Technology: The Central Issue in the Election

It's the morning after. The people have spoken and the people say they can't agree on either who should lead them or on what the real issues are.  By a narrow slice of the popular vote (but a strong majority in the electoral vote), President Obama returns to the White House for a second term. But looking at the Red State - Blue State map of the country shows just how differently people feel in broad swaths of the country.

The drumbeat of this last election was jobs and the middle class - the economy.  But that is only the symptom. One cause of our distress is the unstoppable forward flow of technology.  Technology gives us our prosperity but (reflecting the economist Joseph Schumpeter's famous phrase) it also brings creative destruction.  The unemployed (and worse, the unemployable) might argue that destruction is never creative.

Technology raises our standard of living. We enjoy the benefits of the technology every day of our lives. Most of us love new technology. We are willing to stand in line for hours to get the newest iPhone or iPad. We love our DVRs, our internet, our reliable cars, and our ATMs.  We notice the loss immediately when there is a temporary power blackout. When a big natural disaster occurs, as just happened with Hurricane Sandy, we are literally off the grid. We can no longer function without the technologies that support us.

Technology, like time, moves in only one direction: forward. Older technologies are replaced with better versions or are made entirely obsolete by new technologies.  It is that change that brings so much disruption.  People whose skills are based on an old technology lose their jobs. They don't have the skills for the economy enabled by the new technology. It is not that they need to somehow just get retrained to do the same job using a little newer technology. The old job is gone forever, replaced by technology. It's the same story whether you think of a manufacturing job now automated by robotics or a bank teller replaced by a computer-enabled ATM.  The bank teller can't take a computer class and compete with the ATM. Technology has simply wiped out the need for the human teller.

And so this election which seemed on the surface to be about jobs and the economy is really about how to cope with changing technology. How do people find work in the new economy when they lack the skills needed? The answer is always the same: re-education.  People need to get themselves retooled just as their former workplaces have been retooled.  This is by no means easy. Most people have mortgages, children to support, bills to pay. How do you they gain new skills when they can barely put food on the table?  I believe this is one of the most important issues we face in the coming decades. Because technology isn't going to take a breather. It isn't going to stop at this point and say in effect, "Time-out to catch up." The engine of creative destruction will continue to inexorably plow forward. The single skill that everyone should learn is the ability to continually re-educate ourselves. Obsolescence is not a theoretical discussion. It is critical to putting food on the table.

Technology contributed to this election in more subtle ways than simply displacing workers with automation. The very nature of new, computerized technology allowed financial institutions to play fast and loose with our money in unprecedented new ways. The result was the financial meltdown.  But that same technology provides the ability to attract foreign investments and allows more effective competition in global markets. But if you just lost your home to a mortgage foreclosure, foreign investments seem irrelevant. It feels like an economic problem, not a technology issue.

So where do we look for relief from problems that are enabled by new technology? Still newer technology will bring some relief but also new problems.  We will need everyone to understand these issues more clearly. We will need the means to continually redevelop job skills. We will need better schools for our children that prepare them for this exponentially-changing world. We will need more ways to retool in mid-life. We will need the leadership at every level - business, government, community - that helps us to manage the inevitable changes ahead.

While I might sound naively utopian, I believe that it can be done. Why? Because we have done this over and over again in our history. Think of the changes that occurred when manufacturing was first industrialized in the 19th century. Think of the impact of electrification, the automobile, and the internet. All these have made our lives immeasurably better. But they made many skills obsolete. We don't need telegraph operators or buggy whip makers. We have managed our way somehow through the changes. We will continue to do so. It has never been easy. But I believe in technology and I believe even more, I believe in people's ability to adapt.

That Should Still Be Us

I saw an article in our local paper, the Raleigh News and Observer, entitled, Industries Fear New Wage Rules. The article was exploring the new wage rules that are being imposed by the Department of Labor on industries that hire immigrant workers on H2-B, temporary work visas.  Wages are projected to increase, on average, almost 50 percent - from $7.43 an hour to $11.18 an hour under the new rules. The higher wage is in line with the minimum wage paid in most regions. The reporter interviewed a number of small industry owners such as oyster processors, reforestation services, and even hotel owners for the impact of the upcoming change in the law. Not surprisingly, the owners are not happy, feeling that the increase in the wages they will have to pay will drive many of them out of business. Not a good deal.

