Economics of Technology – Page 19

Decrease in Number of Tech Startups Results in Less Job Creation

(p. A10) Since 2002, the number of technology startups has slowed, hurting job creation. In a 2014 study, economists Javier Miranda, John Haltiwanger and Ian Hathaway said the growth of tech startups accelerated to 113,000 in 2001 from 64,000 in 1992.
That number slumped to 79,000 in 2011 and hasn’t recovered, according to the economists’ calculations using updated data. The causes include global competition and increased domestic regulation, says Mr. Haltiwanger, an economics professor at the University of Maryland.

For the full story, see:
Jon Hilsenrath and Bob Davis. “‘America’s Dazzling Tech Boom Has a Downside: Not Enough Jobs.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Oct. 13, 2016): A1 & A10.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Oct. 12, 2016, and has the title “‘America’s Dazzling Tech Boom Has a Downside: Not Enough Jobs.”)

The Haltiwanger paper mentioned above, is:
Haltiwanger, John, Ian Hathaway, and Javier Miranda. “Declining Business Dynamism in the U.S. High-Technology Sector.” Feb. 2014.

Internet Innovations Only Arose After Entrepreneurs Created PCs

(p. B15) Leo L. Beranek, an engineer whose company designed the acoustics for the United Nations and concert halls at Lincoln Center and Tanglewood, then built the direct precursor to the internet under contract to the Defense Department, died on Oct. 10 [2016] at his home in Westwood, Mass.
. . .
After the war, Dr. Beranek was recruited to teach at M.I.T., where he was named technical director of the engineering department’s acoustics laboratory. The administrative director of that lab was Richard Bolt, who later founded Bolt, Beranek & Newman with Dr. Beranek and Robert Newman, a former student of Dr. Bolt’s.
The company was conceived as a center for leading-edge acoustic research. But Dr. Beranek changed its direction in the 1950s to include a focus on the nascent computer age.
“As president, I decided to take B.B.N. into the field of man-machine systems because I felt acoustics was a limited field and no one seemed to be offering consulting services in that area,” Dr. Beranek said in a 2012 interview for this obituary.
He hired J.C.R. Licklider, a pioneering computer scientist from M.I.T., to lead the effort, and it was Dr. Licklider who persuaded him that the company needed to get involved in computers.
Under Dr. Licklider, the company developed one of the best software research groups in the country and won many critical projects with the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies. Though Dr. Licklider left in 1962, the company became a favored destination for a new generation of software developers and was often referred to as the third university in Cambridge.
“We bought our first digital computer from Digital Equipment Corporation, and with it we were able to attract some of the best minds from M.I.T. and Harvard, and this led to the ARPA contract to build the Arpanet,” Dr. Beranek said.
“I never dreamed the internet would come into such widespread use, because the first users of the Arpanet were large mainframe computer owners,” he said. “This all changed when the personal computer became available. With the PC, I could see that computers were fun, and that is the real reason why all innovations come into widespread use.”

For the full obituary, see:

GLENN RIFKIN. “Leo Beranek, 102, Who Pivoted From Acoustics to Computers, Dies.” The New York Times (Tues, OCT. 18, 2016): B15.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date OCT. 17, 2016, and has the title “Leo Beranek, Acoustics Designer and Internet Pioneer, Dies at 102.” )

Automation Raises Productivity, Consumer Spending, and Creates New Jobs

(p. B1) Since the 1970s, when automated teller machines arrived, the number of bank tellers in America has more than doubled. James Bessen, an economist who teaches at Boston University School of Law, points to that seeming paradox amid new concerns that automation is “stealing” human jobs. To the contrary, he says, jobs and automation often grow hand in hand.
Sometimes, of course, machines really do replace humans, as in agriculture and manufacturing, says Massachusetts Institute of Technology labor economist David Autor in a succinct and illuminating TED talk, which could have served as the headline for this column. Across an entire economy, however, Dr. Autor says that’s never happened.
. . .
(p. B4) . . . a long trail of empirical evidence shows that the increased productivity brought about by automation and invention ultimately leads to more wealth, cheaper goods, increased consumer spending power and ultimately, more jobs.
In the case of bank tellers, the spread of ATMs meant bank branches could be smaller, and therefore, cheaper. Banks opened more branches, and in total employed more tellers, Mr. Bessen says.

