Good jobs, that is.  Not to be a cassandra, but I have concerns about the structure of the economy.  History has shown that the high standard of living in late-Renaissance Venice wasn’t sustainable [*].  While the relatively expensive goods of Venice were often of high quality, cheaper, mass-market goods produced in Britain, France, and the Netherlands were gaining in popularity.  Will the US suffer from the same fate?  In other words, are the high wages and standard of living in the US sustainable, economically?  Robert Reich has a gloomy outlook on his blog::

“But here’s the real worry. The basic assumption that jobs will eventually return when the economy recovers is probably wrong. Some jobs will come back, of course. But the reality that no one wants to talk about is a structural change in the economy that’s been going on for years but which the Great Recession has dramatically accelerated.

Under the pressure of this awful recession, many companies have found ways to cut their payrolls for good. They’ve discovered that new software and computer technologies have made workers in Asia and Latin America just about as productive as Americans, and that the Internet allows far more work to be efficiently outsourced abroad.

This means many Americans won’t be rehired unless they’re willing to settle for much lower wages and benefits. Today’s official unemployment numbers hide the extent to which Americans are already on this path. Among those with jobs, a large and growing number have had to accept lower pay as a condition for keeping them. Or they’ve lost higher-paying jobs and are now in a new ones that pays less.”

I think he might be on to something and I tend to be an optimist.  If this were 1992, I’d say we’re going to grow out of the recession the US was in back then.  Innovation, efficiency, and productivity increases would be part of the upswing in the ever-present business cycles.  But, are we in a different economic situation?  Have we maxed-out efficiency?  What about innovation?  Will we still be competitive in that arena?

I have two main concerns.  One is of industrial organization and the other is of income inequality, which I believe are inter-related.

1. Industrial organization.  In the US, smaller businesses are expected to create the most new jobs, but the deck is stacked against them, which is also a political and policy issue.  There’s a pressure towards increased scale and size.  Larger enterprises may be more efficient, but often are less innovative, categorically, due to constraints on “dynamic capabilities” {ability to innovate, learn, or continuously reposition itself more effectively than its rivals} and disincentives in the form of disruptions to current income streams {e.g., pharmaceuticals selling several profitable on-patent drugs in a category of drugs having little incentive to develop and market a “cure” for a particular disease in a new category of drugs.  Hence “incremental” innovations of slight modifications and new patents based on them.}
2. Income distribution.  I feel that over time, the pressure towards increased the scale of organizations will put downwards pressure on wages and the standard of living for most employees.  Why?  If industries are dominated by a few players there will be a tendency towards oligopsony {few “buyers” and many “sellers”} in labour markets.  Employees will have less bargaining power because the few employers will tend to tacitly collude.  If global competition inhibits growth, there will be further pressure to cut wages and/or outsource.

The feather in the US’s cap is human capital talents and a large skilled labour pool, but these matter the most in innovative and high value-added firms.  If the US starts to lose its innovative edge, there will be less demand for skilled workers and managers.  More income inequality.  While hardly definitive, the gini coefficient measures this::

In the US, the gini is on the rise, indicating a growing gap between the wealthy and poor.  What would be really telling is to examine what’s happening to the middle class over time, i.e., the shape of the Lorenz curve}.  I think for the vast majority of Americans, there may be more diminished expectations in store.  The top 2% have no worries.

So, I agree with much of what Reich has to say.  The goal isn’t just jobs, but good paying ones.  In my opinion, part of this in the private sector {as opposed to public sector efforts, such as stimulus spending} is more basic R&D that fuels innovation and more entrepreneurship, which will require policies to support it.

Twitterversion:: #RobertReich blogs on jobs in US. Given his take, are big firms&lack of innovation a big part of problem? #ThickCulture http://url.ie/3f80 @Prof_K

Song:: The Bleeding Heart Show-The New Pornographers

On my other blog, I did a post about driving pet peeves and a close call I had on the mean streets of Toronto.  I made a passing reference to the idea of “crowdsourcing” a database on boorish road behaviours.  Well, it turns out there’s a website that does just that, Zapatag.com {blog, Twitter}.  What is Zapatag?  According to their “about us” page::

“Report bad drivers, track license plates, zap a tag and upgrade your commute. Compliment a carpooler. Lash a litterer. Tattle on a tailgater. Snap at a speeder. Bring accountability back to our streets the Web 2.0 way. Don’t get mad on the road. Get even online.”