But what struck me in the story was a couple of paragraphs in the article:

Employers say that they rely on foreign workers for the dirty, back-breaking tasks that Americans aren't willing to do - even with the current high unemployment rate.  And, they stress, they're required to document their efforts to hire Americans before the government permits them to hire foreign workers.

Further on, the article states:

Susan Pentz, 60, who along with her husband owns the 18-room Harborside Motel on Ocracoke Island, has been bringing in two housekeepers each tourist season for the past decade. She turned to foreign workers, she said, after struggling to hire locals and discovering that those she was able to hire soon quit or showed up only when they felt like it. "The bottom line is, I ended up cleaning the rooms because... no wanted to do that kind of manual labor," Perez said.

I read this article just after I finished reading Tom Friedman's and Michael Mandelbaum's new book, That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back. The authors of the book are trying to get us to focus on the multiple forces are in play that are causing us to slide from the leadership position we have enjoyed since at least the end of World War II.



The Big Challenges in their minds are:

1. Globalization and  the Information Technology Revolution
2. The Return of Strong Middle Class Jobs
3. Rising National Debt and the Deficit
4. The Need for Green and Clean Energy

They spend quite a bit of time documenting each of these areas in what amounts to a rehash of other news articles and their own past opinion pieces. Still, the case is compelling that these are. indeed, major issues that need to be addressed.

To address these issues, they outline what they call the Five Pillars of Prosperity:

1. Providing much better public education for more and more Americans
2. Continuing to build and modernize our infrastructure
3. Keeping America's doors open to immigration
4. Government support for basic R&D
5. Implementing limited but necessary regulation on private economic activity

The authors make the case that we basically got fat and happy when we won the Cold War.  At just that moment, we should have been redoubling our efforts to compete in a global economy. Instead, we borrowed our way to an unsustainable way of life.  But the bills have now come due on both a personal and national level. Worse, the current political system is so broken as to prevent any meaningful action to address the Big Challenges. 

Their solution? They think we need a strong, centrist, third-party Presidential candidate. They acknowledge from the outset that the candidate most likely won't win. But the candidate could force whoever does win to take note of their more centrist platforms. They even suggest three past third-party candidates who did just that - Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose candidacy to continue to build Progressive reforms in 1912, George Wallace in 1968 who forced Washington to pay attention to the South, and Ross Perot in his 1992 bid to address national budget deficits (they didn't mention Ralph Nader).  Each of these candidates caused the incoming President to enact reforms that the Third-Party candidate strongly campaigned to bring to the nation's attention. The authors call this strategy political Shock Therapy. 

And what does all this have to do with the history of technology? Everything. This country was built on the backs of immigrant labor manning the steel mills and garment sweatshops. The entrepreneurs who built American business developed countless new technologies that changed our way of life. Think telephones, automobiles, televisions, personal computers, and cell phones. To make all of these objects that we now take for granted required more and more skilled labor in the factories. A Middle Class with rising expectations that their lives would be better, and their children's lives better yet, was born, at least in part from a strong public education system. By comparison, for the last decade, data indicates that the Middle Class has not advanced economically one dime. In fact, they may be worse off than they were ten years ago.

Technology and democracy have always played key roles in making the United States a place where people wanted to live. For many in the Third World, it still holds that attraction. But I agree with Friedman and Mandelbaum - something needs to change and change fast. We are well past the dithering stage. 

The immigrant workers who come to North Carolina to take temporary jobs are looking for a better life, just as millions of immigrants did before them. They are willing to do what Americans are not, and I'm not just talking about the menial jobs they do. They are willing to leave their home country and families to try to make a little better living than they can at home. How many of our own, even highly-educated people, are willing to leave their country for better opportunities in China or India?  Not as many as those who come the other way for poor wages and lousy living conditions. 

Let's try to get technology back to producing the jobs we need to help all of us be in the position where we can look forward to a better future.  We are still the best hope for a brighter world. 

