepared for people working fewer hours for more pay. For two or three people doing jobs that were once done by one person. And for a much stronger social safety net.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The only solution, really, is some sort of socialist system, with higher taxes for the high-earners so that everyone has a fair share of the increased productivity.
This is not the only solution - although you are right that we need to give more people a share in the economy. Our society needs to recognize that highly productive people work too much and would be happier if the worked less and earned less. Yes, one of the world's elite business schools says that productive people work too much.
We have become much more productive—output per hour worked increased more than fourfold between 1950 and 2012... In the United States, the average working year went from 1,963 hours in 1950 to 1,790 hours last year, a drop of less than 10%.
Research shows that highly productive people would be far happier (and still have plenty of economic security) if they worked fewer hours. If the amount of work to do doesn't change, the economy has room for more workers.
I think that a better solution to taxation changes is for the government to change employment law - no more exemptions for overtime. All employees should receive overtime pay if they work more than X number of hours in a week. Period. The X number of hours should be indexed to productivity measures so that it changes in step with the productivity levels of our economy.
The bloodsucking bastards would like to thank you for your support and friendship. Please keep your pockets open so they can vacuum some more money from you while you drool in admiration for them and pay the taxes they don't. They have some huge yachts and skyscrapers to build, playing the rich-guys' "pissing contest" game. And that costs, you know, money.
Governments are extracting heaps of wealth from billionaires to fund political structures that consolidate government power; all under the pretense of benefiting the middle class.
This kind of reminds me of the book Extras, the fourth in the Pretties series by Scott Westerfeld. I takes place in a future world driven by a reputation economy. Many people have hovercam robots that take video of events to post on the internet. The more your feeds get watched the more money you earn. There are other ways to have reputation, like being famous or whatever, but the main character does the news feeds thing. The whole series was pretty cool actually. In fact, the author has many other books I ended up reading that I really enjoyed also.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
If you want to get micropayments for content you create, go ahead, try to charage: if your content is good enough, people will pay. They are paying, after all, for apps, digital subscriptions, etc. The legal framework exists, all you need to supply is a product.
Charging "every time your information is used", however, is a non-starter. In a free society, being able to talk about each other freely is essential. Trying to restrict this amounts to fascism. But, then, a lot of these gurus that promise to reorganize our society in better ways are really fascists at heart, both on the left and on the right.
I don't really believe we can or should tax our way out of the problem. Taxes can do many things but they are not the be all and end all solution to systemic problems. At some point is it not the case that adding more sumps is not the real answer to the boat taking on water.
The thing is, corporations are government chartered. They recieve limited liability in exchange for meeting certain regulations, without which, they would have trouble existing and operating as they do today.
Corperate structures account for far more of the economy than the government. Simply shuttling money up through them isn't the answer, you need to fix the corperate structures to not require as much central redistribution.
Frankly, I think we need to look at funding models and how to create more independent companies that are not beholden to stock markets and venture capital. Companies built around the idea that profits are part of the means by which we do our job and put food on our tables, not the be all and end all target for their own sake.
To use a simple example. A coffee shop should be opened and chartered to provide the community with excellent coffee and atmosphere for social gathering. Profits keep it in business, and keep the owner and workers able to do it, and able to live and enjoy these things like everyone else. It is entirely backwards to look at providing coffee as a means to profit.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
When people say "fair share" what they tend to mean is "I get free stuff from rich people." Obviously, the rich will resist.
What will actually happen: Poverty will increase, and desperation will drive more people to crime. Then, they will get arrested. In jail, they will receive their "fair share." which is to say, free food, clothing, shelter, and medical. All of that will be paid for by the tax dollars on the incomes of the rich, and will be delivered to the poor free of charge.
I am not saying this is good, I am just saying this is how humans do things. The greedy will always feel justified in saying that they have earned their keep, and that they owe nothing to those who cannot or will not earn their keep. The poor will always feel justified in saying that economic barriers prevent them from earning their keep, and therefore it is ok for them to steal. And to jail they will go.