Technologically, it was inspired by Twitter, but the more interesting implication on this blog is how such sites might affect us in the future.  What about issues of::

• Privacy.  Is it a breach of privacy to link licence plate numbers to alleged incidents?
• Defamation.  Is it defamation to link a vehicle to alleged bad/illegal behaviour?
• Antisocial behaviours.  Will this lead to harassment, in terms of posting or retaliation for posting?

One of our fellow bloggers had a disturbing incident on a Thousand Oaks, CA thoroughfare.  I thought a site like this might be useful in cataloguing habitual offenders, but the technology does enable issues like those three listed above and probably more.  Privacy has been declared dead thanks to the Internet for over a decade.  What about defending one’s “reputation” online?  Where are the lines drawn between transparency and defamatory statements?  With the Internet and the decline of privacy, will the definition of defamation change?  A whole post could be on the antisocial behaviours angle.  What springs to mind is the cyberbullying mom case.

Invoking Bentham’s panopticon and doling out Foucauldian logics to each and every one of us {we all have the power of surveillance and voice with Web 2.0+}, will this lead to übertransparency and more mindful actions -or- will it create a anarchic free-for-all of accusations and defamation?

Song:: I Think Im Paranoid – Garbage

Twitterversion:: @Zapatag allows crowdsourcing of bad driving behaviours. It’s an interesting intersection of technology & society.  @Prof_K

I made a trip south of the border yesterday.  I drove all day to South Bend, IN to drop off a proposal and had dinner in Grand Rapids, MI, so I missed Obama’s Afghanistan speech.  I didn’t miss hearing the fallout from both the left and the right.  So, I’m wondering about what’s going to happen in next year’s midterm elections and I’m curious on what my fellow bloggers and the readers have on the subject.

Let’s turn back the clock.  Sixteen years ago, in late November of 1993 and Bill Clinton’s approval rating dipped under 50%.  Recently, Barack Obama’s ratings also dipped below 50%.  This got me thinking about some other trivia tidbits::

• A complex health care reform plan was under attack by William Kristol.  The “Harry and Louise” ads, funded by lobbyists aired to cast doubt on Clinton’s reform, using the catchy phrase, “they choose, we lose.”

• Clinton, a moderate Democrat, was being pushed around by conservative Democrats in Congress.  They felt he didn’t have a mandate with 43% of the popular vote [1] and won only because Ross Perot split the Republican vote.
• The Democrats enjoyed an 82 seat advantage in the House in 1993.  The current margin is 79 seats.  The Democrats had a 56/44 advantage in 1993.  The current advantage is  59/41.
• The stock market was on an upswing in 1993 {DJIA}.  This year, the market has spent the year recovering and is about where it was in 2004 [2].

On the other hand::

• Unemployment was 6.5% in December 1993, not 10.2% {Nov. 2009} [3]
• The Gulf War {Desert Storm} was a fading memory in 1993, while in 2009 Obama is gearing up for a Afghanistan surge at a $30B/year pricetag.

Historically, in 1994 there was a Republican landslide and the GOP took over both the House and Senate {although Clinton won re-election handily in 1996}.  Will history repeat itself?  I’m not sure.  In 1994, there was a clear and concerted effort by the Republicans.  Newt Gingrich and the “Contract with America” captured the imagination of many voters.  I’m not sure the GOP can pull that off in 2010.

While the Obama Administration has faced criticism from the right, he’s also under fire from the left on the issues of the economy and the war in Afghanistan.  While the Democratic Party machine would resist this, will the current circumstances provide opportunities for left-leaning Congressional candidates a rare window of opportunity?  What about the Republicans?  Will they regroup?  What about Libertarians?  Is this an opportunity for them?

