DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 7904

Global High Unemployment Rates – A Mix of Technology and Productivity. How You Can Save Your Career

0

The world is undergoing a transformation that is breaking social systems from United States to Nigeria. Mortgage crises, euro-region debt burdens and series of other problems have seriously affected many key financial districts around the world. Everything has changed and the capacity of capitalism to sustain human progress has been put to test.

 

The world has a new normal: economic uncertainties. America with all their top elite universities seems not to have a roadmap on how to navigate out of the valley of spiraling economic difficulties. In this convoluted world with high level of interconnectivity, one economic problem leads to another. Nothing seems to be working in fixing the economy.

 

The global unemployment rate is rising and what used to be the problem of the developing world is creeping into the advanced nations. Unfortunately, the rate is not going down anytime soon. Why? The future of industry is not designed for a majority human workforce. Rather, a byte and bit workforce. Websites, powered by supercomputers, will continue to compete with humans.

 

As technology penetrates, we will continue to experience displacement across all the key industrial sectors. We have already phased out the industry that hires special secretaries to work the typewriting machines. The ticket masters have been replaced by websites. Increasingly, websites are offering professional counseling from finance to romance that humans used to do. A new generation of smartphones will displace the language interpreters, when we have language translators inbuilt in our phones. Today, an engineer equipped with computer aided design tools will do better than ten engineers a century ago.

 

In nearly all industries, technology is enabling firms to do more with lesser human power. Human productivity has consistently improved over the centuries and our standards of livings have correlated with it. However, while the industrial age technologies made sense of the factors of production of labor and land, the new age calls for knowledge. Through robotics and automation, hundreds of man-hours can be replaced with a simple machine that never asks for benefits.

 

So, unlike the industrial economy, having more startups may not translate to more jobs, because in most cases those startups create technologies that eliminate more human jobs across the industries. This seems to be at odds with nearly every major economic roadmap from academia to governments (I stand by it).

 

Specifically, for every one person that is hired in most Internet startups, 2 jobs are lost across all sectors (my numbers). When ten parents decide to use a website to help their kids improve their mathematics skills, part-time teachers are displaced. When a big bank opens a web portal that enables customers to make informed decisions, financial planners will be cut. In general, who needs a stock picker, when most websites offer quality analyses free? Our society is changing, and people and firms must give things free to compete. That is why websites that require subscriptions are seldom popular.

This is a global redesign and it is very important that policymakers understand that what worked in 1960 may not necessarily work now. Information is moving fast and the reaction of the consumer is spontaneous. They are being rewired through online communal ties resulting to new patterns of lifestyles.

 

Nevertheless, what we are seeing today is just the beginning. The future of the world is one where many people will be unemployed. We will continue to innovate, however, that will not create enough jobs to change the trajectory of global unemployment rate.

 

The biggest crisis is coming. It will come in 2022 when nanotechnology would have matured from lab to the market. First, it will help displace millions of cotton, rubber and agricultural workers across the globe when engineers can make these devices in the lab. They can hire fifty people to produce the same quantity of cotton one million people used to produce in Sudan. They will displace those workers and clusters of wars will take place across the developing world.

There would be unprecedented cycles of revolutions as unemployment increases. Commodity market will morph into technology market and millions will lose heritage and culture because human innovation has disrupted them. I have called this the ‘war of nano’.

 

As we indulge and celebrate the innovations we witness everyday in technology, it is important to note that nothing like this has ever existed. A man can become a media company, without a distribution network and the delivery men. A company can exist entirely on Internet, cutting off all the real estate professionals. A bank that used to employ 5000 staff could use 600 people because it has modernized its infrastructure. Technology is competing with us and we are losing the battle.