For the full commentary, see:
CHRISTOPHER MIMS. “KEYWORDS; Automation Actually Can Lead to More Job Creation.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., Dec. 12, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Dec. 11, 2016, and has the title “KEYWORDS; Automation Can Actually Create More Jobs.”)

Bessen more fully presents his ATM example in his book:
Bessen, James. Learning by Doing: The Real Connection between Innovation, Wages, and Wealth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015.

Flaws in Early Tech, Solved by Later and Better Tech

(p. A2) Mr. Mokyr says innovators gravitate to society’s greatest needs. In previous eras, it was cheap and rapid transport, reliable energy, and basic health care. Today, seven of the top 10 problems he says are most in need of innovative solutions are instances of bite-back. They include global warming, antibiotic resistance, obesity and information overload. Fixing these problems may weigh heavily on growth. Yet Mr. Mokyr argues past productivity was overstated because it didn’t include those costs.
Nonetheless, he’s an optimist. For every unintended consequence one innovation brings, another innovation will find the answer. Fluoridation cured tooth decay, and automotive engineers found alternatives to leaded gasoline. And distracted driving? Driverless cars may take care of that plague before long.

For the full commentary, see:
GREG IP. “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; When Tech Bites Back: The Cost of Innovation.” The New York Times (Thurs., Oct. 20, 2016): A2.
(Note: the online version of the commentaty has the date Oct. 19, 2016, and has the title “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; When Tech Bites Back: Innovation’s Dark Side.”)

Winemakers Adapt to Global Warming with Owls and Technology

(p. 7) As California heats up, winemakers are confronting new challenges large and small — some very small.
Mice, voles and gophers love vineyards. “We’re seeing more pest pressures due to warmer winters,” Ms. Jackson said, walking through rows of cabernet grapes. Another emerging issue: Grapes ripen earlier, and swallows and crows are eating fruit before the harvest. “It’s a big problem,” she said.
That explains the owls. Sixty-eight boxes are occupied by hungry barn owls; during the harvest, a falconer comes to some vineyards every day, launching a bird of prey to scare away other birds with a taste for grapes.
The Jacksons have also begun analyzing their crops with increasingly sensitive tools. Ms. Jackson recently installed devices that measure how much sap is in the vines. They transmit the data over cellular networks to headquarters, where software calculates how much water specific areas of vineyards do or don’t need. “Data-driven farming,” Ms. Jackson said.
The Jacksons are also monitoring their crops using drones equipped with sensors that detect moisture by evaluating the colors of vegetation. The wrong color can indicate nutritional deficiencies in the crops, or irrigation leaks.
“Previously, it would require an experienced winemaker to go and look at the grapes,” said Clint Fereday, the company’s director of aviation. “Now we can run a drone, tag an area of the vines with GPS, and go right to the spot that has a problem.”
The drones have other uses, too. An infrared camera can scan for people guarding illicit marijuana operations on nearby lands.
Not all the changes being made on the Jackson vineyards involve advanced technology. Some are simply ancient farming techniques that the drought has made increasingly relevant.
Field hands plant cover crops, like rye and barley, between every second row of vines, to help keep the soil healthy. The family is stepping up its composting program. Pressed grapes are composted, then placed beneath rows of vines, since the organic matter is better at retaining moisture than soil.
Ms. Jackson’s husband, Shaun Kajiwara, is a vineyard manager for the company, overseeing the grapes that go into many of the upscale labels.
. . .
Ultimately, Mr. Kajiwara believes that with the right mix of new rootstocks, cover crops and fortuitous rainfall, some of the Jackson vineyards might not need irrigation at all. “In a few years, I think we could be dry-farmed up here,” he said. “Our reservoir will just be insurance.”
It is a snapshot of the future for the Jackson family: a vineyard north of traditional wine country, where natural features might offset some of the deleterious effects wrought by climate change. And, in combination with the adaptations Ms. Jackson has put in place, it might just be enough to allow the company to keep making fine wines for many years to come.

For the full story, see:
DAVID GELLES. “A Winery Battles Warming.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., JAN. 8, 2017): 1 & 6-7.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date JAN. 5, 2017, and has the title “Falcons, Drones, Data: A Winery Battles Climate Change.”)