Twitterversion:: Politically in the US, it feels strangely familiar to 1993.But,it’s not. What will happen in 2010 midterms? #ThickCulture http://url.ie/3d5n  @Prof_K

Notes from North of 49ºN.

Macleans magazine, like any other, likes to create lists.  I was going through old issues before I pitched them and I spied an article about Canada’s Most Dangerous Cities.  {Here’s the 2009 version}. Caledon, Ontario for two years straight was deemed the safest place in Canada, a town of 58,000 about 40 kilometers/25 miles from Toronto.  I’ve seen Caledon from the air, heading into Toronto’s Pearson Airport, a town on the edge of the greater Toronto area {GTA}, where the 410 freeway peters out on the rural outskirts.   I recall the town where I worked the past few years, Thousand Oaks, CA, was deemed one of the safest places by the FBI, which wasn’t too surprising.  It was fairly affluent, suburban, and homogeneous at 85% white in the 2000 Census.  The 2008 Macleans article went into the reasons why Caledon had such low crime, while crime seemed to be on the rise in neighbouring Brampton.

How safe is Caledon.  According to the Macleans article::

“Of the 100 biggest cities or regions in Canada, Caledon is the safest. In 2006, the most recent year for which there’s annual data, it ranked the lowest —107 per cent below the national average — for a score combining six crimes (murder, sexual assault, breaking and entering, vehicle theft, aggravated assault, and robbery)”.

So, what makes it so “safe”?

• Strict police
• Visible police {6,000 hours of foot patrol with 100,000 interactions and only 12 public complaints}
• “Restorative justice” {which brings suspect and victim together with a mediator instead of a court judge} has been used extensively since 2006 to resolve non-violent incidents, from neighbour disputes to vandalism.
• Relative wealth:: median income of about $32,900, compared with $24,800 across Ontario.
• The population is overwhelmingly white and English-speaking {almost half of all residents are third-generation Canadians or more}.

Are problems on the horizon?  The local youth complain of nothing to do and a lack of public transportation makes them feel “stuck” unless they have a driver’s license.  Petty crimes and vandalism are a going concern in Caledon.  The big concern is growth.  Problems with crime in Canada are correlated with areas of growth, where the local infrastructure and support mechanism are outgrown.  Crime has followed the pattern of Canadian growth in the West.  Population in Caledon is expected to increase by 48% by 2021 and “racial fights” are starting to erupt in local schools, where students from nearby Brampton {a town with over 60% first-generation Canadians} are being bussed to.  Also, while robberies in Caledon are rare, Brampton is seeing a spike, so local law enforcement {Caledon’s Ontario Provincial Police} is trying to be proactive with robbery prevention seminars.

What’s the policy implication here?  What’s the relationship between diversity and crime?  Toronto celebrates its diversity {the seal of Toronto has the motto, “diversity our strength”} and enjoys on of the lowest crime rates in North America, so the socioeconomics of cities likely plays a role, along with other factors like geography and demography, not to mention the cultural differences between Canada and the US.

I think what Caledon has now is a sense of “community,” based on a way of life that tends to be more homogeneous and with a slower pace.  Does impending growth threaten this, particularly with the scalability of the public infrastructure.  Specifically, if growth outpaces the capacity of the public infrastructure, could there be a danger of those with the means starting an exodus -or- will those in the community work to strengthen the infrastructure?

A few weeks ago, I was in Sleepy Hollow, NY in Westchester County, less than a hour north of Manhattan.  While on the surface, the Village of Sleepy Hollow seems like a homogeneous suburb on the Hudson, it actually is diverse culturally and socioeconomically.  The “downtown” core is a vibrant shopping area and let’s face it, it’s Sleepy Hollow and has caché as a Washington Irving/Halloween-themed tourist destination, but one gets a sense of community and meaning.  I’m actually interested in visiting Caledon to see if it has what I observed in Sleepy Hollow.  I never got a sense that Thousand Oaks had any sense of community and meaning, but I freely admit I never looked very hard to find it.

