Creative Destruction – Page 24

Pay Rebounds in Silicon Valley

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article cited below.

Silicon Valley’s nascent economic recovery gathered steam last year, with the nation’s technology capital adding more than 30,000 jobs and showing gains in areas such as average annual wages and household income.

That was the conclusion of an annual report from Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a nonprofit group representing businesses and government agencies in the San Francisco and San Jose, Calif., area.

"Silicon Valley is back and it’s rebooting," said Russell Hancock, Joint Venture’s president and chief executive. "This is familiar since the Valley has already done it five or six times over its history. It regroups, then reboots."

The report comes as Silicon Valley, which prospered during the dot-com frenzy in the late 1990s, has struggled to remake itself in the wake of the tech crash in 2000. In the years since, the region has experienced job losses and a slowdown in growth at many tech companies. The area began to turn the corner in 2005 when a net gain of 2,000 jobs was recorded, the first time since 2001 that there had been an overall increase in jobs. Start-up activity has also become widespread again, with Internet firms specializing in online video, social networking and "clean technology" springing up.

For the full story, see:

PUI-WING TAM. "No Longer Down in Silicon Valley Jobs, Wages Show Gains As Bust Fades Further; Small Firms Fuel Rebound." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., January 29, 2007): B5.

Barney Frank on Schumpeter’s “Great Concept”

Barney Frank. Source of photo: http://www.house.gov/frank/welcome.html

Policy-makers are often enthused by the innovation unleashed by Schumpeter’s process of creative destruction, but draw back out of fear of the destruction of jobs. In the passage below, Barney Frank expresses that fear.

I think that there are answers to the fear. More and better jobs are created, than destroyed; workers can invest in general skills that do not depreciate, and retool the specific skills that do depreciate; and conscientious workers suffer from lack of recognition and upward mobility, when creative destruction is stiffled. The pain is less than usually thought, and the gain is greater.

One of the consequences of this separation between economic growth and the well-being of the great majority of citizens is that an increasing number of citizens don’t care about economic growth. Not surprising. Not only do they not benefit, but in many cases they get the short-term disruptive effects.

I mean, there was a great concept from Joseph Schumpeter of creative destruction in which, as the old economic order is destroyed, resources are freed up for the new order.

Well, increasingly, we have people who see the destruction in their own lives, but don’t see that they’re going to be part of the new creation.

Source:

Transcript of remarks delivered at the National Press Club on "Wages" by Democratic Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, on January 3, 2007.

Toyota Turns from Incremental Change to Revolutionary Change

Source of graph: online version of WSJ article cited below.

(p. A1) TOYOTA CITY, Japan — The world sees Toyota Motor Corp. as an unstoppable profit juggernaut, overtaking rivals one by one as it rolls toward replacing General Motors Corp. as the world’s largest auto maker.

Not Katsuaki Watanabe. Toyota’s chief executive officer is a worried man. He thinks Toyota is losing its competitive edge as it expands around the world. He frets that quality, the foundation of its U.S. success, is slipping. He grouses that Toyota’s factories and engineering practices aren’t efficient enough. Within the company, he has even questioned a core tenet of Toyota’s corporate culture — kaizen, the relentless focus on incremental improvement.

U.S. and European car makers have spent years struggling to overhaul outdated operations and work practices to better compete with Toyota. By some measures, some of those companies are catching up. Now, driven by a severe dose of institutional paranoia, Mr. Watanabe is trying to move the target.

Mr. Watanabe, 64 years old, wants kakushin, or revolutionary change in how Toyota designs cars and factories. He is pushing Toyota to reduce the number of components it uses in a typical vehicle by half — a radical idea that would usher in a new chapter in car design. He also wants to create new fast and flexible plants to assemble these simplified cars.

For the full story, see:

NORIHIKO SHIROUZU. "Paranoid Tendency As Rivals Catch Up,Toyota CEO Spurs Big Efficiency Drive Culture of Institutional Worry Drives Mr. Watanabe; How Paint Is Like ‘Fondue’ Finding Limits to Improvement." Wall Street Journal (Sat., December 9, 2006): A1 & A6.

(I thank Aaron Brown for bringing this article to my attention.)

Silicon Graphics’ Jim Clark Understood Disruptive Innovation

There’s a great passage in The New, New Thing about Jim Clark trying to convince Silicon Graphics to produce a PC. Clark talks about how hard it is for a company to create a product that competes with itself.