Oh we don't need to look any further than the constant concentration of wealth.
The wealthy want more. Where can they get it? From the greatest consumers of all? No. Those are the poor. Of all the people who are famous for living beyond their means, it is the poor. Mostly, that's why they are poor. So that's not it.
The middle class still believe the harder you work, the better you will be. That's an endless amount of drive. Surely they will continue being middle class even after they become poor. What's killing the middle class? Lack of working opportunities. Where are they going and why? We know these answers. What gets me are all these consumer oriented businesses who can't see they are destroying their customers and when they are gone, where will they turn?
Idiots.
Imagine we could make everything we make today with half as much work. What would happen? In a rational society, everybody could choose to work half as much, earn just as much, and enjoy the extra leisure time. Why isn't that happening? Simple: hiring two workers that each work less is a lot harder for companies than hiring a single "full time" worker: there are all sorts of costs and overheads associated with each new worker. Additionally, taxes and regulations mean that it is hard simply to exist as a part time worker, since there is a high "cost of entry" simply for existing as an independent human being in this society. The fault isn't with "rich people", it's with progressive social policies that are increasingly harmful.
What you propose, a massive welfare state, isn't the answer to these problems; half the nation working "full time" while supporting an underclass of jobless is demeaning and wrong. The answer is to remove the obstacles and to allow people to live and work more flexibly.
The internet now makes it possible to blow up industries faster than ever before - so fast we don't have time to retrain and reabsorb the people displaced by the changes.
Any one change is good for the consumer and bad/disruptive for the producers, because the particular good or service is now cheaper.
The problem comes in when everything changes at once, and all the changes make people less necessary.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
You actually checked with the Kelley Blue Book or CarProof that the companies making digital phones, etc. aren't sopping up employees already discarded long before the Kodak disgorgement? This is the kind of set mapping that gives libertarianism a bad name: the vague presumption that the new necessarily has greater cardinality than the old.
In this lame conception, when the old industries fade and fail and fling off a finitude, a new industry springs up able to sop up an infinitude, and then the next neonatal industry incumbent (only in California does one encounter a neonatal incumbent) continues the aleph-upmanship and so it goes that progress Cantors along.
The Kodak reference really hit home for me. My father was an immigrant and came to America with little in the way of marketable skills or education. But he worked at Kodak his whole career and made a good salary. They treated him well and even gave him a pension for all his years of hard work. My aunt - his sister - also worked there. You know what her job was? She stuffed little tins of film into little boxes on an assembly line. Not a very exciting job I'm sure but it afforded her a decent middle class lifestyle.
Those jobs are largely gone today, and with it, the opportunity for many people to reach up and join the middle class. Those of us in IT are fortunate to be on the right side of the digital divide. Not everyone is cut out to be a software engineer or a doctor or a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. Who speaks for them?
It used to be only assembly line jobs that were being replaced by cheap overseas labor. Now it's moving up the chain and we're seeing IT jobs being moved to cheaper markets. We've seen it disrupt the careers of Travel Agents, Real Estate Agents and people that sell cars. I think the medical field is next. It won't be long before your annual checkup is done by a Doctor in India via Skype. All in the name of progress....and profits.
I'm closer to retirement than college now so I don't worry about me. I worry about the younger generation and what kind of world we are leaving for them.
The only "bloodsucking bastards" sucking money (and constantly trying to suck more and more) out of my pocket are from the government.
Who do you think they're giving it to?
Don't want to pay taxes? Become a millionaire. What, you're not a millionaire? That's your own fault.
As someone who has worked in the logistics industry now for about 10 years, currently pretty much everything about your post is factually incorrect.
iPhones are shipped via ocean cargoships, they are domestically warehoused, and domestically shipped primarily via truck. I know this because my previous employer handled the supply chain logistics and domestic warehousing/staffing for the iPhone.