Twitterversion:: Dissecting Canada’s “safest” cities. Role of diversity? Scalability public infrastrture? Community/meaning? http://url.ie/2xmk #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: Lavender Hill – The Kinks

Notes from North of 49ºN

Toronto Mayor David Miller recently unveiled the opening of city datasets on the OpenTO website, ushering in the city’s new era of Gov 2.0.  In less than an hour, the above map of the city’s wards  was generated from the shapefiles.  According to Now Magazine::

“Basically, OpenTO amounts to the city offering up puzzle pieces and the public putting them together. It costs taxpayers next to nothing, creates a wing of local government in which citizens can participate directly, and makes everything more transparent.

At present, not a whole lot of data sets are available. But now that some have been liberated, it won’t be long before others follow.”

While it is true that there isn’t that much data available right now, it’s clear that there are great possibilities here.  The openness of the data will allow crowdsourced analysis of urban questions facing Toronto, which is a hotbed of urbanist activity.  This ostensibly can create more knowledge for use by Toronto’s Planning Department, as well as grassroots activists, non-profits, entrepreneurs, and corporate interests.  The transparency has a flipside.  While transparency of data can serve to “keep the city honest,” in the future, as more data goes online, how will individual citizens’ privacy concerns be addressed?  For example, should data on ex-convicts {or the like} be listed for public use, such as Megan’s Law databases in the United States?  What about data on abandoned property?  While this could assist in redevelopment, it might be used for more nefarious purposes.

While data openness is a hallmark of Web 2.0, in terms of policy, what parameters should be in place?

Twitterversion:: @mayormiller’s OpenTO offers #Toronto’s database access, offering Gov2.0 transparency& crowdsourcing opps. #ThickCulture http://url.ie/2tfw

Song:: The Planners Dream Goes Wrong – The Jam

Notes from North of 49ºN

Up here in Canada, Remembrance Day is coming up on the 11th, so plenty of red poppies have cropped up, which is a Commonwealth tradition.  Until Afghanistan, it’s been a while since Canada has been in a “war” and the specifics of getting out of Afghanistan has entered into the news up here.  The Conservatives and the Liberal parties in Canada already agreed in 2008 to withdraw from Afghanistan::

“Canada’s top soldier, Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk, has given the order for Canadian Forces logistics whizzes to begin mapping out the move, expected to be finished by the end of 2011. That’s in keeping with a 2008 deal between the Harper government and Opposition Liberals that extended the combat mission until July, 2011, with a pullout taking until Dec. 31.”

On a sidenote, shortly after Harper’s announcement, news of the pricetag was released.  It was reported that by 2011 the military mission in could cost up to $1.8B CAN, or $1,500 per household.  While the decision was made last year, the logistics and details of the estimated skeleton crew of 500-600 soldiers to stay behind to protect redevelopment efforts and train local police has remained an open question.  In the interim, the war has become increasingly unpopular and according to Allen Sens, a University of British Columbia political scientist::

“Canada’s government and public is suffering from Afghanistan fatigue…There’s been a lack of progress, and I think the public has a sense that it’s time for other countries to step up and move into the south, where the fighting has been the toughest.”

The Obama Factor

The Liberals in Canada are quick to point out the failure of humanitarian efforts.  Canada had the objective of building 50 schools by 2011 but because of the instability, only five have been built.  So, why should Prime Minister Harper {Conservative} drag his feet on the “drawdown” planning?

“the Prime Minister acknowledged that not every single soldier will return with the combat pullout, and is expected lingering pressure from the Obama administration to help out may lead to a contingent remaining.”