Shades of Clayton Christensen:

Clark thought that Silicon Graphics had to "cannibalize" itself. For a technology company to succeed, he argued, it needed always to be looking to destroy itself. If it didn’t, someone else would. "It’s the hardest thing in business to do," he would say. "Even creating a lower-cost product runs against the grain, because the low-cost products undercut the high-cost, more profitable products." Everyone in a successful company, from the CEO on down, has a stake in whatever the company is currently selling. It does not naturally occur to anyone to find a way to undermine that creative destruction, and he was prepared to do the deed. He wanted Silicon Graphics to operate in the same self-corrosive spirit. (p. 66 of hb edition)

The reference to The New, New Thing is:

Lewis, Michael. The New New Thing: A Silicon Valley Story. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000.

Christensen’s most important book is:

Christensen, Clayton M., and Michael E. Raynor. The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

“Come With Me, If You Want to Live”

Schumpeter famously stated that creative destruction is "the essential fact" about capitalism. Was he right?

To determine what is "the essential fact" you need to first answer the question "essential for what purpose?" If the purpose is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then I think you can show that creative detruction is indeed the essential fact about capitalism; in the key sense that with creative destruction you have a form of capitalism that is best able to enhance "live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Terminator famously said "Come with me, if you want to live!" ("Terminator 2: Judgment Day," 1991). Life is a choice. You can choose death instead. Most people, most of the time, choose life. But there are examples of choosing death. E.g., Leon Kass, an oft-quoted "expert" on medical ethics issues, is against current efforts to lengthen the human life span:

(p. D4) While an anti-aging pill may be the next big blockbuster, some ethicists believe that the all-out determination to extend life span is veined with arrogance. As appointments with death are postponed, says Dr. Leon R. Kass, former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics, human lives may become less engaging, less meaningful, even less beautiful.

“Mortality makes life matter,” Dr. Kass recently wrote. “Immortality is a kind of oblivion — like death itself.”

That man’s time on this planet is limited, and rightfully so, is a cultural belief deeply held by many. But whether an increasing life span affords greater opportunity to find meaning or distracts from the pursuit, the prospect has become too great a temptation to ignore — least of all, for scientists.

“It’s a just big waste of talent and wisdom to have people die in their 60s and 70s,” said Dr. Sinclair of Harvard.

(And there’s the occasional hermit, like the unibomber, who chooses to live a brutish life without electricity and indoor plumbing.) So long as I, Arnold, and our compatriots, are allowed an island somewhere to peacefully pursue life, I do not much care what Leon and his friends do. My argument, and the book I am writing on creative destruction, are not written for Leon. They are written for all those who choose life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The NYT quote related to Leon Kass’s praise of mortality, is from p. D4 of:

MICHAEL MASON. "One for the Ages: A Prescription That May Extend Life." The New York Times (Tues., October 31, 2006): D1 & D4.

Gerstner’s Insights on Business

Source of book image: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0060523794.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1122531345_.jpg

Gerstner is known for turning around IBM, when many business experts thought it was headed down the tubes. His book is useful as a report on what happened at IBM during his time as CEO, and also has some more broadly applicable observations. I’ll mention a few of these in this and a few other postings in the next couple of weeks.

It is interesting how many successful and important business leaders and experts have spent some time associated with the McKinsey consulting group, where Gerstner started his career. One major McKinsey figure, Richard Foster, is a strong advocate and elaborator of Schumpeter’s process of creative destruction.

I wonder if perhaps some of the success of McKinsey is due to the firm’s embracing and applying Schumpeter’s ideas?

Those who oppose creative destruction emphasize the destructive effect that the process has on some workers. In fact the effects on labor are seen by many (e.g., Thomas Friedman) who are otherwise sympathetic, to be the major drawback of the process. As a result some of them (e.g., Thomas Friedman) propose paternalistic ‘safety net’ labor policies.

We usually think of government as the main implementer of such policies, but among firms, IBM’s labor policies were among the most paternalistic. This is usually viewed as one of the positives about IBM. But one of Gerstner’s insights is to suggest that some of those in the IBM work force were hurt by IBM’s paternalistic policies:

(p. 186) . . . I came to feel that the real problem was not that employees felt they were entitled. They had just become accustomed to immunity from things like recessions, price wars, and technology changes. And for the most part, they didn’t even realize that this self-contained, insulated system also worked against them. I was shocked, for instance, to discover the pay disparities—particularly in very important technical and sales professions—of IBM comployess when comapred to the competition and the industry in general. Our best people weren’t getting what they deserved.