Also, look to the trade consortiums and trade lobbies for why there are fewer customs inspectors - not electronic/mechanical efficiencies.
Until planes can carry hundreds of shipping containers worth of goods or the number of air routes is vastly increased ocean shipments are going to be vastly less expensive for all but niche markets - .ie seafood is one current market where a majority of product is air shipped.
Yes. It was a **management** mistake based on decisions made by stock-price obsessed MBA-type leaders who were absolutely, completely disconnected from their users.
Kodak had a 'cult' favorite in the Polaroid. They discontinued it, citing the 'digital revolution', right exactly at the time when people were backlashing against digital photos and **wanted** and old-school, nostalgic analog product like the Polaroid.
Everything about Kodak's decisions was exactly backwards and wrong, and it was **MANAGEMENT** who is to blame, not some dumb notion of the internet this guy is pimping.
Article author is an idiot.
Thank you Dave Raggett
here's an idea: make an analog Polaroid instant camera that takes analog photos **AND** allows you the option to post a digital version to the social network of your choice
Thank you Dave Raggett
Yeah, that's just because you don't know how little of your productivity you're seeing in wages. If you did, the paltry percentages taken by the government to pay for things you actually use wouldn't seem like a big deal.
Taxation also depends on what is being taxed.
Are you taxing assets (e.g. real estate tax, Florida's intangible property tax, etc.)?
Are you taxing wages aka "earned income?"
Are you taxing unearned income, including realized net capital gains?
Are you taxing "wealth transfers" like gifts and inheritances?
As long as you aren't taxing assets, someone with more money than he can spend in a lifetime will pay essentially the same taxes as someone else with the same lifestyle but fewer assets, provided his assets are all non-earning and non-growth (e.g. "cash") Both pay sales taxes, auto taxes, etc. Is that fair? Some would say yes, some would say no. It's a matter of opinion/viewpoint.
If you don't tax wealth transfers, when the rich man dies, his heirs will get it all tax-free.
In theory, taxation is in large part about society deciding what the "best" way (which may or may not be the "most equitable" way) to divvy up the cost of running a government among the people.
In practice, it's frequently about those in power protecting their own interests while not seeming to be so unfair that they ruin their reputation and/or cause a rebellion from the masses. But that's a topic for another day.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
GP is an idiot. Our resources are as abundant as ever. There are enough houses to shelter every homeless person 2x over. Food production is more efficient than ever.
It is **artificial scarcity** that creates the illusion....here in the US where I live and in most modern countries.
Now, China...they *are* having an overpopulation problem, but it is due to their government's ham-fisted policies and authoritarianism. ex: One child policy resulting in a demographic apocalypse (male to female ratio @ 60/40).
Thank you Dave Raggett
Kodak is, indeed, a good example. Folks often forget that Kodak wasn't just a camera company. Kodak was a paper company and, more importantly, a film company and chemical company. Instead of employing lots of people to manufacture film in the United States, we now have flash cards that are assembled almost entirely by machine, usually in China. Instead of Kodak selling developer chemicals to tens of thousands of small film processing facilities around the country, these days, we have people just uploading their photos to Flickr. And so on. Of course, it isn't just Kodak; they're just the top of the pyramid of companies that depended on Kodak.
On the flip side, those people were mostly not in the middle class. I doubt that working in a 1-hour film lab was ever a high-paying job, for example. Instead, what we have are a lot more people at the bottom of the class hierarchy who are going on to college because there are too many workers and not enough low-skill jobs. This, in turn, results in too many people at the next pay grade, and so on. The result is positive in some ways, in that people are better educated, but negative in others, in that having a glut of possible candidates tends to make employers less willing to pay good salaries with good benefits, because the employers don't have to compete as hard with other companies to find good talent..
So yeah, this article is probably at least to some degree true (judging solely by the summary).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
> Same way Henry Ford paid for his stubborn "You can have any color you want as long as it is black" mentality
That's just urban legend.
