Not sure that I agree here. I don't know about you, but my understanding of the variety of metrics they used in this article is quite minimal. Instead, it is instructive to just see the relative variation in the past five years or so compared to the 30 before that.
For instance, I have no idea what the metrics in Figs 2 and 3 are exactly, but I can see that the inequality metric in Figure 2 has reduced itself to approximately 1970 levels and that, since 1995, the welfare metric in Figure 3 has increased by (very roughly) twice the standard deviation of the past 30 years' measurements.
Of course scale is important, but it is folly to trot out the same argument every time a graph does not include the origin. Without knowing something about the y-axis variable we cannot make this type of claim.
I agree with you, kermit_de_fro, but it could be better. If the intent is to show relative changes, then it should show percentages or have a hard baseline that indicates "zero change".
I don't think "the bottom of the Y-axis isn't zero" is a guaranteed bad graph, especially considering some of the horrendous graphs out there. These ones are not that bad.
Suppose we want to show changes in temperature---unless you use the Kelvin scale, showing percentage changes is going to be bogus. Showing change relative to recent volatility seems useful.
If the meaning of the graphs isn't made clear, and the origin is not included (obscuring significance), it is not terribly unreasonably to suspect manipulation.
Well stated. The US can learn from Germany though. A mild midcourse correction could help.
The US needs to emphasize the value of all stakeholders. With this, the US will have greater growth over the longterm. Its the stable growth economies that grow and prosper over the boom-and-bust economies.
Certainly US system suffers from myopia. Though I'm not sure at what point we stifle the swashbuckling nature that has made us the country of the new in business/tech/research.
I err on the side of increased transparency of financial sector, stronger FTC actions against monopolists, IP reform, etc. than on Germany's more activist bent. Ours is more of an economy of the new, and our Anglo-Saxon nature should be embraced by better regulation - not necessarily more.
Gordon Gekko, in the original Wallstreet said greed is good for all stakeholder interests because it eliminates wastes.
Shareholder vs. Stakeholder (employees, customers, community,and investors as opposed to just investors) is an important consideration for CEOs. Wallstreet makes it difficult for companies to plan longterm, and many companies speak of the importance of the CUSTOMER (and the community), but mean INVESTOR.
CEO Entreprenuers get the chance to choose for themselves, stakeholders vs just shareholders. The work of some German companies over the last two decades is an encouraging example.
It didn't take too long before it was time to stop reading this article. After two paragraphs of this kind of stuff its easy to fill in the blanks.
America will do fine in the future. It is easy to lose site of this when looking at things on the surface such as imports vs. exports in the US and emerging markets vs the stale US economy.
America has the best univerities in the world, and the largest amount of highly educated workforce and entrepreneurs. This IS earning power for the 21st century.
With declining traditional labor forces, markets in the future will be based more around innovation and knowledge management. The US will be well positioned for this in the future even with all it's current troubles.
With the recent saving of our financial systems with the bailouts, the US government done the nation great service by ensuring the low cost of capital in the future. This is another reason America's future looks very bright.
We are also very well positioned geographically to optimize trade by sea and land to the US.
The people I worry about in the U.S. are the ones who will not be equipped to be entrepreneurs, innovators, or knowledge management types. Only about 30% of Americans earn a college degree. We university types tend to forget they exist, just as most of us forget that the Earth is 70% ocean. They are just off our cognitive rader screens, not part of our universe.
I'm wondering if those of us who dream about creating companies and changing the world can start to envision a future that provides opportunities for a broad swath of working class Americans.
Why should we? Honestly they live better than the bottom 70% has ever done, they have access to fresh fruit and healthy meat even in the middle of winter, they have heated houses, indoor bathrooms with flushing toilets, roofs that doesn't leak and better medical-care than in any other period in history.
There may be bigger differences between the classes than there were 40 year ago, but thats a strawman - progress is measured in whether or not you advance, and doesn't depend on whether or not your neighbor advances more.
I agree with the truth that this comment expresses, but I hope for different things.
I really mean to blog on this subject, in fact, as it's one that inspires me.
Due to a curious combination of circumstances, I work 3 months each year in a factory (likely representing the bottom 10% of the labor pool), and the system that we have works way worse than it could for all parties involved. I'm very interested in thinking about where it could go with the proper application of technology.
Think back to 1910 and the relative positions of the UK and the US versus their positions by 1990.
Personally, I think China will have exerted its real economic influence well and truly by the third quarter of this century. Couple that with India, and I expect there won't be such a thing as "the dominant" power. There will several economic powers, with the US being one of them.
I agree, it's great to hear two experienced and varying perspectives.
I found the argument on location, and varying perspectives on where growth will be in the future around the web.
I enjoyed Fred Wilson's perspective on the developing markets in the New York City. Maybe there are some great advantages to New York that might be missed in Silicon Valley. Great ideas come from knowing external markets whether business, social, personal, global, etc., and NYC is a good place to be in the middle of a lot of external markets.
Mr. Gates has identified the 50 state school superintendents as critical stakeholders in his plan. With this identified audience, he's turned what seems an impossible task into a more manageable one.
Now he has an identifiable audience, with identifiable needs. He will be able to eliminate some of the noise that surrounds such a large issue because of this.
Ultimately, the goal is to build the best possible performance based system, but Mr. Gates saves the time and effort associated with re-crafting rejected ideas, by identifying and including necessary input from his crucial stakeholders (state superintendents) on the front end.