Will Canada cave to possible pressure from the Obama administration to stay?  Politically, the opposition Liberals would be wise to shift as much decision-making on Harper and the Conservatives before triggering another federal election, something the Liberals have been threatening for most of the year.  Obama is faced with a tough decision and is running out of time.  Barack is faced with::

1. A deteriorating situation in Afghanistan
2. White House decisions based on reports painting an incomplete picture
3. Little progress despite doubling troop numbers in 2009 {hence balking at McChrystal’s original recommendations}
4. The election débâcle in Afghanistan where Karzai won amid fraud allegations
5. Waning public support in the US of the war

Obama needs to assess whether his objectives can be met in Afghanistan, specifically in terms of what is possible and probable as outcomes, given a flailing domestic economic situation.  While the stakes are clearly lower for Canada than for the US and Obama, I wonder if Canada will react to any pressure from Obama to stick around, even with just 500-600 “non-combat”  troops.  I also wonder if the Liberals will try to push decisions that may irk Obama onto Harper.

Image:: Iconic Tim Horton’s coffee shop in Kandahar.

Twitterversion:: Canadian Forces pressure deets on wthdrwl fr.Afghanistan. What will Obama do&how will Cdn politcns play it? #ThickCulture http://url.ie/2t3

Song::  Shipbuilding – Elvis Costello & the Attractions {about workers building ships for the UK Falklands War with Argentina}

I’m finally back in Toronto, but had an interesting sidetrip to Québec and will be blogging about separatism and Canadian identity in a future post.  I saw on Twitter that a trending topic was the hashtag, “#thingsdarkiessay.”  I knew it had to be some “inside joke” or meme I wasn’t aware of and the above tweet explained that it originated in South Africa, but was gaining attention in the US, due to the use of the term “darkies.”  Several observations on people’s tweets, pointing out the “irony,” noted that blacks were making it a trending topic.  I didn’t go through the thousands of tweets, but I’ll surmise {given the above} that the hashtag originated from black South Africans.

Regardless of intent, as a meme goes viral, it takes on a life of its own, making Roland Barthes‘s Death of the Author{s} quite salient.  Is this related to -or- independent of an idea that with some content {e.g., race or language referring to race}, the author becomes irrelevant or somehow transformed?  How does this inform dialogues about race, particularly as the Internet blasts apart contextual boundaries, let alone the determination of the “offensiveness” of content in a global context.

Twitterversion:: Trending topic #thingsdarkiessay originated in #SouthAfrica but sparks tweets in the global Twittersphere. #ThickCulture http://url.ie/2s8n

Song::  F*ck You (Distasteful Ruff n Ready Mix) – Lily Allen

So, I’m in Westchester County, NY and it’s a drizzly autumn evening on the Tappan Zee.  A perfect night to brave the elements to see Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story out at the Jacob Burns Film Center over in Pleasantville, which is a great screening facility.

I find Moore to be a colourful character and I “get” his shtick.  That said, no matter how you feel about his politics or this documentary, he brings up some interesting food for thought.  In the documentary, there is a reference to an internal Citibank {a “zombie” bank these days} report on the “plutonomy.” While the idea of a power elite is nothing new in sociology -or- to anyone familiar with institutions and the macro-structural, I don’t think everyone is on the same page with respect to this being a bad thing or not.  Well, let’s not get too far ahead.  What is this plutonomy business anyway?  According to the Citibank report::

“Our thesis is that the rich are the dominant drivers of demand in many economies around the world (the US, UK, Canada and Australia). These economies have seen the rich take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years, to the extent that the rich now dominate income, wealth and spending in these countries. Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper and become a greater share of the economy in the plutonomy countries. Also, new media dissemination technologies like internet downloading, cable and satellite TV, have disproportionately increased the audiences, and hence gains to “superstars” – think golf, soccer, and baseball players, music/TV and movie icons, fashion models, designers, celebrity chefs etc. These “content” providers, the tech whizzes who own the pipes and distribution, the lawyers and bankers who intermediate globalization and productivity, the CEOs who lead the charge in converting globalization and technology to increase the profit share of the economy at the expense of labor, all contribute to plutonomy. Indeed, David Gordon and Ian Dew-Becker of the NBER demonstrate that the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US – the plutonomists in our parlance – have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US.

So, this is good if you’re in the top 1%, right?  Let’s move on to the “risks”::

“Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash.Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was – one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation (on the rich or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous laborers, in a push-back on globalization – either anti-immigration, or protectionism.We don’t see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments.”