Model-T's came in a variety of colors.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Its not the internet's fault, it the economic systems fault, there is nothing wrong with 13 people to replacing 140,000 peoples jobs, I know its not exactly an accurate example, but if it is true its a good thing, isn't it? It is about still providing an environment in which those 140,000 people can live, be happy, and contribute to society. Our current economic system was set up in an environment where we needed to produce more just to get the basics of life. That has changed, now we seem to be producing more for the sake of consuming more.
As we get more an more efficient and it takes less and less people to produce items (e.g. imagine a robot could replace a person) the natural result in our current economic system to concentrate the wealth with fewer people (the robot manufacturer).
We as a society need to rethink our goal as an economy, is our only goal to continually increase GDP, or is it to become a happier, healthier society. After a certain point they are not the same thing. How do we distribute wealth? I don't support just giving people an equal share, people work try hard should be rewarded, but to what level? The entire human race has contributed to the knowledge we now have, not just a few individuals. Is it fair that a few individuals can claim the rewards? I think we will loose a lot if remove the rest of the population from the people who are enabled to create/innovate, because they are reduced to just trying to survive, or don't survive at all.
I don't blame the rich, they are just doing what comes naturally with the system, trying to make themselves richer, after all isn't that what we are told is the definition of success? I think that definition of success is wrong.
The reason you could only have black was because at the time of the assembly line's advent, the only 'fast-drying' paint available was black. When GM came along, different colors had been developed to meet the demand. Which Ford also used.
FYI
Yeah, we know.
The point is not colors themselves, the point is that Henry Ford / Ford Motor remained focused on standardization and production efficiency too long, to the exclusion of personalization and customization. After a point, automobile production became so efficient and costs were so low that people were willing to spend a few bucks extra for a differentiated product. Ford was slower to recognize this and make the transition (though it did, eventually.)
Exactly. He was focused on rolling out the Model A, as an affordable car anyone could own. But some people hungered for something different and GM catered with a variety of models and colors. Ford was slow to realize his error and his company was eclipsed.
This is effectively what has happened to Kodak - they took an interest, too little and too late in digital media. About the only segment they did hold onto was digital motion picture cameras, not consumer items. Considering how ubiquitous Eastman Kodak once was, it's their not taking the cue seriously from the first digital cameras and transitioning to maintain a large market share of the emerging technology.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I am a pessimist and i think the world is headed to two classes , middle class disappear, and we will have on the long run a quite rich class, a quite poor.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It wasn't just the number of people Kodak employed. It was also all the film developers. One-hour photo stops at Walmart and the like are common now, but it wasn't really that long ago that one took film in to be developed over a longer period of time (often at least a day) at camera stores and at dedicated shops like Fotomat.
I think that within the lifetime of many here, the structure of the economy, at least for the West, is going to begin a shift unlike any seen since the agricultural revolution. Current hunter-gatherer tribes often work for less than four hours per day on average, with the remainder spent on leisure or family activities. Contrast this with the average American's workload exceeding 12 hours when commute, meal preparation, and other mandatory activities are included. But as the resources that lead to useful output become commoditized, the number of hours required from humans to maintain a given level of society (ignoring the wage losses) will decline rapidly. Once we have robots that can efficiently clean, deliver mail and packages, and maybe even handle emergency operations like firefighting and rescue, and I expect that it won't be long before humans, at least in more advanced countries, become knowledge manipulators, making decisions that robots and computers find difficult or impossible.
There's an alternative where some Neo-Luddite movement takes hold and limits the ability of automation of work, not necessarily reducing us to a pre-industrial era but perhaps to at least the current level of work by setting maximum efficiency levels on machines such that humans can compete at some level. But that would also require a fundamental shift in human psychology that I see as even less likely than acceptance of technological replacements of our jobs.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Actually, tax evasion is as old as taxes. Oil companies have managed to neatly avoid paying many taxes long before the Internet was invented.