 

Yet, most governments seem not to understand what is going on. When you continue to measure the characteristics of the knowledge economy with the tools of the industrial economy, the world cannot be governed right. Pushing government funds to create startups and new companies in the hope of reducing unemployment could be fallacious. This is not an industrial age new companies that hire in legions. The best companies work to eliminate head counts with the powers of microprocessors. From US to UK, human productivity due to technology has accelerated faster than job creation and the old labor equilibrium distorted.

 

It is an illusion to think that any government policy will change the structure of labor in the long-term since daily we are encroaching into new territories with new technologies. The launch of Google created millionaires, but also crushed many industries. Sure, it created new industries, but those employ fewer workers, in average. It looks so evident that the cinema, bookstores and all those traditional networks that employ humans will be completely replaced with websites in the near future. Unfortunately, the business model of internet is knowledge-based, requiring few skilled workers. Unlike the factory model, it takes just a few to run those companies.

 

The world needs to understand that increased productivity and technology penetration will change our labor model, forever. Now is the time to begin that process of designing systems to manage a society where many will be unemployed. We must change the way students are trained and educated.

 

Our present education model is job-centric: the brightest students expect to be hired. That is why most companies are not created by the valedictorians and best students, but middle of the pack who struggle sometimes to get good jobs. The former gets accelerated corporate infusion and they rarely have to create new firms. With getting job in mind, our education loses the very purpose of education-the liberation of the mind. Until we change that paradigm to enable students get mental and entrepreneurial readiness, many will be unemployed. The truth is that anyone with skills, in anything, has a big market to succeed today than ever. Focusing on that element of personal discovery will help students prepare to graduate in a society of fewer jobs and prosper.

 

Finally, governments must modernize those industrial age tools they use to track unemployment. There are thousands across the developed world that make decent livings on web ventures, yet are classified unemployed because no one has developed the right tools to capture the ‘informal Internet labor’. Technology makes it possible for people to build personal wealth in Beijing while living in San Francisco, technically classified unemployed. This supports my notion that lack of quality data is affecting government ability to develop a strategy to reduce unemployment since most of the ‘unemployed’ people are working. That technology that displaces jobs through higher productivity can also help improve government statistics.

Author: Ndubuisi Ekekwe

Ning Focuses on Paying Clients Now. And What That Teaches Us About Freemium Services in Nigeria

0

The social network firm, Ning, is focusing largely on corporate clients these days. They are basically saying to non-paying customers that your time with us has passed. They want to attract corporate clients and create wealth for the investors. People to think that social media is a hobby in California. No, these are companies funded by Wall Street companies. They have to be profitable.

 

Now, Ning is charging fees for services it has given the world for free. The era of Freemium has ended in Ning.

 

(Meanwhile Ning, go and register ni.ng and join the new Nigerian domain club which is the coolest thing now. Bi.ng has gotten one and Microsoft could not be happier).

 

The interesting aspect is that by having this revenue model, the company is doing better.  They have seen 400% increase in their revenue since this paying model was introduced.  Of course, many small sites that could not pay have closed – 80% of sites that depended on the free Ning services went down. At least the other 20% are paying and the firm is better off.

 

The lesson here is that this illusion that everything should be free is wrong. Most times, the ads model does not make sense. It cannot cover most of the bills. And when people build products around these free services, they could be in serious shocks if something like this happens.

 

In Lagos guys, forget about the number of downloads, the page views, and all those non helpful metrics and find ways to make money out of your ideas. It is better to nurture 1000 paying customers than give your products to 40,000 in Lagos – for free. You may be shocked that you cannot make anything from the 40,000 and after few months will shutdown.

 

The vital roadmap to getting paid customer is creating good products and services. You must differentiate yourself before they can pay. Think local and make a case that by paying, customers will be funding innovations in your company.

An Economist, Yet He Just Got An Eureka Moment In Autism Research. What Americans Teach Nigerians on Fixing Things

0

 

He runs a $6b Strategic Growth Fund – a mutual fund –  in U.S. But when his son was diagnosed with autism, he decided to figure out a way out of the problem. He just produced a paper that researchers are saying could be the Eureka moment in autism research.  Read about John Hussman, and by extension the story of typical Americans, doing things over just talking.

