Nov. 30, 2016 "The digital economy will not power a recovery": Today I found this article by Andrew Jackson in the Globe and Mail. I can't access it. I will type this:
"To the extent that this is true, new technological marvels such as self-driving cars and robots will not revive growth, and a weak economy may actually be slowing technological progress. What we need to spark a meaningful recovery is a big boost to the demand side of the economy in the form of higher wages and more public investment."
Economists and pundits are at odds over medium-term prospects for the global economy. Pessimists see stagnant growth, rising inequality and growing unemployment and underemployment, widely held to be responsible for the rise of right-wing populists such as U.S. president-elect Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, techno optimists such as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, the authors of The Second Machine Age, argue that the digital economy will drive rapid productivity growth and underpin the gradual emergence of a post-scarcity economy capable of providing prosperity for all.
The current situation is paradoxical. The rise of the robots and artificial intelligence are widely seen to be driving a new technological revolution that is disrupting entire economic sectors and eliminating many jobs, increasingly including those of skilled workers.
Information technology has long since eliminated routine manufacturing and clerical jobs.
More recently,
retail trade has been rapidly shifting to online platforms,
financial technology (fintech) is eliminating many well paid jobs in financial services,
news media are downsizing rapidly as audiences and advertisers shift to Facebook and other social media,
and analysts forecast the demise of entire occupations, such as truck and taxi drivers, because of the imminent rise of autonomous vehicles.
But measured growth in labour productivity or output per hour has been dismal over most of the past decade, and especially since the global financial crisis. As economist Robert Gordon once quipped, the impact of computers on productivity can be seen everywhere except in the statistics.
He argues the impact of the digital economy is over-hyped compared with the transformative general-purpose technologies of the first and second industrial revolutions.
Even the optimists increasingly concede that rapid technological progress will not create enough new jobs to replace those being eliminated.
As Economist editor Ryan Avent argues in his new book, The Wealth of Humans, the digital economy is creating a global labour surplus that drives down wages and job security in jobs that are not vulnerable to automation.
The digital economy delivers rich rewards to investors and the financial sector in the form of high corporate profits and high incomes to senior managers and core knowledge workers with advanced qualifications in successful firms. The proverbial top 1 per cent who directly benefit from the knowledge economy are accumulating stunning wealth.
The digital economy, along with globalization, has displaced many formerly middle-class workers into lower-wage and lower-skill jobs, increasing competition for those jobs at the low end of the skills spectrum that cannot easily be automated, and thus further driving down wages.
Stagnant and falling wages for the bottom 90 per cent depress overall demand and, as Mr. Avent notes, cheap labour actually reduces the pressure on many low-wage employers to invest in capital and skills.
Along with major productivity gains in the disrupted sectors, we see an offsetting shift of employment to inherently low-productivity sectors such as personal services.
Another part of the overall growth and productivity problem is that business investment at the cutting edge of the new digital economy is mainly in knowledge creation and development instead of capital goods.
Dominant companies such as Google and Apple have large market capitalizations and deliver high financial returns, but their material input needs and direct economic footprint are much smaller than dominant firms of the industrial age.
High corporate profits are sustained by high returns in finance and growing new economy sectors, but weak overall business investment in the material economy is the result of low overall economic demand because of rising inequality and the stagnation of wages. Thus, the productivity gains from the new economy are being hoarded by new-economy firms or paid out to shareholders, rather than reinvested in the economy.
Economists have long believed that technological change drives growth by increasing productivity, which raises overall demand in the economy through higher wages and higher business investment.
But this virtuous process seems to have broken down in the case of the new digital economy.
To the extent that this is true, new technological marvels such as self-driving cars and robots will not revive growth, and a weak economy may actually be slowing technological progress.
What we need to spark a meaningful recovery is a big boost to the demand side of the economy in the form of higher wages and more public investment.
Andrew Jackson is an adjunct research professor in the Institute of Political Economy at Carleton University in Ottawa and senior policy adviser to the Broadbent Institute.
Jul. 30, 2016 "App gives employees control of scheduling" (Shyft): I found this article by Dina Bass in the Edmonton Journal :
Next week Starbucks barista Foster Cooley will be traveling. Normally he'd have to ask or text co-workers to fill in for him at his Chandler, Arizona, cafe and hope someone can take his shifts. Instead he's using an app to post his hours to baristas in the entire region.
Called Shyft, the app emerged from Seattle Techstars, an accelerator program that backs promising startups. With little marketing and no cooperation from major retailers, Shyft says it has signed up 12,000 workers at U.S. Starbucks stores, more than 7,500 at McDonald's and 3,500-plus at Old Navy.
In the past three months, workers have exchanged the equivalent of 26,000 hours on the app, according to Shyft Chief Executive Officer Brett Patrontasch. If the app catches on more widely, it's sure to be unpopular in the corporate suite because it essentially wrests away control over scheduling.
In the past three months, workers have exchanged the equivalent of 26,000 hours on the app, according to Shyft Chief Executive Officer Brett Patrontasch. If the app catches on more widely, it's sure to be unpopular in the corporate suite because it essentially wrests away control over scheduling.
"This gives shift workers the power to treat themselves like an economic unit and not be boxed in," says Heather Redman, a Seattle technology executive who was the first to sign on as an investor. "It is a little controversial and disruptive to have your workers have a whole ecosystem that you didn’t put in, but that’s the world we live in."
Founded last year, Shyft has attracted big-name investors, including former Seattle Seahawks player Russell Okung and ex-Mariner Edgar Martinez. Along with Redman, Madrona Venture Group and entrepreneur T.A. McCann, they agreed to pony up $1.5 million in new seed capital, the company said Wednesday. Patrontasch declined to discuss the company's business model.
Founded last year, Shyft has attracted big-name investors, including former Seattle Seahawks player Russell Okung and ex-Mariner Edgar Martinez. Along with Redman, Madrona Venture Group and entrepreneur T.A. McCann, they agreed to pony up $1.5 million in new seed capital, the company said Wednesday. Patrontasch declined to discuss the company's business model.
Shift workers often face challenging work schedules—erratic hours, shifts in stores further from home, not enough work to meet their financial needs. Many companies use sophisticated scheduling software that has been criticized for spreading a worker's hours over too many days.
Last year New York State's Attorney General sent a letter to more than a dozen retailers asking about one particular shift-scheduling practice. A Seattle City Council member held a forum this week to discuss issues with shift scheduling, including too few hours and unpredictable schedules; the council and mayor are considering imposing rules.
This month, a Starbucks barista gathered almost 13,000 signatures for a petition complaining that the company has been understaffing stores to save money and hurting workers who need more hours.
Last year New York State's Attorney General sent a letter to more than a dozen retailers asking about one particular shift-scheduling practice. A Seattle City Council member held a forum this week to discuss issues with shift scheduling, including too few hours and unpredictable schedules; the council and mayor are considering imposing rules.
This month, a Starbucks barista gathered almost 13,000 signatures for a petition complaining that the company has been understaffing stores to save money and hurting workers who need more hours.
Besides letting employees more easily offload shifts they can't make, Shyft helps those who need more hours to qualify for healthcare, Starbucks' college degree program or even just make the rent. The company also wants to enable geographic flexibility: A worker who wants to visit his grandmother out of state, say, could pick up shifts during the trip.
Some companies require a manager to approve shift swaps so Shyft gives bosses a quick way to say yay or nay on a change. Workers trying to offload a tough shift—say Christmas or a significant other's birthday—can offer a monetary enticement. Some 10 percent of shifts on the system include such tips, Patrontasch says.
My opinion: That's a good and useful app.
No comments:
Post a Comment