If you really want more tax revenue, you have to eliminate all the credits and loopholes. You can't do that though, or else everyone would scream. Corporations demanding that their loopholes allow them to invest in growth will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the middle-class dude demanding his mortgage interest deduction, and they in turn would stand next to the poorest Cholo Queen demanding her EIC for the 6 fatherless kids she has living in her apartment.
It's all a game when you talk tax rates, since everyone has at least some means of ducking out of it.
If you were truly interested in having everyone pay their "fair share", you'd tax a flat percentage of all income above poverty level, with no loopholes, deductions, or credits.
But, nobody would go for that - even the most left-wing and right-wing ideologues would both decry it.
* *
Meanwhile, let's look at the employment situation. How much does Google spend on payroll compared to what Kodak spent in their prime (adjusted for inflation, naturally)? That would be the fairest comparison between the two. I'm not certain how they would compare, but I bet that Google does spend a bit more, considering that they're not hiring factory workers, but engineers, developers, etc. That said, it's not just the number of employees we're talking about either - it's how much the average employee gets paid, as well as the total payroll. I'm willing to bet that Google's average is probably higher (consider where they've parked their offices, compared to where Kodak had/has their offices and facilities).
Yup - that leaves out the headcounts, which is what I think you were going for. Then again, it's not necessarily about headcount, since the two companies are in vastly different industries. If you're talking about money going into the system, then you have to compare money with money, which is why I chose payroll overhead as a metric, correlated with average pay. That tells you how much money goes into the system.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Well, to be fair, Kodak screwed themselves as well... they pretty much invented digital photography, but utterly failed to capitalize on it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Basic truth: it just doesn't take that many people to make all the stuff any more.
In the US, 14% of the workforce makes all the stuff - that's manufacturing, mining, construction, and agriculture. 50 years ago, that number was around 40%. In the 19th century, around 90%. For most of history, the big problem was making enough stuff. Today, that's a solved problem. There are no significant shortages of anything in the developed world.
So what will people do? Here's US employment by sector. For a few decades, additional employment in service industries took up much of the workforce. It still does in the US. That's where computers and the Internet have made a big dent. Much of the middle class was doing some form of manual "information processing". Computers do much of that now, faster and more cheaply. Paper pushing is a dying industry. (The paper industry itself is in deep trouble. We passed "max paper" a few years ago.)
That's only getting started. There are many legacy sectors which still employ large numbers of people, and they're being gradually knocked off by less-labor intensive approaches. Retail is the next to go - Amazon is replacing brick-and-mortar retail. No new indoor mall has been built in the US in the last ten years. Computers even sell now - that's what all the "ad targeting" and "recommendations" do.
Employment growth is mostly in health care, leisure and hospitality, and professional services. Eventually, health care will solve its paper-pushing problem, which will downsize that sector. Most of the rest of the new jobs in those sectors are low-paying ones.
This is a great achievement. Our society has no clue how to deal with it. Where a market-based system takes us is a world with a few winners and a huge number of losers who can't generate enough wealth through work to buy much. France, Germany, and the Scandanavian countries are trying to develop policies to deal with it. Maybe they'll find something that works.
Back in Kodak's heyday, they employed over a hundred thousand people.
All of the companies you mentioned have at most a few hundred each. So the net employment is negative.
Folks love to point out at how well Google, Yahoo, etc.. are adding to the economy, but they only have a few thousand employees.
Being slightly pedantic, Google has >46,000 employees (as of Q3'13) and Yahoo! >12,000 employees. Even Groupon has >10,000 employees. Groupon! And that's without considering all the companies they contract with, which I know from their privacy agreements which tell me how all their subcontractors will properly handle my data. Your argument is stronger if you avoid claiming that these tech companies "only have a few thousand employees."
My last few Apple orders suggest otherwise. The tracking shows on a plane in Shenzhen China, a stop in Alaska to refuel and clear customs, a stop in Memphis to sort, and then on to my door. About 36 hours from when it left China it is in my hand.