NASA Funding Depends on “Pure Pork-Barrel Politics”

(p. A15) “Beyond Earth” is delightfully different from any other book I’ve ever read by human-spaceflight cheerleaders. The authors have put their thinking caps on and broken out of the usual orthodoxy by presenting cogent ideas on why humans should go into space, including their lovely idea of going to and living on obscure (to most folks) Titan. We go, they say, because we need to go, not just to explore and study but to find another place to live and, if we want to, screw it up just as much as we have screwed up Earth, because that’s what we do, that’s what makes us human. We may make mistakes but, by God, we also produce great civilizations and art and, yes, science in the process. We’ve done Earth, so let’s now go wherever our abilities take us and physics allow.
. . .
The one great truth I always tell people wanting to understand the American space program is this: The federal government doesn’t give a flip about human spaceflight. That’s why Apollo was canceled just as it hit its stride, why the shuttle program was underfunded from its inception, and why, after the shuttle was retired, NASA had nothing to replace it with. No one who holds the purse strings for NASA really cares whether American astronauts ever go anywhere. It’s just not that important to a country beset with a vast array of pressing problems.
What keeps the current space program going at all is pure pork-barrel politics. That’s why President Obama didn’t blink an eye when he signed NASA budgets that provided funds to build a giant rocket called the Space Launch System, which has no well-defined purpose, as well as a crewed capsule called Orion, which has no specifically assigned places to go. As proof that spending money isn’t evidence of support, there wasn’t one dime in those budgets to procure and deliver the accouterments needed for true human space endeavors–no space suits, no planetary landers, no rovers, no habitats, nothing but the bottom and top of a big, expensive rocket that will require a vast marching army to operate for no apparent reason.

For the full review, see:
HOMER HICKAM. “BOOKSHELF; Forget Mars, Aim for Titan.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., December 16, 2016): A15.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Dec. 15, 2016,)

The book under review, is:
Wohlforth, Charles, and Hendrix. Amanda R. Beyond Earth: Our Path to a New Home in the Planets. New York: Pantheon, 2016.

Government Wastes Millions on Corrupt Nanotech Boondoggle

(p. A19) In Utica, a former industrial hub in upstate New York where the near collapse of manufacturing has made for a scarcity of jobs and a rarity of good news, the announcement in August 2015 that an Austrian chip maker had decided to put down roots in a fabrication plant built by the state was cause for jubilation.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo celebrated with an appearance in Utica, promising $585 million in state funds to cement the public-private partnership, which was to create 1,000 jobs. Some in the crowd wept with emotion.
But last week, after months of delays and mismanagement that culminated in September with federal prosecutors revealing a far-reaching bribery and bid-rigging scheme, state and local officials said that the Austrian chip maker, AMS, had abandoned the project.
The Utica project was merely one chunk of the multibillion-dollar investment with which the Cuomo administration has pledged to seed nanotechnology and high-tech industries in upstate cities starved for economic growth.
. . .
For the state, it seems, the strategy developed by Mr. Kaloyeros and trumpeted by Mr. Cuomo — to lavish hundreds of millions of dollars in state subsidies on corporate partners to create high-tech jobs — is unblemished. Yet the model has come in for repeated criticism from government watchdogs, who say an economic policy that tries to create risky new industries virtually from scratch, and that spends millions in taxpayer dollars to create every new job, is folly.
“We’re incredibly skeptical of the economic logic behind these projects because they’re too expensive,” said John Kaehny, the executive director of Reinvent Albany, a good-government group. “There is no economic logic to (p. A21) this, really. But there’s a huge political logic to it. The governor desperately needs for this to be a success for his political legacy in New York.”

For the full story, see:
VIVIAN YEE. “How Missteps Doomed Plan for Growth, Foiling Cuomo.” The New York Times (Weds., DEC. 28, 2016): A19.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date DEC. 27, 2016, and has the title “How Cuomo’s Signature Economic Growth Project Fell Apart in Utica.”)