 

Africans must learn from these folks – when they see problems either in the school system, inadequate electricity, etc  – they get to work to fix them. We are not fixing our problems. We just write about them and afterwards, we feel good. Until we begin to fix one problem after another, starting from our communities, we may not make progress.

Forget About Forgetting – Lotaar Reminds You About Your TV and Radio Shows.

0

Simply, Lotaar is a TV/Radio guide for the web that notifies people when their favourite program is about to start. The cool aspect is that you can create remind in social networks like Facebook, Twitter and others.

The site seems neglected, but they have got some contents in their blog

First of all, I agree with people who say YouTube/DVR’s have changed the urgency of live TV programs. They are all completely correct. Program watching is no longer an either/or situation. If you miss it, you can watch it again. However I think the value of live TV goes beyond it being just live. Below are some assumptions on why live broadcasting is important

Some things are meant to be watched live: I say meant because the whole experience is in the live nature. An example I will give is when history is about to be made. No YouTube clip can replace the feeling of watching Obama take his oath of office. Although people knew they could always watch it later,  millions opted to watch it live. Take live sports as another example.  Can you compare watching the premier league recorded with watching it live? It can never be the same feeling. One last example is series in their current season (American idol, Lost, Eastenders, Xfactor etc) . Before you can say Twit.. or Facebo.. the spoilers will be hitting you left right and center. If you do not watch them live, you would have lost a lot of the entertainment value.

Participating in a broadcast: If you want to participate in a broadcast, you have no option that to watch it live. You cannot call in or ask your questions after it has aired.

Being in Sync: Seth Godin articulated something that has been missing in broadcasting since the rise of video on demand. He calls it The power of sync. Although he did not use broadcasting as an example, I believe it is very applicable. Think back to the days before video on demand when you were sure you were watching the same thing your friend was watching. You “ooohhed” and “ahhhhed” at the same time and traded comments back and forth with your land line. Even though it was not a live program like a football match, you had the similar experience because you were in sync. You see the power of sync happen on Twitter when programs like Music awards are being aired.

The Legislation That Changed Tech America. Now, Should Be Coming To Nigeria

0

As nations try to emerge from the most devastating global recession since the Second World War, policymakers, business communities, academia, and governments will be looking at ways to accelerate growth and competitiveness.  Many at the right will continue their propositions that governments should be left out of business, while those at the left will emphasize that governments must play central roles in shaping commerce and industry.

 

The reality is that governments do matter and a single legislation could have impacts that can redesign a nation’s economic destiny. Globalization makes it so important that nations must compete not just on technologies, but on policies upon which those technologies are developed and commercialized.

 

This makes it possible that two universities in two separate nations can develop similar technologies with one creating Fortune 500 companies within a decade and another having the idea locked up in a cabinet. In other words, the policies or legislations made by congress or parliament on what happens to inventions supported by government funds matter.

 

In 1980, a United States legislation dealing with intellectual property emanating from federal government-funded research was implemented.  The legislature called Bayh-Dole Act (after two Senators Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas that sponsored it) or University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act gave US universities, small businesses and non-profits intellectual property rights and control of their inventions, even though they were  funded by government.

Through this Act, universities, small businesses or non-profit organizations could pursue ownership of inventions in preference to the government.

 

What this means is that instead of sending the patents or inventions to the government agencies like National Science Foundation (NSF) or National Institute of Health for them to file away in their office cabinets, this Act empowers the inventing entity to pursue commercialization of the idea. Simply, the U.S government elects to fund an idea and allows the fund recipient to profit from any invention that comes from that idea.

 

This Act provides clarity on many issues that could derail the process of taking ideas to market, especially when those ideas were funded by US federal government. For professors, it provides incentives to pursue research both for discovery and for profit since they also could profit from their inventions.  Just as their students could discover and commercialize, the university dons can also do the same.

