Excellent Series On US Jobs Creation and Possibilities

[Kathianne]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/


8/17/2011 @ 9:33AM |120,025 views Why Amazon Can't Make A Kindle In the USAAn economist is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Old joke based on Oscar Wilde’s quip about a cynic.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevedenning/files/2011/08/Chart-of-source-ofUS-products-300x188.jpg (http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevedenning/files/2011/08/Chart-of-source-ofUS-products.jpg)Yesterday I noted how conventional cost accounting (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/16/how-do-you-explain-radical-management-or-agile-to-a-cfo/) inexorably focuses attention of executives on increasing short-term profits by cutting costs.
The same thing happens in economics. Take a recent economic study that set out to shed light on role of Chinese businesses vis-à-vis American consumers. Galina Hale and Bart Hobijn, two economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, did a study showing that only 2.7 percent of U.S. consumers purchases have the “Made in China” label. Moreover, only 1.2% actually reflects the cost of the imported goods. Thus, on average, of every dollar spent on an item labeled “Made in China,” 55 cents go for services produced in the United States. So the study trumpets the finding that China has only a tiny sliver of the U.S. economy.
<aside class="vestpocket" data-position="6" style=""> Move up Move down

So no problem, right?
Well, not exactly. The tiny sliver happens to be the sliver that matters. What economists miss is what is happening behind the numbers of dollars in the real economy of people.
How whole industries disappear
...
</aside>

It's a 4 part series and the links to other 3 are found at the bottom of page. This and the next two are more than a bit alarming, the last gives some hope.

[fj1200]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/

It's a 4 part series and the links to other 3 are found at the bottom of page. This and the next two are more than a bit alarming, the last gives some hope.




Government: Government has a role to play in protecting and promoting fields of expertise or what Pisano and Shih call “the industrial commons”. Thus: “Government-sponsored endeavors that have made a huge difference in the past three decades include DARPA’s VLSI chip development program and Strategic Computing Initiative; the DOD’s and NASA’s support of supercomputers and of NSFNET (an important contributor to the Internet); and the DOD’s support of the Global Positioning System, to mention a handful.”
Politicians: At a time of poisonously divisive political debate, in which candidates recite anti-government mantras and call for “getting government out of the way of the private sector”, it is time for serious politicians to step up and examine which parts of the private sector are fostering, and which parts are destroying, the economy of the country. They must stop embodying e.e. cummings definition of a politician as “an ass upon which everyone has sat except a man.”



And we are to put this hope on two groups that IMO have put policies that have exacerbated the problem that they speak of? They actively promoted housing and you see where that got us, they are currently promoting "green" jobs and the benefits are fleeting there as well. I have zero faith that they have the ability to foster and promote anything so it's better that they just remove the interventions that they have put in place.

[Kathianne]

And we are to put this hope on two groups that IMO have put policies that have exacerbated the problem that they speak of? They actively promoted housing and you see where that got us, they are currently promoting "green" jobs and the benefits are fleeting there as well. I have zero faith that they have the ability to foster and promote anything so it's better that they just remove the interventions that they have put in place.

Actually I wasn't speaking, nor to be fair do I think the author was, on the specific groups cited. Instead the focus was on how to stop the flow and reverse it. A service economy alone is not going to produce the innovations needed.

[fj1200]

They were generic questions but clearly someone came up with that list. Besides I would have given my solution but I think everyone is tired of hearing it. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

They were generic questions but clearly someone came up with that list. Besides I would have given my solution but I think everyone is tired of hearing it. :laugh:

I try to read decent analysis of near any topic I find of interests. More interesting to me though are ideas that might change direction, simplistic or not, I liked the approach of laying out what has become systemic problems and using the last to provide some models that might change the flow.

[fj1200]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/

It's a 4 part series and the links to other 3 are found at the bottom of page. This and the next two are more than a bit alarming, the last gives some hope.

Did you read the source paper?
http://hbr.org/hbr-main/resources/pdfs/comm/fmglobal/restoring-american-competitiveness.pdf

[Kathianne]

Did you read the source paper?
http://hbr.org/hbr-main/resources/pdfs/comm/fmglobal/restoring-american-competitiveness.pdf

No, I did not. I've downloaded it now, but saw nothing in the 'points' that I find objectionable. I don't care what the authors premises may be; more important if they identify some threads that can be picked up.

[fj1200]

No, I did not. I've downloaded it now, but saw nothing in the 'points' that I find objectionable. I don't care what the authors premises may be; more important if they identify some threads that can be picked up.

I glanced it, it has the same tenor as your OP which is an over reliance on government to be able to decide the best course out.

[Kathianne]

I glanced it, it has the same tenor as your OP which is an over reliance on government to be able to decide the best course out.

The 4th article cites some examples, one includes 'state involvement' through plans, but others do not. If all government assistance was along the lines of this, I wouldn't be as government negative as I am:


...1. Indianapolis: Life Sciences Indianapolis—a quintessential Rust Belt city—is now the center of a statewide boom in the life-sciences business. It’s home to Eli Lilly & Co. [LLY] and WellPoint [WLP], the largest health plan company in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Indiana has added over 8,000 jobs in the life sciences in recent years. Over 800 medical-device companies, drug manufacturers and research labs are located there.


Big firms are leading the transformation, but they’re also helping smaller companies get started, by spinning off businesses and by investing in start-ups. Eli Lilly has contributed roughly $60 million to seed and venture funds that support entrepreneurs. Firms help each other, with employee referrals, work space suggestions and tax and financial ideas.


Maltby quotes Ron Ellis, CEO of Endocyte Inc., a 65-employee firm that’s testing a cancer treatment: “We have access to companies in Indiana where we can outsource functions like toxicology, analytics and clinical supply.”
2. San Antonio TX: Cyber-security Jeffrey Logsdon moved his cyber-security firm from Phoenix to San Antonio five years ago and saw revenue double within three years of the move. Logsdon told Maltby: “I’d attribute a lot of our success to the location. I think the availability of cyber-security talent and the low cost of doing business here has helped us. And because there are so many different cyber-security companies, we have improved each other’s business through partnerships.”


There are now more than 80 information-technology and cyber-related businesses in San Antonio, and that figure is increasing rapidly, according to the city’s Chamber of Commerce.
“The quantity of people here allowed us to show more discernment in our hiring,” says Logsdon. “It was the best place for us to find qualified and certified cyber-security professionals.”
3. Albany NY: Nanotechnology Albany now has more than 4,000 people in the nanotechnology industry, centered on the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering at the University at Albany. The school doubled in size during the recession to its current 800,000-square-foot complex. Dozens of nanotechnology companies have established a presence there to take advantage of research facilities and business incubators; since 2008, nearly 50 new start-ups have launched within its walls.


The development was part of a state plan to revive the economy in upstate New York. Financing came partly from the state and partly from corporations like IBM [IBM]. which now have offices there alongside entrepreneurs. Companies share the cost of equipment and labor—and start-ups get to associate themselves with big names.


“The prestige of being here and the credibility is amazing, which helps when you are talking with VCs and investors and large companies,” Primal Fernando, CEO of Resource Management

Technology Systems Inc told Maltby. “And the equipment available here is not available elsewhere.”

“Venture capital has been growing to feed the innovation,” Alain Kaloyeros, a physics professor and senior vice president of the college told Maltby. “Suppliers and law firms are moving to the region to support this ecosystem, so it will be quite an exciting venture to watch.”...