Check out this insightful presentation that Robert Kelly, a partner at Liguid Hub, presented during a workshop at the Global Creative Economy Convergence Summit held in June in Philly. He starts from the hypothesis that “creativity is not a commodity,” and does a great job framing many of the issues — from outsourcing and nationalism to the thickness and wide scope of the opportunities — facing IT professionals and software developers in today’s changing markets.
BTW, there are lots of other presentations on the Global Creative Economy Convergence Summit website worth taking a look at.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I would be interested in what else was said, particularly with regard to the H-1Bs and the new legislation giving proceeds from these fees to community colleges.
How we reward innovation depends to an extent on how firms are organized. When you have the boss looking over your shoulder, you will likely get $1,000 at most if you get a patent. If you are an entrepeneur you keep the whole thing but have to get your own patent attorney. If you are doing a large project, you have other team members who must be both managed and rewarded. For defense work, completing the task creatively but within defined and controlled parameters will demand more control. That part of the package has not gone away, although I don’t think the whole national security issue was addressed. With low creativity, there is also less tolerance. While firms may be tolerant on social issues, their tolerance of free expression is less. I write about how the 21st Century career might develop at http://www.geocities.com/bindner_space/careers.html
The whole H-1B issue highlights a troubling trend in technology, that of firing higher priced professionals and replacing them two with specialists for the same or less money. For a slightly dated piece on the H-1B question, see http://www.geocities.com/iowaequity/h-1blessons.html
One way for older workers to protect themselves is to own the company – not just as individuals but as a group. In this way, even if they need to cut salary to remain competitive they can shift compensation to stock awards and dividends (both deferred and current compensation and for longevity and performance). Family maintenance is also part of this equation. Younger workers don’t have families, so they are preferred. For a disccusion of pay reform within companies,go to http://www.geocities.com/iowaequity/PayEquity.html
For older creative workers (and younger workers eventually become older workers) some form of family compensation not linked to their base billable wage would remove the incentive to fire them. This works against the concept of “Versalist” workers. Smaller firms will find it harder to pay such a benefit and will be tempted to let their older workers go. Once these costs are segregated, the uneven distribution of them is a form of market failure which is best remedied by public means. This market failure exists currently, but it is hidden in the current wage structure. How to correct it is part of a tax reform package I proposed last year at http://www.geocities.com/iowaequity/taxreformproposal.html
As companies feel the pinch of a competitive economy, employee-ownership is one way that is used to extract concessions from labor. The challenge is to develop not only an ownership culture but one where authority and reward structures support this. Union workers, including both programmers and creative craft and entertainment workers, may also gain more control over their workplaces by shifting at least some of their pension fund investments from more diversified funds to more direct ownership. The other way to increase worker investment in the workplace is Social Security reform in the United States. The currently dormant reform sees workers having personal retirement accounts diverted from Social Security – with possible additional savings as well included – invested in a diversified portfolio. It is good that this reform is dormant, for it only increases the power of management and the investment banking class. This reform would be more palatable if there were an option for more direct investment in one’s own workplace. The way such a firm would work is further discussed at http://www.geocities.com/iowaequity/Governance.html
The Social Security option is discussed at http://www.geocities.com/iowaequity/socialsecurityandownership.html
The Social Security question points to a key factor in the economy, the aging crisis, which has globalization impacts – especially in how first Mr. Clinton and now Mr. Bush want to deal with Social Security’s imbalance – through diversivified investment. This offshores the problem by having American consumers and the people they buy from off-shore the production of their goods and services. This is relevant to Social Security because for many firms, the profit that is generated comes back to the United States – or the undervalued foreign portion generates profit that is realized by the American portion of the supply chain. This profit is essentially a way to have foreign workers contribute to the retirement of the American baby boomers. This is only a temporary expedient, as eventually workers demand more money, become more educated, more productive and organize – destroying the competitive advantate in that offshored the job in the first place. Unless the aging crisis is addressed by creating more creative people to both consume and produce products, the baby boom with any stock fund which depends on foreign labor will find out that you can’t really eat a stock certificate. For more on this, see http://www.geocities.com/iowaequity/SocialSecurityCrisis.html
August 15th, 2006 at 1:06 am
Did I scare everyone off?
Richard, do you have any comments on any of this?