It has been a new era as the number of Technology Transfer offices in the US universities has increased many folds. As schools file more patents, they continually look for opportunities for venture funds to commercialize or simply license their patents to other institutions.  These days, schools quote the number of start-ups they have incubated as a metric to their competitiveness. They will tell you the stories of their students who graduated and founded firms and use that as selling points in their brochures. This is business right in the four walls of the universities.

 

Interesting, schools do not just teach business regulation and competitiveness anymore, they experience them because they are getting products to the market, though indirectly.  There are many start-ups which have become pipelines for the big MNCS to buyout. Before the Act, some of the ideas that enabled the start-ups might have been overlooked by MNCs. But as the former show promise and profitability, they could be bought over and that mission of making society better is given a bigger scale.

 

For me, Bayh-Dole Act is the most important business legislature of the last century in the United States. And this is American Congress at its very best moment.  It delivered through legislature and transformed the pace of innovation by providing a fluidic system that enhances U.S competitiveness.

 

The outcome of the Act has spread around the world because of the number of technologies which have been commercialized and subsequently penetrated across the globe. The discovery of the search engine that powers Google was done in Stanford University.  When Mr. Page and Mr. Brin decided to pursue commercialization of this algorithm and created Google, they must have been grateful for the federal funds that partly funded their discovery.

 

In a recent trip to Africa, I noticed that many universities now have Technology Transfer offices or what they call Consults. Good idea, but I must say that the structure where those offices operate is entirely different from what Bayh-Dole Act gave the American schools. The Act is helping American taxpayers to reap the benefits of funding the academic institutions through innovative products in the market. In Africa, you rarely see government in the mix of research and the whole constructs of technology transfer office seems superfluous since no research takes place.

 

It is one of those things that happen when African professors visit American universities for two weeks and afterwards go home trying to recreate the American educational system.  Unfortunately, the root cause analysis is not thought through to appreciate the fundamental evolution of what goes in the US system. Yes, you have technology transfer offices, but the school has no electricity to run a lab.

 

Back to the Act, notice that many US universities are very competitive. While some could argue over the benefit of that since universities should traditionally share freely, the pursuit of commercialization and the rewards that come with it help to make research relevant to the needs of the society. And this new focus has created a platform where collaboration with industry has reached an all-time level.

 

Possibly, without this legislature, the idea that powers Google might still be filed out someone in the NSF cabinet. And the world will miss the dynamism, positive disruption, jobs, success-domino and information access that arrival of Google gave the world.  When they introduced 1GB gmail, Yahoo was forced to upgrade its users from 4MB to 1GB and later, limitless storage.

 

It is not just Google, there are many small companies in pharmaceutical, semiconductor, and IT industries which exist today because the Act made it so easy that individuals and entities can hold rights in preference to government and in the process increase the chance of getting innovative products to the market.

 

The lesson here is that congress and parliament can change the future of any nation when good policies are made.

 

I understand that this Act might have reduced the free flow of information and ideas across the academia because everyone wants to guard its ideas for profit; but we have to live with the reality that there is nothing that does not have a potential drawback. Yes, some of our professors are now visiting venture capitalists more often. But at the end, it provides a perspective that makes education relevant and useful. And I think American students are better off when their professors are not decoupled from the industry.

 

Also, early patenting of ideas or processes without pursuing immediate commercialization could decelerate the pace of their improvements from other partners. In other words, when schools patent their ideas, they could possibly be closing the channel of progressive advancement on those ideas. From professors to graduate students, few will be interested to work on ideas which have been patented.

 

But the reality is that over the last five hundred years, intellectual property rights (IPR) have proven to be the difference between the old world and the new one and this Act cannot be an exception. A world of IPR is a world of innovation and though Bayh-Dole can have some drawbacks, it is to me the greatest business legislation in the last hundred years.

 

Author/ Ndubuisi Ekekwe