Maybe I should mention that I don’t endorse everything in the book. For example, Gerstner seems to think that a desire to "win" is crucial to success in business. But I think the analogy between business and competitive sports is usually taken too far. Can’t one also succeed in business from a desire to innovate and to improve the world?

The reference on the book is:

Gerstner, Louis V., Jr. Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? Leading a Great Enterprise through Dramatic Change. New York: HarperCollins, 2002.

(Note: in the quote, the ellipsis was added, but the italics was in the original.)

“Man in White Suit” Science Fiction, Now Nearly Science Fact

PART of what sold James Tirey on a change in attire was the coffee spilled on his legs during a rough flight. ”It stayed sticky until it dried,” he said, ”about mid-Atlantic.”

To avoid such incidents, he bought a new pair of pants with an invisible, high-tech surface suited to the exigencies of business travel. These pants look and feel like most others, but the ingenious finish on the fabric is different: it is made of tiny, nanosized particles that repel water, ketchup, honey, blood, vinaigrette and a thousand other potential indignities. With such a surface, he said, ”if coffee is spilled on you, it just beads up” or runs off. The pants can be wiped with a paper napkin — even the skimpy cocktail kind handed out on airplanes — leaving the material dry and unscathed.

Mr. Tirey, who lives in northern Virginia, bought his pants, called the Steel Pant, at Beyond, a Eugene, Ore., company that makes and sells outerwear for men and women at BeyondFleece.com. The material is manufactured by the Swiss company Schoeller Textil, which makes both the weave and the nanofinish, called NanoSphere. On the Beyond Web site, the pants cost $119, the nanocoating an additional $15. ”It was definitely worth the money,” Mr. Tirey said of the purchase.

For the full story, see:

ANNE EISENBERG. "NOVELTIES; The Chemist’s Find: A Way to Shrug Off Spills." The New York Times , Section 3(Sun., August 27, 2006): 5.

Big Business Is Often Bashed, But Is Not Always Bad

(p. 4) BUSINESS bashing by politicians in America has a long history, including rhetoric far more inflammatory than the denunciations being directed at Wal-Mart this year by some Democrats, who sometimes sound as if they are running against the company instead of another politician.

. . .

The company may not appreciate the honor, but its place in the political debate reflects its revolutionary effect on the American economy.

Put simply, the big winners as the economy changes have often been scary to many, particularly those with a stake in the old economic order being torn asunder.

“Twice as many Americans shop at Wal-Mart over the course of a year than voted in the last presidential election,” said H. Lee Scott Jr., the company’s chief executive, in a speech to the National Governors Association in February.

Wal-Mart’s success reflects its ability to charge less for a wide range of goods. That arguably has reduced inflation and made the economy more efficient. It has introduced innovations in managing inventory and shipping goods.

. . .

But the fact that Wal-Mart has more shoppers than any politician has voters shows that many of those workers — and many people higher on the income scale — find its prices irresistible. That group no doubt includes some of the company’s critics.

Previous business targets of politicians have similarly been both popular and reviled. The railroads enabled much of America to prosper, but to many people in the late 19th century they were viewed as villains.

They upset old economic relationships by making it possible to ship goods over much longer distances, thus introducing competition for local businesses and farms.

For the full commentary, see:

FLOYD NORRIS. "THE NATION; Swiping at Industry From Atop the Stump." The New York Times, Section 4 (Sun., August 20, 2006): 4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Illinois protesters bashing Wal-Mart during the summer of 2006. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited above.

More and Better Jobs Gained by ‘Insourcing’ than are Lost to ‘Outsourcing’

N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of W.’s Council of Economic Advisors. The media, most Democrats, and some Republicans, skewered Mankiw in 2004 for simply and clearly stating the truth about outsourcing. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited below.

In December 2005, the McKinsey Global Institute predicted that 1.4 million jobs would be outsourced overseas from 2004 to 2008, or about 280,000 a year. That’s a drop in the bucket. In July, there were 135.35 million payroll jobs in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thanks to the forces of creative destruction, more jobs are created and lost in a few months than will be outsourced in a year. Diana Farrell, director of the McKinsey Global Institute, notes that in May 2005 alone, 4.7 million Americans started new jobs with new employers.