Technology and the City: For Better and For Worse

Roosevelt Center
Greenbelt, MD

The city was created by technology. Technology has also made the city a poorer place to live. This cycle of creation and degradation has gone on since people started building their mud and straw huts close together. The by-products of cohabitation, whether sewage or air pollution or even epidemic diseases, has been the price one paid for living close to markets or places of work.

This pattern was reinforced for me by a film I happened upon entitled simply The City. The  film is a documentary created for the 1939 New York World's Fair City of Tomorrow which was part of the Futurama exhibit.  The film was the brainchild of Catherine Bauer Wurster who was the leading member of a small group of idealists known as "The Housers" who were committed to improving housing for low-income families. The New York architect, Robert D. Kohn, shared her interest in low-income housing and commissioned the documentary.

The film focused much of its attention on the planned community of Greenbelt, Maryland which was constructed under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal as a model community. The idea was to build an ideal community near Washington, D.C. to relieve a severe housing shortage in the area of the Capital which existed at that time.  Two other cities were also planned and built - Greendale, Wisconsin (near Milwaukee) and Greenhills, Ohio (near Cincinnati).

The film was originally written by FDR's filmmaker, Pare Lorentz, but was re-scripted by the noted architectural critic and advocate of planned suburban communities, Lewis Mumford. Interestingly, the documentary's music was the first commissioned film score for composer Aaron Copeland and had largely been forgotten until this film was rediscovered in the archives a few years ago.

When I watched the film (which is available on YouTube in four parts), I was struck by how many of the problems we face today were already there in 1938: traffic congestion, over-crowding, air pollution, and terrible housing for low-income people. The model city of Greenbelt, MD looks like a little utopia compared to the squalor of the mill towns and the congestion of New York City. In many ways, however, the future longed for in the film has come to pass. Many of us live in nicely laid out suburban communities with good roads, schools, housing, and shopping. Yet many of the problems are still with us or have even grown worse over time. Despite our advancing technology, the city remains challenged to perpetually come up with new - mostly technical - solutions.

Quite coincidentally, the latest special issue of Scientific American is about the future of cities.  Must be something in the air about cities lately. I keep coming across all these connections. In any event, the 1939 documentary is linked below. If you want a better view, click through to the YouTube site and watch the video.

The Aging of Innovation in America

[Image of Edison's lightbulb from patent application of 1880]

As individuals, it is pretty easy to know when we have passed our prime.  If we are lucky, the first sign isn't that we read our obituary in the paper.  It shows up in little things: pants that seem to have shrunk, skin that seems to hang a little looser, difficulty in remembering what I had for dinner last night, stairs that seem to have gotten steeper.  We fight it or we deny it, but biology has the last word.  And everyone passes beyond their prime at some point.

How about an economy, or more specifically, the American economy?  Nations grow and decline like all things based on living systems.  Where's the United States on the curve?  What is the equivalent of a "sagging chin line" for an economy?  Three things come immediately to mind.  One is the rate of growth of the economy, with the operative word being "rate".  This is the good-old Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, statistic. A second is innovation, which is one of the key drivers of growth. This is a little trickier to measure objectively.  Patents might be a measure but most studies say they are not a good surrogate for innovation. The third is a steadily increasing personal income.  If people aren't finding themselves any better off over time, people catch on to that fact quickly.

I have seen a number of articles recently that make me seriously worry about where we are as far as the country's economic maturity is concerned.  We seem to be, more and more, rushing into a period of serious aging as though we had blown the diet and stopped going to they gym for a little toning. The most recent article I saw was Business Week's annual list of the 50 Most Innovative Companies.  In an accompanying article, the Business Week reporters, Michael Arndt and Bruce Einhorn,  wrote:

The shift [in U.S. innovativeness] is more apparent when this year's class is compared with the first ranking in 2005. Back then, only six of the Top 20 were headquartered outside the U.S., vs. 13 of 25 this year. In addition a third of 2005's American champs—such names as 3M, Starbucks, and eBay—no longer make the Top 50.

The article also reports that most management in Asian companies treat innovation as a high priority with over 90 percent stating that they plan to invest in increased innovation efforts.  U.S. managers, by comparison, are planning similar investments in only 48 percent of the companies interviewed.