There are also articles from credible sources that suggest Apple keeps 5.3 days of inventory on-hand, almost all in its retail stores, and that online orders ship directly from China in most cases. Other sources have documented a similar process, and suggested a Boeing 777 can carry 450,000 iPhones at a cost of $242,000 to charter, a whopping $0.56 per phone.
I'm going to bet most of your iPhones are destined for Best Buy, Wal Mart, AT&T, Radio Shack, or similar. Those vendors probably want Apple to bulk-ship into their normal supply chain where they can be sorted and intermixed with other goods going to those stores.
> Well, to be fair, Kodak screwed themselves as well... they pretty much invented digital photography, but utterly failed to capitalize on it.
Well, yes and no. If Kodak had forged ahead in the digital revolution, they might be around now, but 1/10th the size, and more importantly, they might have started their destruction many years earlier.
Most disruptive technologies are things that massively shrink the number of dollars coming into the market. People don't buy much more X, they just pay 1/10 the price. When that's the decision you're facing, it often doesn't make sense to lead the charge to disintegrate your market. Far batter to eke out a few more years as a major player and then go down in flames than survive as a shell of the former company.
How many CEOs are congratulated in taking a billion dollar company and bravely leading it into becoming a $100 million dollar company? If they hold on for five years before the little fish get sufficient funding and mind-share and then retire, they can easily be thought of as the decent CEOs who retired before "that idiot who lost the company" took the reigns.
I stand corrected and offer apologies to GP.
You are right that we dealt with the big box chains, I figured we were also doing their online fulfillments since we did it for several other retailers and was very wrong.
Unfortunately the only other clear alternatives currently are to socialize the profits from the recent fourfold increase in productivity, (wage floors, unemployment, welfare, guarenteed minimum income, ect) or free market induced wage free-fall (Iron Law of Wages, and associated civil unrest). If only we dropped the work week with increase in productivity if they weren't offset with wages. We could be working 3 days a week and making about twice what me make now in real terms. Would serve to keep the demand side strong, giving incentive to build production capacity, yeilding more profits.
You're still limiting yourself to only a single company and a single industry.... Several companies and industries have sprung up or expanded in Kodak's wake.
Instagram was one small company, and it was ridiculously over-valued for the $1B purchase. It hardly qualifies as a "sole-heir" to the Kodak "kingdom" as the article implies. Google is only a single company. Add up the jobs created by Google, Microsoft, Facebook (not just the 13 from Instagram), Apple, Samsung, Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc... in the wake of Kodak going under.... It will probably exceed the number of people that Kodak employed.
Look at the LARGER picture. How many Engineering or other such "Skilled" jobs did we have in 1988? Compare that to now? We may have lost manufacturing jobs, but we gained in STEM related jobs during that same time-frame. Kodak's failure was not a consipracy against them. It was typical corporate decay... "Our current products are doing great, why bother putting R&D into this new-fangled stuff" (fast forward 25 years) "Oh shit, that stuff we ignored 25 years ago is huge now... Our bottom line is OK, but lets try to play R&D catch-up..." (fast forward 10 years) "Oh shit, we never caught up... Time to take a 'Golden Parachute' and let the company declare bankruptcy"
Don't blame the Internet, Social Networks, or any other inanimate object for Kodak's failure. Kodak failed because Kodak made too many crucial mistakes and willingly failed to keep up with market changes.
Not how it would have worked.
If you see something before everybody else you sell the future loser (e.g. the film division) to a competitor (e.g. Fugi, Agfa) then use the capital to buy the thing you see as being a future winner (e.g. Apple Computer Inc)
Looking back, Kodaks market cap in 1997 was 30 billion. Apples market cap in 1997 was a few billion. I bet they could have got enough for their film division to buy a controlling stake in Apple. In 1997 digital cameras mostly sucked. But they should have been able to see what was coming.
It would have changed history. I bet many Apple employees would have run for the door. Instead Kodak played safe and died.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'