One of the themes in Moore’s film is that there is collusion between government and business.  Moreover, this is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat issue, as deregulation and the repeal of Glass-Steagall was signed under Bill Clinton’s watch.

Have we gotten to a point where within the context of “democracy,” we are now seeing an unholy alignment of interests of an unfettered private sector that seeks to influence the “rules” of the market and a public sector willing to bargain?  I would argue that we are so far removed from the idealized capitalism of the flavour of Adam Smith’s waxings, as the market has been replaces in many instances by “the visible hand” of managerial puppetry in the private and public spheres.

The checks-and-balances in “idealized” capitalism are that competition and the profit motive driven by shareholders will allow for smoothly functioning and efficient markets.  In financial markets, undermining faith in the institution of the market through insider trading carries stiff penalties.  The plutonomy sees fit to alter the rules for the political and economic elite.  Some may argue that the plutonomy is fine.  The alignment of interests is a way to channel wealth and capital towards successful ventures.  The sociological “Matthew effect” in action, where the rich get richer and success breeds more success.

I’m not convinced.  Historically, Microsoft has a marginal track record at managing and commercializing innovations and the well-heeled US pharmaceutical industry knows that newly patented drugs with incremental benefits are far more profitable than truly innovative drugs with an unknown track record.  The entertainment industry strives to find or replicate a “formula,” rather than try to push the envelope with creativity.  Success breeds plutonomy…and Spiderman 4.

The thing is that the plutonomy doesn’t care about companies or shareholders, let alone workers or pension plans.  It’s all about the power elites, who control, enable, and reap the rewards of wealth creation.  I’m not sure Moore has the answers here, but Scorsese might.  The plutonomy is all about feeding the top of the pyramid.  The motto…”f*ck you, pay me.”

Twitterversion:: #MichaelMoore’s Capitalism: A♥Story brings up food 4 thought re:plutonomy. In the end, is it just Scorsese’s #Goodfellas. http://url.ie/2qaw @Prof_K

Song:: The Birth of the True – Aztec Camera

I’m on the road in Iowa City, but I saw that this has been floating around the blogosphere {“hat” tip:: LQ}::

So, how do you take this?  Straight-up or with a twist?  Apparently, this caused a ruckus on HuffPo.  Some days are facepalm days over there.

Twitterversion:: #TheHat takes on healthcare in lowfi multimedia glouriousness.  #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: Tymps (The Sick in the Head Song) – Fiona Apple

I was up in the wee hours when I saw the BBC announce that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.  I recall reading years ago that the process is not necessarily a rigorous screening, in that the decision can be guided by a select few.  I wondered if this was perceived as a contrast effect, with Barack being perceived as an internationalist, despite being in the office for a very short period of time when the nomination was submitted.  A friend of mine put on my Facebook wall a link to this article were Polish Solidarity leader Lech Wałęsa echoed the sentiments of many…too fast.

Malcolm Gladwell had this Tweet::

“Question: Is the goal of the Nobel Peace Prize committee to reward progress of an individual or to encourage the progress of society?”

If we think about progress in peace, what would that look like?  What should be the next steps, globally, for the Obama administration?  It’s tough given the state of the economy, as the electorate is less interested in peace and more interested in jobs and the healthcare issue.  So, will this be a headache for him as the US decides what to do in Afghanistan?   Is there pressure for him to act in a certain way?  At the end of the day, it’s the US electorate that matters.  It might spur some thinking about creative solutions for situations like Afghanistan where peacekeeping is an oxymoron no matter the deployment of resources.  It might also accelerate some housecleaning of US detention policies of foreign suspects.  Like the Nobel Peace Prize committee and the world, we shall see.

Twitterversion::  Obama wins #Nobel Peace Prize, but what does it represent? What r next steps,globally? Natl security polcy? #ThickCulture http://url.ie/2mcp @Prof_K

Song:: If I Had A Rocket Launcher – Bruce Cockburn