It's nice to see that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and IBM are the top four on the 2010 list.  But this isn't nearly enough to offset the relative losses which show up not only in innovation rankings but in 2.4 million off-shored manufacturing jobs in the last decade.

Looking at my other two leading indicators, GDP in the U.S. has been decreasing for the past six years - well before the current recession began.  Personal income adjusted for inflation has been flat for a decade or more.

All in all, our Economic Report Card is definitely looking more like a C- than something that might get us into the National Honor Society.  But it is not enough to simply rant about needing more innovation (although venting can be useful at times).  I might have thought that the near total collapse of the auto, banking, and housing industries would raise some serious concerns about the viability of the economy and our competitiveness.  I wonder what it will really take to get us to pay attention?

In the past, the American economy grew not because there were calls from Washington or from editorials to be more innovative.  The economy grew and innovators had an impact because there were opportunities to exploit.  Innovators and entrepreneurs saw unmet needs and worked their tails off to fill the need.  It's still happening.  Apple, Google, Microsoft, and IBM all employ lots of very smart people.  The problem is that the rest of the economy, the manufacturing and service economy that pulled up the middle class has been farmed out to low-wage countries.  That's the gap that has to be filled.  How do we bring innovation to create jobs that pay decent wages for the people in the middle-class of a post-industrial society?  I don't know the answer but I think it is the right question.  That's at least a start.

Stopping a 70-Foot Long Truck On a Dime

Driving on I-95 today, we passed many semi-trucks (and a few even passed us).  As we passed these 53-foot rigs (that's just the length of the trailer, not the whole tractor-trailer which is closer to 70 feet), I was thinking back on one of my earlier careers where I worked for a time developing anti-skid braking systems for big rigs like the ones we were passing.

In the early 1970's, the Federal Government passed a law that said that heavy trucks (e.g., tractor-trailers, cement carriers, and even school buses) had to be able to stop in a straight line within something like 350 feet from a speed of 60 mph.  While the regulation didn't specify how this was to be done, the only practical way was by using anti-skid (otherwise known as antilock) brakes.  Brake systems like this had long been employed on passenger aircraft and the systems were becoming more common on automobiles.  But antilock brakes were completely new to trucks.  The trucking companies hated the idea.  It would mean that they would have to invest in expensive, new (and as yet unproven) technology.  To save money in those days, lots of trucking companies would take trailers on the road with at least some of the wheels having brakes that were known to be defective.  With the mandate, not only would they have to buy the antilock systems, they would have to actually fix the brakes.  I thought about this often as I was next to a truck on the highway.  I still do.

Nonetheless, the braking requirement was already a law and we set about developing a system that would work on heavy trucks.  I will spare you the gory details except to say that we finally managed to get a system working.  The company that I worked for (Kelsey-Hayes) had a test track that had been an Army Aircorps runway during World War II.  Here I was, a 25-year old engineer, driving a truck that was configured to weigh as much as a fully loaded cement truck, going down a runway at 60 mph.  The truck had been fitted out with our antilock brakes and in the cab next to me were all of these recording instruments to measure various parameters of the braking system while we put it through its paces.

After getting up to speed and making sure everything seemed to be working.  I literally stomped on the brake pedal to see how fast I would stop this monster.  I don't think I can convey what it felt like to be riding in this rig that seemed to actually be hopping down the pavement like some bucking bronco as it shuddered to a halt.  The instruments were banging back and forth against the dash...and so was I.  But the truck stopped in the required distance.  I had to peel my fingers off the steering wheel and sit there for a few moments before I could even look at the test results.

A system like this is never developed in one test or even a hundred tests, but eventually we had a working system.  And what happened?  The trucking companies lobbied the government and had the law rescinded.  Antilock brakes were no longer required and without the legal mandate, there was no market. Our system died.  As far as I know, they are still not required on heavy trucks.

I have driven a lot more miles over the intervening years and I have seen quite a few accidents where trucks have either careened off the road or been involved with multi-vehicle crashes.  I often wonder what might have happened if these trucks had been equipped with antilock brakes?  I know it wouldn't have prevented all these accidents but I believe that it would have helped.  But when the choice for the trucking companies came down to cost or safety, cost won.