Complex Regulations Stifle Innovation

(p. A15) In “The Innovation Illusion” . . . [Fredrik Erixon and Björn Weigel] argue that “there is too little breakthrough innovation . . . and the capitalist system that used to promote eccentricity and embrace ingenuity all too often produces mediocrity.”
The authors identify four factors that have made Western capitalism “dull and hidebound.” The first is “gray capital,” the money held by entities such as investment institutions, which are often just intermediaries for other investors. Their shareholders, say the authors, tend to focus on short-term outcomes, a perspective that makes company managers reluctant to invest in the research and development that is the lifeblood of the new. The authors’ second villain is “corporate managerialism,” which breeds a “custodian corporate culture” that searches for certainty and control instead of “fast and radical innovation.”
A third villain is globalization, though the authors have a novel complaint: The global economy, they say, has given rise to large firms that are more interested in protecting their turf than pursuing path-breaking ideas. Finally, they decry “complex regulation” for injecting uncertainty into corporate investment and thus stifling the emergence of new ideas and new products.
Echoing the views of Northwestern economist Robert Gordon, Messrs. Erixon and Weigel lament the paucity of big-bang innovation, writing that “the advertised technologies for the future underwhelm.” They wonder why there hasn’t been more progress in all sorts of realms, from the engineering of flying cars to the curing of cancer. Responding to those who worry that robots will drive up unemployment, they say that the real concern should be “an innovation famine rather than an innovation feast.”

For the full review, see:

MATTHEW REES. “BOOKSHELF; Bending the Arc of History.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., December 13, 2016): A15.
(Note: first ellipsis added; second ellipsis in original.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Dec. 12, 2016,)

The book under review, is:
Erixon, Fredrik, and Björn Weigel. The Innovation Illusion: How So Little Is Created by So Many Working So Hard. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2016.

Tech Firms Rally Their Customers to Fight Restrictive Regulations

(p. A23) The nasty battle between Uber and the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio over New York City’s proposed cap on livery vehicles has ended, at least for now, with the city and the ride-hailing giant agreeing to postpone a decision pending a “traffic study.” There’s no doubt who won, though. The mayor underestimated his opponent and was forced to retreat.
It wasn’t just conventional pressure — ads, money, lobbying — that caught the mayor off guard. Uber mobilized its customers, leveraging the power of its app to prompt a populist social-media assault, all in support of a $50 billion corporation. The company added a “de Blasio’s Uber” feature so that every time New Yorkers logged on to order a car, they were reminded of the mayor’s threat (“NO CARS — SEE WHY”) and were sent directly to a petition opposing the new rules. Users were also offered free Uber rides to a June 30 rally at City Hall. Eventually, the mayor and the City Council received 17,000 emails in opposition. Just as Uber has offloaded most costs of operating a taxi onto its drivers, the company uses its customers to do much of its political heavy lifting.
Uber’s earlier strategy to win entry into the Portland, Ore., market followed a similar pattern. When the city wasn’t allowing the company to operate taxis, Uber exploited rules that allowed it to act as a delivery company, and distributed free ice cream around town. Using data on these deliveries, the firm shrewdly recruited recipients as pro-Uber citizen lobbyists, pressuring local officials to allow their cars to pick up passengers. It worked.
Many tech firms now recognize the organizing power of their user networks, and are weaponizing their apps to achieve political ends. Lyft embedded tools on its site to mobilize users in support of less restrictive regulations. Airbnb provided funding for the “Fair to Share” campaign in the Bay Area, which lobbies to allow short-term housing rentals, and is currently hiring “community organizers” to amplify the voices of home-sharing supporters. Amazon’s “Readers United” was an effort to gain customer backing during its acrimonious dispute with the publisher Hachette. Emails from eBay prodded users to fight online sales-tax legislation.

For the full commentary, see:
EDWARD T. WALKER. “The Uber-ization of Activism.” The New York Times (Fri., AUG. 7, 2015): A23.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date AUG. 6, 2015.)

“Worrying About Overpopulation on Mars”

(p. B4) Reflecting on my own brief experience as an invertebrate neuroscientist, I’d say that today’s AI is at the jellyfish stage in the evolution of biological intelligence. Real brains–and genuine intelligence–are so far in the future as to be beyond any reasonable horizon of prediction.
Or, as chief scientist and AI guru Andrew Ng of Chinese search giant Baidu Inc. once put it, worrying about takeover by some kind of intelligent, autonomous, evil AI is about as rational as worrying about overpopulation on Mars.

For the full commentary, see:
CHRISTOPHER MIMS. “KEYWORDS; Artificial Intelligence Has a Way to Go.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., Dec. 5, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Dec. 4, 2016, and has the title “KEYWORDS; Artificial Intelligence Makes Strides, but Has a Long Way to Go.”)