What’s more, the threat of outsourcing varies widely by industry. Lots of services require face-to-face interaction for people to do their jobs. That is particularly true for the biggest sectors, retail and health care. As a result, according to a McKinsey study, only 3 percent of retail jobs and 8 percent of health care jobs can possibly be outsourced. By contrast, McKinsey found that nearly half the jobs in packaged software and information technology services could be done offshore. But those sectors account for only about 2 percent of total employment. The upshot: “Only 11 percent of all U.S. services job could theoretically be performed offshore,” Ms. Farrell says.

Economists have also found that jobs or sectors susceptible to outsourcing aren’t disappearing. Quite the opposite. Last fall, J. Bradford Jensen, deputy director at the International Institute of Economics, based in Washington, and Lori G. Kletzer, professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, documented the degree to which various service sectors and jobs were “tradable,” ranging from computer and mathematical occupations (100 percent) to food preparation (4 percent).

Not surprisingly, Mr. Jensen and Professor Kletzer found that in recent years there has been greater job insecurity in the tradable job categories. But they also concluded that jobs in those industries paid higher wages, and that tradable industries had grown faster than nontradable industries. “That could mean that this is our competitive advantage,” Mr. Jensen says. “In other words, what the U.S. does well is the highly skilled, higher-paid jobs within those tradable services.”

There is evidence that within sectors, lower-paying jobs are being outsourced while the more skilled ones are being kept here. In a 2005 study, Catherine L. Mann, senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics, found that from 1999 to 2003, when outsourcing was picking up pace, the United States lost 125,000 programming jobs but added 425,000 jobs for higher-skilled software engineers and analysts.

For the full commentary, see:

DANIEL GROSS. "Economic View; Why ‘Outsourcing’ May Lose Its Power as a Scare Word." The New York Times, Section 3 (Sun., August 13, 2006): 5.

U.S. Economy Can Prosper, Even if G.M. Does Not

The fragility of success for large corporations is documented in the early chapters of the Foster and Kaplan book that is mentioned below.

(p. 1) THE announcement last week that General Motors would cut 25,000 jobs and close several factories is yet another blow to the Goliath of automakers and its workers. But only if you work for G.M. is the company’s decline a worry. For consumers, the decline can be seen as a symbol of healthy competition.

G.M.’s sales, market share and work force have all been falling for a generation, even as the quality of its vehicles has gone up. Why? Because its competitors’ products have improved even more. Today’s auto buyers enjoy an unprecedented array of well-built, well-equipped, reasonably priced vehicles offered by many manufacturers.

. . .

(p. 3) . . . even if a new generation is drawn to G.M.’s products, recovery of its former position seems unlikely.  Other brands have improved, too:  J.D. Power estimates that for the auto industry overall, manufacturing defects declined 32 percent since 1998 alone.

There is also great pressure to hold prices down, which is bad for companies like G.M. with vast amounts of overhead.  According to the consumer price index, new cars and light trucks today cost less in real-dollar terms than in 1982, despite having air bags, antilock brakes, CD players, power windows and other features either unavailable or considered luxury options back then.

This means that during the very period that General Motors has declined, American car buyers have become better off.  Competition can have the effect of ”creative destruction,” in the economist Joseph Schumpeter’s famous term, harming workers in some places, while everyone else comes out ahead.

. . .

As it continues to shrink, G.M. may serve as an exemplar of what the world economy will do in many arenas — knock off established leaders, while improving quality and cutting prices. In their 2001 book ”Creative Destruction,” Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, analysts at McKinsey & Company, documented how even powerhouse companies that are ”built to last” usually succumb to competition.

Competition can be a utilitarian force that brings the greatest good to the greatest number. Someday when the remaining divisions of General Motors are bought by some start-up company that doesn’t even exist yet, try to keep that in mind.

For the full commentary, see:

GREGG EASTERBROOK. "What’s Bad for G.M. Is . . ." The New York Times, Section 4 (Sunday, June 12, 2005): 1 & 3.

(Note: the ellipsis in the title is in the original title; the ellipses in the article, were added.)

The full reference to the Foster and Kaplan book, is:

Foster, Richard and Sarah Kaplan. Creative Destruction: Why Companies that Are Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them. New York: Currency Books, 2001.