From what I read, the NHTSA has had a mandate in place for a number of years which requires a stopping distance from 60 MPH of 335 feet or less.  In 2012, the mandate is going to get even stricter.  Heavy trucks will have to be able to stop in 225 feet.  There is still no explicit requirement for how the technology to meet the requirements but at least the limits are getting tougher.  Who knows?  Maybe a new generation of young engineers will develop the antilock truck brakes that we had attempted to bring to the highway.  I hope so.

Technology: The Platform for the Game

I was thinking about the game, Monopoly.  Almost everyone could draw a reasonable approximation of what the game board looks like.  Even the expressions from the game like, "Do not pass Go and Do not collect $200," are understood in our culture to mean you somehow screwed up.  Curious, I checked Wikipedia and sure enough they had an article on the history of this venerable game.

The game as we know it (now owned by Hasbro) was introduced by Parker Brothers in 1935.  The supposed inventor who came up with the game was an unemployed salesman named Charles Darrow.  I was not surprised to see that Darrow was, in fact, only the last in a thirty-year chain of inventors who had contributed to the creation of the game.

The first inventor was a woman named Elizabeth Magie who patented a very similar game idea in 1903.  The picture at the right shows her game board from her patent. She called it "The Landlord's Game." But Lizzie didn't sell the game commercially.  She made her own board and taught her friends and it "went viral", in an early 20th Century sort of way.  The game kept being refined and passed on until it finally made it to Darrow who patented the now-familiar board and then tried to sell it to Parker Brothers.  Like the history of so many great ideas, Parker Brothers listened and then...they turned him down cold.  Darrow persisted and started selling his own version of the game in his hometown of Philadelphia.  Parker Brothers heard it was selling well so they offered Darrow a deal.  Like many ideas, when you look at them a little harder you find that they have many contributors, not just a single inventor.

So what prompted me to be thinking about Monopoly?  I was thinking that it could be a good analogy for the three big forces that make up modern life: Business (or the Economy if you prefer), Government, and Technology.  Of course, this is not all there is to life.  You also have American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.  But I do think these three are the major drivers of the world we live in.  The Monopoly game obviously represents Business or the Economy.  Buying and selling, banking, real estate, transportation - this is the competitive world of free markets. Isn't it ironic that the winner of the game completely wipes out free markets and achieves a complete monopoly?  Government represents the rules of the game.  It sets out what can and cannot be done.  In the parlance of business, "it levels the playing field." Government also runs programs for public safety (the jail) and the entitlement programs like Community Chest.  Government plays a critical function in the game. Without rules, the game would degenerate into chaos.

So where is Technology in my little analogy?  Technology is the platform that the game board sits upon.  It provides the underpinnings for Business.  The Monopoly board is, of course, static, i.e., no new properties can be added to the board.  There is no Google or Microsoft. But in the real world, technology is the one of the greatest contributors to new enterprises (i.e., properties) being brought into the game.  Without technology and innovation, we are stuck in a world which is based almost solely on real estate (kinda like Florida).  There is only so much real estate and the board never gets any bigger.

Many of the troubles we are now facing can be traced to the fact that we are generating new technology at a slower rate than we have in the past.  Our inventiveness is slowing down.  For instance, patent filings in the U.S. declined for the first time in over a decade.

Compared with other countries, we are no longer as innovative as we once were.  That does not bode well for the future.  We need to be doing more to support R&D in both our businesses, our universities, and our national labs.  If we think our economy is hurting now, wait and see what it will be like in another decade if we continue on the current track.  It won't be pretty.

Government can do a lot to help through tax policies, education initiatives, trade agreements, and assuring better broadband internet access.  Business has to get more innovative and be willing to stick its neck out a little further to support new ideas.   We, as a nation, have to try to understand better how the new global game is now being played to see that changes are not just suggestions, but mandates.   Like it or not, technology has been driving our world since the Industrial Revolution began over two hundred years ago.  As we move ever deeper into the Knowledge Economy, we have to do what is required to remain competitive.  Monopoly was invented deep in the Great Depression to provide a game to let people get their minds off their troubles.  We don't want to see our Great Recession become another breeding ground for fantasy business board games.